Evil Academy

Full Version: No one is reading Hillary Clinton's new book
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
[Image: 322424275_OldBagHillary_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg]

By now, the poor sales of Hillary Clinton's new book "Hard Choices" are well-documented. (Relatively poor, we will add, given the complex topography of bookselling.)

But another metric came to our attention this weekend which allows us to loosely evaluate a more interesting bit of data: how much the book is being read.

Jordan Ellenberg, a professor of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, outlined what he calls the "Hawking Index" in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend. The index is a way to estimate how far into books people actually get. It's named for Stephen Hawking, author of the dense "A Brief History of Time" which, swear to God, I've actually read. (In part.)

It works like this: Every time people highlight something in a book on their Kindles, Amazon records that data. Ellenberg takes the top five highlights listed at the site for any given book and correlates them to a page number. Comparing the average page number of those five highlights to the length of the book gives you a sense of how many people made it how far in. (He adds: "Disclaimer: This is not remotely scientific and is for entertainment purposes only!" Which, fine.) The summer's most-read book? Donna Tartt's "The Goldfinch." Least-read? Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," for which the notations only get about 2.4 percent of the way in.

So, naturally, we decided to apply this methodology to "Hard Choices" and other recent or comparable political books. And we have our own ranking, which we now present in order from estimated-least- to estimated-most-read.

[Image: hawking2.png]

1. "Hard Choices," by Hillary Clinton. Hawking Index: 2.04 percent.
Well, there you have it. The deepest into Hard Choices the popular highlights get is page 33, a quote about smart power. Three of the five most-popular highlights occur within the first 10 pages. We will note the same caveat that Ellenberg applies to Piketty. "Hard Choices" is fairly new, and fairly long. Still, though, one would think more people had made it past page 33.

The most popular quote? "Do all the good you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can." Which, like several of the top quotes from the authors listed below, isn't actually a quote from Hillary Clinton. Instead, it's a mantra from her family's Methodist faith.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...es-either/
Amazon Reviews On Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’


[Image: Screen-Shot-2014-07-28-at-11.24.13-AM.png?888352]

[Image: 42.png?888352]

[Image: 72.png?888352]

[Image: 11.png?888352]

[Image: 19.png?888352]
[Image: hillary_evil_smile.jpg]
Quel surprise
Why would anyone even open the cover of a Joe Biden auto-biography?

It doesn't suprise me that no one can go beyond the first few pages of Hillary's book, let's face it, with the exception of a few pinko bull-dykes, who cares enough about her to read her contrived bullshit?

Perhaps it is the title, which seems to suggest that she has done it tough, that alienates the average consumer, who undoubtedly has done it a lot tougher than her.
When you want to read a politician's wisdom for your own personal growth, buddy, you got some serious problems.
Candidates are allowed to use unlimited amounts of their own money to fund campaigns. Hillary received a $10mil advance for her first book, $12mil-$14mil for this one. She gets around $200,000 for each speaking engagement. She has many big investments, at one time sitting on the board of Walmart among other corporations. She has full access to her husband's money for campaigning also, as there is no law forbidding the use of a spouse's money for campaigning. All this combined with money from a multitude of high profile wealthy donors, she more or less has an unlimited campaign fund. Yet her most rabid supporters seem obsessed with the Koch brothers donating to conservatives.
Quote:Hillary received a $10mil advance for her first book, $12mil-$14mil for this one. She gets around $200,000 for each speaking engagement. She has many big investments, at one time sitting on the board of Walmart among other corporations. She has full access to her husband's money for campaigning also, as there is no law forbidding the use of a spouse's money for campaigning.




Those are some hard choices.
I think the 'murican people will elect her. just watch.
^^ If their only choice is Hillary or a John McCain type, she will easily win.

The Republicans made it so easy for Obama, handed it to him on a platter, they will probably do the same thing for Hillary.
It's not really American people electing anymore I don't think. They put in who they put in and tell you they won.

Do they really even count the votes anymore?
the neocons are controlled opposition.. they are fielding the worst candidates.

if a Putin type came on the scene he would win EASILY
(07-31-2014 12:49 AM)Winnson Wrote: [ -> ]It's not really American people electing anymore I don't think. They put in who they put in and tell you they won.

Do they really even count the votes anymore?

i think the voting is somewhat real for the most part.. but there is infighting. I think the rigging is when they don't allow VOTER ID laws to be passed. that is patently ludicrous.

the voting is real because elections are all about finding out what the people like more. both are already vetted for the job.
the leadership reflects the people. I see a lot of starbucks sipping feminazis with this pose:

[Image: Hillary-Clinton-at-senate-015.jpg]
I don't think it is at all anymore. Only one state matters and it's a clusterfuck of complication.

Know why? So it can be rigged.

Gore/Bush was a joke of epic proportions.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's