NY Times: Clinton thinks she has Sanders' supporters in the bag, now wooing anti-Trump Republicans
Hillary Clintons campaign is trying to seize on the turmoil Donald J. Trumps ascent has caused within the Republican Party, hoping to gain the support of Republican voters and party leaders including former elected officials and retired generals disillusioned by their partys standard-bearer.
More broadly, Mrs. Clintons campaign is repositioning itself, after a year of emphasizing liberal positions and focusing largely on minority voters, to also appeal to independent and Republican-leaning white voters turned off by Mr. Trump.
But her campaign, confident that the young people and liberals backing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont will come around to support Mrs. Clinton in November, is focusing its efforts on white working-class women and suburban women who tend to vote for Republican presidential candidates, but who polls show hold negative views of Mr. Trump.
The fact that she will be the Democratic nominee seems to be a foregone conclusion. She is now focusing on wooing the party elite who cannot get behind Trump, moderate Republicans, and soccer moms.
let's remember that Bernie has also touted his supposed appeal to alienated Republican voters. This is not unique to Hillary.
thing. And that is an issue, that her supporters attacked him for doing what they will now praise her for doing. It's a double standard thing. It means they are people who just bash, not people who address actual principled concerns they hold.
"Reasonable" restrictions on abortion?
More coal, oil, and fracking?
School vouchers so white children don't have to sit next to black children in school?
War in Syria?
Probably not a bad tactic, especially considering the threats by so many of Bernie's fan-boys and fan-girls here at DU and other places to sit out the general election because Bernie didn't win the primaries. Better to have the electoral support of people who actually vote, as opposed to the unhappy fan-boys and fan-girls who probably won't.
Can't you smash some beautiful and crystalline crabs and create some red tape?
Bernie's fans have called Secretary Clinton and her supporters far worse.
So unless you really want to see Donald sworn in as President next January, deal with it.
You don't see how going further to the right (one can only guess how) takes the bite out of fear mongering Trump?
Isn't that exactly what the definition of a devil's bargain is? You really expect folks to take a bet when all you offer is heads you win and tails I loose?
What is going to attract these unhappy with Trump TeaPubliKLANS? These folks who have been able to stick with these racist, bigoted, greedy ass world burners anyway? What are you going to lure these people in with now?
One doesn't have to be any purist to have little to nothing further to concede to the right or to believe we are past time instead be pushing back strongly in the other direction because that is what is needed.
The strategy is not really that sound unless the actual intent is simply to move the party to the corporate owned right because there is no evidence or much reason to believe in such an electoral tactic. It is foolhardy.
The only comfort to that is bye bye hill and bill.
Perhaps not. I may think that most of the folks who vote in the Republican Party primaries may have gone cuckoo, but I still believe there's still a useful percentile who might think that fiscal responsibility and planning for the future might mean something, something real and good despite decades of GOP bushwhah. That sliver might be sliced off Club Packiderm, even if the Tea-bagger, Dixiecrat, and Religious nuts stick with Trump.
As I said earlier, Hillary might find those disaffected R's a more reliable voting block than the Bernie fan-boys and fan-girls threatening to sit out this general election because other Democrats didn't vote their way.