When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

As far as patterns go there is indeed an undeniable pattern of convenient distortions of the truth in the political history of the Clintons

Nonsense. The work force participation rate (look it up) is age adjusted. The fraction of working age folks who are not either employed or seeking employment is much lower than has been normal.

The labor force participation rate, as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is “the percentage of the population [16 years and older] that is either employed or unemployed (that is, either working or actively seeking work).”

The real fact is the much vaunted stimulus accomplished very little except sustain employment in non productive government bureaucracies (remember the "shovel ready projects" - that never materialized?) . Reducing taxes an equivvalent amount would have achieved far more,

Our recovery from the last recession was much slower than in any over the past 40 years. Nothing there to brag about.

Fewer people are working and average wages are down.

Have you taken the reduction in work force participation into account?

If Hillary Clinton was hoping to land a knockout punch against her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders in the Iowa caucuses Monday night, then she didn’t get what she was hoping for.

Yet if Sanders arrived in Des Moines hoping to “pull an Obama” — to unseat the presumptive frontrunner with an upset victory that would immediately reset the narrative of the campaign, as Barack Obama did in 2008 — then his dream didn’t come true, either.

In the end — or at least at bedtime, the results of this year’s Democratic contest were a muddle. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, Clinton led Sanders 49.8 percent to 49.6 percent. All that separated the two candidates were three measly delegates. This could change overnight, of course, but whatever the final numbers are, neither Sanders nor Clinton will be heading into next week’s New Hampshire primary with any significant new momentum.

Even so, both Democrats have reason to feel good about Monday’s outcome. In 2008, Clinton, long considered “inevitable,” didn’t just lose to Obama. She also lost to former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. It was a shocking, sobering defeat that her campaign never really recovered from. Monday’s results suggest that she has learned from her mistakes.

Sanders, meanwhile, was largely dismissed as a sideshow when he announced his candidacy nine months ago. Now he has fought an even-more-inevitable Clinton to a draw, in a state where she was leading by 25 percentage points as recently as November — meaning that his sturdy lead in New Hampshire is unlikely to crumble, and that the war over delegates will probably extend well into the spring.

“Tonight, while the results are still not known, it looks like we are in a virtual tie,” Sanders said to raucous cheers at his caucus-night party in a Holiday Inn ballroom in Des Moines. “I think the people of Iowa have sent a very profound message to the political establishment, to the economic establishment — and, by the way, to the media establishment.”

If you’re dreaming of Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton, you know how the movie begins (he wins Iowa on Monday1), how it ends (he accepts the nomination to a Simon & Garfunkel tune), and one of the major plot lines (black, Hispanic and moderate Democrats, who for now prefer Clinton to Sanders, begin to #feelthebern). You also know who the hapless villain is: Democratic party elites (aka “the establishment”), who will be fighting Sanders every step of the way.

Otherwise, the details are fuzzy. We’re not quite sure how Sanders pulls off this Wes Anderson caper.

Sanders is highly competitive in the first two states, Iowa (where he’s only narrowly behind Clinton) and New Hampshire (where he leads her). However, those states are favorable for Sanders demographically, with Democratic turnout dominated by Sanders’s base of white liberal voters. The question is whether Sanders can expand his coalition into more diverse states that will vote later on and where African-Americans, Hispanics and white moderates make up a larger share of the electorate. He won’t need to win every voter in these groups, but he’ll need enough of them to go from the roughly one-third of Democratic voters he captures in national polls now to the 50-percent-plus he’ll need eventually.

The first challenge for Sanders is that he appears to be trailing in Iowa. Our “polls-only” forecast gives Clinton a 68 percent chance of winning the state, compared with 32 percent for Sanders, on the basis of her being about 4 percentage points ahead in our weighted polling average. Our “polls-plus” forecast, which assigns some additional credit to Clinton because of her massive lead in endorsements, has Clinton as a 76 percent favorite.

To be clear, those forecasts aren’t predicting that Clinton will win Iowa by 30 percentage points. They’re projecting a close finish and saying that Clinton is somewhat more likely — a little better than a 2-to-1 favorite — to come out on top. But Iowa polls are not all that accurate, and even some polls that show Clinton ahead envision Sanders winning if his voters come out. A Sanders win wouldn’t be all that much of an upset, in other words, at least relative to where the polls stand now.

At the same time, it’s not clear that Sanders has momentum in the Hawkeye State. He made major gains when the first few polls came out in January relative to where they’d been in December, making the race much closer. But he’s never quite surpassed Clinton. In fact, Clinton’s had roughly the same 4-point lead in our polling average for a couple of weeks now. We’ll know more after the Des Moines Register, which previously had Clinton 2 points ahead, releases its excellent poll Saturday.

What if Sanders wins Iowa?

But suppose Sanders does win Iowa. The next step is relatively easy: He’ll probably also win New Hampshire, where the demographics are even better for him, he has a geographic advantage as a Vermont senator (that really does matter) and he already leads Clinton by 13 percentage points. (Obligatory reminder: Clinton won New Hampshire in 2008 despite being way behind in the polls after Iowa.)

If Sanders pulls off the twofer, you’ll be hearing these facts often:
◾No candidate (Democrat or Republican) has lost the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire since Ed Muskie in 1972.2
◾No candidate has won the the nomination without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire since Bill Clinton in 1992.

But there are two reasons to think that Hillary Clinton, like her husband, could defy the prevailing trend. One is the issue I mentioned earlier: Sanders’s success in Iowa and New Hampshire might be a reflection of their Sanders-friendly demographics rather than a harbinger of Clinton’s doom. That seems to match the polling we’re seeing in other states, where (for instance) Sanders is doing relatively well in Wisconsin, which also has plenty of white liberals, but struggling in North Carolina, which has fewer.

None of them ever showed anything other than a lot of smoke being blown up our asses by the people making the accusations without facts.

Clinton Camp Accused of Attempting ELECTION FRAUD by Falsifying Results in Iowa

The data which you posted claiming that "more people are working full time jobs than ever" is hardly persuasive. Examine the table you posted.

The labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. Browse various labor force characteristics. Data also are available by demographic characteristics. See also Not in the labor force..