Mediaboss Marketing

There's a strain of thought in politics these days -- prominent among Democrats but shared by even some Republicans -- that it's going to be very hard to beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Maybe. Clinton does have many strengths including a long and deep resume and a knack for fundraising. (Not to mention the demographic and electoral college edges that any Democratic nominee will likely carry.)

But, her ascendance to the presidency is anything but a sure thing. There's lots of reasons for that but one of the big ones is that her time spent as Secretary of State for Obama will make it difficult for her to present herself as something new and different to voters almost certainly in the market for something, well, new and different.

A question asked by Quinnipiac University polls in Iowa, Colorado and Virginia this week illustrates that challenge. Asked "Would you like to see the next President generally; continue with Barack Obama's policies or change direction from Barack Obama's policies", just 34 percent of Iowans and Coloradans said they want the next president to move forward on Obama policies while just three in ten (31 percent) of Virginians said the same.

No problem, say Hillary allies. She isn't the same person as Obama -- hard to argue -- and will make her own way. Ok. That is possible -- especially because Clinton not only ran a long and nasty primary campaign against Obama (thus allowing her to say she isn't an Obama clone) but also because she has been in politics for a very long time and has carved out a political identity entirely apart from Obama.

But, it being possible doesn't mean it's the most likely scenario. Republicans have, for months, been bashing Clinton as an Obama loyalist and a rubber stamp for some of his more controversial foreign policy decisions. Her time as Secretary of State -- no matter her relatively subtle attempts to distance herself from his decision in, say, Syria -- make it virtually impossible for Clinton to totally beat back the attack that voting for her represents a third term for Obama.

Further complicating Clinton's path to the presidency is that too much distancing from Obama's policies too soon could lead to a rebellion among liberals who remain very committed to Obama and his agenda and already aren't in love with Clinton. With every day that passes and Elizabeth Warren makes no move toward running (she just isn't going to do it), that concern lessens a bit for Clinton. But, even without a Warren-like figure in the race, beating back discontent from liberals isn't exactly how Clinton and her team want to spend the next six months.

This phenomenon isn't unique to Clinton. There's a reason that the last time one party won three straight presidential elections was way back in the 1980s -- and that George H.W. Bush lost his bid for a second term in 1992. Eight years later, then Vice President Al Gore never could get comfortable talking about the Clinton years, and lost. Eight years after that, Barack Obama surged to the presidency by labeling John McCain as a continuation of the George W. Bush's unpopular policies. (Nevermind that McCain had run against Bush eight years earlier in a Republican primary.)

It is possible that if Obama's favorable ratings continue to improve along with perceptions of the economy then attacks against Clinton as an Obama third term might not be so problematic. Of course, Gore's defeat amid high popularity numbers for Clinton suggests that voters may simply like to give the other side control every eight years or so -- almost regardless of their views on the state of the country.

Clinton (still) isn't an official candidate as she and her team spend these months strategizing on the race to come. One of the key questions she needs to find an answer for is how to cast herself as both supportive of the direction Obama has taken the country while simultaneously committed to leading it in her own new and different direction.

Read more:
Why Hillary Clinton isnt even close to a shoo-in, explained in one poll question

Hillary Rodham Clinton's nearly quarter-century span on the national political scene is an opposition researcher's dream. And the "Hillary Haters," as Hanna Rosin calls them in her Atlantic piece, are already busy andare more well-funded than ever.

Their goal is do to something Republicans have never done before: Defeat the Clintons, once and for all.

But that massive opposition file also begsa question Republicans in all these years haven't been able to answer: Which Hillary to run against? There are so many to choose from, with gender roles and expectations undergirding each one.

There is first lady Clinton, with a scandal always around the corner (Vince Foster, Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky and more). How about carpet-bagging Senator Clinton? Also, presidential candidate Clinton, the one that "misspoke"about arriving under sniper fire in Bosnia and lost the primary? And/or Secretary of State Clinton -- as in Benghazi, Benghazi and more Benghazi? There's also Alinsky Clintonand Arkansas Clinton. Oh, and scorned-but-scheming wife Clinton.

There are so many versions that it's hard to keep track. But the damningthrough-line is missing -- or, at least, not yet evident. There's no Swift Boat or "47 percent" hook just yet, despite all that material.

The most recent attempt is to makeClinton into some version of Romney -- an opportunisticplutocrat scoring huge sums of money forjust standing up and saying words to the ultimate benefit of themorass that is the Clinton Foundationand her own political career.

But even that has problems.

Rosin writes:

That said, if clumsily executed, the Hillary-as-plutocrat offense could easily summon a different set of stereotypes about how unseemly money and power look on a woman. The stories on America Risings Web site may stick to the facts, but much of the accompanying art is in the realm of tabloid cheap shot. When photos of Clinton appear on the groups home page, she is almost always wearing one of a few unflattering expressions: chin up haughtily, angry and finger-pointing, bored and contemptuous, or laughing with her mouth wide open. In one photo, accompanying the aggregated story about billing taxpayers for her book tour, she seems to be rubbing her hands together as she leaves the stage.

Running successfully against Clinton means taking her strength and turning it into a weakness. In 2008, she ran as the most experienced candidate, betting that the Clinton brand was a good one. The Obama campaign punctured the experience argument and made the Clinton brand seem stale using the Iraq war. And theyboth canceled out the historic-first-xxxxxx president argument.

Read more:
The GOPs dilemma with Hillary Clinton: What to attack?

Rick Wood/Milwaukee Journal Sentinel/MCT

May 2 could potentially conclude grueling months of training for boxers Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Manny Pacquiao in preparation for their highly anticipated title fight. Presidential campaigning, much like the sweet science, is fundamentally an individual sport. Similar to boxers, politicians build a team of corner men, develop a fight plan and hone their skills through months of training. Likewise, both contests require individuals to face their opponents mano a mano. If Hillary Clinton follows a prize fighters training regimen, she is nearly unbeatable. Fortunately for Republicans, the former secretary of state seems incapable of preparing herself for a shot at the title.

Even in individual sports, building an impressive team is key to victory. Clintons previous campaign experience, both as a candidate and first lady, connects her to a seemingly endless network of political consultants, campaign managers and donors. Simply put, she can get the best trainer and cut man in the game. Unfortunately for Clinton, this is where her strategic advantage over a red corner opponent ends.

Floyd Mayweather is one of the greatest counter punchers to ever live. Meanwhile, Manny Pacquiaos grandeur is defined by his Energizer bunny-like ability to throw punches without tiring. Knowing their opponents strengths, both fighters will devise advantageous strategies. The necessity of developing a targeted fight plan reveals Clintons first major dilemma.

For the first time in 50 years, the Republican Party has no frontrunner. Such an open field raises the question: who will Clinton face in her Nov. 8 bout? Will it be a political counter-puncher like Jeb Bush? Perhaps a brawler like Rand Paul? A politically balanced boxer-puncher like Scott Walker? Or maybe an unorthodox southpaw like Ben Carson? Clintons inability to identify an opponent presents a challenge. It is nearly impossible to develop a winning fight plan without first understanding your opponents strengths and weaknesses. Every day that passes without a presumptive Republican nominee weakens Clintons ability to adopt a focused political strategy. Such a problem is compounded by Republican candidates abilities to sharpen their own game plans to defeat Hillary, as she will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee.

From the moment leading up to their ring walks to the day they sign their contracts, Mayweather and Pacquiao will train tirelessly. They will put in days-worth of roadwork, spar with the best partners available and work the heavy bag to seemingly no end. Even minutes prior to the fight, both boxers will vigorously work the mitts in order to break a sweat. In boxing, much like politics, you never enter the ring undertrained or without a sweat; doing so poses a real threat of getting knocked out cold. Clinton is discussing delaying her exploratory committee until this July, and will face seemingly no legitimate primary competition. To put it in boxing terms: she is training less than her opponent and sparring with poorer partners, if any at all.

Clinton is anointed by many as the next president. However, great fighters never cut corners in preparation for a title fight. Contrary to popular belief, Clintons belt is not a forgone conclusion. There are Republicans already training, and an extensive primary season will illuminate a candidate who has sparred with the best partners available. I may not be a boxing expert, but come Nov. 8, 2016 I will not be betting on the blue corner.

View post:
Hillary Clinton underestimates challengers

Breaking: Hillary Clinton, if she were to run for and win the presidency, would be the first female U.S. president.

And, if you believe the polls, almost nobody who has any control over that really gives a rip.

New polling from Quinnipiac University on Wednesday showed about three-quarters of people in the swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia said that distinction made no difference to their 2016 vote. And the majority who said it did were Democrats. Basically no Republicans said it madethem more likely to back Clinton, and only about one in 10independents agreed -- the same percentage who said it makes them less likely to back her.In other words, these are probably just folks who claim to be independent but vote reliably for either party.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll a few weeks back showed basically the same thing, with just slightly more independents saying the first-woman-president thing was something that made them more pro-Clinton.

Citing the new polling data, MSNBC.com ran this headline:

And despite the numbers above, the answer to that question is yes. It matters. That doesn't mean it's definitely a positive for her, but it matters.

People are really bad at deducing precisely what is important to their vote. Just because they say something isn't important doesn't mean it isn't. The same goes for endorsements. Nobody likes to think their vote is based on such easy shorthand, but sometimes it is.

Case in point: the first-black-president thing. Turns out, back in 2008, almost nobody said itwas a big deal -- even less than the first-woman-president thing today.

A Gallup poll conducted in June 2008 found 78 percent of African Americans and 88 percent of whites said Obama's race had nothing to do with their vote. (The question wasn't framed as "first black president," for what it's worth, but it stands to reason that's how almost everyoneinterpreted it.)

By the end of the campaign, just 9 percent were sayingObama's race made them more likely to vote for him, and 6 percent less likely -- basically a wash. And given much of the "more likely" crowd were African Americans (who vote almost universallyDemocratic anyway), it's hard to say whether it had any measurable effect on swing voters.

Read more here:
The Fix: Why it matters that Hillary Clinton is a woman

Hillary dives into the anti-vaccine fracas / Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Vaccinations
Potential 2016 contender Hillary Clinton made news with a feisty tweet weighing in on the anti-vaccination debate. Chris Matthews and panel discuss this, plu...

By: MSNBC News

View original post here:
Hillary dives into the anti-vaccine fracas / Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Vaccinations - Video