Friday 29th of March 2024

coming up trumps...

the way the new york post influenced voters...

nyp cover

still too close to call...

Not quite... at the time of this post Trump is already 264 to 215 for Clinton... It would take a miracle for Clinton to clinch it... He only need 5, she needs 55. But one never knows. Some back-room deals of the voting college could change the landscape...

Weird. Trump is a dorky moron. But Clinton has shown to be a lying witch... Voters were caught between a mudcake and a fudge... Take your pick...

in the rear view mirror two...

...

In this election, her name was coupled with Lucifer’s and Trump supporters, some dressed in orange or striped prison jumpsuits, demanded she be jailed (some even shouted that she be killed). Now that they helped bring about her political death, they will surely move on to other targets. The endless investigations of Clinton will probably, at last, end. (Trump has not said a word since the election about putting her on trial).

It is hard to be the first woman in any position of power, but Clinton was more than ready to grab the ultimate prize. On Tuesday night, in the glass encased Javits Center, her fanbase had everything set for victory, even confetti shaped as glass shards. The highest, hardest glass ceiling was about to fall.

The confetti never fell – and at the age of 69, Hillary Clinton finally faced the cold reality that she couldn’t see as a Wellesley student in 1969: it was not possible.

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/11/hillary-clinton-pr...

 

In this very neat and glorifying article, Jill Abramson glosses-over and lacks depth into the what Clinton really did while Secretary of State... Most likely Jill is mistakenly referring to the show "Madam Secretary" on TV to depict what Hillary supposed to have done. Nothing could be further than that. Hillary was a woman, sure, but that's it. After that, Clinton has been a war-monger and I was betting a fresh lettuce for a carrot that had she won the elections, Damascus would have been bombed in her first week, to bring Assad into line with the US desires. The Russians coud not really retaliate without an all out war, unless Putin had a few surprises in hand. It could have been ugly.

In regards to the leaks about Flynn, it would be easy for the administration to source their origin. There are tactics to look and find... 

nothing to do with the russians...

Instead of issues, Hillary’s pitch was pure identity politics, right down to her slogan, “I’m with her.” That turned out to be a fine strategy to win the Democrat nomination, but not the general. Anyone who has recently spent time on a college campus or is exposed to mainstream media outlets recognizes how social justice warriors have come to dominate the conversation on the left, but less clear is the fact that identity politics is structurally favored within Democrat primary rules: “It’s all very complicated, but it boils down to this: A candidate who does best in the most Democratic parts of a state can rack up a lot of delegates fast. In many states, the delegate-rich districts are majority-minority.” As a result, Hillary could pick up more delegates in a single majority African American Congressional district in Mississippi than Bernie did by winning the New Hampshire primary. You get real insight into Democrat coalition politics when Shattered tells how Maryland unions backed Chris Van Hollen in a U.S. Senate primary against African-American Donna Edwards and planned to intentionally exclude African-American members from their turnout efforts until Hillary, on the same ballot and desperate to show strength against Bernie, intervened.

The supposed inevitability of Hillary’s victory rested on this new Obama-activated “coalition of the ascendant” and a “blue wall” of states that had voted Democrat in six straight cycles, adding up to 242 of the 270 needed electoral votes. No one realized that these foundational pillars may have been at odds with each other. By beating back Bernie through a delegate-focused identity politics pitch, Hillary abandoned her working-class white base from 2008, and failed to see how her Rust Belt primary problems might translate into a general. Ultimately, one Ohio county Democrat chairman summed up the election by saying that she lost because voters thought she cared more about bathrooms than jobs.

read more:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hillary-clinton-is-a-loser/

the pied-piper...

 

Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes’ new book, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, has upset Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff. A concerted effort has been made to push back on many of the book’s claims, despite the fact that the authors—who obviously hold Clinton in high regard—were trusted enough to be provided unfettered access into a campaign that refused to hold a press conference during the entire Democratic primaries. Allen previously worked for a Political Action Committee run by former DNC chair and Clinton surrogate Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

In the first few pages, Allen and Parnes legitimize the various scapegoats and excuses Clinton partisans have been recycling since her embarrassing defeat to Donald Trump. “She collected nearly 65.9 million votes—more than any Republican nominee in American history, just 64,822 fewer than Barack Obama in 2012, and almost 3 million more than Donald Trump,” wrote Allen and Parnes. “And she did that while facing a set of trials and tribulations unlike any other in American campaign history: a partisan congressional investigation; a primary opponent who attacked her character; a rogue FBI director; the rank misogyny of her Republican rival; a media that scrutinized her every move while failing to get that Republican rival to turn over his tax returns; and even a Kremlin-based campaign to defeat her.”

Off the bat, Clinton and her staff are let off the hook: she won the popular vote, which should indicate that not only was the election easily winnable, but that it came down to strategy over not having enough people vote for Clinton or against Trump. The authors then blame the media for Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, when protests devoted to the issue didn’t make him budge. Allen and Parnes criticize Bernie Sanders without naming him, implying Clinton was entitled to win the primary nomination. Of course, the Democratic establishment tipped the scales in her favor to ensure that she did.

The media is cited as stacked against Clinton’s candidacy—but nearly every major newspaper in the country endorsed her in the primaries and in the general election. In fact, the biggest publishers in the country, The New York Times and Washington Post, had columnists devoted to defending and praising Clinton throughout the campaign.

From the start, Clinton’s campaign strategy was to elevate Donald Trump as a “pied-piper” candidate, creating a weak general election opponent, because Trump polled worse against Clinton than almost every other Republican presidential candidate. Even Clinton’s former Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri recently claimed the media’s obsession over the infamous Access Hollywood tape buried the Russian election interference narrative. Russia was one of the most widely-discussed topics during the presidential debates and the Democratic Party has used it as an attack strategy since at least September 2016, when Democratic Party Super Pacs began running anti-Russia attack ads. The media, especially the mainstream media, overwhelming favored and supported Clinton’s candidacy and her campaign’s talking points. Many Clinton loyalists are embittered because the strategy of the mainstream media‘s obsession with Trump’s frequent gaffes and political theatrics backfired.

Read more:

http://observer.com/2017/04/hillary-clinton-staffers-refute-shattered-bo...

As mentioned many time before on this site, THE RUSSIANS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HILLARY'S DEFEAT. Read from top.

And contrary to what the "advisor" to Trumble said this morning on Fran's morning show, Assad DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS RECENTLY, NOT EVEN IN 2013 when the so-called "red-line was crossed" but was not a "slam dunk". These are false flag events as shown by careful analysis of the rubbish CIA "investigation" designed to rubbish Assad.

lost in exact gobbledegook "special sauce"...

A conversation about where Democrats go next as a party inevitably turns into a discussion about whether it should embrace a form of economic populism similar to one pushed by independent senator Bernie Sanders, or move instead to the political middle.

Canter argued that Trump's "special sauce" combines his economic populism with a political populism that vilifies both parties.

But he rejected the notion that his firm's report suggests the party should pursue either direction. Rather, he said, he and his partners were simply trying to explain to party leaders exactly why Clinton lost.

"We don't need to be Republican lite," Canter said. "All we're saying is this is the electoral challenge. In order to win, this is the challenge we have to solve. And there are a lot of good arguments for how we can solve it."

read more:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/democrats-say-they-now-know-exactly-why-clin...

 

So Hillary's loss of the Presidential elections in 2016 had nothing to do with the "Russians" but was due to... After reading this article I have no idea. Ah yes: "her base did not turn out", whatever this means. Here it is:

Those Obama-Trump voters effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice-president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group's analysis, about 70 per cent of Clinton's failure to reach Obama's vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

I've still got no idea what this means. WHY DID SHE LOSE THESE VOTERS? Image? Policies? baggage? History? Social media? false facts? DNC emails? Main stream media? The "Russians"? Trump? Bernie? Yes Bernie... He showed the electors there was the need for more honesty and the need for less "corporate"... A factor that Trump took on board while of course lying through his teeth about cleaning the swamp and "fighting the establishment"... The establishment under Trump's first 100 days has never been so healthy and wealthy. Wisdom has gone through the window mind you. With the help of Uncle Rupe, Trump garnered enough voters amongst evangelicals Christians in states where Hillary should have won, but "forgot to campaign". The Elector Colleges in the USA is a bastard of an undemocratic system. Trump worked this system well. He even hinted heavily that the system was not fair and all the pundit though he meant the system was loaded in favour of Hillary -- when he meant that the system was in his favour... Eh eh... because he would have had some bean counters doing sums that would have shown he "would not get the popular vote" but could get the Colleges. End of story. 

Bernie would have disposed of Trump easily. All in, despite everything else, people did not trust Hillary. Her campaign was somewhat lazy and unproductive, relying of free-wheeling from Obama's deceitful "yes-we-can" years, while a real need for change, ANY CHANGE (even suicidal, like voting for Trump),  was the underlying factor.