Should Clinton focus on going negative against Rubio?

I assume that Clinton is going to win the Democratic nomination. I’m also assuming she will easily beat Trump or Cruz, but that Rubio might be a bit more of a challenge. Should Clinton start focusing more on the general election and spend some time attacking Rubio in such a way that he might loose support in the Republican primary? I’m thinking of a strategy where she she buys adds portraying Rubio as a serious threat while at the same time dismissing Trump as a clown. This could possibly get some Rubio voters to change their minds and rile up the Trump voters to turn out in greater numbers. Do you all see this as a good strategy for Clinton to pursue, or is it to early for her to worry about her opponent?

No. When all of your opponents are fighting to kick the shit out of each other, the thing to do is to stand back and let them do it.

They are doing all the dirty work bashing each other. The last “debate” was like watching a group of men playing modified Russian Roulette - passing a loaded gun around and firing at each other. All the Dems need to do make copies of all the negative ads, mailers, press conferences, and genuine hateful displays. Replay them during the election.

Eh, I don’t think these kind of reverse psychology type strategies ever work (or even that candidates try them that often). The electorate is too unpredictable to make that kind of overly clever, “six dimensional chess” work in real life.

But in anycase, Trump is more than capable of going negative against Rubio, and while I htink Hillary is in pretty good shape for the nomination, it certainly isn’t such a sure thing that she should be devoting resources to an election she isn’t even running in yet.

Hillary’s strategy should be to pop some corn and watch Trump, Cruz, and Rubio smear the crap out of each other. She has plenty of time to attack the nominee in the general campaign, might just as well just record all of the internal GOP attacks and save them up for her commercials.

Instead of going negative against Rubio, perhaps she should imitate Claire McCaskill’s ploy and go pseudo-negative against a GOPdidate that would be easier to beat, i.e. Trump or Cruz.

Absolutely not. During the primary season, a Republican candidate is helped, not hurt, by attacks from Democrats. Hillary should attack the candidates she’d rather face, at this point.

Precisely! If you’d clicked the link you’d see Claire McCaskill cleverly attacked her weaker opponent, the one she wanted to face in November. Similalry, Hillary should attack Trump and/or Cruz to strengthen their support.

Yep, McCaskill’s ploy was brilliant. I don’t really know how Clinton will campaign in the general though, probably the same way she always does, messageless, no overarching theme, focused on herself, first woman President, etc.

You’re fantasizing in public again… it’s unseemly. :wink:

Why would we expect her to come up with new tricks? She is who she is.