Bernie Sanders Is Now the 'Inevitable' Democratic Nominee and Presidential Winner
What happens when poll numbers are wrong about a candidate's inevitability?
It took Barack Obama until February of 2008 to overcome Clinton's "inevitability," as illustrated in a USA Today piece titled Poll: Obama now seen as most electable:
The air of inevitability that once surrounded Clinton has shifted to the Illinois senator, now seen by seven in 10 Americans as the likely Democratic nominee...
"Obama has transitioned from a movement leader to a presidential leader," says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, saying he has "crossed the threshold" to being judged able to handle the job.
Pundits forget that the "air of inevitability that once surrounded Clinton" shifted to Obama; only after he transitioned from a "a movement leader to a presidential leader."
In 2016, Bernie Sanders is not only today's Democratic "movement leader" (as exemplified by endorsements from The Nation and MoveOn.org), he's surpassed Hillary Clinton as the "inevitable" presidential candidate.
Sanders performs better than Clinton against Trump in a general election. Also, Bernie Sanders isn't linked to an expanded FBI investigation of emails (that could easily continue past Election Day) and he's raised more individual contributions thananyone in history. Finally, Vermont's Senator has already surpassed Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire polls; something deemed unthinkable to many observers several months ago.
While the majority of Americans find both Clinton and Trump "not honest and trustworthy," only Sanders is trusted by the majority of Americans. Because of negative favorability ratings, I explain why Hillary Clinton is unelectable in thisYouTube segment.
Americans have never voted for someone they don't like and don't trust, which says something about the Clinton and Trump campaigns. When only one candidate is trusted in a presidential election, and another remembers landing in Bosnia under sniper fire (that never happened), there's only one likely outcome.
I recently had the great pleasure of appearing on the Benjamin Dixon Show, where I explained that Bernie Sanders could easily win a landslide victory in 2016. If you enjoyed my latest article on the subject, just watch my discussion with Benjamin Dixon.
Benjamin Dixon is becoming a national presence, and I thank him for giving me theopportunity to explain why my conscience will only allow me to vote for Bernie Sanders, and not Donald Trump or Clinton.
Also, although I didn't mention this alternate scenario, the FBI might give Bernie Sanders a landslide victory in 2016. Not many people understand the severity ofhackers in other countries attempting to hack into a Secretary of State's private server (a server that Wired stated was a "Security Fail"), and along with the man who set up Clinton's server pleading the Fifth, we're nowhere near an ending to this saga. It could easily derail Clinton's campaign.
However, Bernie Sanders won't need James Comey and the FBI to achieve a landslide. His ascent started in the summer of 2015, and I've noticed something remarkable while voicing my support for Sanders.
According to HuffPost Polster on June 23, 2015, Hillary Clinton enjoyed a commanding 58.6% lead in the 2016 Democratic Primary, far superior to the mere 14.9% support held by Bernie Sanders. Two days later, I wrote a piece in The Huffington Post titled It's Official -- Bernie Sanders Has Overtaken Hillary Clinton In the Hearts and Minds of Democrats.
I don't write for Facebook likes, but that Huffington Post article is currently at 726,000 Facebook likes and on its way to 1 million.
Remember, we're only talking about an article on Bernie Sanders, not a music video. Its popularity is a testament to an immense undercurrent of nationwide support ignored by media and pundits. Only Bernie Sanders could catapult an article on politics to almost 1 million Facebook likes.
On June 29, 2015, Clinton still enjoyed an enormous 58.4% advantage, while Sanders had surged to a whopping 15.9%. On that day, I wrote a piece titled Why Bernie Sanders Will Become the Democratic Nominee and Defeat Any Republican in 2016. The article quickly surged to 157,000 Facebook likes.
On July 6, 2015, Clinton still had a gigantic 57.8% advantage, while Sanders had increased only to 16.8%. Two days later, I wrote a piece in The Hill titled Sanders's integrity and honesty worth more than Clinton's billions. It garnered 114,000 Facebook Likes.
No, I don't write for Facebook Likes, and some of my better writing hasn't even been noticed by readers. One of my best articles is titled Dick Cheney's 1994 Gulf War Interview Proves Why Jeb Bush Can't Blame Obama or Intelligence Failures that earned only 103 likes and one comment. The article did result, however, in a Ring of Fire appearance explaining how Dick Cheney destabilized the Middle East.
But I digress, so let's get back to the undercurrent of popularity enjoyed by Bernie Sanders. One of my articles in The Hill titled 3 reasons Bernie Sanders is now the Democratic front-runner earned 56,900 Facebook Likes.
Yet another of my Hill articles titled Why Bernie Sanders dominated the Democratic debate totaled 45,100 Facebook likes. My writing in Salon has also achieved popularity, especially my stance on voting only for Bernie Sanders.
I could continue, but Clinton supporters are no doubt already creating memes, so I'll explain why Facebook likes correlate to Bernie Sanders winning the presidency in a landslide.
Just click on this Huffington Post article to see how soon it reaches one million Facebook likes and learn its relevance to Bernie Sanders surpassing Clinton as our "inevitable" presidential candidate. The article's popularity could usher in a new tool of measurement for presidential elections in the future, specifically the ability of social media to indicate a massive undercurrent of support ignored by traditional polling. In 2016, I believe this article will be more accurate than the polling data at the time it was written.
Inadvertently, my writing has foreshadowed a January 14, 2016 Washington Postarticle titled Hillary Clinton's national lead is slipping faster in 2016 than it did in 2008:
In 2008, Hillary Clinton saddled up for the Kentucky Derby on a thoroughbred that was a sure thing... Then, as another jockey started to gain, she slipped out of her saddle...
Nationally, she was doing much better in 2008 than she is right now...
If you look at her national numbers after Iowa in 2008, she lost three-quarters of her lead after the caucuses...
Like his ability to break Obama's fundraising record (without media attention or the help of the DNC), Sanders is cutting into Clinton's lead faster than Obama in 2008.
After Bernie's Iowa win this year, remember that in 2008, Clinton "lost three-quarters of her lead after the caucuses."
In terms of a major reason Sanders will easily surpass Clinton in 2016, Zaid Jilani explains a curious money trail in an Interceptarticle titled Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime:
According to public disclosures, by giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015... The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms.
Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches.
This enormous amount of money just in speeches alone could easily foreshadow a future where Clinton sides with Wall Street during her presidency.
It's difficult to believe Clinton would be tough on Wall Street when, "Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches."
Again, Bill and Hillary Clinton have earned $139 million just from speaking appearances on Wall Street.
That's 139 million reasons, in my view, to only vote for Bernie Sanders.