It’s not nice to hit girls
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a curious creature. Her critics claim she is enormously petty, valuing winning as a prize rather than an opportunity. Her supporters struggle to provide concrete reasons why Hillary is their candidate; as often as not, her supporters’ support seems rooted in opposing those who oppose her: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I am struggling with the growing inevitability that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, but slowly, and begrudgingly, liking her more day by day. She exudes a discipline and competency, that stands apart from the field, including Senator Obama, despite his vision and unifying capacity.
The big question between now and February is who will attack her, and how will they attack her. In the mid-90s, Republicans eventually learned that those who attack Hillary Clinton do so at their own peril. Newt was among the first to remember the schoolyard maxim that it’s not nice to hit girls. GOP operatives are figuring this out, and her opponents should pay attention to this article. It discusses, though not in much detail, the strategic decisions on what kind of attacks will work and what attacks go to far and backfire, ala “General Petreas or General Betray us.”
What will work for attacking Hillary? First, whisper campaigns. Think McCain’s black baby, Goldwater’s sanity, etc. Claiming she’s a lesbian isn’t enough. Second, documentaries that use her language, her footage, and purely indisputable records against her. When I was 7 or 8, my Uncle Bud used to grab my hands and make me hit myself. Hitting her with herself is forgivable in a way that outright slander is not, and the GOP will be able to get away with a certain amount of distortion, that’s almost expected, but primary challengers will have to be much more cautious. Third, use humor, mocking and parodying her rather than outright insulting her.
One of the biggest reasons she’s likely to win the general is that she is just too attractive of a target for Republicans. GOP operatives simply will not be able to rein themselves in. The attacks will be beyond hateful, they will be personal, they will bring up scores of Bill Clinton’s infidelities and even attack Chelsea. The GOP attack machine will “cross the line” at least twice, sprinting in straight line all the way around the world to do so. They will only be limited by their imagination, and by the time the realize they went to far, it’ll be too late.
Comment by tet on 28 September 2007 at 10:27 am:
I do not know whether or not it is possible to defeat Hillary in 2008. I have my doubts, but here’s some ideas, if the Republicans in the blogosphere want to give them a try:
1) Forget the middle of the road and run a real conservative candidate. Most of the country identifies with small government (when it doesn’t directly mean they’re getting money) and lower taxes. Most of the country are either neutral or pro-life on abortion. Most of the country is worried about immigration (whether it is a misconception or not–see Prescott’s post yesterday.)
Ron Paul is probably the only Republican candidate that could come close to beating her. All of the rest are virtually indistinguishable from her on the issues–they’re pro-Iraq war, believe in the continuation of government entitlement programs and claim that there’s a health-care crisis beyond that caused by government interference in the marketplace.
A large number of the evangelicals are insulted that the GOP has stopped even pretending to do anything but ignore them. For example, they had a “values-oriented” debate in Florida last week sponsored by Focus on the Family–none of the four GOP front-runners even bothered to show up.
2) Forget negative campaigning completely, especially after Obama is chosen as her running mate. She simply doesn’t care if there are negatives about her, nor do the people who are already locked in. It’d be just like trying to hit Reagan with negatives–”…There you go again….” The only way to defeat HRC is in the realm of ideas. Take apart her talking points logically, step by step and prove to the American people why they won’t work.
3) Don’t expect Fox Network to do your dirty work. Rupert Murdoch is already assuming that Hillary’s going to win and acting accordingly.
Tom
Comment by RAGNAR on 28 September 2007 at 11:33 am:
wow you like Hillary. Are you kidding me? I know you are a lawyer but don’t convictions and principles mean anything to you! She bases her positions on popularity polls for Christ sake. I think of all the candidates she has the least chance in the general because there are no undecideds on Hillary Clinton. You either see her for what she is or you have drunk Clinton Koolaide.
Comment by tet on 28 September 2007 at 11:42 am:
Trouble is, Ragnar, the GOP’s gonna run Rudy or some other worthless, liberal slob and everyone on the conservative side’s going to stay home.
Remember the TV show V from thirty years ago? All I can think of is the Lizard Queen from that miniseries.
We’re going to get eight years of her, so hold on to your hat.
Tom
Comment by tet on 28 September 2007 at 12:55 pm:
Got a new version today of the
Candidate calculator which takes into account some changes in policies and a few more entrants into the races.
I come out as 92% Ron Paul at this point.
Tom
Comment by Allan Niemerg on 28 September 2007 at 1:59 pm:
I agree with tet, Hillary seems like the likely winner. If she is beaten, the people who mastermind it will be lionized as the “next Karl Rove” or something similar. Because Hillary Clinton is by far the most battle-tested candidate in the field, it will be very difficult to make an attack that will stick. She’s so well known at this point that the publics opinion of her is pretty solid and her disapproval ratings, while high, will not likely get much higher. And as they are, they are still good enough for her to win it.
Although I am sympathetic to Ron Paul’s views, I think he has too high of a ‘loon’ factor to get very far. That said, on the Candidate calculator, I come out as
Ron Paul with 67%
John McCain at 65%
Dennis Kucinich at 64%
Mike Gravel at 60%
I find that list kind of strange. How is that the alignment of my views with John McCain and Dennis Kucinich be almost exactly the same? And why are my views so closely aligned with Kucinich? Whenever I hear see him speak, the only thing I can find that we have in common is a strong attraction to tall redheads!
Comment by tet on 28 September 2007 at 2:06 pm:
Newt’s also talking about entering the race. National Review is begging him not to do so.
If he enters, he’ll split the party even further.
Tom
Comment by kofi the who the heck is Tom Tancredo? on 28 September 2007 at 2:23 pm:
82.65% match for Tom Tancredo. Rounding out my top 10:
Businessman John Cox (R) - 81.63%
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) - 81.63%
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 80.61%
California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) - 76.53%
Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 74.49%
Texas Representative Ron Paul (R) - 65.31%
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 64.29%
Arizona Senator John McCain (R) - 63.27%
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) - 62.24%
And bring up the rear:
New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) - 22.45%
Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich (D) - 18.37
I can’t believe Newt entering would split the party. If anything it would force candidates to lean more conservatively, which would fall in line with the advice Tom gave in his first comment. His entering might split the support numbers for primary candidates, but that won’t matter come February 6th.
Comment by Augur on 28 September 2007 at 2:53 pm:
A Challenge to the Agora:
If you were advising Edwards, Richardson, Obama or one of the other dems, how would you advise them to attack Hillary? (Obama probably has to play by special rules)
What if she wins the nomination, and now you’re hired to advise Mitt, Rudy, or Fred?
It’s too easy to just say “oh, hillary will win for sure.” So don’t pull that shit, Tom, and don’t talk about how Ron Paul is Jesus either
Comment by tet on 28 September 2007 at 3:00 pm:
Augur, I have already explained how best to beat Hillary in my comments on the other post. Have you not read that, or are you foolishly not taking my suggestions seriously again?
Must I waste my time laughing as more and more of what I have been predicting in here for the last year comes to pass? Go back and look at my comments in past months, Augur.
Watch and learn.
Tom
Comment by Augur on 28 September 2007 at 3:02 pm:
That was arrogant even for you.
You talk generally about how having a real conservative in Ron Paul will help beat her, but you don’t go into any specific tactics. blah.
Comment by augur on 28 September 2007 at 3:06 pm:
Tom - Want to make a bet on who Hillary makes the VP? I know you are sure it will be Obama. I’m sure it wont. I’ll give you 2 to 1 odds.
What say you sir
Comment by J. Prescott on 28 September 2007 at 3:51 pm:
1) Avoid Bill Clinton like the plague. If you don’t bring him up, if Hillary does, it weakens her position and ability to be a leader. In a standard campaign, the spouse does second tier appearances; they cannot be a marquis draw. Hilary is handicapped in the fact that her husband is a bigger draw than she. If the opposition brings up Bill, he can come out of the shadows and respond without repercussion; he is just defending himself and you have handed Hillary an advantage.
2) Don’t bring up the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing. Everyone can do the math. Everyone knows it. You bring it up, you look petty.
3) Hit the girl on her record. Correlation, don’t throw mud on her personal past. If the words “Lewinsky,” “Jones,” or “Whitewatergate” hit yourself in the head with a brick. All thats going to do is bring Bill into the race and build some positive momentum for Hillary. Her congressional record is not all that good.
4) Show her to be a light-weight, paid in full corporate shill. She is not a woman running for president, but just another politician with longer hair. Take away her sense of invincibility and bring her down to her earth anyway you can. Talk about every corporate deal she has ever made, every contribution she have ever taken, and every corporate mixer she has ever spoken too.
5) Draw as many comparisons to her and Bush as possible. Highlight every bill she voted for that he let in. Show everytime they collaborated. Show that Bush fatigue is not solely a Republican affliction.
Thats just off the top of my head. I am sure I can come up with more if I thought about it.
Comment by tet on 28 September 2007 at 4:26 pm:
$50 on that one, Augur. Easiest money I’ll ever make.
Let me give you specifics: Obama will participate in the first few primaries. Once it is established that he’s down by 20% or so, he will drop out of the race completely, throwing his support to Hillary. In exchange, she’ll give him the VP spot. (This is actually cheating on my part, since Michelle Obama has already stated that if Barack does poorly in the first few, he’s out.) He has nothing to lose by turning his supporters to HRC and everything to gain. The idealists who were attracted to him will suddenly find Hillary more palatable, as you are, as you reach for the Kool-Aid.
Prescott’s suggestions are good ones. Only with substantive debate could she be defeated.
You know she just offered every baby in the United States $5000, right? The GOP is such toast.
Tom
Comment by tet on 28 September 2007 at 4:31 pm:
Kofi, Newt is really conservative in some ways, but at the same time, he is about the biggest example of “the ends justifies the means” I’ve ever seen.
He is against government involvement in people’s lives only until one of his “practical solutions” is involved. After that, he’s more than capable of throwing any of us to the dogs for the greater good.
It’s quite possible that he’s actually more dangerous to freedom than Hillary.
Tom
Comment by Augur on 28 September 2007 at 4:33 pm:
It wasn’t an official position, just an idea she tossed out.
So if Hillary is the nominee and Obama is the VP, I owe you 100, if Hillary is the nominee and someone else is the nominee, you owe me 50.
If Hillary is not the nominee, no money changes hands, but you’ll be very wrong.
She wont pick Obama b/c it’s a bad idea to pick people below you on the ticket that is 100x more charismatic than you. Also, he adds virtually no experience to the ticket
Comment by thetodd on 30 September 2007 at 11:57 pm:
I don’t know much about campaign tactics, so I don’t have anything to say about that.
However, I do know some things about betting! There is an active betting market for the 2008 presidential election at intrade.com.
These betting markets are not perfectly efficient, but they are reasonably efficient, meaning that if the odds stray far from the “true odds”, then some intelligent person will put money down until the odds become reasonably accurate again.
According to this market, Hillary’s not a sure winner yet. She has around a 66% chance to win the Democratic nomination, and the Democrats have a 60% chance to win the election. It is not quite correct to conclude that her win probability is (0.66*0.6) or 40%, but that should be a good estimate.
There is also a market on the VP nominations. However, this market is much less active and liquid, so I would not trust it to be as efficient as the presidential market.
Obama has around a 28% chance to win the VP nomination according to this market. This is not the same as the conditional probability P(obama wins nomination | hillary wins nomination) which is what you two are betting on. I am not going to try to estimate this conditional probability, but, clearly, it is higher than 28% if non-Hillary presidential candidates will not choose Obama as VP.
So it sounds to me like 2 to 1 odds are quite fair.
And of course, if you think the prices in this market is not accurate and you’re the “smart person” I talked about above who can set the market straight, well, go make some money :)
(For tet: this market gives Ron Paul around a 6% chance to win the republican nomination. He’s been slowly creeping up from 2% in May.)
Comment by Augur on 1 October 2007 at 4:32 pm:
Todd:
Thanks for the great data! If Hillary is the nominee, I would be willing to bet heavy on whether or not Obama will be the nominee, but I’ll have to wait for that time to come.
It’s great to have your commentary on the blog.
How has McCain’s position changed since his most recent advertisement of his days immediately coming back from being a POW?
Comment by thetodd on 1 October 2007 at 5:12 pm:
I am not sure how McCain’s position has changed. I have been following Ron Paul’s odds because he’s the most interesting candidate to me and the one that, if an election were to be held today, would get my vote.
The only other odds change I’ve noticed is Hillary’s odds becoming much more favorable throughout this year, mostly at Obama’s expense.
Comment by tet on 1 October 2007 at 5:40 pm:
Welcome to the blog, Todd. I look forward to more of your commentary.
Tom