The Clinton campaign goes PUMA

[136or142]

The obvious approach which I think would be helpful to her for the general election campaign is to go after Sanders on the issues and not after him personally. She's already made a start of it by pointing out that he supports things that Congress would never pass. I think she just needs to get a lot more specific in explaining why his policies, though ideal to many Democrats and those further left than the Democratic Party is in aggregate, are impractical. I realize that would be a buzz kill to some of his supporters but that's life.  

His new interview where it has apparently emerged that like a lot of hyper partisans, he doesn't actually have evidence to back up his talking points (I'm not saying that Sanders is a hyper partisan) should be a major boost to Hillary Clinton.  I actually find it incredibly hard to understand how Sanders could have gotten away with saying many of the things that he's said in some cases going back at least 35 years without having much evidence to base his views on, assuming the reports of that interview are accurate (I haven't read it yet.)

On the hyper partisans, I've learned the way to approach them is simply to ask them for proof to back up their mindlessly regurgitated talking points.  For instance, I was in a right wing chat room in IRC a few days ago, and one person said "it would be great if the Republican Convention nominated Condoliza Rice for President, as unlike Hillary Clinton she was a great SOS."  

So, I simply asked "what did Condoliza Rice do that made her a great Secretary of State?"

After about three minutes, that person replied "She tried to restart negotiations with North Korea after they launched their missile."  

And I replied "So merely trying to restart negotiations made her a great Secretary of State?  Don't you think that greatness should at least be only bestowed on people who actually succeed in doing what they try to do?"

[Virginiá]

Lol how is calling someone a corrupt liar not a personal attack?!

I'm not sure what Sanders has said or done that equates to calling Clinton a corrupt liar.

Well off the top of my head I don't recall him saying she is a liar outright, but in terms of corruption, this is what the whole line on Wall St speeches and Super PAC money is about. He's not constantly hitting her with the speeches line because he just thinks it's too much money for 1 speech, but rather insinuating that she is corrupt by giving out favors for said money. His supporters are connecting the dots and really it's hard not to. He has no proof for his accusations and frankly, $500,000 - $700,000 or around that number are not going to buy you anything significant, if anything, in terms of policy.

At any rate, he has a lot of fair criticisms and I agree with a lot of it, except that at this point he has no chance of winning and it has been like that for awhile, yet he keeps attacking her with tales of corruption. His supporters know how to connect the dots and all these accusations about corruption hurt more than the typical attack - Especially in a year at least partially defined by a fight against corruption and special interests. All he is doing is salting the earth for no good reason. If he wants to stay in and spread his message, fine, but stop softening her up for Republicans. He had his shot, and it's over. He won't win the nomination.

[Yank2133]

Wait, Bernie isn't sharing his money with down-ballot Democrats?  Then what the hell is he going to do with all those millions after he drops out?  PUMA indeed.

Yeah, he is robbing these kids blind.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line, which is a, uh, interesting choice. Where's the stuff about Sanders being a tax-and-spend Manchuriab hippie communist sex pervert that we keep hearing about from certain people?

A good strategy IMO (and I've been fairly sceptical of many of Clinton's messaging, which has often seemed weirdly off-kilter. Taking him from the left (in the sense that he doesn't participate in the broad left coalition strategy that is vital for the Democratic Party) in a less niche way than guns, without heading to redbaits (the Red baiting is best deployed by proxies).

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Lol how is calling someone a corrupt liar not a personal attack?!

I'm not sure what Sanders has said or done that equates to calling Clinton a corrupt liar.

... you're kidding, right?

He's spent his whole campaign painting the picture of "us versus them," "good versus bad," "honest versus corrupt." True, the evil boogeyman is Wall Street and the super-wealthy, but if you spend all your days building up that boogeyman and then allege even subtly that Clinton is a part of that, you don't have to actually connect the dots in order for your supporters too... It's still a shady attack meant to undermine her character. Except because he cleverly doesn't say it outright he gets to think of himself as taking the moral high road? Uh, that's not how it works.

And I think it is absolutely hilarious for a Sanders supporter to suddenly care about party unity. At this juncture, there is value in deflating the Bernie balloon. It'll show that Hillary doesn't sit and take it, is prepared to win the nomination with force, and will bring that same vigor to the general election campaign. You talk about party unity, but perhaps there are enough soft Sanders supporters who would be more easily drawn to the Clinton camp by her arguments against Sanders than if the primary went on for months and months with her not hitting back and these supporters getting further indoctrinated into the Cult of the Bern. Bring the guy down to earth and maybe a few of his less entrenched supporters will see reason too. Clearly he will make no effort to unite the party when loses, so Hillary has to force the unity on her own. Good for her.

None of which amounts to a personal attack. It's a serious criticism of the political system that (some) Democrats make quite frequently. I believe that it is a fair criticism and I will vote accordingly; others will disagree on substance, and that's another discussion. But if you can't recognize that, it's a failure of critical thinking.

Deliberately stoking the fire to heavily imply that your opponent is one of the corrupt and morally bankrupt bad guys, without being able to provide any evidence that the person's political work has actually been hijacked by big money, doesn't count as a personal attack? The "substance" is actually pretty clear.

I mean, if you truly can't see the strategy Sanders is employing to debase Clinton's candidacy and malign her character, I'm afraid it's actually a case of you wilfully missing the forest for the trees. And, you know, yeah: It's a strategy that comes with the territory. But I'm not obliged to think it's honourable, especially now that it's clear he can't win the nomination. Any lasting harm he does to Clinton is actually an act of self-sabotage if he really believes in his cause (in fact, you could argue that it's a sabotage of the American people), because like it or not, she's the one who will be in the position of carrying his cause forward once we get to the summer.

And frankly, since he's shown no sign of backing off, it's about time she took the gloves off too.

[Landslide Lyndon]

None of which amounts to a personal attack. It's a serious criticism of the political system that (some) Democrats make quite frequently. I believe that it is a fair criticism and I will vote accordingly; others will disagree on substance, and that's another discussion. But if you can't recognize that, it's a failure of critical thinking.

Yeah, and Clinton's attack to Obama in 2008 about his falling support among "white hard-working Americans" was an indictment of racism.

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line, which is a, uh, interesting choice. Where's the stuff about Sanders being a tax-and-spend Manchuriab hippie communist sex pervert that we keep hearing about from certain people?

A good strategy IMO (and I've been fairly sceptical of many of Clinton's messaging, which has often seemed weirdly off-kilter. Taking him from the left (in the sense that he doesn't participate in the broad left coalition strategy that is vital for the Democratic Party) in a less niche way than guns, without heading to redbaits (the Red baiting is best deployed by proxies).

It makes sense because the next batch of primaries are closed. Not playing the card of Sanders' opportunism when it comes to his allegiance to the Democratic party would've been political malpractice.

[NeverAgain]

Huh. In yesterday's victory speech he never attacked Hillary. I think this is a mistake for her, especially if she wins, she'll have a lot of ground to make up with discluded Bernie supporters.

[Virginiá]

Huh. In yesterday's victory speech he never attacked Hillary. I think this is a mistake for her, especially if she wins, she'll have a lot of ground to make up with discluded Bernie supporters.

See, this is what I don't get. She is already so far ahead, all she has to do is mitigate any future losses and claim a couple decent wins in the upcoming big states. Why go nuclear on him with the race that way?

Kind of makes me wonder if her internal polling and strategists believe the race is turning heavy against her or something. Either that, or they were just toying with the idea and don't really intend to go as heavy as we think.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Huh. In yesterday's victory speech he never attacked Hillary. I think this is a mistake for her, especially if she wins, she'll have a lot of ground to make up with discluded Bernie supporters.

See, this is what I don't get. She is already so far ahead, all she has to do is mitigate any future losses and claim a couple decent wins in the upcoming big states. Why go nuclear on him with the race that way?

Kind of makes me wonder if her internal polling and strategists believe the race is turning heavy against her or something. Either that, or they were just toying with the idea and don't really intend to go as heavy as we think.

What going nuclear means anyway? It's not like she is going to accuse him of having an illegitimate black child or palin' around with terrorists.
From what I understand they will primarily highlight the fact that his ties with the party are tenuous, that he is not a team player and that he still hasn't explained convincingly how he will deliver everything he promises. And of course his gun record which is very unpopular in the city and the suburbs.   

[Virginiá]

What going nuclear means anyway? It's not like she is going to accuse him of having an illegitimate black child or palin' around with terrorists.

It's just hyperbole, lol. If they said they intend to unify later, they clearly intend to attack him to a degree that even they think will generate animosity between their campaign and the voters of his they wish to bring into the fold once they finally put the old man to bed.

[CatoMinor]

Didn't jfern vote for Nader? LOL

I'm sure he's making plans to go Green soon after his candidate drops out. #ReadyForJillStein

All of this would mean more if he had a red avatar.

[Averroës Nix]

Lol how is calling someone a corrupt liar not a personal attack?!

I'm not sure what Sanders has said or done that equates to calling Clinton a corrupt liar.

... you're kidding, right?

He's spent his whole campaign painting the picture of "us versus them," "good versus bad," "honest versus corrupt." True, the evil boogeyman is Wall Street and the super-wealthy, but if you spend all your days building up that boogeyman and then allege even subtly that Clinton is a part of that, you don't have to actually connect the dots in order for your supporters too... It's still a shady attack meant to undermine her character. Except because he cleverly doesn't say it outright he gets to think of himself as taking the moral high road? Uh, that's not how it works.

And I think it is absolutely hilarious for a Sanders supporter to suddenly care about party unity. At this juncture, there is value in deflating the Bernie balloon. It'll show that Hillary doesn't sit and take it, is prepared to win the nomination with force, and will bring that same vigor to the general election campaign. You talk about party unity, but perhaps there are enough soft Sanders supporters who would be more easily drawn to the Clinton camp by her arguments against Sanders than if the primary went on for months and months with her not hitting back and these supporters getting further indoctrinated into the Cult of the Bern. Bring the guy down to earth and maybe a few of his less entrenched supporters will see reason too. Clearly he will make no effort to unite the party when loses, so Hillary has to force the unity on her own. Good for her.

None of which amounts to a personal attack. It's a serious criticism of the political system that (some) Democrats make quite frequently. I believe that it is a fair criticism and I will vote accordingly; others will disagree on substance, and that's another discussion. But if you can't recognize that, it's a failure of critical thinking.

Deliberately stoking the fire to heavily imply that your opponent is one of the corrupt and morally bankrupt bad guys, without being able to provide any evidence that the person's political work has actually been hijacked by big money, doesn't count as a personal attack? The "substance" is actually pretty clear.

I think that's an ignorant and simple-minded caricature. Clinton and other elected officials are influenced by the system of political (esp. fundraising and consulting) networks in which they are immersed. It doesn't mean that she's evil or "morally bankrupt." It just means that she and others are biased toward certain ways of understanding issues and analyzing policy, and predisposed toward favoring the interests of certain groups at the expense of others.

(I know that their are a lot of campaign surrogates and supporters who are out there who are saying pretty stupid things. It helps not to pay much attention to that and I'll make no secret of the fact that I don't bother to stay caught up in it.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no evidence that Sanders has damaged Clinton's favorability among either Democrats or independents. There is no evidence that Sanders has damaged Clinton's odds of winning the general election. We're not even seeing temporary changes in her standing in the polls as a result of what you are interpreting as a "debase and malign" strategy.

Clinton had historically low favorability ratings for a (presumptive) major party nominee when this campaign began, and she continues to have historically low favorability ratings for a major party nominee. Sanders and the primary campaign have had nothing to do with this.

This is almost entirely driven by poor performance among independents, by the way. Clinton remains as popular among Democrats as most of the party's major figures. She just has disastrously low ratings among those outside of the party, which obviously makes it very fortunate that she's likely to face a badly divided Republican Party and weak and (at least) equally unpopular Republican nominee.

By the way, at the risk of appearing thin-skinned, nothing has upset me more than the nasty comments that Clinton has made about Sanders supporters - the idea that those who support him are young, naive simpletons who'd be supporting her if only they hadn't been bamboozled by Sanders' impossible dreams. Much like Obama's "guns and religions" comment in 2008, it's not good politics and it's not good leadership. I'm much less bothered by any of Clinton's attacks on Sanders than I am by this.

[Averroës Nix]

Romney's 47% comment is another good comparison. Don't demean people who aren't voting for you.

[HAnnA MArin County]

The fact that she feels the need to despite the fact that she's clearly still winning easily and this can only damage the party in the long run should convince anyone that she is a terrible politician.

If any more mainstream good candidate had run, I'm confident she would have lost.

Wah wah wah. "Why is she going to do to my candidate what he's been doing to her all along?" The knife cuts both ways. All's fair in love and politics. Sounds like the Sandernistas are starting to get nervous now. Maybe they realize their train is about out of steam.  

This is bad politics. You'd easily realize it if you weren't such a deluded hack.

So posted by the even more deluded Bernie hack.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, they can dish it out, but can't take it. Pathetic.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Hagrid trying to pretend Clinton isn't corrupt is hysterical. Try getting out of that Clinton bubble which I once used to be in a while ago. OF COURSE SHES CORRUPT, but please continue with these attacks Hillary, they won't work for you in the end.

[JerryArkansas]

Everyone in this thread, shut the hell up.  Get over yourselves.  No one give a damn about these arguments over the internet.  Get the stick out of your ass and move on.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Everyone in this thread, shut the hell up.  Get over yourselves.  No one give a damn about these arguments over the internet.  Get the stick out of your ass and move on.

How salty...

[Ebowed]

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line,

Epic fail, if true.  The last thing Hillary Clinton should be doing is bringing light to her many similarities with George W. Bush on regime change and citizen surveillance.

[Ebsy]

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line,

Epic fail, if true.  The last thing Hillary Clinton should be doing is bringing light to her many similarities with George W. Bush on regime change and citizen surveillance.

After today, I seriously doubt that this line of attack will be surfacing. Sanders just handed Clinton everything she needs on a silver platter.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line,

Epic fail, if true.  The last thing Hillary Clinton should be doing is bringing light to her many similarities with George W. Bush on regime change and citizen surveillance.

After today, I seriously doubt that this line of attack will be surfacing. Sanders just handed Clinton everything she needs on a silver platter.

So it's only OK for Hillary to go negative? Got it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line,

Epic fail, if true.  The last thing Hillary Clinton should be doing is bringing light to her many similarities with George W. Bush on regime change and citizen surveillance.

After today, I seriously doubt that this line of attack will be surfacing. Sanders just handed Clinton everything she needs on a silver platter.

I mean, you can say that. But now that the floodgates are open the candidate with the larger war chest is definitely going to have an advantage. Bernie can completely barrage New York with anti-Hillary ads. I don't think Clinton is able to be as liberal with her ad spending. And... the optics of losing New York will frankly be devastating. She needs to win.

[Ebsy]

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line,

Epic fail, if true.  The last thing Hillary Clinton should be doing is bringing light to her many similarities with George W. Bush on regime change and citizen surveillance.

After today, I seriously doubt that this line of attack will be surfacing. Sanders just handed Clinton everything she needs on a silver platter.

I mean, you can say that. But now that the floodgates are open the candidate with the larger war chest is definitely going to have an advantage. Bernie can completely barrage New York with anti-Hillary ads. I don't think Clinton is able to be as liberal with her ad spending. And... the optics of losing New York will frankly be devastating. She needs to win.

Ad spending really only pays gigantic dividends when it is unopposed. Clinton has enough money to spend aggressively on ads in New York since she has been running such a frugal campaign.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line,

Epic fail, if true.  The last thing Hillary Clinton should be doing is bringing light to her many similarities with George W. Bush on regime change and citizen surveillance.

^^^

If I'm recalling this correctly, the last time she used this line, Bernie quickly responded by bringing up the Iraq War. It's a counterproductive line of attack.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Early reporting today suggests that she'll be reporting the "I wish he spent as much time criticizing George W. Bush as he does criticizing Obama" line,

Epic fail, if true.  The last thing Hillary Clinton should be doing is bringing light to her many similarities with George W. Bush on regime change and citizen surveillance.

^^^

If I'm recalling this correctly, the last time she used this line, Bernie quickly responded by bringing up the Iraq War. It's a counterproductive line of attack.

""intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." - Hillary Clinton when voting for the Iraq war


Even Lieberman said that sh**t wasn't proven. She stated it as fact.