Tuesday, October 6, 2015

"You Don't Have To Like Me!"

Team Hillary has tried everything to make the public like her. Nothing has worked. Surprise! Now she had a new strategy, and it's probably the worst strategy ever.

Hillary Clinton is one of the worst campaigners ever. Despite having the power of the entire MSM, feminists, and the Clinton machine behind her, she has sputtered and stumbled and collapsed like an asthmatic racing through an endless field of pollen toward the smokey finish line. She has proven to be uninspired, timid, offensive and gaffe-prone. She's a me-too candidate who takes angry positions on controversial issues years after they stop being controversial. She exploits expired tragedies. She speaks like a drone. She lectures when she should converse, monotones when she must inspire, and leads from behind... far behind. She waffles, dodges, and lies. She's probably a criminal too.

Hillary began by falling on her face with a thud in 2008. Bizarrely believing her problem to be a lack of foreign policy experience, she tried to pad her very thin resume by becoming Secretary of State and vanished in a cloud of incompetence and irrelevance. Since then, she's been dogged with questions of security breaches, destruction of evidence, missing emails, and giving improper favors to her lover personal assistant.

Since her 2012 campaign started in earnest, she's had a half-dozen resets. She's angered reporters by trying to control them, spoken to empty stadiums, and tried to rig the debate schedule. The MSM is so furious at her mishandling of them that they are even openly reporting negative information about her, like how she's notorious for being late to speaking engagements and how this is turning off her voters.

Her ideology, or lack thereof, has turned the left against her. She didn't support gay marriage until everyone else did. She never said a word about Keystone, Wall Street regulation, repealing the Cadillac tax in Obamacare, student loan debt reduction or increasing the minimum wage (all standard positions on the left) until every one of her opponents staked out their position. She barely speaks about Syria or Iran or Israel, and when she does, she says nothing. She never said a word about guns until her latest reboot in the face of an Oregon issue that has already faded to the back pages by the time she spoke up. She wants to help women by accusing the Republicans of politicizing the Planned Parenthood video. She wants to help blacks by N/A. Gays by N/A. She doesn't favor Trumping Hispanics, but doesn't really tell us what she does favor. She was for giving illegals drivers licenses back when she was a Senator until the voters were against it and she's never gone there again. She hasn't even spoken about the Great Trannie Bathroom Civil Rights issue on which Biden is trying to make a name for himself. On education, her position is that she wants the support of the NEA teacher's union, and she vaguely dislikes the parts of the No Child Left Behind Act that everyone else dislikes... you know the parts, but she won't say if she supports or opposes Obama's anti-education union policies. She certainly wants to stop Climate Change in some way yet to be determined. She doesn't like Super PACs either unless they give her money.

Just about the only thing she's been firm on, pun intended, is wanting to see Lenny Kravitz's penis. No, I'm not kidding.

Anyways, a lot of people have a lot of negative feelings about Hillary. Her team tried to squelch this by claiming that anyone using the negative words their focus group found that people applied to her were being sexists or talking in code or something like that. That flopped. Then the email thing hit and she needed to prove she wasn't a liar. She tried to deny that, but that didn't work. So she tried to laugh it off, but that came across as insulting and crazy. She then tried to show that she's a man/woman of the people in the hope that people would forget that she's a liar. She even went on SNL and very stiffly mocked Donald Trump for his hair (that's so 1980s) hoping to show how down with it and hip she is you jive ass turkeys. DynOmite! This didn't work either.

Well, now she has a new strategy. Tryanmax noticed the first part of this a week or so ago when her team of flying monkeys descended upon media land and claimed that it doesn't matter if Hillary is "genuine" because you can be a good leader without being genuine. But genuine is not really the problem because Hillary is genuine all right, she's a genuine b*tch. In fact, recent reports from the Secret Service, again played up by the MSM, have just added to image of Hillary as a real sh*t of a human being. So this week, we finally saw them address the real problem head on. This time, her minions in the MSM are selling the line that it doesn't matter if we like Hillary or not, we should still vote for her. In fact, here are a couple quotes of the dozen or so quotes I saw like this all weekend:
"She kind of turns me off, but I'd rather have a Democrat in there as opposed to a Republican." -- Marsha Campaniello.

"She just rubs me the wrong way. But, hey, you don't have to like her, right?" -- Jim Gallagher
Drink Coke, it sucks and you hate it, but hey, it stops your thirst, right? That is the new strategy??! Yes it is... "You don't have to like me to vote for me!" That is not a winner. Voters will never pick an unlikable candidate. They want someone they would feel comfortable handing power, and that means someone who shares their interests and whom they trust to take care of their interests. The way most people reach that judgment is the emotional question of whether or not they "like" the person.

This is a doomed strategy.

Thoughts?

30 comments:

LL said...

Did she end up viewing Lenny's courting tackle?

Forgive me if that question puts me hopelessly out of touch, but I really try to avoid the triumphs of the Clinton Campaign.

Kit said...

So… they are using the Romney strategy.

Because we all know how well that worked out…

Robert L. Hedd said...

Andrew....I think men see her as the harridan she really is. Stories of her hitting and throwing things at her faithful husband, yet still staying with him, look to be her just trying to hitch his wagon to his star. She was ALWAYS an afterthought, as much as they both tried to sell first "two for one" then her as the "most competent woman in the world." Most men I know just can't stand her for the above. Men don't have a problem with strong, competent women, as long as they don't abuse their husbands, use their husbands coattails to make a name for themselves and have some integrity, self-deprecating humor and morals (too many to mention here except for Fiorina now).

While okay looking, she has turned into the cafeteria monitor lady screaming shrilly when you leave your tray on the table or don't eat your vegetables. She knows what's best for everyone and by god, she will make sure you act the way she thinks you should or all hell will come down on your heads!

My prediction: She will never be President. She will go back to Chappaqua to be near Huma and she will sit around the ornate fireplace like Norma Desmond reminiscing about all the great things they accomplished while in politics. And they'll believe it.

This is one person who has sullied this country. She should have been disbarred when she was fired from the Watergate committee and never heard from again. She should have stayed in the Executive Trailer Park in Arkansas swilling her bourbon.

Np, I do not care for her at all.

Bob

Robert L. Hedd said...

.....should never have hit enter without double-checking first.......

Anthony said...

I agree 100% with Andrew. However, I won't rest easy until its clear who her opponent is.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, I'm not sure if she checked it or not.

What happened is she gave an interview with Lena Dunham in the hopes of seeming relevant to Millenials. During the interview, Dunham asked a bunch of inane questions including asking whether or not Hillary saw Kravitz's wardrobe malfunction in which you can apparently see his Johnson. Hillary says she missed that. Dunham then asked if she would be interested in seeing Kravitz's Johnson and Hillary says she would. Dunham then tells her it's available on youtube and Hillary says she will check it out.

I think this was meant to make her seem funny or cool, but it comes across as lecherous and weird.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, I think this is a pretty unique strategy because no one I can recall has run for office while seeming as unpleasant as Hillary, nor have they tried as many different way to get people to ignore the problem.

AndrewPrice said...

Bob, I couldn't agree more. I don't know any men (and very few women) who like her because she comes across as shrill, abusive, and super unpleasant. She is like the stereotypical school teacher in films who despises the children and the staff and is abusive to the film hero and his janitor friend. She cackles and lectures and says things like "I'll get you Harry Potter, if it's the last thing I do!"

A lot of women seem to like her because of the veneer of being a professional woman "who made it on her own." But the reality is quite different. She is the ultimate coattail clinger and her attempts to do anything herself have failed miserably.

All of that combines to create the Hillary we see now, who cannot connect with the public.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Anthony! That is the wildcard.

tryanmax said...

My comment comes from caveat land, which is hopefully not a real place. I don't see it as impossible for an unlikable candidate to get elected, but they need two things, neither of which Hillary has. 1) They need to conspicuously exhibit competencies that over shadow their likability shortcomings. 2) They need an electorate that is primed to make such a choice.

Nothing more needs to be said regarding Hillary and the first point. On the second point, I don't see that landscape shifting in a single election cycle. Obama was elected almost purely on his likability, and re-elected on largely the same. Every president in my lifetime has been elected foremost on being more amiable than the other guy. I know that trend goes at least as far back as JFK v. Nixon--every media-studies student knows about the radio v. TV debates. And Hillary has been playing the same game until about a week ago.

It would take a lot of time and effort to change voters' attitudes and criteria for selecting a president away from celebrity and toward ability, but it could happen. However, such a shift is impossible on Hillary's time scale.

BevfromNYC said...

It really isn't about liking or not likely Hillary personally. A few "grandma holding her grand daughter" moments would do.Her real problem and only problem is that no one trusts her at all. Seriously, she had her answer when pollsters asked people to use one word to describe each candidate. And for Hillary, that word was consistently "Liar". If people trusted her at all, "humanizing" her would be fairly easy.

I never like Mayor Bloomberg at all, but I trusted him.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I agree. There is one way around being likable. In the business world, it comes from being a genius -- like Steven Jobs. In politics, it can happen if the public sees you as competent and good for them despite you being an ass. The only example that comes to mind where that has worked is Churchill. I understand that he was not liked by the public, but they felt he was needed to win the war. He then got tossed out almost the minute it was over too. Beyond that, I can't think of an unlikable politician who has pulled it off. And even if I could, I don't see Hillary offering anything that would make the public look beyond not liking her.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I think it's all the same package. Most people tend to lump ideas like trustworthy, sympathetic to my concerns, relatable on a personal level, and genuine together into a nebulous "do I like this person." And you don't need each of those to be considered likable.

In terms of Hillary, I think it goes way beyond just being a liar. She has rubbed a LOT of people wrong with her elitist manner, going all the way back to 1992. Her personality is grating. It is something films and books use as petty villains precisely because it rubs us wrong. That is the first problem she needs to overcome. Then you add the dishonesty, etc., and it becomes a huge problem because it gives people who just don't like her as a person something to hang their hats on. But in her case, her personality is so unpleasant that even if she had a reputation for being squeaky clean, she would still struggle to get elected.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, I agree, it is tough to think of an example of an unlikable politician. Politicians are the original celebrities going back to antiquity.

The only other recent example I can think of, and he was not so much unlikable as just unknowable, was Calvin Coolidge. Interestingly, there's been a very recent (like in the last week) upswelling of nostalgia for the Coolidge presidency on the right. I'm not sure what it means just yet.

Koshcat said...

The difference with Coolidge was the country was doing well and he wouldn't say asinine things.

I think the best term to describe her is the acronym based on Can't Understand Normal Thinking. Both definitions fit so well.

tryanmax said...

Koshcat, don't misunderstand me. I don't think there are any comparisons between Hillary and Coolidge. If anything, it illustrates the distance between where Hillary is now and her absolute remotest chance of being elected president, barring a major implosion in the GOP. It is their election to lose.

Kit said...

Coolidge was a low-tax, fiscally conservative politician.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, He was also a vampire hunter. Oh wait, that was Lincoln.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I would say that describes Hillary perfectly on many many levels.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think that's true unless the Democrats find someone a lot more appealing.

Critch said...

As Bill told Hillary,"Sorry honey, close but no cigar."

Critch said...

Hillary is about to unleash her flying moneys on Uncle Joe (and your little Bernie)..it ain't gonna be pretty...

AndrewPrice said...

Critch, Poor Joe has no idea what's coming. I think Bernie is better prepared to weather a Clinton carpet bombing.

BevfromNYC said...

Sorry can't post for tomorrow...

AndrewPrice said...

And the embarrassment begins. Four Russian cruise missiles missed Syria (think about that) and landed in Iran.

Every time we fight, our equipment proves to be much better than the "experts" predicted. Every time the Russians fight, their stuff proves to be much, much worse than the "experts" assured us it was.

Rustbelt said...

Well, Andrew, it's still a step up from Stalingrad- where only every other Soviet soldier got a rifle and only about three-quarters of them got ammunition. Heck, I think I heard that officers told the unarmed troops not too worry; there would be plenty to take from their own dead and dying.

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, That's true. Could you imagine being in that army?

AndrewPrice said...

I read an interesting article about the daily draft betting sites, like Draft Kings. The article interviewed a professional gambler who apparently makes a killing on those sites each week (or day for Baseball and Basketball).

What he said was that average players are suckers because they fundamentally misunderstand how the professional gamblers gamble. He likened it to playing poker in Vegas with a handful of pros while thinking the game will be like the one you play with your buddies once a month.

Specifically, he said while most people think the site works by having millions of guys just like them picking one or two teams each, the reality is that the professionals will pick around a thousand teams a week. And the way they pick those teams is with sophisticated algorithms that are normally used to approximate point spreads. Those algorithms are then used to generate thousands of potential teams with the highest likelihood of winning. Each of those teams is then played so the professional can essentially cover all the best bets. Some even use the betting patterns of the other players to shape their strategies. This data apparently is released on Thursdays.

So what you are competing against is not other players who randomly pick their favorite teams, but computer generated teams that are designed to capture all the best possibilities of victory. So it's basically random chance for the average player to win, but the guys they are competing against have all the bases covered and are playing to dominate the money slots. Consequently, the professionals win the vast majority of the money each week.

AndrewPrice said...

Sounds like the stock market...

Kit said...

Coming tomorrow afternoon. Sorry.

Post a Comment