2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf you think a few measly actions show the Repubs want Bernie, I have a bridge to sell you
in the middle of the desert.
You seriously think this stupid crap means they want Clinton?
And answer this Question: Do these piddly, non game changing moves support Clinton's argument that she is most electable? Answer: Yes (a simple direct question which no one seems to want to answer). Since their actions are intended to HELP Clinton I can understand your invading the question.
Have the Republicans went after Bernie YES! And the corporate media has either ignored or hammered him.
The last thing the corporate, big money paid for politicians want is Bernie Sanders, the only honest man in the race.
Per the article:
During Sunday nights Democratic debate, the Republican National Committee made the unusual move of sending no fewer than four real-time e-mails to reporters defending the self-described democratic socialist from attacks by Hillary Clinton or echoing his message against her. Based on their content, one could be forgiven for thinking the RNC communiques came from the Sanders campaign. (Wow, what a game changer. I'm sure Clinton's poll numbers plummeted overnight.)
Sean Spicer, the chief strategist and spokesman for the RNC, spent much of the evening tweeting Sanders-friendly commentary on the debate, often with the pro-Sanders hashtag #FeelTheBern. At one point, Spicer gently chided Sanders for what he deemed a poor response to a question and added, come on we are trying to help u. (Do you realize how stupid this sounds?)
After the debate, the Republican political action committee America Rising promoted the narrative that Sanders won the debate. Clinton needed a win last night. Instead, everyone is talking about how well Bernie Sanders, her chief rival, did, spokesman Jeff Bechdel wrote to reporters. (Wow, this should knock Clinton down at least 5 points)
Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanderss case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore can't be trusted to crack down on big banks. Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire, a narrator in the ad says. Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?
(Another post said 10k was spent and it was a digital ad (so did it only show on the internet?). And this issue is already out there.)
NOTE: Now they are putting out unsubstantiated information from an unnamed Democratic Source that they have spent so much money attacking Clinton. Really? Where were the ads run?
Have the Republicans making BIG MONEY buys (that people see) that discuss ALL the speaking fees, the Clinton Foundation deals (uranium, etc). No. So they want to take down Clinton but ignore these goldmines. Yeah right.
I thought the industry I worked in was bad. Well at least they started covering ethics in college courses. I would recommend they do the same for journalistic students (not that I think you can really teach ethics but maybe it will give some people pause). Where is the journalist integrity?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Have been for years now. They will crawl over broken glass to vote against her in GE, after they have decimated her in the run-up.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)see it.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)She has given them decades of fodder and they will come out in droves to vote against her.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Yes, the GOP is spending big money on defeating Hillary and beating her up in the primaries is just one division of VWRC Inc. And if you want to see if their focus groups and oppo research armies are having an effect on public perception, all you need to do is compare the front page of AmericanCrossroads-dot-org to the front page of your favorite Democratic discussion board (ahem) and you'll get your answer fast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/us/the-best-way-to-vilify-clinton-gop-spends-heavily-to-test-it.html
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Of course they don't want to run against her.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and once she gets to the WH they also know she has a habit of going after old enemies, which is fine with me. So they're getting her at her weakest, when she's retail politicking in middle America. But they'll keep it up for eight years if they have to.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)1) Firstly, actually I think many of the saner (yes there are a few relatively sane Republicans left) DO actually like Sanders, or at least they don't hate him. Exhibit A: Bernie gets 25% of the GOP vote in Vermont. <- this should tell us something. Will he get 25% of GOP nationally? Of course not. But Bernie will definitely get WAY MORE of the GOP vote in the GE than Hillary, especially if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz.
2) Secondly, Hillary has gone out of her way to demonize & make enemies of ALL registered Republicans, even
to the point -- on national TV during one of the debates -- of calling Republicans her "number one enemy", worse
than ISIS apparently. So in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy mode, Hillary has willfully alienated virtually every
Republican who can still fog a mirror, but then uses that to argue that the GOP must think I'm the strongest
candidate, because "look! They're running negative ads against me".
3) Lastly, Hillary loves to talk about herself being "the one who can get things done" with a heavily-GOP Congress.
Really Hillary? When looked at in light of number one and two above, this claim looks very lame indeed, even
laughable.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)fall by the wayside.