When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

They don't even make a fight of it.

If they didn't make a fight of it, Social Security and Medicare would have been history by now. The two programs, as of now, are in approximately the same form as they've always been.

In the past few years, every time a state gets a Republican governor, the first thing he does is try his best to ram through anti-union "right to work" laws. Republicans have never been particularly pro-union, but now they are in a rampage to get rid of them. I don't want the same party that is doing its best to tear down the unions to be let loose on Social Security and Medicare. Especially since the electorate is gradually turning blue. I want those programs to at least be in place when the Democratic majority arrives in Congress, because it is on its way.

Then you should consider Chris Christie as your candidate since he vows to keep SS. HE, is the only candidate who has the executive experience to work with a dysfunctional congress and actually get things done. Hillary has no executive experience and not a CLUE about how to work with others.

If Chris Christie is committed to keep both Social Security and Medicare in approximately their present form, and he gets the nomination, I will give him a look, because those are the absolute minimum requirements I look for in a candidate. As to Hillary having no executive experience, she has an in-house advisor who does, so I don't see that as a problem.

True: What's important is their philosophy concerning social equality such as social security and medicare -and other issues important to the middle class.
A wise person consults with others to seek the right answers, and Hillary fits that "Bill."

I am a New Jersey resident...and I can tell you that Chris Christie will say anthing and everything...if he thinks it helps HIS PARTICULAR POLITICAL ASPIRATIONS.

He is not committed to anything...except himself.

LOL, that might be true, but as a non New Jersey resident, I'll have to see. Basically, Social Security and Medicare are Democratic programs so the threat to them is not from the Democrats. Once upon a time Republicans USED to be for them as well, but now many Republicans are harping about how we can't afford these programs.

Just as an example, in the seventies Shirley Chisholm, a newly elected Representative from a black area of Brooklyn, complained openly about being stuck on an agricultural committee, when her district was miles from any farms. She was laughed at and given instead a seat on the committee which oversaw Social Security, which was a demotion. You see, the agricultural committee didn't affect her constituents but it was powerful and her vote could be bartered for votes on other bills which DID affect Brooklyn. At that time, (early seventies), both the Democrats and the Republicans were in agreement on almost all Social Security issues, there was nothing to barter.

Those days are gone, Social Security and Medicare are under attack from the GOP. So my feeling is, if a Republican nominee has the balls to stand up to those in his party who want to get rid of those programs, he deserves an honest look. Not saying I'm going to vote for him, but I'll give him some honest consideration on the strength of his support for those two programs alone.

And he'll say it really loud, too. If georgeob1 finds Frank Apisa's perpetual boldface obnoxious, he will suffer terribly if Christie ever becomes president.

I suspect I would adapt. Frank is another story.

I think it goes back to WWII or around 1944.

Very interesting to look at this thread in the present moment. Begun in April, george posited that Hillary's favorability numbers were crumbling and would likely continue to crumble to the point where she'd no longer be seen as "inevitable" and more likely, perhaps, to become non-viable as candidate.

But things haven't worked out that way. Her numbers continue to put distance between herself and Sanders (averaging polls) not to mention between her and what's his name.

But back in April, this was a regular theme in right wing media (and to some degree, in mainstream media which is not titillated nor well monetized without a "horse race".) The second of these isn't interesting but the first is.

Oppo activities preceding an election seek, among other things, to create particular narratives designed to be imbibed by some target audience (maybe the press generally, maybe the base, maybe the other party's voters) such that that audience will come to believe the thing and then behave as oppo agents desire. It's a marketing/propaganda game with little attachment to the truth of things.

This I find very interesting indeed. The goal is to create or manipulate consensus through suggesting there is a consensus. And underlying that goal or strategy is the intuitive (or studied) observation that humans tend to follow along with what they perceive others are doing or thinking.

One continually hilarious example of this thing is the behavior of politicos when a press conference is delivered - a speaker stands in front of some symbolic building and somberly delivers his chosen words but he or she is almost never alone. Behind him/her will be a semi-circle of other politicos, their attention clearly riveted by the astounding, revelatory wisdoms being spoken. There is somber nodding all around.

Why this entirely predictable, entirely idiotic exercise in staging? Because it suggests consensus.

Some angry talk on Twitter that will hopefully find its way into Sanders' lawsuit against Clinton: people report that although they only gave contact info to the Sanders campaign, recently Bill, Chelsea, and Hillary Clinton have been sending emails asking for money.

Unless she can pay off the judge too, I think I know how this lawsuit is going to turn out.

I think the breach was planned for this purpose, and they had the audacity to call Bernie out for their activity. Perhaps his tech guys were telling the truth, and they did suspect HRC's campaign of mining their data during these breaches.

But that's all speculation based solely on anti-Hillary bias. You haven't a single shred of anything substantial to base it on. The only verifiable campaign data shenanigans that have occurred to date was carried out by Bernie staffers.

The many qualifiers I used should make it quite easy to categorize my comment as speculation, but based on several facts as well as my low opinion of Hillary Clinton.

Looking forward to the case in court.

I don't think there will be a court case. I think they were threatening court as a red herring bluster to deflect from the fact that their side was the one caught cheating. Mind you, I do not think Bernie was at all complicit or is now trying to carry on a cover up. But I have serious misgivings about the ethics of some of his staff - his toughguy campaign manager, for one.

Snood, it wasn't deflection. The DNC breached their own contract in their response to the Sanders team accessing Clinton data. From what he said, I think sanders will pursue it because he thinks the Clinton team breached his data. He alluded to this during the debate.

Guess we'll see...

I don't understand why they made a headline of it over Bernie and the breach, when it is easily verifiable that Hillary and Barak did it to each other .

What "they" made it a headline? I need to see one of those "easily verifiable" sources that says Obama and Clinton did the same thing.

Just check the snopes article on the Bernie sanders thing. They tell the entire thing. I posted it on a2k once, but I don't think many people read it. It was on Robert's thread about it.