When Will People Have Had Enough of Hillary Clinton?

From The Wire in 2013: It'd Be Bigger Now

This also looks bad. When do we reach the Democratic pain threshold on Hillary issues? http://t.co/CpBpmPNITS

— David Freddoso (@freddoso) May 18, 2015

The aura of scandal seems to swirl around everything the name Clinton touches, doesn't it? Today it's:

• Hillary Was Paid Millions For Speeches (Now She's Going For Campaign Dollars!)
• Clinton Friend's Memos on Libya Draw Scrutiny to Politics and Business
• The State Department Won't Release Hillary's Emails Until 2016!
• Oh, and Chelsea is apparently so unpleasant that she's making people at the Clinton Foundation quit because of her.

Exasperated Republicans want to know: How long can Democrats take this before they ditch this loser? Because, uh, you know . . . if they don't . . . Hillary is winning in the polls right now . . . somehow. So they'd better get rid of her for someone who isn't polling ahead of Jeb, Walker, Rubio, and Cruz--like, oh, how about that Elizabeth Warren? Huh? She's nice and lefty--don't you like her?

Uh . . . yeah.

The Omnivore is going to tell you guys what it would take--since no one else seems to be able to.

What It Would Take For The Democrats To Abandon Clinton

Here is the straight-talk you've been asking for, even if it isn't coming from RINO John McCain.

1. Handcuffs

If Hillary is breakin' the law left, right, and middle then the scandal that'll get her will involve handcuffs. Otherwise people who look through a mess of he-said, he-said, he-said again and again, and she-said see a lot of, well, yappin'. Very little actual arresting. 

This leads people to conclude that, hey, charges must be in the works, right? That Congress is lookin' into it--and they'll find that smoking gun--and she'll go to jail. At that point, she's probably out of the running. Probably. So all you GOP guys who are holding your breath for Hillary to get gone? Just hold a smidgen longer--just a few seconds: because the charges are coming any minute now. The Benghazi Commission promises. 

2. A Dead Boy or a Live Girl

The conventional wisdom says a presidential candidate caught with a dead girl or a live boy in his room would be the end of him. Hillary just gender-flips that formula. This is a high bar to clear--but the good news is: it already happened. Just to Bill.

He's going away any second and pedophilia is so toxic it'll take down Hillary as well. The Clinton's can't avoid a good sex scandal and Bill is, erm, dripping with them. So check the box on this one, guys: It's OVER. OVAH.

Of course the evil powers of progressiveness have made Teh Gay O-Kazay--so maybe the live girl wouldn't do it . . . but The Omnivore assures you that the under-age scandal will end Hillary whichever candidate it happens to. 

3. A Viable Democratic Alternative

A primary is a capitalist free-market of ideas and if there were any other ideas out there--or any other viable candidate to carry them, we'd see Hillary jettisoned in a nano-second. Of course what we've got right now is O'Malley (the Democratic architect of the Baltimore Riots), Bernie Sanders (a literal Vermont socialist), and Elizabeth "No, I'm Not Running" Warren. With nothing left at the bottom of the barrel, it has to be Hillary.

Don't believe the polls that show that about 60% of Democrats actually prefer Hillary--they might be stupid but they're not literally blind: They're just lying to pollsters the same way Republicans do--out of fear of the thought police. Hillary isn't actually popular--she's in bed with the banks--she hasn't groveled for her Iraq war vote (hell, even Jeb did for his, sorta-2nd Iraq War 'vote'). Trust The Omnivore: the illusion that Hillary is actually the choice of the party--like, because she's viewed as a competent progressive who will have a historic 1st Woman candidacy--is just a mirage.

Democrats secretly hate her just like everyone else. The same way movement conservatives hated Mitt Romney until he was nominated and then all came out to vote for him: the brainwashing is sneaky that way.

4. A Viable Republican Candidate

This one is pretty unfair--given that (a) the campaign hasn't even started (like, seriously--Jindal has all the time in the world to get in, right? And the RNC isn't doing some shut-out business like setting a cap on 12 candidates for the debates, right? Like, nothing has happened yet, has it?) and (b) With like a zillion candidates there must be someone Democrats could like, yeah? The Republican scatter-gun effect must cover the whole rainbow of political choices from severe conservative to ultra-conservative, yeah? 

Somewhere between those two polls there's got to be cross-over appeal.

The answer is Jeb: Maybe, Rubio: Possibly, Walker: Probably not, Cruz: No. It only goes downhill from there. What about Rand Paul? No: Crazy. Sorry.

Now, to be sure, some of this is just perception and Jeb does still show some pack-leadership potential, right? Never mind that real conservatives can't stand him--he might appeal to Democrats with his Common Core Love and his Amnesty platform. Right?

We'd hope so. We also better hope he doesn't make it past Florida because if he wins the nomination as the 3rd RINO in a row, the GOP is totally finished. Don't trust The Omnivore, read the comments on any conservative blog!

The Real Answer

The real answer to the question is this: it'll take a scandal that (a) has real proof--actual smoking guns that (b) people can understand and relate to which (c) is bad enough to either get her arrested or speak to an unforgivable vice--not 'lack of transparency' and not 'being enriched by her position of power' in some vague sense. It would also be nice if a 'near miss' in the above terms happens closer to the election when more normal people are paying attention.

The problem for the GOP is that they've cried "Wolf" a lot. Now, you may protest that the scandals are all real scandals--with adequate proof--and they should paint enough of a picture that people will bail on Hillary if they care about backing a legitimately moral candidate--and that might be true--but it's really hard to sort out right now because there is also a string of conspiracy theory coming out of the Right that often hits the same notes in a far less believable fashion.

Forget about Jade Helm 15--what about the assertion that Hillary was involved in running arms to Al Qaeda in Syria out of the Annex? There's not one shred of proof for that--but it's mixed carefully into the water of the discussion. What about the charge that Hillary ordered a military stand-down when our forces were under fire and calling for help? Is that true--or conspiracy theory? We know the answer because we're paying close attention--but for everyone else? It's "Wolf!!"

The second problem is that the image of Hillary as a, well, semi-sleazy political bad-ass may work for her. The Omnivore understands that in Italy it is 'acceptable' for leaders (or, at least, was) to have affairs: that's seen as personal business/everyone-does-it/perk-of-power. In America it may be that people are okay with both hero cops and a president in their court not-playing-by-the-rules.

That's part of the American character, even--so long as their heart is in the right place. You, conservative reader, know Hillary's heart isn't in the right place--but do Democrats know that? Giving the Russians control of the world uranium supply isn't in the right place but, uh, remember that crying-wolf-business? The charges haven't been proven.

Part of what all this alleged-but-not-proven stuff does is make the GOP look like, well, punks. Getting punked by Hillary isn't the brand you want front and center. It's also worth noting that Team Hillary's response to the Clinton Cash book was controlled, measured, and well executed. She didn't panic and she didn't fall apart.

Today, while derided by the GOP and the press, her don't-talk-to-reporters and keep-it-small roll-out plan is very canny: she's using her loooooong runway to full advantage. She doesn't have to talk to the press. She doesn't have to make big splashes. As a result her unforced-error rate is way down from where it could be. Part of the bad-press she's getting is because she's frustratingly refusing to make mistakes.

Hillary vs. Chris Christie

For what it's worth there does seem to be evidence that Bridgegate did seriously damage Christie--perhaps enough to cost him the election--but let's not forget that Christie was persona-non-electa for his kissy-face with Obama right before the Romney-loses election. It also played into his negative-brand as a bully. Clinton's negative brand is that she's a political sleaze, yeah--but it may be that everyone who is going to hate her . . . already hates her. 

That wasn't the case with Christie.

Conclusions

The attack plan on Hillary looks at first glance like it's a flurry of unanswered punches--she keeps getting hit and doesn't take to the lectern to defend herself to the press! In reality? It's Rope-A-Dope and every headline that the average voter can't figure out which doesn't end in handcuffs is a swing-and-a-miss: the dopes doubling down.

This is unfortunate because history may show us that a Hillary victory was very clear about what her White House would be like--but it's up to the GOP to actually make that case in a way that doesn't rely on the appearance of impropriety and the preponderance of the headlines. The currency in the marketplace of ideas is messaging and a broken messaging machine means coming to the table half-cocked.

If Team Hillary doesn't score some own-goals of their own, as the summer drags on, Republicans are just going to get more and more convinced of what they were already convinced of and people barely tuned in will see what looks like, well, another rugby crush of Republicans against what appears to be a Democratic incumbent.

You want inevitable? Keep playing it that way.