Presidential candidates from the Clinton family fight dirty when running for president. They smear their opponents thoroughly and often. Bill did it during his presidential runs. Hillary did it during the 2008 Presidential primary.
Thus far, Hillary’s campaign hasn’t launched any notable smears or attacks against her rivals in the Democratic primary race. Then again, she hasn’t had much need to. Until a few months ago, the polls showed her 60 to 70 points ahead of any other candidate. With a margin like that, she could afford to be polite.
Over the summer, Bernie Sanders has been closing the gap remarkably fast. The latest polls show him just 18 points behind Hillary nationwide, and ahead in New Hampshire. I assume the Clinton attack machine is being prepared for action.
I wonder what sort of attacks they’ll use. Back in 2008 they leaked photos of Obama wearing a turban. Photos of Bernie Sanders in a turban might be difficult to find.
We need some examples to get an idea of the nature of your characterizations. I know what a smear is. That’s what the Republicans did to the war hero Kerry in 2004 and what was launched at McCain during the 2000 South Carolina primary.
See? Those examples were just off the top of my head.
Cite! From wikipedia: " An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like.[14][54] These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains’ dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central[49]), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a “Manchurian Candidate” traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days.[14][48] "
More! “The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with these attacks;[48] Bush said he would fire anyone who ran defamatory push polls.[55] During a break in a debate, Bush put his hand on McCain’s arm and reiterated that he had no involvement in the attacks; McCain replied, “Don’t give me that shit. And take your hands off me.”[47]”
Shoulda said we need more examples: you did provide the Turban pic that was published at the Drudge Report in 2008. But that’s hardly thoroughly and often. It’s not even especially credible in my view.
She doesn’t have to. She is trying to win the Democratic nomination, which is controlled by party activists. And they are more concerned with having a Democrat in the White House than which Democrat it is. If Hillary shows she can win, they will go for her.
And she will hurt herself if she goes negative.
All those Bernie supporters will vote for whatever Democrat is on the ballot in November, 2016 over any of the Republicans currently in the clown car. So she will do nothing to make them unhappy enough to stay home on election day.
She can’t go negative. Sanders never does. It would be the nail in her coffin if she did.
That being said, she faced the same problem in 2008. So there will be some sly stuff that can’t be firmly pinned on her, and her supporters are always willing to believe her denials.
I mean someone who would vote for her even when there’s a better alternative within the party. Lots of Hillary dead-enders in 2008, I’m sure they’ll show up again in 2016.
New Hampshire. She’ll edge Bernie out on the vote but it will be no where near the wide margin showing in the polls at that point. You’ll hear the whispering campaign begin then. Her campaign is busy looking for dirt right now. Her first likely attack will be related to Middle East politics, she’s going to accuse him of being anti-Israel to try and split the Jewish vote. I’m sure she’s looking for a weakness on women’s issues also. Publicly she’ll be prodding him to try and get him to go after her so she can play the victim card.
I’ll second t-bonham: Never. She won’t need to, and besides, she will need Sanders supporters to vote for her and even volunteer for her campaign in the fall.
Even the possibility of losing Iowa and/or NH won’t cause her to go negative. Because the Dems in those two states match up so well with Bernie’s base of college-educated white liberals, Hillary is the rare candidate who could lose both of those two states and still win the nomination without breaking a sweat.
She won’t go negative against Sanders for the same reason that she didn’t go negative against Obama. You might be thinking of the attacks mounted by PUMA, but PUMA was a Republican group, not Clinton or her supporters.
No, the other strategy she has available is winning every primary (save maybe NH and Vermont). Which she will do, IMO.
Even if she loses NH and Iowa, I’m not sure she needs to go negative since much of her strength (and Bernie’s weakness) is in AA voters, which NH and Iowa have small percentages of.
I kind of like Sanders, and kind of dislike Clinton, but claiming that her changes at winning the nomination are somehow so poor that she has no choice but to go negative is pretty unsupportable right now. She still has a very comfortable lead.
Yes, she does have a comfortable lead. That’s why she is the candidate most likely to get the nomination. But the process isn’t happening right now. It happens through the primaries and the convention. If she wins NH by a margin reflected in the polls then it’s all over. But there are months to go, she didn’t win over the press, or anyone else that I can tell. The only reason anyone can give for her winning is that she’s ahead. That’s not much of a platform to stand on. If she wins NH by noticeably less than the margin seen in the nationwide polls she’ll lose. If she loses NH she’ll lose fast.
Wow, you set a much lower bar for what constitutes “going negative” than I do.
By your standard, any comparison a candidate made between him/herself and the opponent that was intended to show that the candidate was the better choice would constitute “going negative.”
I don’t think that’s what most people mean by the term.