Myra Adams writer


donald_trump_108984675_1_610x458

Re-posted from National Review Oct. 18, 2016

As a long-time loyal Republican, my chronic fear is that George W. Bush will be the last Republican president. (A fear expressed earlier this year by Bush himself.)

This fear predates Donald J. Trump’s rise to the GOP nomination. It is a concern that I’ve expressed more than once over the last four years. But Trump’s inevitable Election Day loss coupled with a raging Republican civil war has strengthened the odds of a White House under permanent Democratic control.

At this writing, no one knows if Trump will disengage from active Republican politics after November. But it doesn’t really matter because his short-term legacy will be what we’ll call the “Trump Test”:

Did you support Donald Trump?

Did you campaign with or for Trump?

Did you denounce any of Trump’s statements or policy stances? Which ones? How and when?

Did you vote for Trump?

If you’re a candidate for the 2020 GOP nomination, you’re going to have to address these toxic questions. And your answers will inevitably enrage at least one sizable group of voters. Some of the 2020 contenders will have better answers than others. But all will be tainted by their responses to Trump, because of the passion he stirs in both his supporters and his detractors.

On one side are Trump loyalists infuriated that party leaders (see: Paul Ryan) are not fully funding, campaigning with, or standing by their man. After Trump’s inevitable loss in November, these loyalists, many of them grassroots activists who helped Trump win the nomination, are poised to blame the GOP high command, accusing Republican leaders of disloyalty and threatening to leave the party.

On the other side are the Never Trumpers, who will join with the squishy middle to shout, “I told you so” when Trump loses. Expect these folks to be armed with plans to reform the primary system that allowed Trump to “hijack” the party. (“Super delegates” anyone?)

All indications are that the war between these two factions for control of the GOP will only get bloodier between now and 2020. It almost makes you pine for those polite pre-Trump days when the “only” intra-party conflict was between the “conservative” and “establishment” wings of the GOP. But then you remember it was that conflict that spawned this one, by giving rise to a fractured primary field. Competing against 17 other candidates, Trump seized the party by the throat through a combination of bombastic showmanship and voter frustration, gaining momentum after attracting relatively small percentages of fed-up primary voters desperate to try something radically outside the box.

History will note that Trump’s movement eventually demolished all the conservative and establishment candidates and blurred the lines between the party’s two traditional factions. But not forever! When Trump finishes with the party, the traditional factions will reemerge even more divided by the fallout from his loss, the ensuing arguments over his legacy, and fights arising from the 2020 presidential candidates’ answers to the Trump Test.

Democrats, on the other hand, won’t be divided in their opinion of Trump’s historical meaning. They’re already licking their lips in anticipation of the opportunity to replace Bush with Trump as the Republican bogeyman of choice in voters’ minds. Instead of the tired mantra about how Bush wrecked the economy, they’ll be able to hang Trump around the necks of GOP candidates nationwide.

So yes, there is reason to fear that we’ve seen the last Republican president. But going forward, we should keep the faith that a leader will eventually emerge to follow in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps. After all, we know “faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”

— Myra Adams is a media producer and political writer. She was on creative team of the 2004 Bush campaign and on the ad council of the 2008 McCain campaign. E-mail her at MyraAdams01@gmail.com.

Advertisements

Re-posted from National Review     August 14, 2015

 

Kasich good

Ohio Governor John Kasich

Last weekend I had the pleasure of attending the annual conservative RedState Gathering, where nine Republican presidential candidates gave fiery speeches. Although all were very impressive speakers, I kept applying the “Buckley rule” — these days, generally thought of as “nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable” — and did not feel confident that any of them could actually win the White House in 2016.

Unfortunately, Ohio governor John Kasich, the candidate who I believe exemplifies this form of the Buckley rule better than the other 16 candidates on the GOP bench, was not even invited to speak at the Gathering. From what I could gather, Kasich was not considered “conservative enough.” (As opposed to Donald Trump, who was invited to speak but was disinvited by RedState editor Erick Erickson after Trump’s “bloody” comments about Megyn Kelly were deemed too offensive.)

Applying this rule to the 2016 Republican presidential ticket leads me to conclude that Governor Kasich paired with Florida senator Marco Rubio is the most conservative team that could be elected in our politically polarized nation.

Before I’m disinvited from the 2016 RedState Gathering, my fellow conservatives need to be reminded of a 1983 statement by President Ronald Reagan, “I have always figured that half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want.”

So, inspired by the wisdom of Reagan and Buckley, here are five reasons why a Kasich-Rubio ticket deserves consideration by even the most conservative Republicans as an electable “half a loaf” (politically, I’d argue it adds up to a whole loaf).

REPUBLICANS ARE FLUNKING ELECTORAL COLLEGE MATH, BUT KASICH-RUBIO COULD PASS THE TEST

Last November on National Review, I penned a piece about why the Electoral College is a big blue barrier to Republicans winning the White House in 2016 or perhaps ever again.

However, a Kasich-Rubio ticket could be the GOP’s best chance of breaking that barrier and acquiring the 270 votes needed to win the presidency.

For starters, Kasich is a twice-elected governor of Ohio, a “must win” state for Republicans. In 2014, he was reelected with 63.8 percent of the vote and he currently has a 60 percent approval rating. Shifting to the presidential scoreboard, in 2012, President Obama won Ohio by a margin of only 3 points. Therefore, the chances of Governor Kasich winning his home state are excellent. But adding Ohio’s 18 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 2012 Electoral College total of 206 only brings Republicans up to a pitiful 224 votes, miles away from 270.

Enter Marco Rubio, who has earned the support of 7.3 of Republican primary voters. Meanwhile, his Senate job approval rating among Florida voters stands at 50 percent positive and 38 negative. Not great, but this could significantly improve if Rubio makes history as the first Floridian ever to appear on a U.S. presidential ticket.

Considering that in 2012 President Obama won Florida by a razor-thin margin of just under one percentage point, let’s assume that Rubio could deliver his state’s 29 electoral votes — bringing the Republican tally to 253, only 17 votes shy of 270. (Of course, this equation optimistically assumes that all 206 Romney states remain red.)

To win those remaining 17 electoral votes, a Kasich-Rubio ticket would likely turn to the states that Obama won by less than six points in 2012.

One possibility is Pennsylvania — Ohio’s eastern neighbor and Kasich’s birth state. It offers 20 big electoral votes and Obama’s winning margin was only 5.4 points. (Not since 1988 has a Republican presidential nominee won Pennsylvania, so a Kasich win would be monumental.)

Next target is Virginia’s 13 electoral votes with Obama’s slim 3.9 point margin of victory. Then Colorado, with nine votes and another 5.4 point victory margin. Followed by Iowa, with six votes and a 5.8 point margin. There’s also New Hampshire, with its four votes and Obama’s 5.6 point margin of victory.

Since the Republican path to 270 is very narrow, voters in these five states (along with the two home states) can expect to become very well acquainted with John Kasich and Marco Rubio.

KASICH DOES NOT SCARE INDEPENDENTS, MODERATES, AND CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS

Almost all of those states, though, are either bluish or purple in many ways. Less-than-conservative voters are crucial to winning them, and Kasich looks right for the job.

Governor Kasich is touting his Ohio economic success story — jobs, lower taxes, and a budget surplus — which translates well into soundbites at debates and on the campaign trail. Furthermore, Kasich portrays himself as a compassionate-conservative type, pointing to his faith as the reason why in 2013 he expanded Medicaid under Obamacare, covering 275,000 Ohio residents. In his presidential announcement speech on July 21, he said, “The Lord wants our hearts to reach out to those who don’t have what we have.”

Kasich’s decision to expand Medicaid and justify it on the grounds of his Christianity is a key reason why many conservative primary voters dismiss him, but it’s also among the reasons why it will be extremely challenging for Democrats to portray Kasich as a “war on women” right-wing nutjob.

In fact, as a popular, successful, incumbent, Midwestern governor with blue-collar roots, Kasich has the greatest potential to attract independents, moderates, and conservative Democrats from traditional blue states. That is the reason why Kasich is rumored to be the general election opponent most feared by Team Hillary. (And the Kasich campaign is not shy about fundraising off this rumor.)

BECAUSE OF OBAMA, EXPERIENCE MATTERS MORE

Compared with then-senator Obama’s noticeably thin resume when he ran for president in 2008, Kasich’s resume is deep and full of exceptional experience. From 1983 until 2001, he represented Ohio’s 12th congressional district. Kasich served for 18 years on the House Armed Services Committee, earning him national-security credentials, but even more important, he became chairman of the House Budget Committee when Republicans took control of Congress in 1995.

Kasich can brag that he was the “chief architect” of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. President Bill Clinton signed it, and there has not been another federal balanced budget or a budget surplus since.

Then between Congress and the governorship, Kasich hosted his own show on the Fox News Channel. There’s no doubt that his extensive media, legislative, and executive experience positions Kasich as a formidable candidate if or when he is embraced by the Right.

A DEMOGRAPHICALLY BALANCED TICKET

Governor Kasich is the Baby Boomer son of a mailman, and in 2016 he will be age 64 — which qualifies him as “old” and “vanilla.” It’s Marco Rubio who brings a unique demographic balance to the ticket: Born in Miami in 1971 to Cuban immigrants, Rubio’s ethnicity offers a much-needed facelift to the sagging jowls of the Grand Old (White) Party electorate.

He was speaker of the Florida state house before riding a tea-party wave to the U.S. Senate in 2009. Quickly a rising star, Rubio’s developed expertise in foreign policy and immigration issues. The last issue, of course, meant Rubio has experienced a few Washington ups and downs.

Rubio speaks of his life as an American success story and proudly promotes it in either perfect English or Spanish. He is an inspirational speaker, full of passion and conviction about the promise and opportunity that America holds for sons and daughters of all immigrants, but especially Hispanic ones. Of course, this is the voter group that the GOP needs to convert in order to stay competitive: Obama won Hispanic voters easily in 2012, taking a whopping 71 percent of them. Rubio’s presence on the ticket has the greatest potential to deliver the 47 percent of Hispanic voters that could ensure Republicans win the White House.

Rubio, with his youthful appearance, could also help attract voters between the ages of 18 and 29, 60 percent of whom supported Obama in 2012.

Rubio word

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Then, if a Kasich/Rubio ticket could hold or even increase the white vote that Romney won in 2012 (he took 59 percent of white voters), this ticket has a real shot of breaking the Electoral College’s “blue barrier” and winning the White House.

IF KASICH-RUBIO CAN UNITE THE PARTY, THEY COULD WIN WITH A TICKET OF TRUST

The big question is whether the Republican party could unite behind a Kasich-Rubio ticket. It’s up to Kasich to persuade primary voters that he really is “conservative enough” — every Republican needs to win some purple and blue states. Still, the Ohio governor will likely have a tough slog ahead, and hasn’t made it any easier for himself recently: He’s come out in favor of a path to legal status for undocumented workers and stated during theFox News debate that he accepts gay marriage as the law of the land.

So now is a good time to remind my conservative comrades about Ronald Reagan’s “half a loaf.” And, here is my own warning, based on some old wisdom: “A party divided against itself will lose.”

In the mostly blue state of New Hampshire, Kasich is attracting support, including a key endorsement from a former George W. Bush adviser, dealing a real wound to Jeb Bush’s candidacy.

It’s not just New Hampshire where he looks viable, though: Kasich’s impressive Fox News debate performance successfully introduced him to millions of Americans.

Today, Kasich received a boost from respected political guru Larry Sabato and his Center for Politics, which ranked the Ohio governor in their group of five “First Tier: Real Contenders.”

Kasich is at the moment only supported by  4.3 percent of Republican primary voters, but he only entered the race on July 21, meaning he’s already making real headway.

Kasich and Rubio are two vastly different men from different generations who share humble roots and personify the American dream. Equally important, Kasich and Rubio are telegenic, excellent speakers, scandal-free, and, best of all, can be “trusted” — which will be a huge issue and a real advantage for Republicans should they be facing off against Hillary Clinton.

I reached out to Newt Gingrich, who was speaker of the House when Kasich served as budget chairman, and he likes the idea, too. “A Kasich/Rubio ticket would be very strong. So would a Rubio/Kasich ticket,” he told me.

But for the five reasons stated above, I think the choice is easy. And in 2024, after serving eight successful years as vice president, Marco Rubio could be elected president at the ripe old age of 53.


Re-posted from National Review

Credit: National Review

Credit: National Review

Mitt Romney is keeping a very high profile this midterm-election season by campaigning coast to coast for Republicans, and two recent polls suggest why he might be encouraged to stay active in politics. Romney and his family say Mitt will not be running for president in 2016, but in August the two-time presidential candidate and 2012 GOP nominee made sure to add, “circumstances can change.”

GOP strategist Mark McKinnon describes what what those changing circumstances could look like. “If Jeb Bush or Chris Christie do not run,” McKinnon tells National Review Online, “then one could make an argument for Mitt Romney.”

A Romney three-peat would add another taste to an already spicy political stew that will start to heat up the day after the midterm elections. Could Romney be the key ingredient?

The RealClearPolitics (RCP) poll averages for the 2016 GOP nomination indicate that the top four contenders are virtually tied with primary voters. The leader is Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky with 11.8 percent, followed closely by former Florida governor Jeb Bush at 11.6 percent. In third place is former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee at 11.3 percent, and trailing is New Jersey governor Chris Christie at 10.6 percent. Mitt Romney’s name is currently not included in RCP’s 2016 Republican nomination poll averages.

But Romney’s name was included in a mid-October ABC News/Washington Post poll of GOP hopefuls, and he earned a whopping 21 percent of primary-voter support. That number was more than double the 10 percent earned by Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee, who tied at second place. The rest of the pack was in single digits. Those surprising results sparked talk of a Romney comeback.

With all that chatter in mind, McKinnon’s “argument for Romney” does indeed have validity if Jeb Bush and Chris Christie do not run — and even more if they do.

For within GOP circles, Bush and Christie are considered “establishment candidates,” and the conservative wing of the party is fed up with establishment candidates. This attitude is a direct result of three failed “moderate” establishment presidential nominees: Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012.

Conservatives believe all three were sold to them as the GOP’s best chance of winning the general election. From those losses stem current conservative distrust and zero enthusiasm for another establishment presidential candidate.

Conversely, it is highly unlikely that the GOP leadership will allow a controversial conservative or inexperienced fringe candidate to head the national ticket. This conflict between the establishment and the conservatives could make the 2016 GOP nomination process long and very contentious.

Take Jeb Bush, whose last name is already a potential problem. The news that Jeb Bush is seriously thinking about running for the nomination elicits a collective “no way” from base voters. At conservative events, I often hear the phrase “shoved down our throats” whenever Bush’s or Christie’s name is mentioned for 2016.

If Bush and Christie fail to gain traction among a majority of primary voters and the same fate awaits Rand Paul, Rick Perry, and Paul Ryan, to name a few of the eleven candidates listed in RCP’s nomination poll, the argument for Romney begins to take shape.

The former Massachusetts governor could be thought of as a safety net that a polarized GOP hopes never to use but is sure glad to have in reserve. He’s a potential compromise candidate all sides could live with though no one is thrilled about.

Romney becomes even more promising when he is matched against Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic-party nominee.

Both Romney and Clinton have experience running national campaigns and were accused of running bad campaigns. In 2016, presumably each will have learned from past mistakes, and the level of campaign management and messaging would be evenly matched.

Romney and Clinton are both multi-millionaires, so the populist argument of “too rich to relate to me” would have no traction. (In fact, one can hardly wait to see the Clintons’ tax returns.)

The two are equally able to raise the sum of more than one billion dollars that will be needed to run a presidential campaign in 2016.

Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton are the same age. Born in 1947, they will both be 69 years old in 2016, so age is off the table as an issue.

In 2008 both Clinton and Romney were rejected by their parties, so they have learned and grown from that experience. Romney’s loss in 2012 was also a character-building exercise. Now he has fought his way back into the public arena with grace, humility, and class.  The same could be said of Clinton after her 2008 loss.

Clinton (and now Romney again) are rock stars in their respective parties. They have that intangible gravitas, and both are respected nationally and on the world stage.

Predictably, both Clinton and Romney would be decrying Obama’s policies, but here Romney – though he pioneered the Obamacare model of universal health care with an individual mandate in the Bay State in 2006 — might have an advantage. Hillary, as secretary of state, was part of Obama’s administration and is already having a tough time trying to separate herself from Obama and his policies.

Romney, on the other hand, is a Republican and an experienced businessman who represents the power of a free-market economy to lead the way in solving national problems. His message of better management, smaller government, fewer regulations, less entitlement, and more opportunity did not work in 2012, but it can only become more appealing after voters have had four more years of Obama.

On the other hand, the Obama administration has proven that big government’s inability to fix anything. Just by virtue of being Democrats, the Clintons can run only as champions of big government.

These potential contrasting messages of Romney and Clinton would have rung true even before Hillary’s “October surprise,” when Clinton said, “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

Clinton made this unartful statement last week while campaigning in Massachusetts for Martha Coakley, who is running for Mitt Romney’s old job as governor.

Clinton has since tried to clarify her remarks, but the passionate video stands forever.

Hillary’s zinger, insulting to all American business owners, has the potential to match Mitt’s disastrous 47 percent comment from the 2012 campaign.

This October surprise, two years early, played into the Republican narrative that this kind of wrongheaded Democrat thinking is harmful to America’s future.

Romney the businessman is a strong spokesman to counter this anti-capitalist message. Will this new development keep Mitt salivating over that spicy 2016 political stew into which Hillary has just dumped an entire bottle of Tabasco?

Drink lots of water, folks, because the 2016 race is going to get very hot, very fast.

— Myra Adams is a media producer and political writer. She was on the 2004 Bush campaign’s creative team and the 2008 McCain campaign’s ad council. Her writing credits include National Review,  PJ Media, the Daily Beast, RedState, BizPacReview and the Daily Caller.


Author’s Note: On March 29, 2014  this piece was posted on  The Daily Beast
After a disastrous presidential campaign in 2012, can Texas Governor Rick Perry mount a credible bid for the White House in 2016?
Perry 2
Texas Governor Rick Perry is currently on a media tour touting the theme that America is a great place for second chances, specifically second chances for Texas governors with national ambitions.

Perry is trying to erase the memory of his disastrous 2012 GOP presidential campaign which included “brain-farts” and “oops” debate moments with his folksy, charming, and uniquely American manner.

Curious about Perry’s comeback strategy, I asked Texan and GOP presidential media guru, Mark McKinnon and he said, “His second act is looking really good. He just needed a little humbling.”

Let’s explore this concept a little further.

Up until his ill-fated Republican presidential primary run, Perry had never lost an election in his entire life.

Perry, who succeeded George W. Bush as the Lone Star State’s governor in 2000 after Bush’s election to the presidency, has won three gubernatorial elections in a row and a grand total of six statewide races in Texas.

In fact, Perry, who is not seeking re-election this year, will be the longest serving governor in Texas history when he leaves office in 2015.

He is poised for 2016 as a politically battle-hardened governor of a powerful state who, on paper is eminently qualified to be President of the United States.

Of all the governors with presidential ambitions, Perry is among the most active and vocal proponents of the Republican philosophy of smaller government and less regulation.

Perry claims his governing philosophy has resulted in Texas leading the way in economic growth and job creation. The Lone Star State is currently the fastest-growing large state in the United States and Austin, Dallas and Houston are three of the nation’s top five fastest-growing cities.

Texas is booming and Perry takes much personal credit for that, but he still has two major problems. First, the Texas governor will have to explain away the manifold gaffes and failures from his last presidential campaign.

Perry’s explanation is a good one. It has been well-documented that Perry was recovering from experimental back surgery involving his own adult stem cells only six-weeks before making his official presidential announcement at the conservative RedState Gathering on August 14, 2011. Then, throughout his campaign, he was taking painkillers, not sleeping and having trouble standing due to chronic pain.

Second, Perry has to cope with the lingering shadow of his predecessor in the Texas governor’s mansion, George W. Bush. The comparison to the still unpopular 43rd president reinforces Perry’s poor 2011 primary performance. As a result, it is almost too easy for Democrats and some unfriendly media outlets to brand Perry as another dumb Texas good-ole-boy and for Americans to believe it. All that is needed is a re-play of Perry’s most painful debate moments and “mission accomplished.”

But if there is any way American voters could disregard these factors, here is why Perry deserves a second chance as illustrated in this often asked Gallup poll question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” Among the top three answers were unemployment/jobs and the economy in general, both areas where Perry has built a strong record in Texas and makes very compelling arguments about his ability to nationalize them in his stump speech.

If Perry does decide to run again, are Americans willing to give Rick Perry his second chance after he was so thoroughly humbled in 2011? Don’t forget, being knocked down and then forging ahead are strong personality traits that most Americans admire. But on the flip side, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”

 


Screen grab from Hillary Clinton's new web site.

Screen grab from Hillary Clinton’s new web site.

There were two great national social movements of the 20th century, Civil Rights and the Women’s Movement. (Also known as the Feminist Movement, Women’s Liberation and Women’s Lib.) As these movements gained momentum they contributed to the social upheaval that helped define the decade of the 1960s.

Now, in the 21st century both movements are still evolving and their cultural and societal effects are part of our daily life, but the success of the Civil Rights movement shines slightly brighter, as witnessed by the second inauguration of the first African-American President of the United States

Through Barack Obama, one of these two great social movements has reached the pinnacle of power twice. But in next few years, will the Women’s Movement, led by its representative-in-chief Hillary Clinton, make an all out attempt to achieve that same goal?  And will the “dominant media” be 1000% behind Clinton as the leader of the movement to help elect the first female President of the United States?

The answer to both questions is “yes” and “yes, definitely.”

For the record I am not, nor have I never been, a Hillary supporter, but as a baby-boomer Republican woman having come of age during the peak of “woman’s liberation,” I can not ignore what I foresee as an extremely ripe political movement on the horizon, even though its leader will not receive my vote.

All my political sensibilities point to a majority of American women of all ages, races, education levels and from all parts of this nation banding together to fuel a “Hillary in 2016” super-sized rocket on a trajectory straight to the White House.

However, the rocket ship stays on the launch pad if Hillary decides not to run in 2016 due to declining health or other unknown factors. But if launch is a go, than woe to any Republican male whether he is white, Hispanic, plus-sized or lean, who dares to be her opponent in 2016.

Having this opinion puts me in direct disagreement with writer Matt Lewis, who concludes in a piece which appeared in The Week  entitled, In Four Years We’ll Be Inaugurating Marco Rubio; “Watch out, Hillary. Come January 2017, America won’t be inaugurating its first female president. We’ll be inaugurating our first Latino commander-in-chief. “

But my contrary belief is that the movement to elect the first female president of the United States already has tons of industrial strength momentum and its own sense of historic urgency now seen almost daily on display throughout the mainstream media. Whereas, the movement to elect a Latino commander-in-chief will not be nearly as strong in 2016 as it will be say a decade or two from now.

For the remainder of 2013 and probably well into 2014, the major theme of all the Hillary coverage will be focused on the question, “Will she run?” But once that is answered in the affirmative, and deals are made to eliminate any Democratic primary opposition, you can expect blatant mainstream media bias on par with what occurred during the 2008 presidential campaign fueling the historic movement that elected the first African-American president.

Let us not forget how much the dominant media loves the triumph of a social movement whose members were formerly discriminated against. Certainly electing the first woman president in 2016 totally fits that bill. (And now, unlike in 2008, they really like her Bill again too!)

Another advantage Hillary will have in 2016, that first played out in the 2008 presidential election (and only to a slightly lesser extent in 2012), was the notion that if you dared not to support Obama, first as a candidate and then as an incumbent, you risked being labeled a “racist.”

This means heading towards 2016, do not be surprised when an eerily familiar mantra starts to unfold, labeling anyone not supporting Hillary for President a chauvinist, sexist or “anti-woman.”

Just watch how Hillary’s candidacy will ignite a whole new “War on Women”… but with a unique twist. For once the movement is totally underway a battle of name calling will be waged against any man (especially) or woman (most likely) who is not a foot soldier in Hillary’s army, marching in lock step towards conquering the Oval Office in the name of “Girl Power.”

As one prominent Republican campaign strategist told me during the 2008 McCain campaign, it is nearly impossible for any presidential candidate to be victorious if he or she is running against a social movement and Hillary in 2016 will most definitely be a social movement.

Ironically in 2008, Hillary was burned when she ran up against an even stronger social movement (at the time) with its goal to nominate the first African-American Democrat candidate.

But in 2016 all the stars will be aligned in her favor. This is because for great movements to be successful they must be perfectly timed and fueled by a desire to achieve something once almost unachievable or to compensate for past treatment now considered to be unjust. And the movement of Hillary in 2016 has all of the above.

Additionally, successful movements like Obama’s quest for the presidency in 2008 must first have the full faith and backing of the dominant media and once that is achieved, all the “plain folks” usually just fall in line.

(See gay marriage and gay rights as the most recent example of such a movement).

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton in 2016 will have even more of an advantage than did Senator Obama at the beginning of his movement.

Her favorability is already extremely high at 67% and she does not have to be introduced to the American people, as was the case in 2008 with a little known newly minted Senator from Illinois.

Even if Hillary’s popularity somewhat diminishes (which it will), Republicans with an eye for 2016 must not be in denial that they will be up against a historic movement with the largest, most powerful voting block that abandoned them by a margin of more than 10% in 2012.  (Exit polls indicate 55% of women voted for Obama and 44% for Romney, with women comprising 53% of the entire electorate.)

However, the dominant media, in concert with the growing power of American women will form a tour de force that, in my opinion, no male Republican presidential candidates currently on the 2016 horizon can expect to overcome.

It is my sincere hope that the 2016 GOP candidate will find a way to win the White House anyway. But if Hillary is the Democrat nominee she will be more than a presidential candidate. Hillary Rodham Clinton will represent a “triumph” of the women’s movement similar to the “triumph” of the Civil Rights movement which twice helped elect Barack Obama.

And, as we have just seen in 2008 and 2012, running against a social movement is made even more difficult when the dominant media is totally supportive of the movement and will do everything in its power to forge a “happy ending.”

Re-posted from RedState.com