Anyone who has a hotline to the campaign, let them know about this, since he's in New Hampshire and Maine today.
Back in June 2015, the Clinton campaign tested a bunch of negatives about her, among New Hampshire primary voters. According to the internal results:
Secretary Clinton’s top vulnerability tested in this poll is the attack that claims as Secretary of State she signed off on a deal that gave the Russian government control over twenty percent of America's uranium production, after investors in the deal donated over one hundred and forty million dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Half of all likely voters (53%) are less likely to support Clinton after hearing that statement and 17% are much less likely to support her after that statement.
Source email from WikiLeaks.
Most voters probably don't know that fact about her record off the top of their head, and the media have scarcely covered it. It turns out that they don't appreciate our Secretary of State handing over 20% of our uranium to a rival nuclear superpower, let alone when she profits $140 million through her crooked foundation. Pay to play in a nutshell.
Americans still value a sense of fair play and honesty. Crooked Hillary could not be further from the ideal. Most Americans know this on a gut level, but the sale of uranium to Russia so the Clinton Foundation could bag over $100 million, gives them a concrete appalling example to dwell on.
This example left the worst impression, more so than other negatives they tested, like voting for the Iraq War, TPP stance, being from a dynasty, etc. The only other thing that scored close was being too buddy-buddy with Wall Street -- in particular, bailing out Wall Street and not wanting to touch the big banks still today.
Voters who were the most put off were her usual weak points -- younger people (under 60 in this survey) and poorer (under $50K income).
How broadly these New Hampshire voters generalize to other parts of the country, who knows? At least other blue states. At any rate, it would be nice to bump her off in New Hampshire and Maine.
It could be that over one year after the survey was done, people have come to understand that she engaged in a lot of pay for play, merging the State Dept with the Clinton Foundation. If so, hitting on this example wouldn't tell them something fundamentally new. But it doesn't seem like the pay to play stuff has gotten that much attention in concrete examples -- probably because the media was tipped off by the Clinton campaign about what her greatest vulnerability was.
So go and spread the word -- she sold out our safety to a nuclear superpower, just to pocket hundreds of millions of dollars for herself!
Also serves to throw cold water on the whole anti-Russian hysteria from the Democrat Establishment and the media -- she's the one who profited millions by cozying up to the Russian government, selling the nuclear state a whole shitload of uranium. Trump never did anything close to selling us out.
It got some play the first time the Democrats were pearl clutching about how Putin is responsible for Wikileaks back in July. It was pretty effective in shutting arguments down. Unfortunately for whatever reason, the Democrats kept on trucking with that narrative and people stopped talking about the uranium sales.
ReplyDeleteIn a perfect world, Donald Trump will bring this up when Hillary goes full MUH PUTIN on Wednesday's debate. However with so many damning documents, it's tough to keep track of all of the Clinton wheeling and dealings. It's time to put the nail in the coffin. The public will be thoroughly sick and tired of the nonstop parade of "sexual assault victims" by then to where it will start backlashing against the Democrats and cuckservatives.
Cheer up; the FBI can be counted on to stop anti-Islam/immigrant attackers. 3 dudes (who appear to be from the Jeff Spicoli neo-lost generation born from about 1956-1965) named Wright, Allen, and Stein were plotting to attack a Mosque after the election in an area of Kansas that corporate America has blessed with cheap foreign labor.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed how Leftist extremism is dominated by Jews at all times (thus why leftist subversion was almost non-existent before the late 1800's) , while American right-wing terrorists tend to be of British descent with a bit of German showing up. Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, etc. In the Ellis Island days, Italians blew stuff up too, but since the 40's they tend not to be involved with either side. I have a hunch that the majority of "ethnic" non-Jewish white people in the Northeast remember the assimilation pains experienced by their grandparents/great grandparents. As such, they try to tempter their animus towards WASPy Americans though some are still prone to mocking Scots-Irish Southerners and Teutonic Midwesterners. As usual, Jews remain bitterly hostile towards all three groups. The civic minded Scandis have never been drawn to aggression in America(not much of the warrior gene left by now).
A great irony about the Clinton campaign is that the Uber-WASPy H. Clinton is so gleefully studding her team with non-founding stock Americans (Jewish Mook, DePodesta, Huma, Obummer) to better achieve the leftist wet-dream of evicting old-school Americans from their own country.
Trump in NH: Hillary and I should take a drug test before the next debate. Last time she was all pumped up at the beginning, then by the end she could barely make it to her car.
ReplyDeleteLOL
Peggy Noonan mentioned the uranium thing in the WSJ editorial page today. This should help get the word out.
ReplyDeleteExcellent
ReplyDeleteKasich is thinking of quitting the GOP.
ReplyDeleteFinally a whitepill: https://t.co/LPDNUOshMl
And Bloomberg has an article about how Portman is going his own way, looking for Clinton supporters over Trump supporters. AKA schoolmarms who'd prefer a castrated eunuch for Senator and an overly ambitious mega-bitch for Dictator. #RepealThe19th
ReplyDeleteReminder that Strickland is acting like the populist, going after the Bernie / Trump voters, aside from Dem loyalists:
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/08/in-tight-ohio-senate-race-trump-and.html
The head of the Ohio GOP is also a NeverTrump traitor. This statewide coordination against Trump is further proof that they rigged the primary, using carrot and stick to turn out hundreds of thousands of Dems to vote for Kasich.
ReplyDeleteIn a fair election, it would have been Trump 45 to Kasich 35.
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/05/trumps-loss-in-ohio-due-to-kasichs.html
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/08/busted-kasich-rigged-ohio-primary-more.html
I'm inclined to vote Dem on all down-ballot races, if the rot has infected basically the entire state party. I'll check their backgrounds, of course, but the only thing that'll get me to vote GOP down-ballot is if the Dem is a Clintonite -- if Sherrod Brown were running against Portman, for instance.
The Ohio GOP is a swamp that needs to be drained and re-built. Would be fun to hold a recall election to toss Kasich out on his AIDS-riddled ass, even if only a few months ahead of his term-limited exit in '18.
Never thought I'd prefer the PA GOP. At least they're just inept.
ReplyDeleteAfter spending the past few days practically tied with Clinton, Trump is now starting to pull away from Clinton in the USC poll. The gains appear to come from Hispanics (where he now enjoys 38.7% support), those over the age of 65, and male voters (cucks are coming back home, slowly).
ReplyDeleteMy pet semi-serious theory is that the over 65 voters see Gloria Allred on TV again. Decades ago she was the feminist equivalent of an ambulance chaser. Seeing her plastered on the screen again likely caused a lot of red flags to pop up with older voters who remember her from decades ago. These pseudo-scandals appear even less credible now that she's getting involved.
"After spending the past few days practically tied with Clinton, Trump is now starting to pull away from Clinton in the USC poll. The gains appear to come from Hispanics (where he now enjoys 38.7% support), those over the age of 65, and male voters (cucks are coming back home, slowly)."
ReplyDeleteInteresting the Hispanic number. There was a total liberal blackout of Rasmussen recently showing a sharp, but steady increase in Black support. Something like going from 9 to 24% in 10 days. I thought it so fascinating and looked forward to a lively discussion of legitimacy, why it would be so, etc. But nada, nothing. Not even to laugh at it. I can only guess that this would be what they consider the foulest of foul results: their very favorite pets voting for the other guy.
FWIW, my theory is that people are starting to pay attention and are re-parking their votes if need be. Would we expect more movement from minorities and women, who seem to wait later than men? But I really don't know.