POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you can't pull 15% against a field this unpopular, exactly how relevant are you?

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

QFT. Historically unpopular candidates from the two major parties and both your POTUS and VP candidates not only have held elective office before, they're also not particularly fringe on policy. This was the Libertarian Party's opportunity to go over 15%.

And when JIMGA, Flere, and BEL can all agree on a point, it's a wrap, gentleman.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes because the parties you mention are polling in the 8-12% range.

Well the KKK Party is around 40% right now .

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Yes because the parties you mention are polling in the 8-12% range.

Neither is fielding a candidate afaik.

But both are as viable a contender as the L's (or the G's for that matter).

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

A) There is a chance Preibus won't even be around 4 years from now.

It isn't going to be Trump trying to replace him, as long as "Support Trump or else we'll prevent you from running" is his official stance. He may leave before the 2020 race begins in earnest, but he may not.

B) How is he going to prevent anyone from running for the Republican nomination? If he could have that power, Trump wouldn't be the nominee right now.

A) Freedom of association. The political parties have the right to set terms of membership as well as terms of eligibility for candidacy. I mean, neither one of them are likely to exclude explicitly on the basis of federally protected classes. They could, however, announce that candidates who signed, and then reneged upon, a previous loyalty pledge will not be permitted to run. Okay, good luck stopping that person, you say. The RNC coordinates the debates with the various network partners. Simply make the airing of a debate contingent upon RNC approval of the invitees, and then exercise veto power over a Kasich or a Cruz if they run in 2020 without having endorsed Trump in 2016.

I'm not saying that exclusion would be *easy* but they could throw up all sorts of roadblocks and generally make it an enormous hassle for that person to run as a Republican.

B) Preibus might have liked to be able to forestall a Trump run in the first place, but it's easier to exclude in the future because somebody broke a "rule" than to say "we just don't like orange-haired asshole loudmouths, you can't run." Freedom of association and the pre-existing loyalty pledge give him some leverage to exert to attempt to maintain party unity in the here-and-now. And that's almost certainly why Cruz would be considering an endorsement, if he in fact is.

As others have pointed out, Cruz wins nothing by caving now, especially after he showed his ass at the Convention. Endorsing Trump now won't endear him to the Trumpites, and would probably be cause for disdain from the #NeverTrumpers. The only reason to do so is if he thinks Trump will lose, intends to run in 2020, and takes seriously the threat that Preibus could somehow block his candidacy if he doesn't follow through on the loyalty pledge.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It isn't going to be Trump trying to replace him, as long as "Support Trump or else we'll prevent you from running" is his official stance. He may leave before the 2020 race begins in earnest, but he may not.



A) Freedom of association. The political parties have the right to set terms of membership as well as terms of eligibility for candidacy. I mean, neither one of them are likely to exclude explicitly on the basis of federally protected classes. They could, however, announce that candidates who signed, and then reneged upon, a previous loyalty pledge will not be permitted to run. Okay, good luck stopping that person, you say. The RNC coordinates the debates with the various network partners. Simply make the airing of a debate contingent upon RNC approval of the invitees, and then exercise veto power over a Kasich or a Cruz if they run in 2020 without having endorsed Trump in 2016.

I'm not saying that exclusion would be *easy* but they could throw up all sorts of roadblocks and generally make it an enormous hassle for that person to run as a Republican.

B) Preibus might have liked to be able to forestall a Trump run in the first place, but it's easier to exclude in the future because somebody broke a "rule" than to say "we just don't like orange-haired asshole loudmouths, you can't run." Freedom of association and the pre-existing loyalty pledge give him some leverage to exert to attempt to maintain party unity in the here-and-now. And that's almost certainly why Cruz would be considering an endorsement, if he in fact is.

As others have pointed out, Cruz wins nothing by caving now, especially after he showed his ass at the Convention. Endorsing Trump now won't endear him to the Trumpites, and would probably be cause for disdain from the #NeverTrumpers. The only reason to do so is if he thinks Trump will lose, intends to run in 2020, and takes seriously the threat that Preibus could somehow block his candidacy if he doesn't follow through on the loyalty pledge.

This basically assumes Trump wins. If Trump loses, there will likely be a massive backlash that costs Preibus his job, and if Preibus survives in any way, folks like Cruz and Kasich will be the "we told you so" group and will hold all the cards. And Preibus doesn't get to decide the eligibility requirements himself. Furthermore, trying to block Cruz would play into his hands. He can literally use that to claim 'outsider' status once again.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

B) Preibus might have liked to be able to forestall a Trump run in the first place, but it's easier to exclude in the future because somebody broke a "rule" than to say "we just don't like orange-haired asshole loudmouths, you can't run."

In retrospect maybe, but at the time the RNC establishment loved Trump being one of the dozen candidates. Get a little extra media attention in August, let him explicitly say some of the things establishment politicians could only hint at and see which ones they could run with ans which ones were too far... Just turned out they massively underestimated how much the base disliked them & Trump's attention span.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

It's probably just that they grew up in a time where there was no racism.

A Trump campaign chair in Ohio says there was 'no racism' before Obama | US news | The Guardian

THANKS OBAMA.

wow, Hillary should make sure that gets played in every Ohio black church before election day. I see that she has already resigned her position.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Butter

1992 Ross Perot would. So you just like moving the goalposts, or just complaining or what?

No idea what you are talking about. Third parties were in the debates in the 70's and then Perot in the 90's. (Reagan once debated only John Anderson because Carter wouldn't debate) They created these rules in the late 90's after Perot started to ruin the stranglehold the D/R had developed.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

And when JIMGA, Flere, and BEL can all agree on a point, it's a wrap, gentleman.

Massive two party system advocates? Of course they do.

[ISiddiqui]

Is JIMGA really a 'massive two party system advocate'? I mean, I'm no fan of his, but I think you're reaching quite a bit.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Is JIMGA really a 'massive two party system advocate'? I mean, I'm no fan of his, but I think you're reaching quite a bit.

Agree that he craps on everyone pretty equally but nothing he has ever written has shown much thought to supporting 3rd parties. (Even if the Nazis ran which seem to hold a lot of his positions)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by panerd

No idea what you are talking about. Third parties were in the debates in the 70's and then Perot in the 90's. (Reagan once debated only John Anderson because Carter wouldn't debate) They created these rules in the late 90's after Perot started to ruin the stranglehold the D/R had developed.

There were only two election cycles that had debates with a third party candidate - The first 1980 debate (as you said, Carter refused to debate with Anderson, so the first debate was Reagan vs. Anderson, but the second debate Reagan agreed to Carter's terms so it was Reagan vs. Carter only) and the 1992 debates. That's it.

In 1996, Perot wasn't a part of the debates, so not sure how the 15% adopted in 2000 was in direct result of Perot.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This basically assumes Trump wins. If Trump loses, there will likely be a massive backlash that costs Preibus his job, and if Preibus survives in any way, folks like Cruz and Kasich will be the "we told you so" group and will hold all the cards. And Preibus doesn't get to decide the eligibility requirements himself. Furthermore, trying to block Cruz would play into his hands. He can literally use that to claim 'outsider' status once again.

I'm not sure there will be an anti-Preibus backlash if Trump loses. His hands are kind of tied. If he explicitly and publicly renounces efforts to help beat Hillary Clinton at the ballot box, THAT would sink him with Republicans more than almost anything else could. Trump...he doesn't have to ChristieHug (tm) Trump, but as long as he appears to be working towards Hillary Clinton's defeat, he can probably survive whatever postmortem is coming. If he wants to.

Cruz could absolutely claim 'outsider' status on that, but he isn't going to be able to leverage a cult of personality the way Trump has been able to in order to get free airtime. He has a decently large donor list but I'm not sure a Cruz money machine could compete with the Clinton network on its own. He needs the support of an external apparatus. Where is he going to find that?

Or let's say he DOES eschew the RNC to do an outsider run for President, but doesn't get any real traction, either by getting the GOP nod via an end run completely around the debates and such, or as a visible third party; at that point, his Senate re-election campaign becomes materially important. If he attempts to force the RNC's hand and make them look foolish, what incentive does the RNC have to NOT forcefully back a primary opponent to Cruz, knowing full well that whoever wins the primary probably wins the Senate seat?

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

In retrospect maybe, but at the time the RNC establishment loved Trump being one of the dozen candidates. Get a little extra media attention in August, let him explicitly say some of the things establishment politicians could only hint at and see which ones they could run with ans which ones were too far... Just turned out they massively underestimated how much the base disliked them & Trump's attention span.

Sure. But that misses the point. If Preibus had had the benefit of foresight, or understood how successful demagoguery works, he might have tried to do something. Instead, like Franz von Papen before him, he underestimated Trump's political skills and, in the aftermath, seems to have come to the belief that Trump can be controlled with the right advisers.

Note that my comparison here is explicitly not Trump-Hitler, but rather Preibus-von Papen: both sought to leverage a blustery demagogue to the benefit of the Establishment, and both got taken for a ride instead.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'm not sure there will be an anti-Preibus backlash if Trump loses.

Of course he will. There was an anti-Preibus movement when Trump was winning the nomination. It has been subsumed as people get in line, but after Trump loses, the knives will be back out in force. Especially if the Republicans lose the Senate as well.

Cruz could absolutely claim 'outsider' status on that, but he isn't going to be able to leverage a cult of personality the way Trump has been able to in order to get free airtime. He has a decently large donor list but I'm not sure a Cruz money machine could compete with the Clinton network on its own. He needs the support of an external apparatus. Where is he going to find that?

Or let's say he DOES eschew the RNC to do an outsider run for President, but doesn't get any real traction, either by getting the GOP nod via an end run completely around the debates and such, or as a visible third party; at that point, his Senate re-election campaign becomes materially important. If he attempts to force the RNC's hand and make them look foolish, what incentive does the RNC have to NOT forcefully back a primary opponent to Cruz, knowing full well that whoever wins the primary probably wins the Senate seat?

This is assuming that the RNC will be able to control the debates that tightly (I doubt it) or will be able to stand in the way of those who refused to back Trump (I doubt it). The party will probably end up seeing Cruz and Kasich as folks who stood up to the utter destructiveness of Trump. Cruz was already the Tea Party's most popular Senator. I doubt his refusal to back Trump will damage that standing. And any primary challenger will be rolled over (especially considering the anti-Trump backlash that will be in effect). Or if Priebus survives and tries to hold Cruz back, he can turn to Trump's playbook and loudly start claiming how the system is rigged. Priebus can't win against that. He's shown he has no spine to begin with; I doubt he'll stand against Cruz.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by panerd

Massive two party system advocates? Of course they do.

I voted third party for POTUS in 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and I've posted numerous times in this thread my intention to vote third party once again in 2016. The idea that I'm a two-party system advocate is laughable.

But I'm also smart enough to see that what JIMGA posted is clearly true in this election cycle. We can argue about whether it's the concept of a third party that people are rejecting or some specifics about Johnson and Stein that are being rejected. But either way, the fact remains that we have two historically unpopular candidates and no third party has sniffed 15%.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In 1996, Perot wasn't a part of the debates, so not sure how the 15% adopted in 2000 was in direct result of Perot.

Well, yes & no on that.

The establishment of the commission (and various lawsuits that surrounded it) did eventually lead to the setting of "objective criteria" for inclusion. That's where the 15% came into play. How much of that was Perot vs how much was the contentious appearance of John Anderson in the earlier debates vs how much was simply getting the subjective out of the picture in order to remove the stream of failed lawsuits {shrug} ... who knows.

But even the objective criteria for '96 was set (as noted in this 20 year old op-ed piece) more than a year before the 1996 debates. And they issued nearly a dozen indicators of what would constitute "a realistic chance of being elected", which was the standard he failed to meet.

In '96 Perot's situation was vastly different than in 1992 ... when the same body, with the same bipartisan makeup & a number of the same corporate sponsors paying the bills invited him to participate.

By '96 he was polling only slightly better than Johnson is now, a far cry from his '92 situation. He no longer had unlimited funding (having accepted federal contributions). He was, simply, not a legitimate factor in the race and had no place in the debates any more than the 100 or so other "parties" that would love 15 minutes.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I voted third party for POTUS in 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and I've posted numerous times in this thread my intention to vote third party once again in 2016. The idea that I'm a two-party system advocate is laughable.

But I'm also smart enough to see that what JIMGA posted is clearly true in this election cycle. We can argue about whether it's the concept of a third party that people are rejecting or some specifics about Johnson and Stein that are being rejected. But either way, the fact remains that we have two historically unpopular candidates and no third party has sniffed 15%.

How much of that is Johnson and Stein not being able to pull voters in, and how much of that is fear that one of the historically unpopular candidates might win if I don't hold my nose and make a vote I'm not truly comfortable with?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

...and no third party has sniffed 15%.

Are they even sniffing 15% combined at this point?

Looks more like they're struggling to hit & maintain even double digits nationally between them.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are they even sniffing 15% combined at this point?

Looks more like they're struggling to hit & maintain even double digits nationally between them.

I think at one point Johnson was at around 9 or 10% in some poll I saw, so I just used the 15% debate threshold since if my memory there is correct, he *did* at least sniff 10% for a while.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Agree that he craps on everyone pretty equally but nothing he has ever written has shown much thought to supporting 3rd parties. (Even if the Nazis ran which seem to hold a lot of his positions)

I've voted for a third party or two over the years, so I have nothing against the concept of them, but I'm also willing to deal with the reality of the current options.

One is soundly rejected by the voters, repeatedly ... but somebody has to be #3 if you insist on counting. The rest are barely more than tragic jokes that are roughly as viable as "The Jon For King For Life" party ... and I don't belong on the stage with legitimate candidates in the current framework either.

And at no point have I ever argued for the inclusion of a third party candidate that I voted for at any level when there was no legitimate reason for them to be there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I think at one point Johnson was at around 9 or 10% in some poll I saw, so I just used the 15% debate threshold since if my memory there is correct, he *did* at least sniff 10% for a while.

Yeah, that's about the highwater number I've seen. Stein's latest appears to be around 1%.

It's parsing whether being 50% short of a target constitutes "sniffing" I guess. {huge shrugs all around}

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

How much of that is Johnson and Stein not being able to pull voters in, and how much of that is fear that one of the historically unpopular candidates might win if I don't hold my nose and make a vote I'm not truly comfortable with?

Fair question, but either way, it still points to the difficulty of a third party truly crashing through. If your thinking is correct, then we're essentially saying that it takes the Ds and Rs nominating two historically *boring* candidates who inspire little/no fear/loathing from the opposite party for a third party to break through.

So..... Romney vs. Kaine in 2024???

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Fair question, but either way, it still points to the difficulty of a third party truly crashing through. If your thinking is correct, then we're essentially saying that it takes the Ds and Rs nominating two historically *boring* candidates who inspire little/no fear/loathing from the opposite party for a third party to break through.

So..... Romney vs. Kaine in 2024???

That still doesn't alleviate the minor point of the current third party's failing to crash through at any point.

You basically can't come up with a scenario that makes their unpalatibility to the vast majority of the voters a better option.

Hmm ... and the only notable successes (limited as they were) by a third party within our memories are all basically 'from the ground up" one offs? Wallace, Anderson, Perot I.

Maybe the key to having a viable third party is ... to not be a "party"?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm ... and the only notable successes (limited as they were) by a third party within our memories are all basically 'from the ground up" one offs? Wallace, Anderson, Perot I.

Maybe the key to having a viable third party is ... to not be a "party"?

There may be a bit of truth to that - Johnson is definitely hampered by the fact that he has to 'own' the Libertarian Party's platform, some of which is stuff he himself probably thinks is too far.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That still doesn't alleviate the minor point of the current third party's failing to crash through at any point.

You basically can't come up with a scenario that makes their unpalatibility to the vast majority of the voters a better option.

Hmm ... and the only notable successes (limited as they were) by a third party within our memories are all basically 'from the ground up" one offs? Wallace, Anderson, Perot I.

Maybe the key to having a viable third party is ... to not be a "party"?

The third parties always seem to form on the outside fringe instead of closer to the center. I really wonder what would happen if a third party formed at the center.

[JPhillips]

You won't get a meaningful third party at the presidential level without a change in our electoral system. When the winner takes all of a state's electors, any third party candidate is far more likely to be a spoiler rather than a winner and most people are going to be reluctant to vote for a spoiler that puts in office someone further away from their ideal.

And that doesn't even get into how the major parties are certain to co-opt and successful third party platform ala Perot's debt reduction.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

SIAP. Some of the interviews in this series have been really funny. This one was just awkward for the most part.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Sure. But that misses the point. If Preibus had had the benefit of foresight, or understood how successful demagoguery works, he might have tried to do something. Instead, like Franz von Papen before him, he underestimated Trump's political skills and, in the aftermath, seems to have come to the belief that Trump can be controlled with the right advisers.

Note that my comparison here is explicitly not Trump-Hitler, but rather Preibus-von Papen: both sought to leverage a blustery demagogue to the benefit of the Establishment, and both got taken for a ride instead.

Yeah, I get that. But you phrased it that "it's easier to exclude in the future because somebody broke a "rule" than to say "we just don't like orange-haired asshole loudmouths, you can't run." " when clearly there were plenty of rules that could have been placed against Trump (his lack of Republican Party membership until recently, the fact that he ran for President under a different party's platform, etc)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another awkward video with Clinton making the rounds. Whoever told her that it was a good idea to out-shout Trump really missed the mark. This doesn't come off well.

Hillary Clinton: "Why Aren't I 50 Points Ahead? | Video | RealClearPolitics

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hmm ... and the only notable successes (limited as they were) by a third party within our memories are all basically 'from the ground up" one offs? Wallace, Anderson, Perot I.

Maybe the key to having a viable third party is ... to not be a "party"?

I agree with this. The 3rd parties all have a stigma to them. Libertarian seen as too small government. Green Party seen as anti-science and loony. Your best bet is to run as an independent.

I'm trying to think of someone who would do well as an independent in this race. Colin Powell? Bloomberg?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by rowech

The third parties always seem to form on the outside fringe instead of closer to the center. I really wonder what would happen if a third party formed at the center.

Honestly?

I'd say it suffers from the reality of the phrase 'soft squishy center' and it dies from malnourishment ... of money, interest, and eventually voters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree with this. The 3rd parties all have a stigma to them. Libertarian seen as too small government. Green Party seen as anti-science and loony. Your best bet is to run as an independent.

I'm trying to think of someone who would do well as an independent in this race. Colin Powell? Bloomberg?

In this race? I'd say you probably already have one, he just happens to have grabbed a major party nomination in the process.

Kanye may have missed an opportunity though.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

SIAP. Some of the interviews in this series have been really funny. This one was just awkward for the most part.

I found it very funny. I bet ol' Zach gets audited by the IRS in about 60 days if HRC wins. Or murdered, I mean he is found dead of a drug overdose. Of course, this would not have a trail back to HRC.

[Kodos]

I thought it was funny. I think Hillary was in on the joke.

[digamma]

Of course she was. I thought it was great. Galifianakis specializes in awkward humor.

[BishopMVP]

Everyone who goes on that is in on the joke, brutal pandering. Shockingly Jeb! at the Emmy's was marginally better.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

Massive two party system advocates? Of course they do.

I've advocated for a legislative system in this country that would actually get 3rd, and 4th, and 5th parties into Congress: Dividing California into 6 states? - Front Office Football Central

Edit: Plus, I've been pretty clear I'm not a 2-party system advocate. I think I've been pretty clear that I'd like the complete and total annihilation of the GOP.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The establishment of the commission (and various lawsuits that surrounded it) did eventually lead to the setting of "objective criteria" for inclusion. That's where the 15% came into play.

In '96 Perot's situation was vastly different than in 1992 ... when the same body, with the same bipartisan makeup & a number of the same corporate sponsors paying the bills invited him to participate.

By '96 he was polling only slightly better than Johnson is now, a far cry from his '92 situation. He no longer had unlimited funding (having accepted federal contributions). He was, simply, not a legitimate factor in the race and had no place in the debates any more than the 100 or so other "parties" that would love 15 minutes.

Plus, Perot polled 18% in the General in 1992. One could argue that setting the bar at 15% was done specifically with that benchmark in mind, which he then failed to meet in 1996.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Are they even sniffing 15% combined at this point?

As of this morning RCP's poll average puts Johnson at 9 and Stein at 3. So yes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As of this morning RCP's poll average puts Johnson at 9 and Stein at 3. So yes.

When I looked at the same numbers yesterday, from the same source, it was 9 & 1.

(Just so you know that I did look)

[flere-imsaho]

Here, right? RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Weird. I mean, in the past (I'm ballparking) 50 polls or so, only two of those have her at 1. The rest have her between 2 and 4.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Weird. I mean, in the past (I'm ballparking) 50 polls or so, only two of those have her at 1. The rest have her between 2 and 4.

I didn't do the math, I just grabbed the number & took them at their word tbh.
I was even surprised at it being so low, but I'd swear under oath that's what it said when I looked (entirely for the purpose of having a figure to use here)

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Rumors are starting to float that Cruz is going to endorse Trump. Seems like a dumb move to me. At this point, I'd think his best bet is to hope Trump flames out spectacularly, allowing Cruz to stand up as some sort of "knight in shining armor" who stood up to Trump and fought for conservatism while just about every other* prominent strongly-conservative Republican capitulated.

But endorsing now after taking such a strong stance in and immediately after Cleveland is going to look like "oh crap...he actually has a chance of winning...better get on board to try to save my own butt!"


*--Notable exception = Ben "I'm Taking My Kids To Watch a Dumpster Fire" Sasse.

Just got a breaking news report from CNN that this is now imminent and could happen as soon as today.

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Haven't read the article yet, but the headline and post comment are pretty much perfect.

[Ben E Lou]

Not that anyone holds Trump accountable for lies, but Imma still leave this right here.

7/22/2016

[Edward64]

I think this will hurt Ted more than help.

[digamma]

It's page 4 news in the WSJ. Not exactly a huge splash so far. As the Donald said above, what does it matter?

[JPhillips]

According to Yahoo News one of the people Trump named as a foreign policy advisor is now being investigated by U.S. intelligence services for his ties to Russian government officials.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel...-sh&soc_trk=tw

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Heh. Haven't read the article yet, but the headline and post comment are pretty much perfect.

You can get away with being hated by everyone as long as they fear you too, but after this humiliating show of weakness what does Ted have left?

[larrymcg421]

National polls from the last couple days.

McClatchy/Marist: Clinton 45, Trump 39, Johnson 10, Stein 4
McClatchy/Marist: Clinton 48, Trump 41
LA Times/USC: Clinton 43, Trump 45
Gravis: Clinton 44, Trump 40, Johnson 5, Stein 2
Rasmussen: Clinton 39, Trump 44, Johnson 8, Stein 2
AP/GFK: Clinton 45, Trump 39, Johnson 9, Stein 2
AP/GFK: Clinton 50, Trump 44

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can get away with being hated by everyone as long as they fear you too, but after this humiliating show of weakness what does Ted have left?

The people most excited about the Cruz endorsement are his 2020 rivals.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) September 23, 2016

[Ben E Lou]

This guy.

If dopey Mark Cuban of failed Benefactor fame wants to sit in the front row, perhaps I will put Gennifer Flowers right alongside of him!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 24, 2016