What exactly will Republicans run on?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

How exactly will they topple Hillary?  By attacking her family ties/Benghazi involvement?  By taking advantage of voter fatigue?  

Republicans mercilessly attacked Obama for every misstep and perceived weakness in his record and still lost by a convincing margin in 2012.  How in the world do they stand a chance against Hillary, who arguably has less baggage (considering she's not an incumbent with mediocre job approval ratings, and thus has no such record to criticize) than Barack?  

Thoughts?  

[Matty]

Hillary does not have less baggage than Obama.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Hillary does not have less baggage than Obama.

Thanks for calling in.  Care to explain that position? 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

How exactly will they topple Hillary?  By attacking her family ties/Benghazi involvement?  By taking advantage of voter fatigue?  

Republicans mercilessly attacked Obama for every misstep and perceived weakness in his record and still lost by a convincing margin in 2012.  How in the world do they stand a chance against Hillary, who arguably has less baggage (considering she's not an incumbent with mediocre job approval ratings, and thus has no such record to criticize) than Barack?  

Thoughts?  

I'm unsure. There will probably be a fair amount of running against Obama, and promises to make whatever issues their focus groups tell them likely voters are concerned about "better". The plan will be to accomplish the "make things better" via the usual Republican nostrums of less regulation, lower taxes for those already paying low taxes, and cuts to everything the Republicans don't like. All with a new coat of makeup and a facelift, but otherwise the same as they've been since Reagan. They'll be some talk about new national greatness and some careful dog-whistling for the various flavors of bigot.

The nominee will probably be very careful to attack Hillary's positions and plans, but likely will not attack her directly - they'll leave that to the externally funded and nominally independent PACs and the like. The "outside" attack on Hillary will pull no punches and go after every single thing they possible can, and then some.


That's only if the candidate remains sane, though. If one of the nuts actually gets the nomination, then they'll run on God, Guns, and Gynecology with maybe a side-helping of Greed is Good. But then Hillary wins, so it doesn't matter.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hillary does not have less baggage than Obama.

Thanks for calling in.  Care to explain that position? 

Really?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If Rand Paul, foreign policy and civil liberties could sink Hillary.

[Landslide Lyndon]

If Rand Paul, foreign policy and civil liberties could sink Hillary.

Paul is hated by his own party. But keep dreaming pal.

[IceSpear]

Hating Hillary and Obama.

[Blair]

If Rand Paul, foreign policy and civil liberties could sink Hillary.

Paul's position on foreign policy is pretty much the same as Clintons. He supports aid for Israel, he supports air strikes against ISIS.

This isn't 2012, and Rand Paul isn't radical anymore

[heatmaster]

Clinton having no baggage? Er....what planet are you living on? Republicans will run on "do you want more of this?" & point to Obama's foreign policy, his socialist agenda, Clinton represents more of the same & then you have her "record" as Secretary of State, that's a net negative by now...linkage to the Clinton Foundation foreign money donations & other iffy activities....emailgate...so instead of "don't stop thinking about tomorrow", it will be more about singing the tune "yesterday" or "money, money, money it's a rich man's world"😊😁

[Mechaman]

How exactly will they topple Hillary?  By attacking her family ties/Benghazi involvement?  By taking advantage of voter fatigue? 

Republicans mercilessly attacked Obama for every misstep and perceived weakness in his record and still lost by a convincing margin in 2012.  How in the world do they stand a chance against Hillary, who arguably has less baggage (considering she's not an incumbent with mediocre job approval ratings, and thus has no such record to criticize) than Barack? 

Thoughts? 

You of all people should know the answer to this question.  Don't play stupid McFly! What are you hiding?

[Xing]

What should they run on?
A new economic policy, a willingness to propose some alternative health care solutions, a way of dealing with our immigration process, etc.

What will they run on?
Same thing they've run on since 2009, not being Obama. I mean, it worked two times out of three, so it's gotta be a pretty good strategy, right?

[136or142]

Probably gasoline or diesel. Certainly not any alternative energy.

[Ebsy]

Probably gasoline or diesel. Certainly not any alternative energy.

With ethanol additives, obviously.

[136or142]

Probably gasoline or diesel. Certainly not any alternative energy.

With ethanol additives, obviously.

I was just going to edit my post to add that! But, only in the midwestern states.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Probably gasoline or diesel. Certainly not any alternative energy.

With ethanol additives, obviously.

C'mon you guys, it'll most definitely be coal. It's critical for them to tap into the concerns of independents working the mines who will decide the crucial, election-making-or-breaking swing state of West Virginia.

[ElectionsGuy]

If Rand Paul, foreign policy and civil liberties could sink Hillary.

Paul's position on foreign policy is pretty much the same as Clintons. He supports aid for Israel, he supports air strikes against ISIS.

This isn't 2012, and Rand Paul isn't radical anymore

Except he has been outspoken in opposition against her time as Secretary of State, but OK. And can you elaborate on Rand Paul being radical before?

As many others here said, Republicans will run on mainly not being Democrats.

[RFayette]

If Rand Paul, foreign policy and civil liberties could sink Hillary.

Paul's position on foreign policy is pretty much the same as Clintons. He supports aid for Israel, he supports air strikes against ISIS.

This isn't 2012, and Rand Paul isn't radical anymore

Except he has been outspoken in opposition against her time as Secretary of State, but OK. And can you elaborate on Rand Paul being radical before?

As many others here said, Republicans will run on mainly not being Democrats.

This.  A few thoughts:
1. No 3rd Obama term!
2. You can't trust Hillary!
3. Obama doubled our debt!  Balance the budget!
4. Leadership against ISIS/Benghazi
5. Stop Obamacare!
6. Cut taxes, create jobs!

[The Free North]

This is why i don't think Hillary is the best candidate for this situation.

Unless the economy collapses this year or early next year, Republicans will be deprived of their best talking point (we know how to make jobs, etc). There is nothing pressing in terms of foreign policy to run on and considering how close Obama and Bush look now, the main challenge would be from the left, but only Paul will do that. Obamacare will be there, but in 2 more years, who knows what its approval ratings will be. Anything else is really just minor (social issues, environment, energy, etc).

So with nothing to run on, the republican who wins the nomination will go after Hillary as an elitist, untrustworthy insider and there is 2 decades worth of baggage to draw on in that regard, so they may not even have to run on policy, they can just beat up Hillary and it may work if enough people are convinced by it.

[MustLuvMavericks]

If Rand Paul, foreign policy and civil liberties could sink Hillary.

Paul's position on foreign policy is pretty much the same as Clintons. He supports aid for Israel, he supports air strikes against ISIS.

This isn't 2012, and Rand Paul isn't radical anymore

You're being dishonest. He says he wants to cut aid for Israel but given the pushback to cutting any aid, wants to start with countries where it's easier to rally support for ending aid.

[Oakvale]

...less baggage?

This is the Clintons we're talking about. They've been drenched in scandal for literally decades.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Different Republicans will run on different things.  I don't believe Jeb Bush will be nominated, but he may be, and he can't run on the kind of Tea Party stuff that the others are going to run on.

I think that the GOP may well resort to racial backlash issues.  Public support for "civil rights" declined when the discussion shifted from color-blindness (equal employment opportunity, voting rights) to racially-based remedies for inequality (affirmative action, busing for school integration).  And the "silent majority" agreed with Nixon; liberals seemed to blame race riots on everyone but the rioters themselves, so don't think Ferguson, MO won't be an issue for the GOP.

That won't be a good thing for America, but it's something all Republicans may discover.  The GOP is now the party of White People; aside from Florida Cubans and some Vietnamese communities, the GOP gets very little support from non-whites of any kind.  But they get a higher percentage of the white vote than ever before, and that rate may not have maxed out.  It also suggests an issue that the GOP may well be able to do something about.  There is a degree of resentment how so many public policy questions have become all about race, and there is a perception that many Democratic politicians can't say "No" to their African-American base, even when they're wrong.  Not that the GOP has been able to say "No" to the desires of the nuttier members of their base; they cater to Ted Nugent the way Democrats cater to Al Sharpton.

[136or142]

...less baggage?

This is the Clintons we're talking about. They've been drenched in scandal for literally decades.

You mean drenched in right wing claims of scandals that turned out to be practically all made up.  What was it? 3 years of investigating and all they could find was a stain on a dress.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Being serious:

- balancing the budget by some arbitrary figure, maybe 2020.
- although the GOP probably won't actually close the EPA, for electability's sake, they will probably order the rescinding of mercury regulations on coal plants and refuse to count CO2 as a pollutant. Coal is dead with or without the government, but the War On Coal is still a good talking point.
- privatisation of Social Security, and raising the retirement age
- some kind of genetic anti-welfare move like making increasingly arbitrary requirements for food stamps.
- cutting corperate tax to Canada levels, possibly lower.
- although some elements of Obamacare will be retained, the less popular parts like the mandate and the medical equipment tax will be expunged.
- more fellation of Bibi
- declaring the Iran treaty null and void.
- national right-to-work
- even more invested in deporting teh migrants

That's pretty much a moderate GOP platform that has a handful of sweeties for the base, some goodies for the donors, but refuses to go all the way to unsettle the dwindling swing population.

There would need to be some honey to swallow the stuff the general population doesn't really like, like jiggling with retirement funds. A war? A moon base? Another Mount Rushmore? God knows.

[Ebsy]

Adding Ronaldus Reaganus to Mt. Rushmore should be the foundation of their campaign.