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?
Also on HuffPost: