- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,710
- Reaction score
- 35,488
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: Do you think the Benghazi terror attacks hurt Hillary's chances for the Presiden
Absolutely it will hurt her. Suggesting otherwise isn't just laughable, but it's the height of ignorance regarding political campaigning.
First basic thing we have to establish...is it something that HELPS Hillary? IE, if Benghazi is broached or talked about is it in any way something that reflects POSTIIVELY on Hillary? I think ANYONE, even the most rabid of liberals, would be hard pressed to say it reflects POSTIVELY on her.
So at best it's something that reflects on her in a neutral fashion, at worst something that reflects poorly on her to SOME degree. Even if it's to a small degree and easy to be explained away, it's still there to some degree.
Which takes us to the next notion...Messaging. During a campaign you want to be on the offensive, not the defensive. In a campaign you want to try and control the messaging as much as possible.
Case in point, was Mitt Romney traveling with his dog on the hood of his car something that hurt him or helped him? It hurt him. Was it a big deal? No, not it wasn't. Was it something we should really be giving two ****s about in the midst of a presidential race? No, not it wasn't. But the fact that for a few days Romney's camp had to spend valuable time that they could've been using to push his agenda, push his attacks against the President, and highlight his own credentials was instead spent defending against the notion the family dog road on the roof of the car.
If Benghazi isn't a POSITIVE thing for Hillary, then it becomes something that hurts her because it becomes something that she has to answer for. Even if the answers are good, even if the public BUYS the answer, the very fact she's going to have to take the time to talk about it and spend time answering things about it hurts her chances to a certain degree.
And that's with caveats that she'd be able to explain it in a way that most people end up not caring about it. The reality is that come election season, when you have a FAR greater participation rate in the political discussions of this country, and when people focus FAR greater on the two individual candidates than ancillary characters or random stories during down years, it's quite possible that this at least has a MINOR negative drag on it with the public. At the very least I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest there's a better chance of the public being negative towards her about it than POSTIVE. In reality, most people will probably either be negative towards her on it or neutral...but I think you'll have few people going "Woo! Go Hillary, Benghazi was great for you!".
So yes...the simple fact that it will be a topic, that it will have to be talked about, that it'll come up in debates, that it'll be put in ads, that it will take counter measuring to deal with, means it does hurt her chances for the Presidency.
The question isn't whether or not it will. The question is "How MUCH will it hurt Hillary's chances for the Presidency?"
That's the much better question, and the MUCH harder one to answer. We really don't know. Benghazi got hot for a short bit, but largely is a backburner thing at the moment that hasn't really captured the american publics mind. It'll be over a year out from the actual incident by the time the election season even begins, let alone come election day. How it's messaged could have an impact, but there's a very legitimate reason to think that it won't SIGNIFICANTLY hurt her chances for the Presidency, and that it's damage will be more in putting her on the defensive then it will be the content of the actual attacks.
It's hard to say what level of impact it will have....but it's laughable for anyone to suggest that it won't ultimately hurt her chances. For those that think that, answer a very simple question:
If you could have a Hillary Clinton Candidacy where Benghazi occured after she was long removed from SOS or one where Benghazi happened while she was SOS, which would you choose?
Absolutely it will hurt her. Suggesting otherwise isn't just laughable, but it's the height of ignorance regarding political campaigning.
First basic thing we have to establish...is it something that HELPS Hillary? IE, if Benghazi is broached or talked about is it in any way something that reflects POSTIIVELY on Hillary? I think ANYONE, even the most rabid of liberals, would be hard pressed to say it reflects POSTIVELY on her.
So at best it's something that reflects on her in a neutral fashion, at worst something that reflects poorly on her to SOME degree. Even if it's to a small degree and easy to be explained away, it's still there to some degree.
Which takes us to the next notion...Messaging. During a campaign you want to be on the offensive, not the defensive. In a campaign you want to try and control the messaging as much as possible.
Case in point, was Mitt Romney traveling with his dog on the hood of his car something that hurt him or helped him? It hurt him. Was it a big deal? No, not it wasn't. Was it something we should really be giving two ****s about in the midst of a presidential race? No, not it wasn't. But the fact that for a few days Romney's camp had to spend valuable time that they could've been using to push his agenda, push his attacks against the President, and highlight his own credentials was instead spent defending against the notion the family dog road on the roof of the car.
If Benghazi isn't a POSITIVE thing for Hillary, then it becomes something that hurts her because it becomes something that she has to answer for. Even if the answers are good, even if the public BUYS the answer, the very fact she's going to have to take the time to talk about it and spend time answering things about it hurts her chances to a certain degree.
And that's with caveats that she'd be able to explain it in a way that most people end up not caring about it. The reality is that come election season, when you have a FAR greater participation rate in the political discussions of this country, and when people focus FAR greater on the two individual candidates than ancillary characters or random stories during down years, it's quite possible that this at least has a MINOR negative drag on it with the public. At the very least I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest there's a better chance of the public being negative towards her about it than POSTIVE. In reality, most people will probably either be negative towards her on it or neutral...but I think you'll have few people going "Woo! Go Hillary, Benghazi was great for you!".
So yes...the simple fact that it will be a topic, that it will have to be talked about, that it'll come up in debates, that it'll be put in ads, that it will take counter measuring to deal with, means it does hurt her chances for the Presidency.
The question isn't whether or not it will. The question is "How MUCH will it hurt Hillary's chances for the Presidency?"
That's the much better question, and the MUCH harder one to answer. We really don't know. Benghazi got hot for a short bit, but largely is a backburner thing at the moment that hasn't really captured the american publics mind. It'll be over a year out from the actual incident by the time the election season even begins, let alone come election day. How it's messaged could have an impact, but there's a very legitimate reason to think that it won't SIGNIFICANTLY hurt her chances for the Presidency, and that it's damage will be more in putting her on the defensive then it will be the content of the actual attacks.
It's hard to say what level of impact it will have....but it's laughable for anyone to suggest that it won't ultimately hurt her chances. For those that think that, answer a very simple question:
If you could have a Hillary Clinton Candidacy where Benghazi occured after she was long removed from SOS or one where Benghazi happened while she was SOS, which would you choose?
