Reply #20: I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly [View All]

[Strawman]

If the Republicans are smart they will play that card all day long against Hillary, and it might let them effectively tie Hillary Clinton to the status quo that voters will be eager to change in 2008. Voters are not generally informed on candidates' positions on the issues (for a number of reasons). I think our biggest assets are going to be the general feeling of Bush fatigue, the sense that the country is headed in the wrong direction, and the desire to give someone different a try.

The Republicans literally have nothing else to run on. Having a simple message like "We've had enough of Bushes and Clintons, let's give this other guy a chance" is about the best message the Republicans can hope for. That's the kind of political conversation I can imagine overhearing at a diner. A smart Republican candidate will "slip" and say something to that effect in public. Or have their spouse say it. They can use it to (try to) distance themselves from Bush and poisition themselves as a change candidate.

Given her high negatives and the settled nature of voters' impressions of her, the "dynasty diarrhea card" absolutely has to be a concern. I hope she is ready to counter that message with something better than "she's not a blood relative" because you can bet they're going to push poll the shit out of it if she's the nominee. Electing* the son of a president had a novelty to it since it hadn't happened since 1824* (that gets an asterisk too), but the idea of 28 years of rotating power between two families is going to seem not right at face value to the republican sensibilities of many Americans. Party loyalty will certainly trump that among Democrats, but among independents who aren't too informed, it could be a big deal and could make them uncomfortable with voting for Hillary Clinton.

I think the counterargument is basically: "The country was in good shape under Bill Clinton, Dumbya really fucked it up." But the tie to Bill Clinton is a double-edged sword. I don't underestimate the potential appeal of that anti-dynastic argument. It comes down to whether or not the voters desire to return to the "golden days" of Clinton trumps their discomfort with 28 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.