Slashdot Mirror

Not counting the 25% margin in the popular vote I assume...

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Unless maybe 3M people were swayed by superdelegates somehow? Not saying you are wrong, just that superdelegates are almost certainly a red-herring in this case.

Feingold is ahead in all the polls, so........

Oh and about Obama having high approval? In the latest Quinnipiac poll [usatoday.com] he's considered the worst of all Presidents post WW II.

Yeah, by about a third of the people, probably those about to vote for Donald Trump. Oh wait...not only is that not the "latest Quinnipiac poll", but it's from fucking 2014.

I'm really starting to notice that you don't bother to look at any of the things you post. Here is the actual latest polling, which has him at a higher approval rating than Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II at the same period in their presidency.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Here is the map in case anyone is interested. Incidentally, a lot of those polls are out of date (some from May), and a lot can change.

The election is starting to solidify between Trump and Clinton, and people realize you have to choose one of them; tribal instinct will kick in and they'll choose a side (I won't: I've already chosen third party). People will forget they ever supported Cruz, and find new reasons to support Trump ("oh, I realized he isn't actually Hitler, and look, he has an R, my preferred party").

A reasonable former federal prosecutor, Rudy Giuliani, strongly disagrees with Comey's "No reasonable prosecutor" bullcrap. http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Other way around, actually. GOP primary turnout was up massively this year, compared to 2012 or 2008. Compare that to the Dems for 2016 and 2008.

The long Democratic primary in 2008 ended up benefitting Obama's general campaign, as it meant more visibility and buy-in from more voters in more states, who usually got ignored after Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republicans had a slate of what, 17? candidates this election. Call them crazy choices if you like, but at least there was a choice. The Dems had to choose between the Hillary coronation or the Jewish socialist backbench senator from Vermont that nobody had ever heard of before. It shouldn't have even been close! And yet she didn't clinch the nomination until California. That's just sad, really. She casts herself as this battle-hardened political veteran, and yet she struggled to put down Sanders. Clinton collected more votes as the runner-up in 2008 than she did as the winner in 2016.

None of this spells doom for Trump. It's still Hillary's election to lose, but the tide is not in her favor. People are laughing at Trump, making fun of Trump, but as a result, they're constantly talking about Trump. Clinton, though? Everyone's just kind of tired of her, even her supporters. She's been on the political stage so long there isn't much she's got left to introduce to the voters. Trump has room to improve by November. Clinton's at her ceiling already.

Other way around, actually. GOP primary turnout was up massively this year, compared to 2012 or 2008. Compare that to the Dems for 2016 and 2008.

The long Democratic primary in 2008 ended up benefitting Obama's general campaign, as it meant more visibility and buy-in from more voters in more states, who usually got ignored after Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republicans had a slate of what, 17? candidates this election. Call them crazy choices if you like, but at least there was a choice. The Dems had to choose between the Hillary coronation or the Jewish socialist backbench senator from Vermont that nobody had ever heard of before. It shouldn't have even been close! And yet she didn't clinch the nomination until California. That's just sad, really. She casts herself as this battle-hardened political veteran, and yet she struggled to put down Sanders. Clinton collected more votes as the runner-up in 2008 than she did as the winner in 2016.

None of this spells doom for Trump. It's still Hillary's election to lose, but the tide is not in her favor. People are laughing at Trump, making fun of Trump, but as a result, they're constantly talking about Trump. Clinton, though? Everyone's just kind of tired of her, even her supporters. She's been on the political stage so long there isn't much she's got left to introduce to the voters. Trump has room to improve by November. Clinton's at her ceiling already.

Other way around, actually. GOP primary turnout was up massively this year, compared to 2012 or 2008. Compare that to the Dems for 2016 and 2008.

The long Democratic primary in 2008 ended up benefitting Obama's general campaign, as it meant more visibility and buy-in from more voters in more states, who usually got ignored after Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republicans had a slate of what, 17? candidates this election. Call them crazy choices if you like, but at least there was a choice. The Dems had to choose between the Hillary coronation or the Jewish socialist backbench senator from Vermont that nobody had ever heard of before. It shouldn't have even been close! And yet she didn't clinch the nomination until California. That's just sad, really. She casts herself as this battle-hardened political veteran, and yet she struggled to put down Sanders. Clinton collected more votes as the runner-up in 2008 than she did as the winner in 2016.

None of this spells doom for Trump. It's still Hillary's election to lose, but the tide is not in her favor. People are laughing at Trump, making fun of Trump, but as a result, they're constantly talking about Trump. Clinton, though? Everyone's just kind of tired of her, even her supporters. She's been on the political stage so long there isn't much she's got left to introduce to the voters. Trump has room to improve by November. Clinton's at her ceiling already.

Other way around, actually. GOP primary turnout was up massively this year, compared to 2012 or 2008. Compare that to the Dems for 2016 and 2008.

The long Democratic primary in 2008 ended up benefitting Obama's general campaign, as it meant more visibility and buy-in from more voters in more states, who usually got ignored after Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republicans had a slate of what, 17? candidates this election. Call them crazy choices if you like, but at least there was a choice. The Dems had to choose between the Hillary coronation or the Jewish socialist backbench senator from Vermont that nobody had ever heard of before. It shouldn't have even been close! And yet she didn't clinch the nomination until California. That's just sad, really. She casts herself as this battle-hardened political veteran, and yet she struggled to put down Sanders. Clinton collected more votes as the runner-up in 2008 than she did as the winner in 2016.

None of this spells doom for Trump. It's still Hillary's election to lose, but the tide is not in her favor. People are laughing at Trump, making fun of Trump, but as a result, they're constantly talking about Trump. Clinton, though? Everyone's just kind of tired of her, even her supporters. She's been on the political stage so long there isn't much she's got left to introduce to the voters. Trump has room to improve by November. Clinton's at her ceiling already.

Other way around, actually. GOP primary turnout was up massively this year, compared to 2012 or 2008. Compare that to the Dems for 2016 and 2008.

The long Democratic primary in 2008 ended up benefitting Obama's general campaign, as it meant more visibility and buy-in from more voters in more states, who usually got ignored after Iowa and New Hampshire. The Republicans had a slate of what, 17? candidates this election. Call them crazy choices if you like, but at least there was a choice. The Dems had to choose between the Hillary coronation or the Jewish socialist backbench senator from Vermont that nobody had ever heard of before. It shouldn't have even been close! And yet she didn't clinch the nomination until California. That's just sad, really. She casts herself as this battle-hardened political veteran, and yet she struggled to put down Sanders. Clinton collected more votes as the runner-up in 2008 than she did as the winner in 2016.

None of this spells doom for Trump. It's still Hillary's election to lose, but the tide is not in her favor. People are laughing at Trump, making fun of Trump, but as a result, they're constantly talking about Trump. Clinton, though? Everyone's just kind of tired of her, even her supporters. She's been on the political stage so long there isn't much she's got left to introduce to the voters. Trump has room to improve by November. Clinton's at her ceiling already.

Trump about 61%. Hillary about 55%. They're neck-in-neck in terms of unfavorables.

Trump about 61%. Hillary about 55%. They're neck-in-neck in terms of unfavorables.

There is no empirical data to support this assertion.

Of course there is. We know exactly how many votes were cast. Here's a handy spread sheet.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

But here's the kicker: There are about 130,000,000 people who will vote in the next presidential election. Right now, Donald Trump has captured 10% of those votes. Do you think there are a lot of people who have been saying, "I'm going to wait to see what this Donald Trump is all about before I go out and actually cast a vote for him"?

If that is so, shouldn't the polls show a much wider spread? Surely those 130 million people are represented in the polls, or aren't they? Are polls historically that inaccurate in US presidential elections? (Yes I realise that the election is still far away, but that's not really what I'm asking here).

(All this said as a Swede who's somewhat to the left of Bernie Sanders, and doesn't have a real dog in the Trump vs. Clinton race, nor would---hopefully---be that affected by the outcome.)

It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.

Yes, that would have helped Bernie Sanders, who would be a different candidate. I am guessing, that is not who they wanted to see picked. Even now the Democrats are headed to a technically open/contested convention. If Bernie would drop out (before) the convention, then we might see this kind of release of evidence to, "save the party." Without that concession, you run the risk of all the super delegates switching to Bernie and handing him the nomination. In most things timing is very important, politics is one of those things.

Do you mean like these numbers?
Clinton popular vote 15,729,913
Sanders popular vote 12,009,562
Clinton go a 30% higher popular vote than Sanders.

Democratic delegates are assigned proportionally so very closely follow the popular vote.

Clinton got 30% higher popular vote than Sanders.

Don't get me wrong Bernie is my favored candidate for the nomination but this "the system is rigged" stuff being blamed for Bernie's loss has got to go.

Sure, the Democratic nomination system could certainly be better but with Hillary ahead in the popular vote by over three million votes ( http://www.realclearpolitics.c... ) it's pretty clear she has the popular mandate. Not only did Bernie not get enough votes, he's so far behind that he was cleary not the prefered candidate for the voters. There shouldnt be any controversy here.

It's a democracy, right?
The majority wins, even if they later on have to say autsch!, it hurts.

The problem is, Trump isn't really winning the majority. Here's the breakdown of the popular vote. Trump has won less than 42% of the popular vote (votes cast for other candidates who dropped out aren't included). So he's nowhere near a majority.

Our plurality wins voting system is what allows basically anyone reasonably popular (supported by >1/n fraction of the population, where n is the number of candidates running) to win an election if the other more-desirable candidates split their vote. It's why we have a two-party system - having two parties is the best strategy for minimizing this vote-splitting. While a perfectly fair voting system is impossible, we badly need to switch to a voting system where people can vote their conscience without fear of vote-splitting leading to some wacky lunatic winning.

The problem has been that the two parties are staunchly opposed to a better voting system. Having two parties doesn't just minimize the chances of splitting the vote, it also maximizes the power of the extremists in the parties. If you imagine the country's population as a bell curve (or even a flat line), and divide it into two smaller left and right curves representing the two parties, the weighted middle of those smaller curves (the political ideology of the median party member and thus the likely nominee) is furthest from the center of the big curve when there are only two parties.

Instant-runoff voting would result in more centrist and more moderate candidates winning. Good for the country, bad for the extremists who wield heavy control of the parties. So the parties have no interest in pushing for it.

Clinton is 16 points lower, not 12 points as typoed.

The most recent unfavorability ratings are:

Trump's unfavorability has dropped to 65%.

Hillary's rating has been mostly steady at 55%.

So this month there is only 10 points difference.

Clinton is 16 points lower, not 12 points as typoed.

The most recent unfavorability ratings are:

Trump's unfavorability has dropped to 65%.

Hillary's rating has been mostly steady at 55%.

So this month there is only 10 points difference.

Is it possible for trump to win the presidency?

From this site (which summarizes a bunch of national polls), 5 out of 6 polls have Hillary beating the Donald. And it is 6 out of 6 for Sanders beating him So it looks like he most likely won't win.

From the outside he looks incredibly divisive even in his own party, but are there enough disenfranchised people that would jump on his band wagon to get over the line?

There is going to be some really weird dynamics going on for the election. Everything from how much Trump and Cruz have divided the GOP, through to how much of the GOP see Hillary as an extension of Obama and Dem voters staying home because they think they have it in the bag.

You also have to remember that voting isn't compulsory and that for every Federal election since 1972 less than 60% of eligible voters have turned out.

Bernie Sanders - Not going to win any election

He polls 7-9 points better than Hilary vs Cruz and Trump.

Hilary only has a margin of 3 points on Cruz. That's just way too close for comfort.

There does need to be some kind of reform when it comes to campaigns and financing and all of that, but it is very difficult to do. See, we have this thing called the First Amendment. Finding the right set of rules that respect the First Amendment, and yet helps prevent money from completely dominating an election cycle, is not an easy thing.

Though I heard an interesting claim that it isn't the money during elections but the lobbyists between elections basically volunteering to do all the work who are the real problem.

Though I think the super PACs are still a major issue.

That said...

I would like to note that Bernie Sanders (note that I am not endorsing him) doesn't have a war chest even close to what Clinton has, and if it weren't for the super delegate system, he would be very close to winning the nomination.

Not even close, in fact at this point one of Sanders' campaign managers is arguing that even if Sanders is losing the pledged delegate count that the superdelegates should give him the nomination.

Either way I think Sanders has been out-raising Clinton for a while based on small donations.

Or what about Trump (also not endorsing him)? Sure, he's rich, but he hasn't spent much money at all on ads or these kinds of organizations - he doesn't need to, he gets more free news coverage than anyone else, by far.

So it seems that money isn't everything if you have a popular message. Maybe we don't need these rules and laws which spawn these special organizations after all. Maybe all of these campaign finance laws are just there to stop the outsider types from having as good a chance.

Maybe.

It isn't an easy problem to solve and you'll never make everyone happy.

Trump isn't someone to draw a general rule from, if you want to win elections you need to spend some money if for no other reason than for voters to take you seriously.

In the Presidential election itself I don't think it matters that much since they have such a high profile, but in down ticket races and even primaries I think cash becomes I huge deal.

Sanders basically started his campaign as "not Hillary" and took a few states to build a war chest and a profile. If he had a bunch of cash to establish his presence at the start it might have been a very different campaign.

As for the corrupting influence of money the worst example I've seen was the "Sheldon Adelson primary" of the '12 Republican cycle when all the candidates went to win his support. Not only did Adelson single-handedly keep Newt Gingrich in the race for weeks but all the candidates basically assumed his policy positions. A single donor was able to write the policy of the Republican campaign.

and if it weren't for the super delegate system, he would be very close to winning the nomination.

Sanders is behind Clinton in pledged delegates, 1,428 to 1,189. There's no way to spin that as "Sanders is close to winning"; Clinton is undeniably closer.

If you eliminated unpledged delegates entirely, Clinton's target would be 2,113; she'd need less than 700 of the remaining 1,646 delegates to win.

The only way Sanders could achieve a win would be for him to inspire the superdelegates to change their minds between now and the election. He's hoping somehow to thread the needle, denying her a majority of the (pledged + superdelegates) just with her pledged delegates. That's pretty deceptive. She's winning the pledged delegates; she's winning the superdelegates; she's winning the popular vote.

Don't worry, America agrees with you. They just can't decide on what the right solution is. http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

>> Unless the Democrats do better than anointing Hillary, his chances are pretty good

Says who? All the polling to date suggests Hillary would wipe the floor with Trump.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

The amusing thing about polling data is that they are so ephemeral.

Why, if we had the election in November, we could have elected Carson!

And at that same time, Nate Silver was predicting Rubio would get the nomination, because endorsements are a much better predictor than polling data, dontcha' know.

A couple of months ago polls gave Trump a 70% chance of winning the nomination, now he's a coin flip.

The problem with relying on polling data is that it makes the assumption that the election would be held right now. While that might be useful for future planning, it still has assumptions.

Not the least of which is that Trump hasn't been focusing on the general election at all, so he's been letting Clinton slide (until recently). Or that the media is lumping all polling data together, when it's well known that some polls are biased.

I read an analysis which posited a list of things that would turn the election around for Trump, and virtually *none* of them are in Clinton's direct control. Such as:

1) Another terrorist attack
2) Clinton gets indicted
3) The US *declines* to indict Clinton
4) Clinton collapses due to stress/exhaustion
5) Trump stops being provocative and gets a more presidential attitude
6) Trump makes some common-sense promises, such as to fix airport security and simplify the tax code
7) Trump starts spending money on the campaign, instead of relying on free publicity

I forget what the other three were, but they definitely weren't something Clinton could affect.

If the polling data were that accurate, we wouldn't need to have an election at all

...except for that pesky thing about how the results keep changing.

>> Unless the Democrats do better than anointing Hillary, his chances are pretty good

Says who? All the polling to date suggests Hillary would wipe the floor with Trump.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

The amusing thing about polling data is that they are so ephemeral.

Why, if we had the election in November, we could have elected Carson!

And at that same time, Nate Silver was predicting Rubio would get the nomination, because endorsements are a much better predictor than polling data, dontcha' know.

A couple of months ago polls gave Trump a 70% chance of winning the nomination, now he's a coin flip.

The problem with relying on polling data is that it makes the assumption that the election would be held right now. While that might be useful for future planning, it still has assumptions.

Not the least of which is that Trump hasn't been focusing on the general election at all, so he's been letting Clinton slide (until recently). Or that the media is lumping all polling data together, when it's well known that some polls are biased.

I read an analysis which posited a list of things that would turn the election around for Trump, and virtually *none* of them are in Clinton's direct control. Such as:

1) Another terrorist attack
2) Clinton gets indicted
3) The US *declines* to indict Clinton
4) Clinton collapses due to stress/exhaustion
5) Trump stops being provocative and gets a more presidential attitude
6) Trump makes some common-sense promises, such as to fix airport security and simplify the tax code
7) Trump starts spending money on the campaign, instead of relying on free publicity

I forget what the other three were, but they definitely weren't something Clinton could affect.

If the polling data were that accurate, we wouldn't need to have an election at all

...except for that pesky thing about how the results keep changing.

Expecting the RNC to oppose Trump is wishful thinking, I agree.
But current polls are showing he can't beat Clinton. There's a lot of campaigning left to do, though.

So, um, that's a no on evidence? You're conflating normal accounting rules with special tax breaks given to a business - almost as if you're trying to be obtuse on purpose...hmmmm http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell -- earned more than $1 trillion during this time. In the first nine months of 2013, these five companies realized a combined $71 billion in profits. Certainly, these companies can prosper without $2.4 billion in annual special tax breaks. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that three tax preferences provide $24 billion per decade in annual benefits to these five companies. The “limitation on Section 199 deduction,” designed to encourage domestic manufacturing to remain on shore, costs the Treasury $14.4 billion per decade for these five companies. The foreign tax credit deduction saves the big three domestic oil companies $7.5 billion per decade. The “intangible drilling costs” deduction saved the five companies another $2 billion.

5 companies, 24 BILLION 'annually' in tax breaks as of 2014.

Except you are ascribing those hypothetical actions/arguments to a very real group of people

Which argument have I attributed to any group of people?

You claimed there was no harsh language

I never made such a claim, nor used the word "harsh". If you insist on accusing others of "lying" over such things, you better be "squeeky fucking clean" yourself.

I pointed out the absence of any significant passion in CronoLog's response. His language was harsh, but nothing to raise fists about or to chain oneself to one's car. As someone would say, it was "low energy"...

Sanders is not by any measure of anything "communist".

He certainly is. To avoid duplication, if you wish to continue this topic, please, follow up to this other post of mine — and be sure to to answer the three questions I ask at the end in your reply. Thank you.

you got really angry about something you yet again made up.

I didn't. Some AC did. I, actually, corrected him slightly.

tough job distinguishing fantasy from reality and you get very, very angry about those fantasies.

Sorry, I'm not going to argue the abuse of terms like "racist" with someone so deeply in denial as you. I consider your and others' disputing of Sanders being a Communist to be much more important this year but have limited bandwidth.

Look at the polls of him vs Clinton in a theoretical general. He most certainly does.

He most certainly does not.

And no, he does not have good ideas. It's been pretty well documented by some pretty smart folks that his policies would be financial suicide for our country. His ideas go beyond protectionism and instead veer out into utter fantasy.

...and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Clinton or possibly even Sanders.

Actually, you should say "and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Sanders or possibly even Clinton." I say that because in hypothetical Clinton-Trump and Sanders-Trump matchups, Sanders appears to consistently fair better according to the polling data:

Clinton-Trump
Sanders-Trump

Averaging five or more polls in a Clinton-Trump matchup currently, Clinton wins by 6.3% on average.
Averaging five or more polls in a Sanders-Trump matchup currently, Sanders wins by 10% on average.

...and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Clinton or possibly even Sanders.

Actually, you should say "and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Sanders or possibly even Clinton." I say that because in hypothetical Clinton-Trump and Sanders-Trump matchups, Sanders appears to consistently fair better according to the polling data:

Clinton-Trump
Sanders-Trump

Averaging five or more polls in a Clinton-Trump matchup currently, Clinton wins by 6.3% on average.
Averaging five or more polls in a Sanders-Trump matchup currently, Sanders wins by 10% on average.

Who cares? RealClearPolitics also predicted Clinton with a 20+ point lead in Michigan, and you can see how that turned out. If polls this election season are proving anything, it is that the people who participate in polls and the people who actually vote are 2 different groups.

Even so, who cares about Clinton? According to that site, the only people she beats are Trump and Carson (who dropped out). Sanders beats any Republican opponent. If the Democrats wanted to ensure that the Republicans lose then they would nominate Bernie.

You know, assuming that polls mean anything now.

Who cares? RealClearPolitics also predicted Clinton with a 20+ point lead in Michigan, and you can see how that turned out. If polls this election season are proving anything, it is that the people who participate in polls and the people who actually vote are 2 different groups.

Even so, who cares about Clinton? According to that site, the only people she beats are Trump and Carson (who dropped out). Sanders beats any Republican opponent. If the Democrats wanted to ensure that the Republicans lose then they would nominate Bernie.

You know, assuming that polls mean anything now.

"Intelligence professionals agree the server was almost certainly hacked by foreign agencies—probably by several." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Idiots really need to do some research:

"Because her server was private, the State Department’s records did not include its contents when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The department wrongly told FOIA applicants that no such materials existed. Not only did the materials exist (on Clinton’s server), senior officials knew it and allowed false denials to be made." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

It's worse: " Because her server was private, the State Department’s records did not include its contents when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The department wrongly told FOIA applicants that no such materials existed. Not only did the materials exist (on Clinton’s server), senior officials knew it and allowed false denials to be made." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

or him being finally asked by an unsympathetic interlocutor to explain, how his Socialism is different from that of the late Hugo Chavez.

According to polls, and to averages of polls, Sanders beats Trump by a bigger margin than Obama beat Romney.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

So, you might want to take the following under advisement:

Matthew 7:5: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

"Some of the classified materials on Clinton’s server originated in intelligence agencies outside the State Department and came into the department on a secure, classified network. They were marked as such. They could only be transferred to Clinton’s unsecured network by hand. Each occurrence was a felony. Since the server has now been recovered, the FBI and intelligence agencies know who sent those messages and who received them at the State Department." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Really Potsy:

"Secretary Clinton specifically instructed aides to send her classified materials on that insecure network. We know of at least one such instruction. We don’t know how many others were redacted by the State Department." http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Name those accomplishments that have helped others. I'm betting that you actually do believe there are some but will find out it is a lie when you try to find them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...

As for her lies being a slur, it is well documented. Here is a list compiled in 2008 by a Clinton confidant (long time friend and advisory to Bill Clinton) Dick Morris.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Now I did find some lists of accomplishments but I don't find them remarkable or extremely helpful to anyone in particular. In fact, some of them seem to require little more than not voting "no" while in the senate. Others are just speeches given that no noticeable follow through seems to have surfaced. Most of the so called accomplishments are subjective to opinion and ideological points of view.

Kasich is smart enough to realize that he isn't going to win the general election in 2016. He also may be the only person on stage smart enough to realize that none of the GOP hopefuls will, either - hence there is no reason for him to negotiate with Rubio for a cabinet position that will never materialize. There has only been one national poll so far that has shown a GOP candidate beating Hillary, but it was within the margin of error

There are inaccuracies in these statements.
The most recent polls show Kasich in the lead over Hillary and fairly head-to-head with Sanders:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
Rubio also has the edge over Hillary:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
Trump and Cruz are running close to 50-50 w/ Hillary.

Though you're correct that Sanders in very strong in the polls. Makes me wonder why the other Dems don't get behind him. The Republicans are at least smart enough to realize that a Trump win could cost them the election.

Kasich is smart enough to realize that he isn't going to win the general election in 2016. He also may be the only person on stage smart enough to realize that none of the GOP hopefuls will, either - hence there is no reason for him to negotiate with Rubio for a cabinet position that will never materialize. There has only been one national poll so far that has shown a GOP candidate beating Hillary, but it was within the margin of error

There are inaccuracies in these statements.
The most recent polls show Kasich in the lead over Hillary and fairly head-to-head with Sanders:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
Rubio also has the edge over Hillary:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...
Trump and Cruz are running close to 50-50 w/ Hillary.

Though you're correct that Sanders in very strong in the polls. Makes me wonder why the other Dems don't get behind him. The Republicans are at least smart enough to realize that a Trump win could cost them the election.

What you wrote is untrue. Many current polls show most of the Republican candidates would beat Clinton in the general election And that has been true for months. Hillary Clinton has a good chance of beating Trump, but that is about it.

Uh, last time I've checked, Rubio vs Clinton was rather very GOP (+5% to Rubio):
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Rubio to Clinton is roughly what Clinton is to Trump:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Cruz vs Clinton also doesn't look bad for GOP at all:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Cruz + Rubio have more votes, than Trump, had one of the two dropped out in favor of the other... Nobody would care about what Kasich does.
(I don't see how him supporting Rubio allows Rubio to beat Trump, if Cruz is still there with 20% of the votes)

Uh, last time I've checked, Rubio vs Clinton was rather very GOP (+5% to Rubio):
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Rubio to Clinton is roughly what Clinton is to Trump:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Cruz vs Clinton also doesn't look bad for GOP at all:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Cruz + Rubio have more votes, than Trump, had one of the two dropped out in favor of the other... Nobody would care about what Kasich does.
(I don't see how him supporting Rubio allows Rubio to beat Trump, if Cruz is still there with 20% of the votes)

Uh, last time I've checked, Rubio vs Clinton was rather very GOP (+5% to Rubio):
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Rubio to Clinton is roughly what Clinton is to Trump:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Cruz vs Clinton also doesn't look bad for GOP at all:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Cruz + Rubio have more votes, than Trump, had one of the two dropped out in favor of the other... Nobody would care about what Kasich does.
(I don't see how him supporting Rubio allows Rubio to beat Trump, if Cruz is still there with 20% of the votes)