Posted on 06/04/2006 7:37:04 PM PDT by Mia T
THE DECLINE OF HILLARY CLINTON: THE DYNAMICS
Luntz Maslansky Strategic Research presented its findings on the '08 Dem field this a.m. to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast.
Their focus groups tested Dem primary voters in NH and IA....
Support for Hillary Clinton "disappeared by the time the night was over, and she won virtually no new converts. Only Edwards faired worse."
The problem for Clinton is that she starts with such high expectations. Democrats expect her to be smart, and she delivers. [Suffice it to say, this observation says more about Democrat 'smarts.' ] They expect her to be tough, and she delivers. [There is a difference between being a scold and being tough. Missus knownothing victim clinton is the very definition of weak.]
But there are a number of verbal and visual intangibles [They seem pretty tangible to me!] that clearly undermine her presentation, her image, and eventually her support. As with many women in public life, her looks and presentation account for a disproportionate percentage of the reactions she elicits."
More; "The tape of Sen. Clinton that we showed in New Hampshire was not a stump speech but rather a public sit-down interview with Jane Pauley in San Francisco conducted earlier this year. This should have been to her advantage. Maybe it was the interview format that kept her from building momentum, but our primary voter audience was not very impressed.
|
THE POLITICS OF DUMPING HILLARY (see post 53)
It precedes them: IRS audits (Where IS that unredacted Barrett Report already... and why was it REALLY redacted in the first place?), raw FBI files, trashed reputations, intimidation--both verbal and physical, and, oh yes, the deaths. It matters not one whit whether each and every item on this list is true. That it could be true is sufficient threat: Perception--reputation--IS reality.
So it is not surprising that it took the better part of a year for the Left to summon the courage to dump hillary. Dumping hillary is not a reversible act, you see. Dump hillary and you're on her hit list. For life. Yours... which won't be long and happy if hillary retakes the White House and her repertoire of revenge is for real....
So dumping hillary is not your ordinary finger-in-the-air, go-with-the-flow tactical maneuver. It is a lifetime commitment.
Chris Matthews, David Geffen, Mike McCurrey and Leon Panetta were on the front lines making that commitment. They had the guts to dump hillary before dumping hillary was de rigueur.
It is not that they understood hillary clinton is a dud and everyone else on the Left did not. Everyone knows hillary clinton is a dud. It is that they put loyalty to party above loyalty to the clintons, and had the courage to act on that loyalty.
|
by Mia T, 11.20.05
|
(ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP--oops!--FOR HILLARY DEFEAT) |
ping
ping
fyi
fyi
<< The woman is power mad .... >>
And the power lust is but a noxious weed.
That flourishes only in the vacant lots of empty minds.
[Her mean-spiritedness and maliciously and malevolently malignant madness will in the end eat itself -- and will thus see to both its own and its host's destruction. WARNING: Shield your children, it will not be pretty]
Every morning when Missus Clinton, the most stupid, the ugliest and therefore the least well "qualified" schlotternisch slattern in all of Human History to have pursued the sex-worker career path, wakes from sleep, she raises herself on one elbow, looks all around and says:
"Is this all there IS?"
[And that's before the poor bastard sees herself in the mirror, even -- or the look on the face of whomever first bids her Good day]
She can use her karate kick on them!
Just trying to help.
It's marketing. It's presenting things to people rather than to search engines. If people can't read it, they won't.
Another point: for every person like myself who dares to voice such a comment, there are probably dozens who won't. So multiply me by 50, that's how many people you're losing through very ineffective presentation.
It's content you want to get through, not format or presentation. :-)
There may be some good stuff in here, but the pics and links and what not are very off-putting (IMHO).
So multiply 2 x 50 = 100, that's how many people you've lost (give or take, the actual number's not the point.)
This is why this thread only has 50 comments instead of, say, 150.
"So what about what Hillary said today against the amendment to ban homosexual marriages Tony?" |
LOL, whatta mouth on him!! Looks great!
If only he was as smart...
Just to keep things straight about that quote: those words are mine, not Nina Burleigh's. They reflect her sentiment, however.
I do agree with you. We must remain ever vigilant. Her--their--evil is boundless.
Search engines don't read articles, PEOPLE read...
Oh, never mind. I can see I'm totally wasting my breath.
=:- )
Read later but bump now
I think we've reached the tipping point on Hitlery. The leftist media and the MSM are both talking about her dismal chances. The weight is shifting to Gore.
There's no love lost between Gore and the Clintons. How could there be? We're talking about 8 years of living in their shadow?
If there's any truth to the rumor that Gore has become extremely wealthy from Google options (he was hired on as a consultant there in 2001), and that he could mount a campaign from his own pocket, then it's all over for Hill. She doesn't have the heart or the wallet of the Democrat Party. She's toast.
Even worse for her, Mark Warner is a much more telegenic, palatable, and charismatic VP candidate than she could ever be, and he's even wealthier than Gore is rumored to have become (Warner founded the extremely profitable Columbia Capital high tech VC firm in Alexandria VA).
So you enbd up with two viable candidates (not good, viable), with no love for or need of the Clintons, with wads of their own cash to throw at a late-term nomination run, and no desperate need for the Rat/Clinton/Ickes money machine.
IMHO it's already midnight for Hitelry.
Search engines don't read articles, PEOPLE read...Oh, never mind. I can see I'm totally wasting my breath.
Google position is determined by some super secret algorithm that includes and is directly related to the number and quality of eyeballs viewing the web page.
A high-traffic web page read by all the Google elites will necessarily achieve a most excellent Google position. While the converse is not necessarily true, i.e., it is theoretically possible to achieve a high position and not be read, such a result is, in my view, highly unlikely.
I don't believe threads that are unreadable can consistently achieve a Google position in the top ten.
Is it your position that a thread that is 'unreadable' can--in the real world--achieve position:
- 1/ 8,030,000 gets? (keywords 'hillary' and 'nuclear')
- Or 4/3,570,000? (keywords 'clinton ignored terrorism')
- Or 2/8,060,000? (keywords 'clinton' and 'united 93')
- Or 7 and 10/3,210,000? (keywords 'hillary' and 'rape')
- Or 6/3,470,000? (keywords 'hillary fraud')
- Or 7/2,220,000? (keywords 'hillary' and 'racism')
- Or 1,2,6 and 7/7,550,000 (keywords 'kill 'em tomorrow')
- Or 1 and 2/5,630,000 (keywords 'miss hillary')
- Or 1, 2, 4 and 8/152,000 (keywords 'clinton albright nobel')
- Or 1, 2 and 3/182,000 (keywords 'deconstructing clinton')
- Or 2/328,000 (keywords 'dysfunctional presidency')
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.