When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Good enough, Lash.

We'll both keep laughing.

And...next November, we will see which of us, if either, is still laughing.

I'll be laughing if Hillary Clinton is elected president...or if Bernie Sanders is elected. I will only not be laughing if a Republican is elected instead.

You don't have quite that much spread for laughter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-become-president_b_8780730.html
The American political establishment is trying desperately to shift public opinion towards the belief that voters will elect a person they don't trust and don't like. It's not a conspiracy, however, it's simply the same dynamics that allowed Enron to seduce financial markets before its epic collapse. BusinessWeek wrote a glowing cover story on Enron in February of 2001, stating "Enron's success has not gone unnoticed, but it has a few advantages that competitors would be hard pressed to match." Ten months after this glowing review of Enron's prominence within the energy field, it went bankrupt.

The same dynamics are at play with Hillary Clinton and poll numbers, as well as Clinton's "inevitability." Conventional logic is often rooted in a herd mentality, wrapped in a cloak of groupthink, and justified by doublespeak. It's the reason that television gravitates away from honest individuals and towards anyone who will sell commercials. According to a Philly.com article by Will Bunch, More Americans support Bernie than The Donald -- but he gets 1/23 the TV coverage.

To certain people, Hillary Clinton is definitely going to win, simply because of poll numbers. However, people forget that in December of 2007, Gallup reported Clinton Maintains Large Lead Over Obama Nationally. Of course, in American society today, looking back only eight years is ancient history.

This apathetic acquiescence on the part of some voters exists, even though non-traditional metrics (Tumblr has become "a giant Bernie Sanders campaign rally") show Bernie Sanders the clear favorite among a wide range Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans.

As for the non-white Democrats that Clinton supporters claim will only vote for Hillary, things will change once more media attention is given to Clinton's prison lobbyist donors, use of race and Islamophobia against Obama in 2008, and almost three week delay in addressing questions about Ferguson.

In addition, Clinton's "abysmal" racial justice record, as explained by Daunasia Yancey, the founder of Black Lives Matter in Boston, is another reason Clinton supporters shouldn't simply place African American and Latino voters into a convenient poll number.

Today's public relations spin won't work, especially since you're reading this online and Americans spend around 2 hours per day on social networking sites. Bernie Sanders now has greater control of the internet than Obama in either of his campaigns. The Washington Post writes "Sen. Bernie Sanders fares so favorably in Google searches" that "nine of his top 10 results were rated 'very pro' in the analysis." Voter sentiment after 2016 will be judged by online metrics, not landline polling data, and we're already seeing why Bernie Sanders will eventually become president.

Type "Hillary Clinton" on Google now. Before you get to type "Clinton," the words "Hillary Clinton Email" will drop down. Also, I explain in this YouTube segment what poll numbers can't, and why I will only vote for Sanders.

Social media, from the manner Sanders dominated almost every online poll after both Democratic debates, to the networking done by Sanders supporters across the nation, has undermined Clinton's advantage in fundraising. Sanders doesn't have to spend $2.5 billion convincing people that he's honest. People create the narrative around Bernie Sanders.

In contrast, mainstream pundits and public relations executives work tirelessly to make you believe Clinton is inevitability. As CNN writes, "The nation's leading Democratic PR firm will soon be owned by a private equity group run by a longtime Clinton insider." Without social media, Clinton would undoubtedly run away with the nomination, because she'd be able to control the narrative even further.

Today, however, voters can easily find out that Clinton's campaign received $133,246 from two major prison lobbyists. Or, voters inquiring about the validity of Clinton's claim to reign-in Wall Street can easily find out that four of Clinton's top five donors since 1999 have been Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley. Ending mass incarceration and Wall Street greed is difficult when you're funded by these interests.

I explain in this YouTube segment why Hillary Clinton is unelectable due to negative favorability ratings and why Americans have never elected a president they found "not honest and trustworthy" before entering the White House. Qunnipiac University, in an August report titled Trump GOP Lead Grows As Clinton Dem Lead Shrinks, explains that voters associate the word "liar" with Clinton:

Clinton tops the Democrats' "no way" list with 11 percent.
"Liar" is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton.
"Arrogant" is the word for Trump and voters say "Bush" when they think of Bush...
"On the Democratic side, Secretary Hillary Clinton continues her slide while Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to narrow the gap," Malloy added.
So, according to polls once explaining Clinton's shrinking lead, voters correlate the word "liar" as "the first word that comes to mind more than others ...when voters think of Clinton."

But you used a poll from August!

Actually, things haven't changed, voters still don't trust Clinton. Quinnipiac's November 4, 2015 report stated, "Clinton has the lowest rating for honesty as American voters say 60 - 36 percent she is not honest and trustworthy."

But that was in November!

Well, Quinnipiac's December 2, 2015 poll states "Clinton has a negative 44 - 51 percent favorability rating." As for trustworthiness, the poll finds "American voters say 60 - 36 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy."

On Election Day, America will not elect a president whom the vast majority of voters say isn't honest, especially if this person accepted money from Donald Trump. The polls saying Clinton is leading by a wide margin overtly contradict their findings, and primarily survey people who use landlines. Time published an article titled Landline Phones Are Getting Closer to Extinction, and explains that "more than half of wireless-only adults are now 35 or older."

Despite a lack of name recognition, Sanders was the first candidate to reach a million online donations in late September, in addition to catching up to the Clinton fundraising juggernaut. According to Think Progress, "Bernie Sanders is raising a lot of money from individual donors for his presidential bid, and he's doing it even faster than President Obama did during both of his campaigns."

In September, Bernie Sanders was 7 points behind Hillary Clinton nationally, with momentum on his side and polls reflecting a genuine challenge to the former Secretary of State. Gone were the apathetic talking points about Clinton's inevitability, especially since Sanders had surpassed Clinton in both Iowa and New Hampshire. The media, and the Democratic political establishment, had no choice but to accept a genuine challenge from Bernie Sanders.

Then, the cavalry came charging to save the day, in the form of limited debates, contradictory poll numbers (claiming voters will overwhelmingly vote for someone they don't trust) and an immediate refrain by pundits from mentioning Sanders winning the presidency.

There's a reason Mediate published an article titled Did You Know There's a Dem Debate Tonight? No, Because Debbie Doesn't Want You To, explaining a rigged debate schedule:

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has made it her absolute mission to stifle the Democratic primary debates, to bury them underneath faintly-advertised headlines and shoehorn them into impossibly unrealistic time slots. Let's be honest -- Wasserman Schultz has no interest in putting on a show of the primaries.
Scheduling a debate on a Saturday, in the evening, reeks of protecting an establishment candidate from questions about endless flip flopping.

For example, it's understandable Debbie Wasserman would want to shield voters from questions like "Will you say anything to get elected?" posed by Anderson Cooper to Clinton during the first debate.

Nevertheless, Bernie Sanders won't need an acceptable number of debates to defeat Clinton. Bernie Sanders will become our next president because he's winning among normal, everyday Americans; not a select group of less than 1,000 people meant to speak for 316 million other Americans.

My first article on Bernie Sanders winning the presidency, titled It's Official -- Bernie Sanders Has Overtaken Hillary Clinton In the Hearts and Minds of Democrats is now at 695,000 Facebook Likes. Therefore, the question isn't whether or not I'm the second coming of Walter Cronkite. The real question is this: Who else could propel a piece on the 2016 election to almost 700,000 Facebook likes, other than our future president?

Can you show me how Bernie is going to do all the things he claims he is going to do with a republican congress. He is just another politician who will promise anything to the gullible in order to be elected president. And if he is the candidate watch the republican politicians start the socialist, communist attacks on him. The republicans know If Hillary is the candidate she is a shoe in but with Bernie they have a chance.

All or nothing seems to work for the Republicans. Maybe thats what Edgar is looking at.

No question, he will meet fierce resistance. But, the difference is, he will be trying, unlike every other candidate. Nine tenths of the battle is getting the public on your side. If that happens, he will be more successful than you might expect. Look how successful Bush was selling his bogus bullshit to so many Democrats, including Hillary, because of the mood of the people.

Damn, but its good to have you back,Edgar.

Good article.

Hillary is moving in smigions, I hope, like you, she realizes those smigions need to be bigger and genuine. We can not afford another GOP/Teapublican Congress or anymore dismal Scalias in the SCOTUS - it would not be a laughing matter.

Rabel - No one can meet that test, the President certainly didn't. The closest Hillary has, has been to adopt positions that are faux centralist but she has raised enough personal animus over the years from the right that even if she adopted the GOP's party principles she's going to have a RW Congress promising to derail her Presidency anyway it can from day one.

The only ones who can help Bernie meet your testare voters who not only elect him, but start electing a working Congress over the next six years.

If you take Bernie's positions unattributed to just about any RWer, they support them almost 100%.

They want Hillary so badly they give her a pass on being the biggest flipflopper I have ever seen. The breeze blows left, she blows left. Right, right also. Overseas, she's eager to blow things up. I don't get her as president.

Robert Reich
40 mins ·
“I don’t see much difference between Bernie and Hillary,” a friend said this morning over breakfast.
“Wrong,” said my other friend, also at breakfast. She then went through the list:
"Bernie wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Hillary wants to raise it to $12 an hour.
Bernie wants a single-payer health insurance system. Hillary wants to strengthen Obamacare.
Bernie wants all public higher education to be tuition free. Hillary wants community colleges to be tuition free.
Bernie wants to bust up the biggest banks. Hillary wants to make it more expensive for banks to be very big.
Bernie wants to resurrect the Glass-Staegall Act that separated commercial from investment banking before Bill Clinton joined Republicans in repealing it. Hillary doesn’t think it’s necessary to go that far.
Bernie wants to tax speculative trading on Wall Street. Hillary doesn’t think that’s necessary, either.
Bernie wants to expand Social Security by raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Hillary wants to protect Social Security as is.
Bernie wants to allow states to legalize marijuana. Hillary wants to put marijuana on a lower drug enforcement classification but doesn’t want it legalized.
Bernie isn’t taking money from corporate PACs or Super PACs. Hillary is."
“See?” she said. “The difference is huge. Bernie is leading a movement for fundamental change. That’s why he’s generating so much enthusiasm, and why he’ll win the primaries.”
“Wrong” he said. “Bernie's too radical. He doesn’t stand a chance.”
What do you think?

Hillary's flip-flops make her untrustworthy.

I believe the most remarkable feature of the current campaign season is the degree to which an otherwise undistinguished Senator from Vermont has achieved so much notoriety and real enthusiasm among at least a large portion of Democrat voters peddling the tired, worn out and thoroughly discredited social democrat economic policies of the late 20th century. They failed everywhere they were tried and would lead this country very quickly to financial collapse in the hightly unlikely event that he wins election and implements them. I suspect the real motive behind of at least a major portion of this phemominon is diusatisfaction with and distrust of Hillary Clinton.

She is the heir of an incredibly powerful money machine created by her husband, and they are investing heavily in another big payday.

Translated: She is interested in winning...and will do what has to be done to win.

Sanders, a wonderful man with terrific ideas...is more interested in sharing his ideas than in being elected.

I'll take Hillary Clinton in a political contest (which is what the election is) EVERY TIME.

The naive will probably go for Sanders.

Those "failed" policies made us the richest most powerful nation in history. The programs became unwieldy and the greedy took what they could from the system, more and more. All it needed was to police and tweak the social programs back to functionality, but the people like Bill Clinton and the Republicans and some other Democrats participated in incremental dismemberment of the best system in history. Now we have the dysfunction of teabaggers and such tearing the nation apart and beggaring the working people.

True that! The middle class continues to disappear as wages remain stagnant, and college tuition continues its upward spiral.

You don't seem to care that if she wins, you and the country will be saddled with an incredibly corrupt person with her hands in your cookie jar and the ability to steal us blind - and sell our interests out to big banks ONCE AGAIN.

She makes billions off of the retirement nest eggs of average men and women who worked their lives for that money. Clintons make sure their billionaire banking friends skate with no repercussions. She and her husband created the laws that give them the power to screw us to the wall and walk away without a scratch while black kids are tried as adults and imprisoned for POT crimes in their brilliant prison for profit business- and it all pays Clinton dividends.

People like you who give her the keys are as guilty as she is. You KNOW what she is.

In all honesty, is there a more hated political figure in America at this time than Hillary Clinton?

I know Trump gets a lot of stuff thrown his way, but he is a celebrity, not a political figure. Every single thing about Hillary is fake and pointing in the direction of political gain. Her entire career has nothing to show for it other than she is Hillary Clinton.

I truly do not believe that she will ever be President. Too many in America will not vote for her. They vote against her. Whether that means Sanders or a Republican, that's up to the primary voters.

That's the way a lot of people see it.

Personal feelings aside, she is hated by an alarming amount of people. Truly, the incidence of the first black president in a country with racial issues can be partially laid at the feet of a hated Hillary Clinton.

Hillary: More controversial than race in America.

She will never get the presidency. Democrats, take notice.

Vote The Bern.

I agree. She's in it for the power and $$$$$. How many 'educated' Americans really trust her?
One advantage she has is name recognition.

Sorry, Lash, but I am not as far out on the edge as you on this. You seem to loathe her. Fine. Revel in it.



The trouble with playing as close to the edge as you have been, Lash...is that you can fall off.

To me...it seems you have.



To me she is a competent politician who probably will do a decent job as president...and certainly a much better job than anyone from the other side. She is flawed. But I see no one out there who isn't. And the fact that you seem to...just indicates to me that you are flawed.