Here’s How Republicans Are Planning To Defeat Hillary Clinton In 2016

Image via Getty

Image via Getty

Unless we are very careful, Republicans will win again in 2016 and further solidify their grip on the House and Senate. Sadly, they will also very likely take the White House as well, setting us up for at least 8 years of Jeb Bush or Scott Walker.


While this might sound improbable considering the fact that we’ve been told Hillary Clinton is “inevitable” and President Obama won two terms pretty easily, that isn’t going to stop Republicans from trying to take us back to the Bush years.

America’s demographics are changing, and not just along ethnic lines. People who identify as Christians continue to decline in numbers, while those who claim no religious affiliation are rising. Republicans are doing a very poor job of connecting with the new pool of voters and instead of changing their platform to align it a little more closely with the views of 21st century America, they’re resorting to tricks to stay in power. These tricks include repeating the false narrative that there’s no difference between the two parties, and trying to encourage apathy on the left which translates into less people showing up at the polls. It’s Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” applied to politics, and it can be incredibly effective, especially in today’s social media where you can target specific areas of the opposing party.

In Sunday’s opinion piece at The New York Times, “The Right Baits the Left to Turn Against Hillary Clinton,” we’re warned about how there is a very real and concerted effort from Republicans to erode support for her on the left.

No one thinks attacking Mrs. Clinton from the left is likely to turn the most liberal Democrats into Republican voters. But Steven Law, president of American Crossroads, said the goal was simply to erode what should be her natural core of support.

“It can diminish enthusiasm for Hillary among the base over time,” he said. “And if you diminish enthusiasm, lukewarm support can translate into lackluster fund-raising and perhaps diminished turnout down the road.”

This year, Zac Moffatt, a co-founder of Targeted Victory, a right-leaning political technology firm, who handled Mr. Romney’s digital operation and has worked with groups like America Rising and American Crossroads, laid out the strategy in a memo to several clients. “There was a hole to fill in the market,” he said, and if Democrats were not willing to challenge Mrs. Clinton, Republicans could do it themselves. (Source)

I don’t know about you, but I’m a big fan of Bernie Sanders and plan on supporting him in the primaries. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice by any stretch of the imagination, but if she is the party’s nominee, then I will vote for her in the general election because I know that not showing up to vote isn’t protest, it’s surrender.


It seems that some people on the left are unable to realize that you can back one candidate in the primaries, and a different one in the general election if your favorite didn’t get enough votes for the nomination. It’s like a little kid who doesn’t get everything they want so they take their ball (vote) and go home – and this is exactly what Republicans are planning to exploit in 2016.

We all have our favorite candidates and issues that we think are the best and most important. Sometimes our candidates and causes win, and quite often, they don’t. From now until November of 2016, there will be an all-out effort by Republicans to convince the left that both parties are the same and that Hillary Clinton isn’t worth turning out to the polls for. They’re keeping the Benghazi scandal on life support in order to maintain the aging conservative’s hatred for Hillary Clinton, knowing that these people will vote in 2016. Republicans are hitting Hillary Clinton from both the right and the left, and they’re hoping you’re too stupid to notice. It’s a clever and ruthless strategy – and it just might work.



Comments

Facebook comments

  • Pipercat

    It’s a lazy and ruthless strategy. The GOP has far bigger problems of its own in their upcoming primaries. The old adage of: don’t wish too hard for something because it might just come true applies here. What the GOP was really hoping for was Sanders entering the race ala Ralph Nader. So much for wishful thinking, I suppose.

  • Lydia/one2the92the82the5

    Democrats and liberals would be wise to stick together on this. We cannot afford to put a Republican in the White House in 2017. This is a very frightening scenario.

  • Jake106

    Better run someone more popular than Hillary if you want Democrats to win. I’d love to see Jim Webb run, but I don’t see that going too far. The Clinton machine will destroy anyone who gets in her way, and then it’s going to come down to a stupid decision between Clinton and some other nutcase. No one is going to be excited about that choice.

    • Pipercat

      Unfortunately, I’ve heard this before. Back in 2008, as a matter of fact. The machine will have to adapt since the landscape has changed dramatically since then. Sanders will change the scope of the campaign whether anyone likes it or not…

      • Jake106

        I agree that the landscape has changed, but I’m not sure that Hillary believes that. I could be proven wrong, of course. And Sanders running is a good thing, no matter how unlikely his chance of winning. But in the end, it isn’t the campaign they run, it’s how the person actually acts when elected. There are literally decades of performance to review for anyone who is wondering how Hillary will act if elected.

      • Pipercat

        I think I heard that echo also. Due to his prior performance, the current occupant was painted as a left wing, Saul Alinsky quoting, community activist who’s gonna turn us into a commune. Well, I hope those folks who promoted that vision weren’t prone to excessive gambling!

      • Jake106

        Obama had next to no prior performance, and it was only a small, but very loud, group that said things like that. Hillary’s performance is well documented and has been observed for decades.

      • Pipercat

        To discount the very loud group as small is a bit short sighted; moreover, to discount the experience of the President, prior to being elected, is also somewhat linear. Hillary has some explaining to do without any doubt. She also has some accomplishments and indeed, quite a bit of accrued experience. Any summary dismissal of a candidate before the game has even started also seems to miss the big picture.

      • Jake106

        The game started for Hillary at least 8 years ago, if not more. Dismissing Obama because of his obscurity would have been a mistake (even if we were speaking of a different world in which he HADN’T been elected). Hillary is a known. There isn’t anything new there, she isn’t going to have any surprises.

      • Pipercat

        Well, we’ve all seen the, “what would you do, knowing what we know now” question being asked to the various Republican candidates. That question will be, inevitably, put in front of Clinton. How she answers that question will be a good barometer of things to come. How Sanders and O’ Malley respond to her answer will be a good metric on the tone of the Democratic side. I have no idea of the responses on both those accounts.

      • Jake106

        Yeah, that much I will agree with. I’m sure that both Sanders AND O’Malley are relentlessly reviewing options and waiting to see what Hillary is going to say in order to be able to respond to it.

      • Pipercat

        Honestly, I’m looking forward to it. Their counterparts are numerous, as well as, rudderless right now. Maybe I can start a pool on whether the Dems can exploit that situation… or not!

      • Jake106

        I’d like to see Rand Paul get real traction in the GOP party. He isn’t truly a Libertarian, but he’s more libertarian than anyone else in the GOP other than his dad. I think he has as much chance of winning the GOP nomination as Bernie does winning the Democrats, but he could serve a similar function.

      • MorganLvr

        Absolutely NOT!

      • Jake106

        Absolutely not, what? There was more than one concept going on in there, do you think you could clarify?

    • kfreed

      Um, no.

      • Jake106

        Well that was an educated and helpful response. Thank you for your contributions to the conversation.

      • kfreed

        If you’re looking for an educated response, please read further down the thread. You’re welcome:)

      • Jake106

        No. Either respond to me like you have a brain, or go shoot yourself in the grey matter. I have no use for people like you.

      • kfreed

        I bet not:)

  • gilligan

    Well. If people stay home this time around or are disillusioned and we get 4 or 8 years of Jeb or Scott or whoever. Be afraid be very, very afraid!

  • bestfriend

    America! If you don’t vote Hillary in who knows what those Republicans will do! Do you really want to find out? [rising ominous music]

    • kfreed

      bestfriend, this doesn’t need to be an either/or proposition. Please see my comment above. Sanders and Clinton both need to focus their energies on explaining to the public the actual problem: the Koch agenda: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

      And we need to help them do it. Not by engaging in a left vs. left circular firing squad, but by joining one another in the effort to INFORM the public. We cannot allow ourselves to continue to be divided. Otherwise: game over: http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

  • wendy

    Its a shame that semantics play such a huge role in peoples perception. I think Mr. Sanders is awesome and believe in his message. But because he is associated with the term ‘socialism’, a dirty word, most ignorant, shallow people will not hear a word he has to say, brilliant or not. So frustrating

  • Buck Houston

    Conservatives are leveraging the witch hunt genetic of the stock leftist mind.

    It’s pretty clear they’re just letting the democrats just expose themselves to the educated – as a strategy.

    It seems to be working quite well.

    If the hyena-like mindset of the left, can’t convince the educated that they have a single principle without invoking a boogeyman or goblin – it’s the leftist mindset itself – the educated can see.

    And ironically, as the herd of leftist witch hunt hyena chant “Anti – evolutionist- creationist gun toten racist!” — Darwins’ shadow can be seen from every vantage point.

    You really can’t fathom the ignorance created by living ones’ life as a resentment trapped inside a rationalization. It’s a significant health issue.

    Therefore, we should have gratitude to the GOP for creating such a natural remedy. Organic as you people call it –

    • wendy

      Can’t help but to laugh like hyenas, with the clown car debate lining up.And the only reason to thank the GOP is for the future (and prob. the most entertaining) debate season ever. Sitcom TV shows are in syndication and we need something funny to watch.
      Laughter is organic and healthy, no?

      • Buck Houston

        Clown cars, Sitcoms – you people are like comic book minds, filled to the brim with comic book renderings placed by your peoples’ group think authorities.

        Break the bind of your comic book minds. You people have no boogeymen left in there that are even part of this century.

        You people are being rendered to anachronisms.

      • wendy

        Progressive ideas do not include keeping median incomes at 1980’s rates. That idea is reserved a little more to the right. Check your compass

    • kfreed

      Speaking of emperors with no clothes: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers

      Oh yeah, lookey here: http://www.vice.com/read/the-koch-brothers-fake-libertarianism-war-forced-pregnancies-and-homophobia-729

      And here: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/20/124642/beck-koch-chamber-meeting/

      And here: http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

      The New Right’s Manifesto (circa 2001): “bald-faced lying to the public is a perfectly acceptable means of political discourse, so long as it gets you what you want” (also discusses enlisting the wealthy, the media, and libertarians)
      http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/FreeCongressEssay.html

    • BobJThompson

      Benghazi. ISIS. Iran. Obamacare. Gay Marriage. Gun Control. Jade Helm 15. China. National Debt. Illegal Immigration. Joining Church and State. Anything the government does other than cutting taxes.

      None of those are boogeymen or goblins right?

  • imapayne

    I would vote for ANY democrat over a teapublican. Things have gotten terrible since last November when everyone stayed home and didn’t vote. But the funny thing is right-wingers are just as pissed.

  • kfreed

    Well, it worked for the Koch cabal in 2000 and 2004, with the help of Ralph Nader and Socialist Alternative:
    https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/socialistvoice/naderPR72.html

    Here we have Nader pulling the same crap again:

    Charles
    Koch Ralph Nader and Grover Norquist in Right Left Attack on Crony
    Capitalism – See more at:
    http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/charles-koch-ralph-nader-grover-norquist-right-left-attack-crony-capitalism/#sthash.N5vnvxsH.dpuf

  • Brian

    I honestly prefer Hillary over an idealist. Idealists tend to be unrealistic. See: Sweden and France.

  • Ken Myers

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expect different results. Democrats keep sending out middle-of-the-road candidates who are barely distinguishable from the Republicans, and then they wonder why we don’t get REAL change. It’s time for the liberals and progressives to quit nominating “electable” politicians who are entrenched in the broken system. American demographics have shifted, and it is frankly hard to imagine the Democrats losing a presidential election as things now stand. Guess what? In Obama’s first term, when he had a Democratic majority in Congress, he and the Democrats squandered it, did not utilize it, and so no true change happened. Now all Democrats are sort of in the same position as Obama. We have a clear demographic majority. Are we going to squander it electing another conservative Democrat entrenched in the system like Hillary, or actually step up and USE the power we’ve got to effect real change, by putting a true liberal into office, like Bernie Sanders? What’s the point of winning the presidency every four years if we keep sending up candidates who are part of the ruling elite conspiracy, just playing a party to make Americans think we really rule ourselves?

    • MorganLvr

      And when our non-electable candidate loses to a Republican…? Don’t kid yourself that people who voted Republican are going to change their votes – they won’t. They are radicals and hate “godless liberals,” and I do mean HATE. And they vote.

      It’s a damn shame, but you cannot expect these people to be reasonable. They are not reasonable. They are Fox Fanatics and listen to no one else. We MUST keep this in mind.