|
10:17:32PM IST |
Best to Sell
|
Best to Buy
|
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) |
excellent analysis. bump.
thank you :)
You're very welcome. :^)
Thanks for the ping!
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.
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' |
Oh...that's GOOD!
I love what you did with little David and Tony!
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
|
By the way, anyone can play around with the Tradesports numbers and charts here (without an account and without betting):
https://www.tradesports.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=23190&eventSelect=23190&updateList=true&showExpired=false
Click on the names of nominees and another window will popup with interesting price charts going back more than a year, so you can see how each "candidate" has fared over time.
Over on the left menu, you can reach a similar chart for Republican candiates.
fyi
Still haven't read it but I can't resist bumping for a lady.
thank you, again. :)
fyi
fyi
fyi
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.