Anyone following the increasingly desperate Democratic impeachment effort will by now be aware that they have exchanged the term "Quid pro quo" for "Bribery" and "Extortion." They rebranded President Trump's alleged offenses, according to a Washington Post report, after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted a number of focus groups to test their messaging.
The use of a marketing tool for something so serious confirms that, for the Democrats, impeachment is just another election strategy they hope will get traction if they dumb down the narrative.
Chuck Todd asked the congressman why they had stopped using "Quid pro quo" and Hines replied, "Number one, when you're trying to trying to persuade the American people of something that is really pretty simple it's probably best not to use Latin words to explain it. We've got to get off this 'quid pro quo' thing because it's complicated." In reality, it isn't complicated at all, and the Latin term isn't why the voters are unenthusiastic about impeachment.
As the latest Monmouth poll put it, "While there is growing public support for an inquiry, the public is not very confident with the process to date. Just 24% say they have a lot of trust in how the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted so far, 29% have a little trust, and 44% have no trust at all." A new Politico/Morning Consult poll released just as the public hearings began found that 81% of voters said "There is no or little chance they will change their minds." It's difficult to believe that Adam Schiff's partisan conduct in last week's hearings will improve public trust.
This claim may play well in focus groups but it has no real application in the context of the Democratic impeachment inquiry.
Even if President Trump demanded that President Zelensky investigate Burisma Energy and Hunter Biden, it would amount to nothing more sinister than a request that Ukraine honor that treaty.
The "Extortion" we have imposed on Russia includes the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act, signed into law by President Trump to bolster his predecessor's flaccid response to the invasion of Crimea.
https://spectator.org/impeachment-by-focus-group/
The use of a marketing tool for something so serious confirms that, for the Democrats, impeachment is just another election strategy they hope will get traction if they dumb down the narrative.
Chuck Todd asked the congressman why they had stopped using "Quid pro quo" and Hines replied, "Number one, when you're trying to trying to persuade the American people of something that is really pretty simple it's probably best not to use Latin words to explain it. We've got to get off this 'quid pro quo' thing because it's complicated." In reality, it isn't complicated at all, and the Latin term isn't why the voters are unenthusiastic about impeachment.
As the latest Monmouth poll put it, "While there is growing public support for an inquiry, the public is not very confident with the process to date. Just 24% say they have a lot of trust in how the House impeachment inquiry has been conducted so far, 29% have a little trust, and 44% have no trust at all." A new Politico/Morning Consult poll released just as the public hearings began found that 81% of voters said "There is no or little chance they will change their minds." It's difficult to believe that Adam Schiff's partisan conduct in last week's hearings will improve public trust.
This claim may play well in focus groups but it has no real application in the context of the Democratic impeachment inquiry.
Even if President Trump demanded that President Zelensky investigate Burisma Energy and Hunter Biden, it would amount to nothing more sinister than a request that Ukraine honor that treaty.
The "Extortion" we have imposed on Russia includes the Countering America's Adversaries through Sanctions Act, signed into law by President Trump to bolster his predecessor's flaccid response to the invasion of Crimea.
https://spectator.org/impeachment-by-focus-group/
No comments:
Post a Comment