This list shows the author is a screwball and can’t comprehend the concept of secondary effects.
#3 and #4 will tick off her base, particularly the CodePink weirdos.
Whatever she *might* gain from the Republicans she doesn’t have already (GOPe), she loses from her base.
She does all 5 (doubtful for her), at best it’s a wash.
AMEN.
Whatever she *might* gain from the Republicans she doesn’t have already (GOPe), she loses from her base.
Bill "Triangulation" New Democrat Clinton could probably swing it. Even Obama managed to hold on to both the left wing and mainstream Democrats.
Can Hillary? She certainly is more politically tone deaf than her husband was, but it's not impossible for a candidate to put out contradictory "dog whistle" signals to people of very different views.
HRC won't say George W. Bush was wonderful or that she was right to vote for the Iraq War, but she'll talk about "consensus" in such a way that Jebites and W-ites may be tempted to vote for her. Bernie Bros will assume the "consensus" is something different -- more Obama than Bush.
It is ironic, though, that the breakway Republicans Rubin is writing about are the neocons that the last set of turncoats, the anti-Bush Obamacons and Obamicans of 2008, really hated. It would take a lot for Hillary to keep those two groups inside her tent.
She may even lose some of the 2008 and 2012 defectors who thought Bush and McCain were too interventionist, but they're more likely to go to the libertarian candidate (and really, how many of them are there, anyway?)