2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)

[MoonShadow]

I question whether much will change in the polls. Clinton may actually get a bit of a bump considering her good performance.

I don't think anybody doubts she did well - but at this point in the game it's mostly about name recognition, and everyone already knows her name. Also, early focus groups rated Sanders very highly at the expense of Clinton.

I think that she did better than I expected, but I wouldn't say well.  She wasn't really challenged like she would be in the general.  And for related reasons, I sure hope she wins the nomination.  She will get her ass kicked by any of the current top 5 on the Republican side.  I don't want to see a Clinton dynasty an more than I want to see a Bush dynasty.

[regulator]

I question whether much will change in the polls. Clinton may actually get a bit of a bump considering her good performance.

I don't think anybody doubts she did well - but at this point in the game it's mostly about name recognition, and everyone already knows her name. Also, early focus groups rated Sanders very highly at the expense of Clinton.

I think that she did better than I expected, but I wouldn't say well.  She wasn't really challenged like she would be in the general.  And for related reasons, I sure hope she wins the nomination.  She will get her ass kicked by any of the current top 5 on the Republican side.  I don't want to see a Clinton dynasty an more than I want to see a Bush dynasty.

And if she does end up promising enough gubmint cheese to get elected, she will be hogtied by Congress.

[Kris]

I question whether much will change in the polls. Clinton may actually get a bit of a bump considering her good performance.

I don't think anybody doubts she did well - but at this point in the game it's mostly about name recognition, and everyone already knows her name. Also, early focus groups rated Sanders very highly at the expense of Clinton.

I'm not so sure. I have been very disillusioned with Hillary, and I came away with a much more favorable opinion of her.  I do believe Sanders will get a boost, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary gains a few points, too.

[Jeremy E.]

Kasich put out his plan to balance the budget over the next 8 years.... I'm not necessarily happy about his tax cuts.

[milesdividendmd]

I question whether much will change in the polls. Clinton may actually get a bit of a bump considering her good performance.

I don't think anybody doubts she did well - but at this point in the game it's mostly about name recognition, and everyone already knows her name. Also, early focus groups rated Sanders very highly at the expense of Clinton.

I think that she did better than I expected, but I wouldn't say well.  She wasn't really challenged like she would be in the general.  And for related reasons, I sure hope she wins the nomination.  She will get her ass kicked by any of the current top 5 on the Republican side.  I don't want to see a Clinton dynasty an more than I want to see a Bush dynasty.

And if she does end up promising enough gubmint cheese to get elected, she will be hogtied by Congress.

All presidential candidates offer plenty of gubmint cheese.

The only question is who they offer it to.

[MoonShadow]

I question whether much will change in the polls. Clinton may actually get a bit of a bump considering her good performance.

I don't think anybody doubts she did well - but at this point in the game it's mostly about name recognition, and everyone already knows her name. Also, early focus groups rated Sanders very highly at the expense of Clinton.

I think that she did better than I expected, but I wouldn't say well.  She wasn't really challenged like she would be in the general.  And for related reasons, I sure hope she wins the nomination.  She will get her ass kicked by any of the current top 5 on the Republican side.  I don't want to see a Clinton dynasty an more than I want to see a Bush dynasty.

And if she does end up promising enough gubmint cheese to get elected, she will be hogtied by Congress.

All presidential candidates offer plenty of gubmint cheese.

The only question is who they offer it to.

T'is truth spoken.

[regulator]

I question whether much will change in the polls. Clinton may actually get a bit of a bump considering her good performance.

I don't think anybody doubts she did well - but at this point in the game it's mostly about name recognition, and everyone already knows her name. Also, early focus groups rated Sanders very highly at the expense of Clinton.

I think that she did better than I expected, but I wouldn't say well.  She wasn't really challenged like she would be in the general.  And for related reasons, I sure hope she wins the nomination.  She will get her ass kicked by any of the current top 5 on the Republican side.  I don't want to see a Clinton dynasty an more than I want to see a Bush dynasty.

And if she does end up promising enough gubmint cheese to get elected, she will be hogtied by Congress.

All presidential candidates offer plenty of gubmint cheese.

The only question is who they offer it to.

They differ in quantity as well.

[milesdividendmd]

True. The deficits do grow much faster under Republicans. More giveaways.

[regulator]

True. The deficits do grow much faster under Republicans. More giveaways.

Taking less of your constituents money via confiscatory taxes is not a giveaway, although I am well aware that you will not be convinced of that.

[milesdividendmd]

A tax expenditure has the exact same effect on a budget as discretionary spending.

Actually, that's wrong.  I take that back. It has a greater tendency to blow up budgets since tax cuts to the rich are less stimulative to the economy overall than discretionary spending on the poor.

[regulator]

A tax expenditure has the exact same effect on a budget as discretionary spending.

Actually, that's wrong.  I take that back. It has a greater tendency to blow up budgets since tax cuts to the rich are less stimulative to the economy overall than discretionary spending on the poor.

Like I said, I had no expectation you would agree with me, comrade.

[dramaman]

A tax expenditure has the exact same effect on a budget as discretionary spending.

Actually, that's wrong.  I take that back. It has a greater tendency to blow up budgets since tax cuts to the rich are less stimulative to the economy overall than discretionary spending on the poor.

Like I said, I had no expectation you would agree with me, comrade.

One doesn't have to be a communist to recognize a basic economic truth from ECON 101.

[Matt_D]

I think that she did better than I expected, but I wouldn't say well.  She wasn't really challenged like she would be in the general.  And for related reasons, I sure hope she wins the nomination.  She will get her ass kicked by any of the current top 5 on the Republican side.  I don't want to see a Clinton dynasty an more than I want to see a Bush dynasty.

You can dislike her all you want, but I haven't seen any polling or realistic analysis (as opposed to wishful partisan thinking) that supports this assertion.

If you want to engage in wishful partisan thinking, that's fine (most of us probably do)... but don't confuse it for analysis :)

[dramaman]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/poll-2016-democrats-post-first-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-214913

For what it's worth, in this CNN/ORC poll Clinton received a small post-debate bump, up 3 points (from 42 to 45) from the last CNN/ORC poll. Sanders received a slightly greater 5 point increase (from 24 to 29). Biden, also in the poll, received a 4 point drop (from 22 to 18). Of the others, only Webb even registered with 1%. But that's if Biden were in the race.

In the race as it currently exists with Biden not running, Clinton actually dropped 1 point (from 57 to 56), while Sanders still had a 5 point gain (from 28 to 33), the others were still down at 2% or less, less than the overall margin of error.

In the same poll those finding Clinton favorable, increased from 42% to 44%, while those finding her unfavorable decreased from 53% to 50%. Sanders favorable went up from 35% to 41%, but interestingly his unfavorable also went up from 27% to 29%.

In matches between Clinton and Trump and Carson respectively, Clinton beat Trump by 5% (50% to 45%), while lost to Carson by 1% (47% to 48%). In the prior (early September) poll, Clinton and Trump were evenly matched at 48%, while Carson was beating Clinton by 5% (51% to 46%).

In matches between Sanders and Trump and Carson, Sanders beat Trump 53% to 44% and lost to Carson 46% to 48%. Sanders performed better in the prior (late July) Trump matchup, winning 59% to 38%. There doesn't appear to be a prior Sanders Carson matchup.

Interestingly, Biden fared even better than Clinton and Sanders against Trump and Carson. Beating Trump 53% to 43% and Carson 52% to 44%. I suspect this is partly from 'Grass is always Greener' syndrome and that Biden's numbers would decrease if he actually entered the race.

Margin of error was +/-8.5% so take minor changes from previous polls with a grain of salt.

[infogoon]

I don't see Hilary taking the nom at this point anyway.  The Democratic machine knows that she's damaged goods, and that the Republican machine will hammer her on both Bengazi & the email server scandal relentlessly during the general.

The only people who care about Benghazi are people who would never vote for her anyway. Additionally hammering is irrelevant.

[Kris]

I don't see Hilary taking the nom at this point anyway.  The Democratic machine knows that she's damaged goods, and that the Republican machine will hammer her on both Bengazi & the email server scandal relentlessly during the general.

The only people who care about Benghazi are people who would never vote for her anyway. Additionally hammering is irrelevant.

Exactly.  Especially since Kevin McCarthy and others have now admitted the whole Benghazi thing was trumped up to bring Hillary down. 

[Bob W]

One tid bit of interest is that many of the large unions are withholding their endorsements.   By endorsements we should be clear that they specifically instruct their members who to vote for and rally the troops around their chosen endorsee.

They obviously don't want to endorse HRC.  Some are waiting to see if Biden jumps in at the last minute but that is unlikely at this point.   So the thinking is that some of the bigger unions may endorse Trump.   Most haven't endorsed someone running under the Republican banner since Reagan or Nixon even.  So that would be a huge deal. 

So the talk about bringing manufacturing back and stopping the import of cheap labor has really peaked the union's interest.    They are also bottom up organizations paying attention to the rank in file who appear to be buying Trump's labor/jobs stance. 

If I were a Union worker or leader,  I couldn't imagine endorsing a candidate whose jobs plan is essentially to import more labor in a stagnant job economy and to continue give away trade deals with nonunionized countries.    A pro NAFTA, H1B1  person should never earn a union member's or Democratic Socialist leaning person's vote. 

You can't buy a USA made TV in this country.   How sad is that? 

What is also happening is that the USA manufactures almost twice as much stuff as we did a decade ago with something like half as many workers in manufacturing.   It is a trend that will likely continue unabated.   It will be interesting to see how we adapt to a world where so few workers are needed to produce all the goods, foods and services we desire.

[dramaman]

One tid bit of interest is that many of the large unions are withholding their endorsements.   By endorsements we should be clear that they specifically instruct their members who to vote for and rally the troops around their chosen endorsee.

They obviously don't want to endorse HRC.  Some are waiting to see if Biden jumps in at the last minute but that is unlikely at this point.   So the thinking is that some of the bigger unions may endorse Trump.   Most haven't endorsed someone running under the Republican banner since Reagan or Nixon even.  So that would be a huge deal.

What is it about Trump that just encourages delusional fantasies? There is no way ever that a union would ever endorse Trump. That's almost as good as previous posts claiming that Trump would get the minority vote.

[tjalexander]

All I can say is, it was refreshing to see a debate where they were actually discussion issues.  I realized it had been quite a while since I'd seen that.  I went to bed feeling just a tiny, tiny bit better about things.

Anderson Cooper didn't want to pit the candidates against each other. So blame the moderators, not the candidates. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cnn-wont-pit-dems-against-each-other-in-tuesdays-debate/article/2573885

[Jeremy E.]

John Kasich originally said he would decrease the military budget, however he recently put out part of his 8 year plan and it shows an increase in the military budget. So he lied, as do all politicians, however I no longer believe he'll succeed in balancing the budget. I'm changing from supporting John Kasich, a not very likely to win candidate, to Rand Paul, someone with even worse odds of winning.

[Bob W]

One tid bit of interest is that many of the large unions are withholding their endorsements.   By endorsements we should be clear that they specifically instruct their members who to vote for and rally the troops around their chosen endorsee.

They obviously don't want to endorse HRC.  Some are waiting to see if Biden jumps in at the last minute but that is unlikely at this point.   So the thinking is that some of the bigger unions may endorse Trump.   Most haven't endorsed someone running under the Republican banner since Reagan or Nixon even.  So that would be a huge deal.

What is it about Trump that just encourages delusional fantasies? There is no way ever that a union would ever endorse Trump. That's almost as good as previous posts claiming that Trump would get the minority vote.

I guess I just read too much (does that qualify as delusional fantasy)?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/labor-unions-giving-serious-thought-to-endorsing-trump/article/2573359

"On Tuesday, the 1.4 million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters announced its executive council would put off a decision on a presidential endorsement due a lack of consensus. Fox News reported that the delay was caused partly by members' support for Trump and that the union was seeking a meeting with the candidate.

The following day, Chris Shelton, president of the 600,000-member Communication Workers of America, told Politico that his union was putting off a presidential endorsement for the same reason. "If our members come out with Donald Trump, then we're going to endorse Donald Trump," he said."

http://www.examiner.com/article/teamsters-reject-hillary-clinton-may-support-donald-trump

As ABC News reported during the 2000 campaign, the Teamsters supported Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush during the 1980s, attracted by the anti-communist stance of the two men. The union switched to the Democratic Party, supporting Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Barack Obama.

A switch by the Teamsters back to the GOP would be catastrophic for the Democrats. Big labor is one of the Democratic Party’s biggest constituencies, providing reliable money and muscle for elections. Even if the union endorses a candidate besides Clinton, Biden say, such a move might be the final nail in her faltering, dysfunctional campaign."


"Trump Leading by 27% in Union Stronghold as Teamsters Want Meeting and Unions Abandon Hillary"
Read more at http://conservativeintel.com/2015/10/01/tumpleadingasteamsterswantmeeting/http://conservativeintel.com/2015/10/01/tumpleadingasteamsterswantmeeting/

http://www.21cpw.com/labor-unions-giving-serious-thought-to-endorsing-trump
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/breaking-video-teamsters-withhold-endorsement-for-hillary-want-to-meet-with-donald-trump/

One would have to ask themselves,  as membership in unions is declining and jobs have been exported via NAFTA and globalization,  why would unions not support a candidate who is openly protectionist --- a candidate who says he will intimidate Ford into building their plants in the US?   A candidate who is not owned by corporations and hidden PAC sting pullers?   Trump wants "fair trade" not "free trade."   Populists have traditionally appealed to unions.

Yeah,  I get the Trump haters but often times they seem to live in a fairy world that the downtrodden worker bees can't relate to. 

And please remember --- I didn't write "Trump will have Union endorsements"       I wrote -- "that many of the large unions are withholding their endorsements."  That is a report of fact and hardly a delusion.   Whether the Unions endorse Trump or not,  one can bet that a larger percentage of union workers will vote for him in the general election than have voted Republican in the last 25 years.   

 

[Bob W]

By the numbers -- 

Twitter followers --

Trump -- 4.6 million
Clinton -- 4.5 million
Bidden -- 940K
Rubio -- 900K
Carson -- 774 K
Sanders -- 747K
Bush -- 747K


Obama -- 65 million
Kim Kardashian --  20+ million


To win Iowa (and most states) one needs only 3% of the population there to caucus/vote for you.    To win the general election one only needs to sway around 1 million people  total to win in the swing states and take the race.    So basically after it is all said around 1/3 of 1% of the US population determines the final victor.  Amazing really! 


Florida 2008 results.  (we're still counting the 2000 results)
Nominee
Barack Obama John McCain 

Party
Democratic Republican

Home state
Illinois Arizona

Running mate
Joe Biden Sarah Palin

Electoral vote
27 0

Popular vote
4,282,367 4,046,219

Percentage
50.91% 48.10%

Was McCain Palin the worst imaginable ticket ever?   I guess the Pubs were going for a young, attractive, female, outsider candidate to offset the old, male, turtle head, insider? 

I had forgotten how young and good looking she was in 08  ----http://www.tvweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/sarah-palin.jpg

[tooqk4u22]

I don't see Hilary taking the nom at this point anyway.  The Democratic machine knows that she's damaged goods, and that the Republican machine will hammer her on both Bengazi & the email server scandal relentlessly during the general.

The only people who care about Benghazi are people who would never vote for her anyway. Additionally hammering is irrelevant.

You can just as easily say that the only people who don't care about Benghazi (or the email scandal for that matter) are people that plan to blindly vote for HRC anyway.

This is a very disturbing time on the US political front - the candidates all suck on both sides, there is enormous partisanship, money more than anything else will determine the winner, nothing will likely change and now......

I am viewing an unscientific poll of on forum of supposedly independent financially responsible people that shows Sanders at 43% (as of now) and even the national polls are distubing.  I am in the middle like most and degrees of liberalism and conservativism may put off some....but socialism....no f'in way that is the right direction....we all lose in that game.

[beltim]

I don't see Hilary taking the nom at this point anyway.  The Democratic machine knows that she's damaged goods, and that the Republican machine will hammer her on both Bengazi & the email server scandal relentlessly during the general.

The only people who care about Benghazi are people who would never vote for her anyway. Additionally hammering is irrelevant.

You can just as easily say that the only people who don't care about Benghazi (or the email scandal for that matter) are people that plan to blindly vote for HRC anyway.

This is a very disturbing time on the US political front - the candidates all suck on both sides, there is enormous partisanship, money more than anything else will determine the winner, nothing will likely change and now......

I am viewing an unscientific poll of on forum of supposedly independent financially responsible people that shows Sanders at 43% (as of now) and even the national polls are distubing.  I am in the middle like most and degrees of liberalism and conservativism may put off some....but socialism....no f'in way that is the right direction....we all lose in that game.

You could say that... but you'd be wrong (infogoon may be wrong too).  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/14/fox-news-poll-60-percent-say-clinton-has-been-dishonest-on-benghazi/

[Kris]

I don't see Hilary taking the nom at this point anyway.  The Democratic machine knows that she's damaged goods, and that the Republican machine will hammer her on both Bengazi & the email server scandal relentlessly during the general.

The only people who care about Benghazi are people who would never vote for her anyway. Additionally hammering is irrelevant.

You can just as easily say that the only people who don't care about Benghazi (or the email scandal for that matter) are people that plan to blindly vote for HRC anyway.

Not at all.  I don't know whether I would vote for HRC or not, and I think the Benghazi thing is a complete non-issue. 

[Bob W]

Just for fun

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/election?iso=20161108T20&p0=4932&msg=Trump+Elected&font=cursive

[Glenstache]

Just for fun

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/election?iso=20161108T20&p0=4932&msg=Trump+Elected&font=cursive

That timer would be more fun as a countdown to a FIRE date for those with a defined pension or other type of known retirement date.

[Bob W]

Just for fun

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/election?iso=20161108T20&p0=4932&msg=Trump+Elected&font=cursive

That timer would be more fun as a countdown to a FIRE date for those with a defined pension or other type of known retirement date.

.  Oh yeah you can set that up too.

[gimp]

Which candidate will give me free guns and/or weed?

[richschmidt]

No option for Gary Johnson (L)?

[gimp]

No option for Gary Johnson (L)?

Is he trying to run again? Christ, what a joke.

[infogoon]

No option for Gary Johnson (L)?

Is he trying to run again? Christ, what a joke.

Well, if he gets the nomination. Have the Libertarians decided which Denny's to hold their convention in this year?

[infogoon]

The only people who care about Benghazi are people who would never vote for her anyway. Additionally hammering is irrelevant.

You can just as easily say that the only people who don't care about Benghazi (or the email scandal for that matter) are people that plan to blindly vote for HRC anyway.

Ironically enough, the whole private email affair might actually be worthy of being called a scandal. But after two decades+ of scaremongering from the Republicans about the Clintons (Whitewater! Vince Foster! Benghazi!), they're having a hell of a time getting any traction with it. It's the Boy Who Cried Wolf writ large.

[Kris]

^^Agreed.

[dramaman]

The Republicans have overplayed their hand and unlike Republicans the Democrats appear uninterested in devouring their own this time around. If things keep going as they are, Clinton will win the nomination and by the time the general election in 13 months, most independents (not to mention Democrats) will have long grown weary of the Republicans waving the bloody flag of Benghazi and the private email server. As long as no new scandals emerge and Clinton can project the same general aura of calm, competent confidence that she showed in the last debate, she will not easily be defeated.

[tooqk4u22]

The Republicans have overplayed their hand and unlike Republicans the Democrats appear uninterested in devouring their own this time around. If things keep going as they are, Clinton will win the nomination and by the time the general election in 13 months, most independents (not to mention Democrats) will have long grown weary of the Republicans waving the bloody flag of Benghazi and the private email server. As long as no new scandals emerge and Clinton can project the same general aura of calm, competent confidence that she showed in the last debate, she will not easily be defeated.

Yes the republican'ts have overplayed their hand and eat their own, and also can't put forth a consistent message or qualified/electable candidate...that has been the case and is why Obama got elected the first time and then re-elected.  It will happen again this time. They need to move more center on social issues and get hard on fiscal reform to even have a chance of being relevant.

HRC only looked good (not really) in the debate because there was no real competition....Sanders is joke, I half beleive he is only in the race to make HRC appear normal/likeable/reasoned - that was not a debate, it was HRC on stage with a bunch of morons.

The only guarantee that HRC is out of it will be the day Biden announces he is running...and only because it means that there will be fallout from the email BS and he will pick up the Obama infrastructure that is somewhat on the sidelines for HRC.

[GuitarStv]

Just for fun

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/election?iso=20161108T20&p0=4932&msg=Trump+Elected&font=cursive

More terrifying than deathclock.com?

[Bob W]

Just for fun

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/election?iso=20161108T20&p0=4932&msg=Trump+Elected&font=cursive

More terrifying than deathclock.com?

Yeah,  I should have added the landslide victory part to the title.  Be afraid,  be very afraid!   

[TechMike]

No more Webb: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/20/450239642/jim-webb-ends-his-presidential-campaign

I'm not sure who was willing to waste their money by donating to his campaign anyways. Didn't stand a chance.

[Jeremy E.]

No more Webb: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/20/450239642/jim-webb-ends-his-presidential-campaign

I'm not sure who was willing to waste their money by donating to his campaign anyways. Didn't stand a chance.

Sounds like he's leaving the democratic nomination campaign, not the presidential campaign. He'll probably run as an independent and get 1%

[regulator]

The Republicans have overplayed their hand and unlike Republicans the Democrats appear uninterested in devouring their own this time around. If things keep going as they are, Clinton will win the nomination and by the time the general election in 13 months, most independents (not to mention Democrats) will have long grown weary of the Republicans waving the bloody flag of Benghazi and the private email server. As long as no new scandals emerge and Clinton can project the same general aura of calm, competent confidence that she showed in the last debate, she will not easily be defeated.

Unless, of course, the FBI finds enough solid stuff to file charges.  I think this is a real possibility.

[milesdividendmd]

The Republicans have overplayed their hand and unlike Republicans the Democrats appear uninterested in devouring their own this time around. If things keep going as they are, Clinton will win the nomination and by the time the general election in 13 months, most independents (not to mention Democrats) will have long grown weary of the Republicans waving the bloody flag of Benghazi and the private email server. As long as no new scandals emerge and Clinton can project the same general aura of calm, competent confidence that she showed in the last debate, she will not easily be defeated.

Unless, of course, the FBI finds enough solid stuff to file charges.  I think this is a real possibility.

Of course you do Regulator.

But of course you do.

[yuka]

No more Webb: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/20/450239642/jim-webb-ends-his-presidential-campaign

I'm not sure who was willing to waste their money by donating to his campaign anyways. Didn't stand a chance.

Sounds like he's leaving the democratic nomination campaign, not the presidential campaign. He'll probably run as an independent and get 1%

I think he's the right kind of moderate to get substantial traction. Unfortunately he's not rich like Ross Perot was, but he may be working in a more accommodating environment vs. 1992. A flip-flopping, secretive, serial liar leading on one side, and a bombastic fool on the other.

If someone gets the guy some money, I don't think 5-10% is out of the question. Obviously not winning the election, but he may help someone else lose it.

[TechMike]

No more Webb: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/20/450239642/jim-webb-ends-his-presidential-campaign

I'm not sure who was willing to waste their money by donating to his campaign anyways. Didn't stand a chance.

Sounds like he's leaving the democratic nomination campaign, not the presidential campaign. He'll probably run as an independent and get 1%

Running as a true independent is incredibly expensive, considering all the states and their ballot access rules. It'll be cheaper to run with a party that already has some ballot access, but there are few which have enough ballot access that he would mathematically have a chance at winning.

I think we can say his real presidential campaign is ended.

[Matt_D]

Webb may try a run as an independent, but I don't think it will get much, if any, traction. Like many others searching for the elusive "centrists," I think he'll find there's minimal support.

tooqk4u22 - on Sanders, that may be your opinion but you should recognize there are many others who don't feel that way about him. I also don't see where you're hanging your assessment that HRC is out if Biden is in.

[regulator]

The Republicans have overplayed their hand and unlike Republicans the Democrats appear uninterested in devouring their own this time around. If things keep going as they are, Clinton will win the nomination and by the time the general election in 13 months, most independents (not to mention Democrats) will have long grown weary of the Republicans waving the bloody flag of Benghazi and the private email server. As long as no new scandals emerge and Clinton can project the same general aura of calm, competent confidence that she showed in the last debate, she will not easily be defeated.

Unless, of course, the FBI finds enough solid stuff to file charges.  I think this is a real possibility.

Of course you do Regulator.

But of course you do.

Frankly, if I attempted to do 1/10th of what she apparently did with her highly sensitive email while I was employed as a federal regulator, I would probably have spent time in jail and at the very least would have been fired in disgrace and been stripped of professional credentials that took material time, effort and expense to attain.  It is a mystery to me why someone in such a high position has not been held to the same standards as I was as a peon.  I personally cannot stand her and would never vote for her, but my disgust on this issue has nothing to do with politics.

[wenchsenior]

Webb may try a run as an independent, but I don't think it will get much, if any, traction. Like many others searching for the elusive "centrists," I think he'll find there's minimal support.

tooqk4u22 - on Sanders, that may be your opinion but you should recognize there are many others who don't feel that way about him. I also don't see where you're hanging your assessment that HRC is out if Biden is in.

Yeah, I think Webb is a footnote in history at this point.

And re: Biden, I think the only way he beats HRC is if she gets legally derailed. His poll numbers are unlikely to go much higher than they are now against her, so he's unlikely to bump her out. I also have a sneaking suspicion that part of Biden's reluctance is the fact that (reportedly) he and Clinton really like each other (as genuinely as politicians can) and he likely finds the prospect of 'fighting' with her on the campaign trail somewhat off-putting.

However, this race has already surprised me, so who knows...

[Jeremy E.]

No more Webb: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/20/450239642/jim-webb-ends-his-presidential-campaign

I'm not sure who was willing to waste their money by donating to his campaign anyways. Didn't stand a chance.

Sounds like he's leaving the democratic nomination campaign, not the presidential campaign. He'll probably run as an independent and get 1%

Running as a true independent is incredibly expensive, considering all the states and their ballot access rules. It'll be cheaper to run with a party that already has some ballot access, but there are few which have enough ballot access that he would mathematically have a chance at winning.

I think we can say his real presidential campaign is ended.

Webb may try a run as an independent, but I don't think it will get much, if any, traction. Like many others searching for the elusive "centrists," I think he'll find there's minimal support.

tooqk4u22 - on Sanders, that may be your opinion but you should recognize there are many others who don't feel that way about him. I also don't see where you're hanging your assessment that HRC is out if Biden is in.

How is Webb not doing well as an independent any different to how he was before as a democrat?

[regulator]

So Biden has just announced he will not run.

And now Carl Icahn is forming a Super PAC with $150MM of his own money to fight tax inversions.  He endorsed Trump (which I had no idea of) and Trump has mentioned him as a potential sec'y of the treasury.  This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-21/carl-icahn-to-form-150-million-super-pac-to-fight-inversions

[tooqk4u22]

Webb may try a run as an independent, but I don't think it will get much, if any, traction. Like many others searching for the elusive "centrists," I think he'll find there's minimal support.

tooqk4u22 - on Sanders, that may be your opinion but you should recognize there are many others who don't feel that way about him. I also don't see where you're hanging your assessment that HRC is out if Biden is in.

Yeah, I think Webb is a footnote in history at this point.

And re: Biden, I think the only way he beats HRC is if she gets legally derailed. His poll numbers are unlikely to go much higher than they are now against her, so he's unlikely to bump her out. I also have a sneaking suspicion that part of Biden's reluctance is the fact that (reportedly) he and Clinton really like each other (as genuinely as politicians can) and he likely finds the prospect of 'fighting' with her on the campaign trail somewhat off-putting.

However, this race has already surprised me, so who knows...

That was my point on Biden....he would only run if HRC is really getting knocked down by the various stuff.  I still attest that Sanders is a joke...and add that people who support them want nothing more than to be lazy drains on society and those that work to support it. Just what we need!

So Biden has just announced he will not run.

And now Carl Icahn is forming a Super PAC with $150MM of his own money to fight tax inversions.  He endorsed Trump (which I had no idea of) and Trump has mentioned him as a potential sec'y of the treasury.  This just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-21/carl-icahn-to-form-150-million-super-pac-to-fight-inversions

So HRC is still the primary then and winds must be that she will stay clean from the issues (teflon).....of course he basically said I am not running but will be here if she falls apart.