You know they are worried about the viability of [Hillary] when the liberal New York Times says it out loud...

My view on Hillary is clear.  Whether or not I like her or her policies are not the question.  I am reporting on her as an external observer, a herd watcher on the outside looking in.  The fact that I want her to go down in a fiery ball does not change that fact.  Being a trader means I know how to be objective.  IF there were some good news that changed the odds, I would report it too.  After all, nothing goes straight up or straight down.  But in technical analysis terms, Hillary seems to have broken critical support and I reported on that a long time before anyone ever thought that Hillary was in any kind of real trouble.

Today's proof point of this is the liberal New York Times publicly feeding back what it is reading from the public (i.e. polls, etc.) about Hillary's declining viability as president.  Generally, during the "teflon don" phase of these con men, nothing negative is said in public.  All possible doubts are suppressed and benefit of every doubt is given.  Or else.

Not no more folks.  The stink that is coming off Hillary is now suddenly noticeable to the herd.  Even the most dyed in the wool liberals are started to murmur around the water cooler that the empress has no clothing.  The fact that she has stunk like a corrupt politician for many years now never seemed to matter before just as many people knew about Bill Cosby's rapes long before everyone started to suddenly care.  I repeat what I wrote in March: Hillary now = Cosby.

With Hillary now badly wounded, the dems are mortally wounded for the 2016 elections.  They clearly had all their hopes on queen Hillary.  No way is Pedo Biden going to win and self proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders has zero chance either.  The herd is just turning too conservative for this. 

The liberal establishment, much of which wears a fake GOP badge, has screwed the gaggle of geese that lay the golden eggs into the dirt.  People have begun to lose hope despite fake unemployment numbers that say it is a tame 5.1%.  Maybe for Wall St and other sectors but not for Main St.  The lower middle class of yesteryear is now pushed down and living on food stamps.  The middle class of yesteryear is now lower middle class.  Everyone above a certain line is living better, everyone below that line has gotten pushed down.  Those lower class people are generally the ones who believe in government lies, government promises of prosperity, etc.  Higher functioning people understand that government has no real control over these things and so any promises they make are hollow and will eventually be broken.

The article which was written by liberals for consumption by liberals says, "“You have Democrats beginning to panic about the one thing that a lot of them never worried about, which was Clinton’s electability in the general election,” said Robert Shrum, a veteran strategist who was a senior adviser to Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry during their presidential runs. “You still have to think of her as the odds-on favorite for the Democratic nomination. But the challenge she faces in the general election is both the trust problem and the likability problem.”"

So here we have a veteran democratic election strategist telling us that Hillary is still in the running but that she has both trust and likability problems....  Sounds like he thinks denial is a river in Africa.