● Dress As Success: I've always told you that I look for signs other than polls to figure out what the public is thinking. Polls suck for a number of reasons and ultimately are pretty worthless until right before the election. One of the signs that tells me Trump will win is how both the shop that sold Melina Trump her dress and Ivanka Trump her dress sold out within minutes of them starting to speak. That's a sign that women like them very much. (The Obamas had the same thing happen.) Hillary's tailor isn't going to experience that. Nor will Chelsea.
● Social MEdia: Another sign of what the public is thinking comes from social MEdia. When you look across the vast wasteland of Twitter and Facebook, you really don't see a lot of political memes being passed around this time... not like in 2004, 2008 and 2012. And what there are, are generally evenly split between anti-Hillary and anti-Trump. The image above is going around Pinterest right now. Note that this means that middle aged to youngish white women are passing around anti-Hillary posts. That's super bad for her. Look at the mix too of Bernie supporters -- middle aged white women. Again, this is meant to be Hillary's base and it's not backing her.
In fact, Anthony posted a link in the comments the other day about a poll showing Hillary's support among white women falling month on month to an amazing low. I think critical mass has been reached and she's finished.
● Vouchers: Another way to judge someone is to look at how they try to sell themselves. Hillary actually brought her sixth grade friend to the convention to vouch for her. Oy. In some instances, something like that would be cool. It could show that the candidate is loyal, with a long-term focus, and loved/respected by those around them. But when the public thinks you're a sh*t, doing this is like asking your mom to submit a note telling everyone how nice you are -- worthless. "Please excuse Hillary, she's just an awful person." It also tells us that Hillary understand that people aren't connecting to her, i.e. they don't think she's a good person.
● Personality Matters: I wonder what is destroying Hillary. She is corrupt, yes. But so are many more who have survived their corruption becoming public. She is incompetent. Indeed, her career reeks of failure and playing an ignored second fiddle. No rational person can doubt that without Bill Clinton's name to help her, she would be an angry caseworker at a woman's shelter. But again, W Bush weren't none too smart neither. In fact, he was brutally incompetent and yet he overcame that. She's a failure. That's unforgivable in America. Yet, sometimes losers can make a comeback if they show they've learned their lessons. Awful public speaker? So was Bush. So was Nixon. A me too ideologic-er? So was her better half... good God, how can Bill Clinton be anyone's better half?
So why can't she overcome these things? Is it all just too much? I don't think so. I think her problem is her personality. Her personality is awful. She's adopted the personae of the hateful school marm... the minor villain in films, the nasty teacher everyone remembers and no one liked. She just makes people dislike her.
● Ain't Got No Friends: Have you noticed that Hillary lacks celebrity support? Maybe you haven't, but she does. Most Democrats can count on massive numbers of Hollywood heavyweights being seen with them arm in arm throughout the process. They hold parties on their yachts for them, give speeches and smile benignly from the luxury boxes at their new bestie. Hillary seems to lack the heavyweights. What she's getting instead are mainly B-level women who are part of the Hollywood feminist movement. Because of this, she's not getting an army of pro-Hillary jokes in sitcoms, stages full of celebs fawning over her, or an army of famous people doing pro-Hillary interviews. That's another bad sign, especially as Hollywood thought they had made her husband famous. They seem to have forsaken her.
● In and Out: Finally, has anyone noticed that some of the DNC heavyweights (like Michelle Obama and Bernie and Elisabeth Warren) are all going early at the Democratic Convention? All the people with star power seem to be trying to sneak through before anyone starts paying attention. Interesting. What does that say when your friends don't want to be seen with you?
Thoughts?
18 comments:
The most remarkable thing about Hillary is how invisible she is as a candidate. It's perfectly understandable, given how incapable she is at selling herself. But a candidate can't hope to win if she's invisible. Hoping that Trump will implode is a non-strategy, but it's apparently her best option given her personal negatives.
Ol' Bill was tripping through mammary lane last night in his head as he recalled his day in the White House...
I love this write-up of Bill's speech.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/07/26/bill-clinton-tries-to-humanize-hillary-clintonby-talking-about-how-he-stalked-her-n2198479
"In the spring of 1971, I met a girl. The first time I saw her we were appropriately enough in a class on political and civil rights. She had big blonde hair, big glasses," Clinton said. "She exuded this sense of strength and self possession that I found magnetic. After the class, I followed her out intending to introduce myself. I got close enough to touch her back but I couldn't do it. Somehow I knew this would not be just another tap on the shoulder, that I might be starting something I couldn't stop."
Everyone was relieved when Bill finally revealed he was talking about Hillary.
Anthony, That's funny! It reads like soft porn though. I wonder if he stole that from some book?
Critch, I've heard a lot of people really didn't like his speech. Not sure why as I didn't see it.
I've been watching the Freak Show that is the Democratic Convention. The "highlight" has been Bill's folksy speech about the love of his life. Hilarious. And something about Hil putting paper inside Chelsea's dresser at college? Yeah, that was totally believable. I keep waiting for someone to scream, "The Emperor has no clothes!" A girl can dream.
Trump is looking better by the minute.
Actually, I just happened to tune into MadTV last night. FINALLY sketch comedians doing sketches that don't just make Repubs look bad. It was kind of refreshing to see parodies making fun of both candidates and some of Hillary's buddies like Liz Warren. They did a sketch with Wolf Blitzer hosting the Newlywed Game with Trumps and Clintons as contestants...pretty funny. No links available yet.
Wow. Check this out from an article titled: "Wikileaks has officially lost the moral high ground". It's hilarious...
WikiLeaks is always going to be releasing information some people don’t like. That is the point of them. But lately the timing of and tone surrounding their leaks have felt a little off, and in cases like the DNC leak, more than a little biased. At times, they haven’t looked so much like a group speaking truth to power as an alt-right subreddit, right down to their defense of Milo Yiannopoulos, a (let’s be honest, kind of trollish) writer at Breitbart.
So they will always release information that offends people, but it's wrong when they release information that makes our side look bad.
And it's even worse that they "defend" someone our side likes to demonize. Notice, by the way, that "defend" in this case means "release information that supports the rights/innocence of." Basically, it is wrong to defend someone we've accused of being a witch!!!
WikiLeaks has endangered individuals before, but their release of the so-called Erdogan Emails was particularly egregious. The organization said that the infodump would expose the machinations of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan immediately after the attempted coup against him, but instead turned out to be mostly correspondence and personal information from everyday Turkish citizens. Worse, it included the home addresses, phone numbers, party affiliations, and political activity levels of millions of female Turkish voters. That’s irresponsible any time, and disastrous in the week of a coup.
But hey, it was cool when Wikileaks released DOD files which named all the Iraqis who helped US forces and which included the names and personal information of US personnel. The left didn't care about the danger to them - a much greater danger since they released it in the middle of a terrorist civil war, unlike information that is already known to the guy who is now ruling Turkey with an iron fist.
The provenance and truth of the DNC emails looks more solid—but those sketchy ties to Russia make the whole thing seem like a foreign government trying to influence the US presidential election. It’s a little weird (tinfoil hat alert) that Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ founder, has a show on RT, a Russian government-funded (read: propaganda) television network. And a little off that the DNC leak whodunnit seems to point to a pair of Russian hackers thought to be affiliated with the Russian intelligence agencies FSB and GRU, respectively.
Sure, the stuff they released was true, but we don't like your motives!! We never cared before about motives until we didn't like your target! Even worse, the people who stole this information may have an agenda! That's just wrong. Granted, so did everyone before this, but hey this time you hit the DNC!
Then Wikileaks posted one "anti-semetic" tweet... if you can break the code! That's so wrong! Sure, we love antisemitism on the left, but not by people we don't like! And yes, Wikileaks deleted it because they said it had been misconstrued, but we know what you really meant racists!!
Then the article goes into a conspiracy theory about the Russians wanting to use Trump as a Manchurian Candidate and Wikileaks helping that.
Finally, the article concludes with the suggestion that Wikileaks can only regain the moral high ground by filtering itself better, i.e. making sure that it no longer targets liberals.
It's here is you want to read it: ==>Liberal Bias<==
tryanmax, It is amazing how invisible Hillary has been. That speaks volumes. It's also a guaranteed failure of a strategy.
Writer X, I didn't watch, but what I'm seeing is that Bill's speech was not well received for some reason. Rachel Madcow called it "shocking and rude". Other feminists seem equally disquieted.
Bev, Hillary is not considered untouchable on the left. That's bad for her.
BTW, All charges dropped in Baltimore in the Freddie Gray case.
That's what happens when you attempt a show trial rather than a legitimate prosecution. Should have been more careful about picking target and charges.
It's like I said the other day, any reference, real or perceived, to Jews made by the wrong people is automatic antisemitism according to the left. For example, if I say there is a Jewish deli in midtown, because I'm on this site, I'm probably directing Klansman to where they can find their next lynching victim.
Unless there is video directly contradicting what a cop has said, judges and juries don't jail cops so nobody was ever going to prison over Freddie Gray's neck magically snapping while in police custody no matter what the prosecuter did.
Which isn't to say the prosecuter was doing her honest best. The fact Mosby embraced celebrity status and her husband subsequently announced he was running for mayor was eyebrow raising.
I love this from the Washington Post:
Throughout the entirety of the Obama administration, nothing was done as WikiLeaks damaged our national security with its serial leaks of highly classified intelligence documents.
When in 2010 WikiLeaks released more than 76,000 secret intelligence documents — exposing “the identities of at least 100 Afghans who were informing on the Taliban, including the names of their villages, family members, the Taliban commanders on whom they were informing, and even GPS coordinates where they could be found,” as I wrote in The Post — nothing was done.
When in 2011 WikiLeaks released a trove of classified documents it dubbed the “Gitmo Files” in 2011 — including secret details about the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program – nothing was done.
When that same year WikiLeaks unleashed what founder Julian Assange called a “thermonuclear device” — its full, unredacted archive of more than a quarter-million secret U.S. diplomatic cables — nothing was done.
When in 2014 WikiLeaks released classified CIA documents exposing how CIA operatives maintain cover while traveling through airports — including guidance on how to survive secondary screening — nothing was done.
When in 2015 WikiLeaks released documents revealing that the U.S. government was spying on its allies, including listening in on the phone calls of three French presidents — nothing was done.
When in 2016 WikiLeaks published secret details of European Union military operations to intercept refugee boats traveling to Europe from the regions along the Libyan coast infested with terrorists from the Islamic State, nothing was done.
When in 2016 WikiLeaks exposed top-secret documents describing NSA intercepts of foreign government communications — including a private climate-change strategy meeting between United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin — nothing was done.
But WikiLeaks has finally crossed a “red line” (pun intended) that has earned it the Democrats’ outrage. Instead of targeting the CIA or the NSA, WikiLeaks has gone after an organization Democrats actually care about — the Democratic National Committee.
So true...
Anthony, I prosecutor who wasn't showboating would have charged one or two of the most responsible with manslaughter and would have gotten conviction on what are basically strict liability laws.
This woman wanted to show off, and she screwed it all up.
tryanmax, That is the new method of the left. If you mention a black person, a Jew or a woman, you are racist, sexist or antisemitic. The end.
Unfortunately for them, that is the attitude that has broken the hold those allegations once held over the public.
Post a Comment