Posted on 11/15/2014 6:33:51 AM PST by COUNTrecount
Hillary Clinton has a sneaky plan to become the next president — get a conservative third-party candidate in the race to draw votes away from the Republican nominee.
Clinton campaign strategists have concluded Hillary will easily be nominated in 2016, but cannot win the general election in a head-to-head matchup, Richard Turley reports on orbmagazine.com.
“They are reaching out to Wall Street allies to do ‘black-ops’ funding for a run by Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum or Herman Cain,” a source told Orb.
Hillary’s approval rating is stuck at 43 percent, not enough to win a two-person race for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at pagesix.com ...
Bingo! Hillary’s plan will go over HUGH with a lot of FReepers.
Look at the names: bachmann, who the Dems destroyed her credibility; Santorum - the brat of the debates; Cain - who said on a morning radio program across the Gulf states ‘if he had any skeletons to declare now, before they found them’ replied ‘no’.
So the truth is out ... it is the Democrats that have, behind the Oz curtain, gathered ‘third partiers’ all along!
“...get a conservative third-party candidate in the race to draw votes away from the Republican nominee.”
Except that WILL NOT WORK if we run a conservative against her. Sure, run Romney, McCain, Christie, Jeb, or God knows who else, and the door will be WIDE OPEN for a conservative Third Party candidate, just as it was for her husband when Bush Sr. went hard-left after winning the presidency.
It’s a good, and PERFECT LEGAL strategy on her part. The question is whether we can STAND UP TO KARL ROVE, nominate a conservative, and prevent this crap from happening.
We’ve now given ROVE (i.e., the Establishment) the last two nominations...maybe it’s our turn now, just maybe?
“McCain will run Independent if HillBill will pickup the tab.”
Why should they finance McCain - he won’t draw a single Republican vote if he’s against a conservative.
Hillary will win a two person matchup with the Republican because the Republican will be Romney or Bush who will not seriously run once nominated.
The defense to this is simple - go on offense! Get our big money guns to fund the equivalent of Ralph Nader. Fauxcahontas Warren. Michael Moore. Sean Penn. Al Sharpton. Louis Farrakhan. Van Jones. Bernie Sanders. Greg Orman.
Catch my drift here, fellow Freepers? Or am I being “obtuse”?
“The flip side is, of course, why the hell does it matter if you win elections if you’re wrong?”
Because no one gets everything that they want in politics. The “wrong” you speak of is 70% right. If the other side wins, and you get 10% of what you want. Neither choice is ideal, but there is a clear choice. Ronald Reagan said that if you get 70% of what you want in politics, take it and run away. I would rather have had either McCain or Romney, as much as I dislike them and their policies, than Obama.
There is a persistent line of reasoning which argues that in order for things to get better, they first have to get much worse. Well, I can’t think of much worse then the situation we have right now. if the people in this country cannot coalesce around somebody who is not collectivist, then things will get worse yet. Allowing ANY Democrat to be President after Obama leaves will finish this country. Even the most RINO of Republicans will slow the descent to collectivism and give this country a little bit of breathing room to actually stop the slide, and to later reverse it...and remember that they will have a fairly conservative Congress pushing him to do the right thing.
All those who stayed home in 2012 and allowed Obama to win forgot George Patton’s admonition: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
“Perot” her before she “Perots” us!!!
“That third party scheme will appeal to the many Kamikaze Conservatives on this forum.”
It really doesn’t matter, does it. Another McCain/Romney, and the base sits home and doesn’t vote (yet again). Another McCain/Romney along with a conservative Third Party candidate, and the base votes Third Party.
Bottom line - no impact on the election outcome either way, and we simply CANNOT WIN by running a moderate.
It’s not simply a litmus test, it’s a FACT OF LIFE and it extends well beyond the conservatives on this forum.
only 17? Feels more like 170 at times.
“Are the Perot voters still bragging about their one big moment in history, delivering our country to the Clintoons?”
Actually, they didn’t it was Bush Sr. that delivered our country to the Clintons. The Perot voters, at least the conservative ones, would have otherwise stayed home.
I caught it!...see post 29....Lets fight fire with fire!!
And by the way, ON THIS SITE, I suspect that the vast majority of people went out and voted for McCain/Romney, as we well understood Obama.
The problem is OUTSIDE OF THIS SITE, so even if FReepers are convinced to support yet another RINO, it won’t make a difference in the election outcome.
Bush is Hillary with male organs. Of all the possibilities that will make me stay home or vote 3rd party he’s it.
and it won’t cost her a dime.
What I’m seeing on this thread reminds me of Boehner and McConnell: Surrender all leverage you possess before the battle is even engaged, out of abject fear of the Democrats.
Thinking like this is the first step to another RINO Republican presidential nominee, and the demand that those who call themselves conservatives vote for what they say they hate.
Democratic dreaming. Not gonna happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.