THE DECLINE OF HILLARY CLINTON: THE DYNAMICS (She has only one way to go. And it isn't up.)

excellent analysis. bump.

thank you :)

"Don't put it past her - she knows she's unelectable and that her best route back into the WH is as someone else's Vice-Presidential candidate. It isn't over by a long shot."

LOL !, 'long shot'. Mauser or Mannlicher-Carcano?

thank you

You're very welcome. :^)

Thanks for the ping!

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.

I've looked at a number of your posts over the years, and honestly, once I clicked through to the page I doubt I've ever read one. I MIGHT have read the first one. Now I just see, "Oh, there's that unreadable mess again."

I clicked this one because it had a good headline. That's all.

That's precisely my point, i.e., note the word "consistently."

("I don't believe threads that are unreadable can consistently achieve a Google position in the top ten.")

Most people are not as masochistic as you seem to be. Once they've determined they don't like my posts, they don't continue to open them.

Another point. Your central premise as to the purpose/structure of my posts is wrong. The purpose of my posts is twofold: (1) To present a new argument with a new essay (2) To support that argument with documentation, prior arguments, audio/video and/or other data; that is, to get the word out, to be another resource online.

I do not expect the reader to read beyond the new essay necessarily, i.e., to read all the footnotes, play the audio/video, or goto the supporting links. Indeed, I don't expect that all readers will even read the entire essay.

Some people are inveterate headline-and-first-paragraph people. If the concept is transmitted via the headline and first paragraph and given credibility with the documentation, that is sufficient for me. This exercise is not an ego-driven thing. All I am shooting for is to get the word out.

Thanx. :)

:)

'HILLARY'S BIGGEST PROBLEM... SHE'S OLD NEWS'

"I think the reason somebody like Mark Warner is doing better, I think the reason they picked Tim Kaine, for example, to give the response to the State of the Union is because hillary's biggest problem isn't the scandals, it isn't her being a polarizing figure, which she is. I think it's that she's old news. I think the Democrats are looking for somebody new. They're looking for a new face. And that's what they think they need."
young, unidentified reporter on The Chris Matthews Show
VIDEO

Oh...that's GOOD!

I love what you did with little David and Tony!

The current Dem nominee wagering numbers from Intrade/Tradesports.

Clinton = 45.64 = $4.65
Warner = 20.722 = $2.07
Gore = 12.813 = $1.28
Edwards = 5.362 = $0.54

With Intrade/Tradesports, if your candidate wins (e.g. Hillary becomes President), you win $10.00 less your bet amount, i.e. $10.00 - $4.65 today = $5.35 (you can wager multiple contracts). If you lose, your wager expires at 0 ($0.00) the day after the election.

The numbers change every day, though this is a long-term wager so is stable for weeks and months at a time (Warner went through a "doubling" period last fall an has remained steady since then).

Then we have the slate of losers: Powell and Lieberman are not judged at all viable by the Intrade/Tradesports marketplace.

10:17:32PM IST

	Best to Sell	Best to Buy

Best to Sell

Best to Buy

Contract BQty Bid Offer AQty Last Vol Chge