DNC insider: Hillary Clinton’s campaign is imploding

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2011
170,164
47,312
2,180
Hence we understand the motive behind the victory dance her minions have been performing this week in the forum:


A website called Real. True. News. (RTN) published an interview on August 7, between RTN‘s Max Insider and an unnamed source within the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The source says Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is imploding because every weapon they’ve deployed against Donald Trump has failed, and Hillary may soon drop out of the race.

Note: Max Insider describes himself as having “20+ years of reporting for liberal news outlets in the Main Stream Media. Fed up with the lies, the manipulation, and the outright criminality, he is undertaking a crusade to bring truth, righteousness, and vigilance back to America. This is where the revolution starts.”

Here’s what the DNC source said:

1) Trump is polling far better than what the MSM say

“Not only is Trump’s polling far better than the media narrative shows but the even more predictive Social Media scene has collapsed to ‘landslide’ proportions in favor of Donald Trump.”

2) Trump’s campaign is more adept at using social media than Hillary’s

“Hillary inherited Obama’s ‘Victory Lab’ and analytics–but that was all geared to 2012 which was still pretty primitive by today’s standards–and to Mitt Romney who might as well have been a caveman by today’s standards. Things . . . changed. [quietly] Hillary didn’t…. Trump is what changed.”

3) None of the Democratic Party’s tried-and-true attack methods works against Trump

“None of the old strategies work on him [Trump]…. We called our opponents racist. It worked–like, 93-98 times out of a hundred–people would back down. Run. Back then there was zero counter-narrative. McCain played it soft-ball. Romney was pretty clean but he wasn’t ready to get nasty and take the heat. All their surrogates? Allies? Only Sarah Palin had the woman-card. That was it. We crushed them. Their online-portion of the vote? It was smaller than today–but they were demoralized. Shut down…. None of our focus groups were Trump voters. We just didn’t bring any of them in at the start. We tried racist. We tried misogynist. We tried anti-Islam. It worked on our focus people. On Trump voters? No effect–reverse even…. It made them stronger–more committed. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s like Trump didn’t collapse when we tired it on him and suddenly it didn’t work any more…. Right now tests have shown that attack-ads almost never have any lasting impact. Events like conventions? Like debates? They determine who answers the phone–not who changed their vote. The social media front might be the biggest deal going…. We have our response team go hard–racist. Sexist. Social Justice up the ass. It just pisses everyone off. It changes nobody’s mind.”

4) Hillary campaign has fake followers and the media’s collusion

“We bought fake followers. That used to be what everyone did. Trump? His guys are all real. We’ve got media-established narratives. Our coms-team works with the major outlets to shape the stories. That’s traditional. He doesn’t even have a Coms [Communications] Team–he just fires off tweets and they all go viral. Every last damn one…. We’ve paid like–like 300k for Politico. They [Trump campaign] paid nothing and they’ve got Breitbart. You know who Trump voters trust? Brietbart. Look at the numbers.”

On Hillary’s fake followers, see “Get ready for a $1M army of social media trolls for Hillary” and “DNC advertises on CraigsList for 700 actors to fill empty Convention seats”.

On the media’s collusion with Hillary’s campaign, see “CNN anchor Chris Cuomo admits media are Hillary Clinton’s bitch” and “Blatant media bias: MSNBC’s Joy Reid is a whore for Hillary”.

On the collusion between Hillary’s campaign and Politico, see “DNC advertises on CraigsList for 700 actors to fill empty Convention seats”.
 
Sounds like a gaggle of Trump die-hards whistling past the graveyard.

"If thou wouldst remove the mote in thine neighbor's eye, remove first the beam in thine own."
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course. It's all in the news about Mrs. Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-gop.html?_r=0

'In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change.

He broods about his souring relationship with the news media, calling Mr. Manafort several times a day to talk about specific stories. Occasionally, Mr. Trump blows off steam in bursts of boyish exuberance: At the end of a fund-raiser on Long Island last week, he playfully buzzed the crowd twice with his helicopter.'

But in interviews with more than 20 Republicans who are close to Mr. Trump or in communication with his campaign, many of whom insisted on anonymity to avoid clashing with him, they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.''
 
Yes, of course. It's all in the news about Mrs. Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-gop.html?_r=0

'In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change.

He broods about his souring relationship with the news media, calling Mr. Manafort several times a day to talk about specific stories. Occasionally, Mr. Trump blows off steam in bursts of boyish exuberance: At the end of a fund-raiser on Long Island last week, he playfully buzzed the crowd twice with his helicopter.'

The New York Times is the source. I'm sure the reporter interviewed "unnamed sources" for this information.

Enough said.
 
Attila the Hun (Donald) lost me, the moment he lost the American Legion and the VFW.
Hmmm, he hasn't lost them, dunce.
Go back to the early August time frame and look up their spanking of Attila over his remarks about a Gold Star family.
I'm well aware of the media generated brouhaha over Mr Khan, the douche bag Hillary crony. Only a true stooge would imagine veterans are upset with Trump about that. They all think Khan is a piece of shit.
 
Attila the Hun (Donald) lost me, the moment he lost the American Legion and the VFW.
Hmmm, he hasn't lost them, dunce.
Go back to the early August time frame and look up their spanking of Attila over his remarks about a Gold Star family.
I'm well aware of the media generated brouhaha over Mr Khan, the douche bag Hillary crony.
Then you should be well aware that Trump lost a vast proportion of veteran support at that time; both individuals and fraternal organizations.

Given that most veterans are rather Conservative by nature, a Republican has to be a genuine asshole, to bring on that sort of reaction.

A real asshole.

"Your Honor... the Defense rests."
 
Yes, of course. It's all in the news about Mrs. Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-gop.html?_r=0

'In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change.

He broods about his souring relationship with the news media, calling Mr. Manafort several times a day to talk about specific stories. Occasionally, Mr. Trump blows off steam in bursts of boyish exuberance: At the end of a fund-raiser on Long Island last week, he playfully buzzed the crowd twice with his helicopter.'

The New York Times is the source. I'm sure the reporter interviewed "unnamed sources" for this information.

Enough said.

I guess you don't understand how the free press works. These sources are later referred to as whistle-blowers. A reporter always protects their sources.
i.e.: Watergate, when Woodard and Bernstein had to carefully approach the DNC break-in after their sources informed them that President Nixon was behind the burglary. And we all know how that ended, don't we?

Same for when the Boston Globe outed several priests who were molesting boys. Do you think the sources had their names in the paper during the investigation? No.
 
Last edited:
Hence we understand the motive behind the victory dance her minions have been performing this week in the forum:


A website called Real. True. News. (RTN) published an interview on August 7, between RTN‘s Max Insider and an unnamed source within the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The source says Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is imploding because every weapon they’ve deployed against Donald Trump has failed, and Hillary may soon drop out of the race.

Note: Max Insider describes himself as having “20+ years of reporting for liberal news outlets in the Main Stream Media. Fed up with the lies, the manipulation, and the outright criminality, he is undertaking a crusade to bring truth, righteousness, and vigilance back to America. This is where the revolution starts.”

Here’s what the DNC source said:

1) Trump is polling far better than what the MSM say

“Not only is Trump’s polling far better than the media narrative shows but the even more predictive Social Media scene has collapsed to ‘landslide’ proportions in favor of Donald Trump.”

2) Trump’s campaign is more adept at using social media than Hillary’s

“Hillary inherited Obama’s ‘Victory Lab’ and analytics–but that was all geared to 2012 which was still pretty primitive by today’s standards–and to Mitt Romney who might as well have been a caveman by today’s standards. Things . . . changed. [quietly] Hillary didn’t…. Trump is what changed.”

3) None of the Democratic Party’s tried-and-true attack methods works against Trump

“None of the old strategies work on him [Trump]…. We called our opponents racist. It worked–like, 93-98 times out of a hundred–people would back down. Run. Back then there was zero counter-narrative. McCain played it soft-ball. Romney was pretty clean but he wasn’t ready to get nasty and take the heat. All their surrogates? Allies? Only Sarah Palin had the woman-card. That was it. We crushed them. Their online-portion of the vote? It was smaller than today–but they were demoralized. Shut down…. None of our focus groups were Trump voters. We just didn’t bring any of them in at the start. We tried racist. We tried misogynist. We tried anti-Islam. It worked on our focus people. On Trump voters? No effect–reverse even…. It made them stronger–more committed. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s like Trump didn’t collapse when we tired it on him and suddenly it didn’t work any more…. Right now tests have shown that attack-ads almost never have any lasting impact. Events like conventions? Like debates? They determine who answers the phone–not who changed their vote. The social media front might be the biggest deal going…. We have our response team go hard–racist. Sexist. Social Justice up the ass. It just pisses everyone off. It changes nobody’s mind.”

4) Hillary campaign has fake followers and the media’s collusion

“We bought fake followers. That used to be what everyone did. Trump? His guys are all real. We’ve got media-established narratives. Our coms-team works with the major outlets to shape the stories. That’s traditional. He doesn’t even have a Coms [Communications] Team–he just fires off tweets and they all go viral. Every last damn one…. We’ve paid like–like 300k for Politico. They [Trump campaign] paid nothing and they’ve got Breitbart. You know who Trump voters trust? Brietbart. Look at the numbers.”

On Hillary’s fake followers, see “Get ready for a $1M army of social media trolls for Hillary” and “DNC advertises on CraigsList for 700 actors to fill empty Convention seats”.

On the media’s collusion with Hillary’s campaign, see “CNN anchor Chris Cuomo admits media are Hillary Clinton’s bitch” and “Blatant media bias: MSNBC’s Joy Reid is a whore for Hillary”.

On the collusion between Hillary’s campaign and Politico, see “DNC advertises on CraigsList for 700 actors to fill empty Convention seats”.

As much as I think this is actually true, I have a rule, don't believe anything a democrat tells me. Could be a false flag, who knows? What we do know is that democrats lie and nothing is below them.
 
Attila the Hun (Donald) lost me, the moment he lost the American Legion and the VFW.
Hmmm, he hasn't lost them, dunce.
Go back to the early August time frame and look up their spanking of Attila over his remarks about a Gold Star family.
I'm well aware of the media generated brouhaha over Mr Khan, the douche bag Hillary crony.
Then you should be well aware that Trump lost a vast proportion of veteran support at that time; both individuals and fraternal organizations.

Given that most veterans are rather Conservative by nature, a Republican has to be a genuine asshole, to bring on that sort of reaction.

"Your Honor... the Defense rests."
ROFL! No he didn't. You imagine that a few Hillary supporting douche bag political hacks represent all veterans. They don't. No self respecting veteran supports Hillary. They despise Obama, and Hillary would be more of the same. She's the piece of shit who lied to the parents of the Benghazi victims.
 
Yes, of course. It's all in the news about Mrs. Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-gop.html?_r=0

'In private, Mr. Trump’s mood is often sullen and erratic, his associates say. He veers from barking at members of his staff to grumbling about how he was better off following his own instincts during the primaries and suggesting he should not have heeded their calls for change.

He broods about his souring relationship with the news media, calling Mr. Manafort several times a day to talk about specific stories. Occasionally, Mr. Trump blows off steam in bursts of boyish exuberance: At the end of a fund-raiser on Long Island last week, he playfully buzzed the crowd twice with his helicopter.'

The New York Times is the source. I'm sure the reporter interviewed "unnamed sources" for this information.

Enough said.

I guess you don't understand how the free press works. These sources are later referred to as whistle-blowers. A reporter always protects their sources.
i.e.: Watergate, when Woodard and Bernstein had to carefully approach the DNC break-in after their sources informed them that President Nixon was behind the burglary. And we all know how that ended, don't we?

Yes, I do know how the New York Times works. Whenever they want to make stuff up, they just use an "unnamed source."
 
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

yeah, sure, righttttttttt! she's gonna quit...her campaign's imploding! :lol:
Attila the Hun (Donald) lost me, the moment he lost the American Legion and the VFW.
When was that?
Answered in Post No. 10 on this thread; reiterated in Post No. 13.
Khan? that's why? You fell for that setup? Goldstar families do not have a right to criticize others with impunity.....If Trump's comments related to their son's death than yeah.......but the only thing negative he said about anything in the war, was we shouldn't have gone. I disagree with him, but that's not unreasonable...

Khan attacked Trump about items that had nothing to do with his son or his son's death...so he was fair game.
 

Forum List

Back
Top