Its a joke that he could be the next president what an idiot

Romney to speak tomorrow on the state of the 2016 Presidential Race.

It's probably just going to be a rallying cry, but if there's a last chance to get into the race it is right now. Fingers crossed, although I'm not expecting him to do so.

www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/mitt-romney-to-speak-on-state-of-the-2016-presidential-race-thursday/index.html

have the indictments been handed down yet?

www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/03/potential_indictment_of_hillary_could_be_convention_wild_card

Hilary Clinton and Email. I wonder how the FBI got involved

I think that says much more about Bernie than Hillary.

Hillary hasn't promised massive turnout, but Bernie has. The low turnout is really a marked sign of his inability to turn out his core constituencies. It's another reason I don't think Bernie is a viable candidate. His candidacy, or supposed revolution, has failed to produced the turnout that he's been saying we should expect. I don't see how that would change in a general when the one has to begin to speak to moderate base rather than a rabid far left base.

However, an increased Republican turnout could be more emblematic of the larger field within their primary. More people are beholden to a candidate they support, so a great chance for turnout as people continue to support their candidate. In short, between two races, one with two candidates and another, at the time, with five, one would expect the one with five to have a higher turnout as there are more candidates who are getting votes from people who wouldn't ordinarily vote if their candidate wasn't still present.

I would also make note that the states listed here are highly partisan. Vermont is firmly in the democratic column, while Oklahoma, Texas, and Tennessee are firmly Republican states. No amount of turnout on either side would change either state from being a red or blue state, so that's highly misleading for CNN to use. The only exception on this list is Virginia. But Virginia was also an open primary state. That is to say, Democrats and Independents could choose to vote Republican if they wanted to. Chances are there wasn't a true 107% jump in "Republican" voters. Chances are Democrats and Independents found the Republican portion to be more important to vote in, especially considering Trump is such a derisive figure. In many of these open primaries, you will see Democrats and Independents jumping to the Republican side to possibly vote against Trump rather than for any Republican candidate in particular.

I think logically going through this graphic, it's pretty clear that it's a fairly misleading accumulation of numbers by CNN without any context. Essentially, it's not much better than political click bait.

Watching yet another GOP debate. #OBAMAOUT

The email thing is actually very serious. If convicted, it's a felony.

Dear assorted politicians (and Donald Trump):

I want to thank all of you who post here for providing some informative commentary, regardless of your perspective (that includes @beady's Mighty Eye). It's interesting to see the view from those who live in the US, and far more informative than the news will offer you.

I can never get over how long your election seasons are...our last one was our longest yet at some 70 days, which seemed interminable and got rather nasty. I can't believe there's still almost enough time for an baby to be concieved and delivered before this is over.

Again, I'm not too sure. Once the dust settles on the primary season (for both parties) I expect to have more insight. But don't bank on Hillary, and don't bank on a landslide loss due to the GOP candidate being Trump.

In fact, I think a landslide - in either direction - can be completely ruled out. Even if Hillary wins the Presidency, it won't be by 2008 numbers, or even 2012 numbers I don't think.

I still believe Rubio is the best candidate on either side.

I don't think it will be a landslide either. Partisan politics will give any nominee on either side enough legs to stand on. However, considering Trump and Cruz could create a lot of down ballot loses, it will be difficult to envision local republicans in battle ground states helping them out too much. As we have also seen in general elections, demographics matter. I'm not sure trump or cruz could achieve the demographics margins among independents, hispanics, and blacks that even Romney achieved, and Romney was fairly lacking. I think 2012 would be a likely outcome. A fairly close race, but a race where one candidate is clearly wounded with multiple demographics.

It's very difficult to envision, even a center right country like America, with Trump or Cruz going more moderate, voting for either one of them to the degree required to win. Especially considering, both are more reviled in their party than Romney was.

If Romney couldn't win, someone with legitimate presidential credentials against a weak incumbent, then why would Cruz or Trump?

Barring this email thing spiraling out of control, which there's been no indication that we're remotely close to something like that happening, I think it will be extremely difficult to beat Hillary. Extremely.