If you follow political data journalism, you’ve probably heard the phrase “the party decides” thrown around – it’s the title of an influential (and very good) book on presidential primaries that tries to explain why some candidates win the nomination and others don’t. The theory is that party actors (everyone from the volunteer door knockers in Iowa all the way up to senators and governors) attempt to come to an informal consensus about which candidate to support before the rank-and-file voters go to the polls. These party actors then use their money, manpower and influence to help propel their preferred candidate to the nomination. The theory doesn’t have a perfect record (it would have predicted a Clinton win in the 2008 Democratic primary and a McCain loss in that year’s Republican primary) but its core is pretty straightforward – party elites often get their way in presidential primaries.
The Democratic invisible primary is basically over, and, measured by who scored the most endorsements from elected officials, Clinton won by a huge margin. So when party elites watch this debate, they won’t be shopping for a candidate. They’ll be checking in on their investment – making sure she still seems like a good enough politician to get to the White House and a reliable enough Democrat to implement their policies once there."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/10/assessing_tuesdays_debate_through_viewers_eyes_128363.html
6 comments:
This is easy. The MSM. They'll take the narrative to the voters with their constant adoration about The Smartest Woman in the World!
It will be much fun to see the softball questions the moderators lob to Hillary. [not that I will watch it].
If they follow the Megyn Kelly script, they would ask Hillary about Bimbo eruptions, Kathleen Willey, her "hard choice" which led her to keep her classified work emails on her private, unsecure servers and where she and Obama were the night of the Benghazi attack.
First, she can't have her own Hitler video.
Hillary has captured the Democratic Party as surely as the obstructionist Freedom Caucus, very much a minority, has severely divided the Republican Party...result will be zero good for any of us. I was a Democrat for years and just the thought of Hillary gives me stomach cramps....I mean she's as amoral as they get and has not one virtue....JFK would not consider her a Democrat, nor would LBJ, et al., so why do others? I became a "Republican" because there was no where else to go. So...now what?
I'll vote in 2016 but it is likely to be another least worst vote (anyone but Hillary)...how many more of these can we tolerate?
Maybe Allen, but the MSM is owned by the elites. They won't be backing a potential loser. I read her approval rating is down with men, etc., etc. I predict she will be the nominee, but it's possible it will swing the other way. The MSM could potentially Palinize her.
Who would be able to win the general other than her, I cannot guess. There's no one there now besides her. Has the filing date passed?
Just watched an afternoon full of political commentary tv shows...and something hit me...almost all the pundits said the establishment Republicans have ignored or otherwise diminished the "Freedom Caucus" ...e.g., not even letting them bring a bill to the floor. If that is the case, my argument is weakened significantly and now I must blame them all for obstinacy and doing nothing.
I am willing to make that change of heart...since at my core I am an ardent fiscal conservative. The pundits indicated the hostility of the Freedom Caucus is in part caused by establishment disrespect. It's really too bad that this just seems to have to occur in DC.
Post a Comment