| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: Politix | ||
| The Hillary Defense | ||
| 2016-03-02 | ||
Greg Sargent,
Today’s New York Times delivers the most comprehensive report yet on the evolving Dem strategy. It’s worth dividing the Dem approach into two categories: First, there are the attacks that are designed to tear Trump down in the eyes of core Dem constituencies (minorities, single women) and groups of gettable swing voters (suburbanites and college educated whites). The Republicans are also belatedly realizing they must outbid Trump on key issues like immigration, jobs and national defense to stop his advance. In both cases the problem will be whether anyone will believe them this time. Hillary's credibilty problems need no explanation. But the GOP must also outbid Trump in a way that unambiguously binds them to their pledges. This time the promises need collateral. James Hohmann writing in the Washington Post observed that the most threatening aspect of the rebellion has been its surprising vehemence, almost bordering on kamikaze determination.
Moriarty: It has been a duel between you and me, Mr. Holmes. You hope to place me in the dock. I tell you that I will never stand in the dock. You hope to beat me. I tell you that you will never beat me. If you are clever enough to bring destruction upon me, rest assured that I shall do as much to you.' Holmes: 'You have paid me several compliments, Mr. Moriarty,' said I. 'Let me pay you one in return when I say that if I were assured of the former eventuality I would, in the interests of the public, cheerfully accept the latter.' Commitmentment is a powerful weapon in the theory of deterrence. "Precommitment is a strategy in which a party to a conflict uses a commitment device to strengthen its position by cutting off some of its options to make its threats more credible. ... For instance, an army can burn a bridge behind it, making retreat evidently impossible. A famous example of this tactic is when Hernan Cortes had his men scuttle the ships in order to eliminate any means of desertion. Alternatively, in the context of the Cold War, fail-deadly retaliation systems such as the Soviet Dead Hand make a response to a sudden attack automatic, regardless of whether or not anyone is left alive to make decisions." Supporting Trump is equivalent to burning the bridges. There's no way back. It's a very potent strategy for those with nothing to lose. Whether the Republicans or the Democrats, whose response so far has been a day late and a dollar short, can call and up the ante remains to be seen. The establishment, unlike the voters, is risk-averse. They are too used to gambling with other people's money to go for broke. They are more likely to offer the appearance of reform rather than its painful reality and hope smoke and mirrors suffice to halt the blaze. | ||
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #8 The guy that set up her mail server was given immunity today. Obama is the only one with the power to see to it that Sanders is the Dem nominee. And Obama WILL use that power. |
| Posted by: Slons Gromoling6299 2016-03-02 23:21 |
| #7 "They still don't get it. Trump is not our candidate, he is our murder weapon." I am so stealing that, Nguard. |
| Posted by: Barbara 2016-03-02 22:00 |
| #6 FBI presents evidence for indictment. DOJ has to prosecute, but don't hold your breath, yet. A good note was that the IT Dude that set this up was given immunity to thwart his 5th amendment refusal apparently today. He refuses now, he goes to PMITA jail |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-03-02 21:45 |
| #5 Today’s New York Times delivers the most comprehensive report yet on the evolving Dem strategy. It’s worth dividing the Dem approach into two categories: First, there are the attacks that are designed to tear Trump down in the eyes of core Dem constituencies (minorities, single women) and groups of gettable swing voters (suburbanites and college educated whites). The NYTs seems to think Trump is some passive boy scout like the Pubs ran in the past. I began to think the Pubs really didn't want to win the Presidency. They seemed destined to pursue failure every election. Trump will come out swinging and he will use the ammo he has to attack Hillary. She is probably more vulnerable than Trump on many fronts. If the FBI indicts her, she's a goner (although it is just a gut feeling but I doubt the FBI will indict her). That would be too much to hope for. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-03-02 18:35 |
| #4 Well spoken NGuard. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2016-03-02 11:41 |
| #3 At this point, I am ready to burn bridges. And buildings. And the professional parasites that infest those buildings. I have little left to loose. They still don't get it. Trump is not our candidate, he is our murder weapon. |
| Posted by: Nguard 2016-03-02 10:58 |
| #2 Or sit back, drink a beer while watching the continuing collapse of the Republic. |
| Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839 2016-03-02 10:54 |
| #1 would you rather vote for the dishonest career politician who takes bribes from corporate cronies and pretends to be a populist or vote for the dishonest businessman who gives bribes to politicians to protect his own interests and pretends to be able to make good jobs appear again |
| Posted by: lord garth 2016-03-02 09:38 |