If this is the quality of the advice that Hillary Clinton is receiving, as reported at The Hill:
The press has badgered Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine and other top surrogates, Vice President Biden among them, about Clinton’s whereabouts and why she has kept such a low profile with the election only two months away.
“I don’t think anyone can tell her story as well as she can, so she needs to be out there telling it,†said Democrat Nina Turner, a former top spokesperson for Bernie Sanders. “You have to face the voters if you want them to vote for you. You have to be out there talking to them and engaging with them and having real conversations and dialogue.â€
she shouldn’t be taking it. That might be good advice for Bernie Sanders but it’s lousy advice for Hillary Clinton. Her best strategy is a “Rose Garden strategy”, maintain a low profile. The more she appears in public the worse she does. She needs controlled environments and minimum visibility.
Totally agree. And she won’t do any press conferences simply because too many uncomfortable questions related to her email would come up. She plans to ride on Trumps negative coattails to the Presidency.
Trump is her best campaigner. She should only do controlled events, and few of those, unless the her numbers take a nosedive.
Steve
Could be. But my wife, who is not political, watched a Hillary ad the other day bashing Trump but just turned to me afterwards and asked “ok, so what is Hillary for?”
If I’m Trump I have just one message, with several sub themes, “do you like the way things are going? I represent change.” The linked figures from the BLS could be coupled with the question “do you like working for the government elite/connected etc”
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/03/ratio-government-manufacturing-workers-will-depress/
The debates will be catastrophic for her. Three are scheduled, but I predict there won’t be more than one.
If she has to HIDE! why should we elect her?
If she has to HIDE! why should we elect her?
Drew- We can fix that by going back to the manufacturing techniques of the 1960s. Lead the way!
Steve
Steve, that comment puzzles me. Government at all levels is stuck in older paradigms of business processes. Basically, a couple of decades behind the times. I’m not sure what you’re claiming. That government must be slow, cumbersome, and inefficient so that private sector businesses can be faster and more efficient? I don’t think that tallies.
Note that the bigger the company the more likely it is to be lagging so government is not alone. It’s just notable in how far behind it is.
Dave- His numbers include all govt workers, including state and local. That is dominated by teachers and police. Not sure we have great ways to reduce those. Anyway, it is directed towards Drew since he linked to it and is more a comment upon the reduced number of manufacturing workers.
Steve
Reducing the number of police officers is easy. Just RIF them. There’s no solid proof that increasing the number of police officers reduces violent crime or that cutting their numbers increases it. The only more-or-less controlled experiments I’m aware of found no relationship.
What makes it hard is that it’s a political issue.