Hillary will "announce" again, on Saturday. We have questions that await her announcement.

Will she get the polling bump that inexplicably did not happen in April?  Will she start granting media interviews?  Will she stop pretending that her "one on one" sessions are not thoroughly orchestrated by her campaign handlers?  Will she begin campaigning on new and innovative solutions instead of the same divisive,  20 year old crap,  she is currently preaching?  Will she ever wear a dress?  Will she ever tell Bill to get out?  Will she be so far Left,  after winning the Democrat primary,  that she will be unable to move back to the middle,  during the actual election cycle?  What is her stand on trade?  What is her stance on the failure that is the Obama ISIS policy?  How will she deal with the fact that she is less "middle class" than Romney ever thought about being?  What about her role in the Libyan arms trade to Syria,  or the travesty that was "Benghazi,"  or her email scandal, the evolving "pay for play" scandal that has come out of her time as Secretary of State?     Stay tuned.  We have plenty of questions that need to be answered by this woman who would be our representative for the Middle Class . . . . . none more critical than this last question:

What is she going do,  Sunday morning,  if her announcement does not ignite her campaign and move her into the 50 percentile bracket?   Personally,  I believe this decision   . . . .   the announcement  . . . . .  is a huge mistake,  but time in short order,  will give us an answer.  

Debunking the #1 election related myth being fostered by the Democrat talking heads.

Myth #1: The giant Republican field is unpredictable, almost anybody’s game.
By Center for Politics Director,  Larry J. Sabato

With 10 Republican presidential hats in the ring, and perhaps another 10 to come, we all know the GOP is going to have the largest field in living memory. Increasingly, surveys are showing 10 or more candidates bunched in the single or low double-digits. The most recent Quinnipiac poll headlined a finding that has no modern precedent: five contenders tied at 10 percent each.

But the closeness of the race is a mirage, a false projection of the reality that exists just below the surface. At this very early stage, when every week more candidates declare, the public is mainly not engaged—not even the select contingent of voters that will turn up to cast ballots in the caucuses and primaries.

Republicans are hungry to reoccupy the White House, and the realistic among them understand the party won’t win without pitching a bigger tent. There may be no single GOP frontrunner, but there are just a few politicians who have the resources, positioning and potential to expand the base. They are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, not necessarily in that order.

Everyone can see that Jeb Bush is doing poorly so far. He’s in a much worse position than his father was in 1987 or his brother was in 1999. This Bush intimidates no one. His political skills are rusty, he’s a pedestrian speaker and some of his views (immigration reform, Common Core, etc.) have made him many enemies among party ideologues.

Yet Bush is still undeniably among the frontrunners. The GOP’s donor class is disproportionately for him, as his Super PAC fundraising total will soon reveal. The party’s organizational leaders who care only about winning argue for him. The largest share of top elected Republicans back him openly or covertly. Four Republican senators are running, but private talks with GOP senators lead us to believe more Republican senators are rooting for Bush than for the quartet of their Senate colleagues combined.

Then there’s the experience factor. Jeb may not have been on a ballot himself since 2002, but he has been at the heart of six prior national campaigns, his father’s four (1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992) and his brother’s recent two. No other Republican candidate can boast more than one such trial by fire.

At the same time, Bush isn’t a shoo-in for the nomination. Compared to earlier decades, today’s GOP is considerably less hierarchical and deferential to the leadership. Political money can’t be hoarded by the best-known name, nor by the candidates closest to the formal party leadership. Gobs of campaign cash are just a rich person away; so far there’s seemingly a billionaire backing just about every major candidate. Finally, Jeb Bush is the early favorite in none of the gateway states, that is, the first four to vote (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada).

51% of 130 million voters will win an election; 75% of 66 million will not.

The point of my headline,  is rather straight forward:  If Hillary cannot generate a huge Democrat turnout in 2016, she will lose the election and further erode the political influence of the Marxist Progressives within the Democrat Party.

I encourage you to read the following:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-05/clinton-support-has-nowhere-to-go-but-down

The link,  above,  records a very informative article,  found in Bloomberg,  about the reality surrounding and inundating (?) Hillary Clinton.  

At the present time,  in the 240 year national debate between "big government" and those who believe in individual freedom and oppose a "one size fits all" Central Government,  the key to winning an election is a pesky little thing called "turn-out."  Personality drives turnout.  Many of us hated the lip-biting arrogance of Bill Clinton,  but the man had personality.  Many of us hate the radicalized dream world of Barack Obama,  but the man has personality.Many hated the cowboy politics of Ron Reagan,  but,  again,  he had personality.  Even Jimmy Carter,  a man I voted for the first time,  had a sense of sincerity and honesty that drove people to him   . . . . . .   before they realized that he was a Jew hating nutbag,  that is. 

Hillary?  Not so much.  And how is she hoping to get elected?  By preaching racism,  sexism, and,  policies straight out of  20/30 years ago   . . . . . . . .   and doing so without an ounce of personality or charisma.    

Truman had no personality.  Can't say that Eisenhower or LBJ were especially charismatic, either,   so Hillary has a chance,  but not against a charismatic and honest personality. 
 
Understand that "likability" and "trustworthiness" effect voter turnout. And the article linked to this commentary,  is all about the fact that more and more people are seeing Hillary in a poor light.  Understand that dyed-in-the-wool liberal Progressives,  whether welfare cases or ideologues,  will never vote "conservative,"  unless their candidate is so overwhelmingly ridiculous,  that they will have no choice    . . . . .    I mean,  that is exactly what happened to Carter,  the second time around,  right?  If the Democrats are not impressed with Hillary and are not going to switch sides,  what are they going to do?  The answer?  Stay home and talk on their free phones. 

If she manages to get 51% of the total electorate,  in 2016  (estimated at a potential size of 130 million), she will win the election.  But   . . . . . .    if she  cannot get 66/67 million folks to vote for her,  in 2016,  she is in big trouble.  

And "turnout" can defeat any candidate,  at any time.  Look at Scott Walker in the union controlled state of Wisconsin,  or Scott Brown running for Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts,  or the unknown Hogan,  a Republican,  winning as Governor in the very blue state of Maryland in 2014 after four years of Martin O'Malley.  

Here's the deal:  if the voters see this nation as being in a mess,  after eight years of authoritarian rule by Barack Obama, AND, Hillary does not run against the current Administration (and how could she?),  she is not going to beat the well known Jeb Bush,  a well spoken Marco Rubio, an effective Texas Governor in Rick Perry  (we can only hope his 2012 physical troubles are over),  or the very successful, Blue State governors of Wisonsin (Scott Walker) and John Kasich (Ohio). 

The Democrats largest super-pac will "sit out" this year's midterms. It is more interested in saving face and money for Hillary's run for the WH.

Sometimes,  I love double speak.  Here is a such a case.  Priorities USA Action, the Democrat's largest "super pac,"  is going to forego campaign efforts and financial support for the 2014 midterms.  Kind of a big deal,  no?

Of course, the effort at retaking the House and holding onto the Senate,  are just as important now,  as these goals were in 2012.  Big difference between then and now. however.   Obama, with his decision to run this country as if he were a dictator,  is going to cost the Dems this coming election.  He is not running for office but will be at the center of the GOP's attack strategy,  he and his idiot's law,  ObamaCare.  If Hillary has a chance in 2016,  she really must separate herself from this socialist clown,  and her election machine appears to be doing just that.  

But,  about my love for double speak:  While Priorities is making it clear that they have no confidence in the Democrat notion of "victory" for 2014, they brag on the House and Senate's Democrat fund raising machines,  telling all who will listen that the Democrat Party is in good hands and, by implication,  does not need its (Priority USA) help.  

Bad sign for the Dems;  in fact,  I think this news is a bit more predictive of the 2014 outcome than the Dems want to admit, officially.  And, to think,  Obama has insured that ObamaCare will be a serious political issue in 2016,  what with his delays and postponements into 2015.  I am thinking he has only outsmarted himself.  As soon as Hillary realizes that Obama is not going to lay a foundation for a Democrat victory in 2016,  that he is more concerned with his legacy and transformation agenda,  the split between the two camps might become a major news story in the months to come.  We can only hope for the best,  on this count.  

BuzzFeed:

The Democratic Party’s biggest Super PAC, recently retooled as an early pro-Hillary Clinton effort, will sit out the midterm elections this year.

A spokesman with the group, Priorities USA Action, confirmed to BuzzFeed on Wednesday night that it would not be involved in House or Senate campaigns.

“House Majority PAC and Majority PAC are doing everything right and making a real difference. We fully support their efforts,” said the spokesman, Peter Kauffmann, referring to the main groups supporting Democratic congressional candidates.

Priorities USA Action, which operates under loose campaign finance rules that allow it to raise and spend unlimited sums, put $65 million behind Barack Obama in 2012.