Good luck finding a candidate that isn't bought and paid for by special interests.

Of course its subjective odds, but I tend to enjoy using Nate Silver against some Democrats ;)

Podcast: Totally Subjective Presidential Odds (Early August Edition) | FiveThirtyEight

Yes, that's Nate saying 85% odds for Hillary Clinton winning the nomination. Though on the bright side for all the Sanders' supporters, the last Bernie Sanders (Howard Dean) became the DNC Chair... so... there is that?

And this!

Senator Sanders, You’re No Barack Obama | FiveThirtyEight


Regarding polling:

I just don't see any possibility of anyone but Clinton getting the nomination. People are desperate for a horserace, but the polls are clear right now. Even if Sanders were to somehow win in NH, he doesn't have an infrastructure in every state.

I'm not even sure Mark Penn could fuck up this one.

I doubt he's going to win, but it would be nice if he could press her on the issues that matter.

I've also determined there's no way I'm voting for her in the general.

Joe Biden might be preparing a candidacy. Though it's hard to see why he'd be talking to Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders already captured most of the people who would favor Warren and has what would be her organization on the ground for him.

Obviously, Hillary remains the overwhelming leader in this race. The question is whether this Benghazi/email thing will last. Can the Department of Justice keep her out of serious trouble? Which rightfully sounds a bit Orwellian. Perhaps David Petraeus could be her running mate. Or at least keep her campaign calendar.

Latest Suffolk University folk came out for the Iowa Caucuses:

Clinton 54%
Sanders 20%
Biden 11%
O'Malley 4%
Webb 1%

The 34 point lead Clinton has in this poll is pretty substantial. I think that even if Sanders can pull out New Hampshire, that if Hillary can win Iowa by 30 points, it won't really matter as it'll mean South Carolina will go solidly Clinton and then Super Tuesday are a number of states that are more Clinton friendly.

Personally I think Biden is trying to fish for a Warren endorsement which might sway some of the voters that are going for Bernie.

I don't think a Warren endorsement for Biden would sway Sanders voters at this stage TBH.

Saw my first "Bernie 4 President" sign on a highway overpass tonight. It's actually the first "anybody" for President signage I've seen out here. All the Walker paraphernalia still refers to his last gubernatorial run. Haven't seen anything for any of the other GOP candidates, or a Clinton sign/bumper sticker that isn't 7 years old.

It seems Hillary is starting the final meltdown. Not sure what she was thinking by calling pro-life Republican candidates terrorists.

I guess she wants to deflect. But, then, why finally admit she screwed up on the email thing?

She somehow lost an unlose-able position to Obama eight years ago, and she seems to be on the way down again. For the Democrats, better now than later.

You are insane. Her lead over Sanders in the latest polls shows her at +26 and +23. Numbers higher than they were last week. Her endorsement and money position, as well as polls, are far, far, far higher now than they were in 2007.

Perhaps if Biden wanted to be president he could have shed that bumbling derp persona he cultivated over the past 8 years?

Still in anyone but Hilary mode. Why hasn't Gillibrand gotten out there?

This. She's been my Hillary alternate for a few years now.

Well Gillibrand isn't going to run in this election ;). She's one of Clinton's leading lieutenants in her Presidential campaign.

Heck, Gillibrand endorsed Hillary Clinton last November.

Gillibrand is personally close to HRC and won't run against her. At 48, she has time to wait and run in 2020 or 2024 with the full backing of the Clinton electoral machine. She's also got young kids, which makes the choice to wait even easier to make.

Des Moines Register poll this morning has it Clinton 37%, Sanders 30%, Biden 14%. That big lead is gone.

Bernie continues to build on his numbers in recent polls. Surely he won't stay at 5% with AA voters forever, right? I keep praying for the ultimate Hilary scandal to end this all. Too bad Gore won't run....he already won the presidency once.

Hillary will win the democrat party nomination, it is unavoidable. It beats the socialist policies of bernie. At this point Hillary would get my vote over Trump or fat bastard governor. If it were bernie versus one of them I may have to declare my property an independent country.

#FeelTheBern

Not much going on these days other than the media setting up 24/7 camps outside of Biden's home, office, grocery store, dentist and local pizza place trying to figure out if he's running.

It's too bad Joan Quigley died last year.

How are going to get all the free stuff he is promising if you aren't part of the country?

Proving perhaps that the Iowa caucuses are pretty much worthless.

Bernie is up in both Iowa and New Hampshire FWIW

The latest PPP Iowa poll: Clinton 43, Sanders 22, Biden 17

And in the latest CNN poll, Clinton's lead nation wide has grown from the lows of early September:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politi...-sanders-2016/


It appears a lot of that closeness was a result of the bad PR Clinton was getting every day on the email scandal and as that has dissipated a bit, her numbers have gone back up.

Martin O'Malley is barely registering.

But, he's still better than Walker's last poll.

Biden seems to be doing significantly better than Clinton or Sanders in the head-to-head with Republicans polls - but that might just be the "backup QB" factor.

I'm thinking he's just hanging around the the periphery of candidacy as Hillary scandal insurance for the establishment.

Yeah. No one's attacking Biden right now. Pumps up his numbers. And I agree 100% that he's there to make sure that it isn't Bernie in case Clinton has to drop out.

It does seem that most Biden supporters would vote Clinton over Sanders (when you take Biden out of the question, Clinton is the one that benefits). But he has the tendency to not campaign well in national elections (see his last two runs for President).

I think most of you know my views on politics in the US. I won't dive into them again here, but I wanted to preface this post with that gentle reminder.

A little more background: I'm a "tech start-up" guy, and as you would imagine, my professional and personal network is made-up almost entirely of young, intelligent, influential, successful people. Over the past month, I have been overwhelmed by friends and acquaintances (from both political parties) urging me to check out this "Bernie Sanders" guy that's running for president. And I'm not talking a half dozen people, here - I'm talking triple digits. I didn't give it much thought, though, because...well...I'm famously stubborn. Just ask my CEO.

Last weekend I happened upon an interview with Bernie Sanders, and I was completely floored. I've been reading up on the field, watching debates, getting some perspective on Bernie, and asking around the "front lines" at my current company (almost entirely made-up of people 20-28 years old). Bernie Sanders is absolutely capturing the hearts and minds of the younger, thinking generation of this country. I sincerely hope he gets the Dem nomination this year, because if he does, there's nobody in the Republican party that stands a chance. I understand that pessimists continue to write him off, and not because he's incapable of doing the job (and doing it quite well), but because he doesn't have corporate money backing him.

You may not like me as a person, but you can't argue with numbers, and there's a trend here that's undeniable. Anyone with a working logical mind can see where the (attached) chart is headed. For the first time in my life, I'm considering voting for someone, because I genuinely believe that if he were running the show, I would feel something that I have never felt in my life...

...The hope that before I die, I will feel a sense of pride in my country. The feeling that I won't be looking longingly at progressive countries in the EU, wondering why we can't join them in the 21st century. And I'm not alone. If people aged 18-25 decide to participate in this upcoming presidential election, watch out.

(attached chart below)

People were also discussing the trend of Trump... so you know, in a few months, he'll be at 100 ;).

And interestingly enough, as the CNN poll linked above indicates, just about all of Biden's support would go to Clinton if Biden wasn't in the race... and it looks like he probably won't be (or will be around as a "just in case" option).

Look at the trend line again. See where Hillary Clinton really drops? Thats in July... you know who else really started to rise in July? Biden. I mean, yes, Sanders' support went from 10% to 25%.. but I don't see it going much higher, as the people who were going away from Hillary due to the email scandal decided to pick Biden.

I disagree with your opinion, but cool! ;)

But Biden's been running ahead of Sanders, mostly, since well before July. The rest of the candidates have been persona non grata. So where is Sanders' upswing coming from if your assertion is that the Hillary drop corresponds with the Biden rise, and not with the Sanders rise?

I mean, eyeballing that chart, Biden's gone from a fairly consistent 18% or so to 21% or so, while Sanders has risen from around 5% to 30%'ish. I just don't think, even with Biden's increase (likely within the margin of error) we can reasonably ascribe Hillary's drop to Biden's rise and not to Sanders'.

I'm guess Obama wasn't good enough for ya?

Among Sanders supporters, is there a hope that Sanders can get his more liberal policies through Congress in a way Obama couldn't? Or is his appeal about the more symbolic value of having a self-described "democratic socialist" in the white house? It's tough for me to understand because I think the best way to enact more liberal policies is through someone who would have a better relationship with the right, a deal-maker (i.e., a Clinton).

If I had to pick between the two weirdo outsiders I think Trump has a better chance than Sanders of actually becoming president. But I though Trump had zero chance just a few months ago, so who knows.

I never really saw Obama as being jarringly different than what we've had for the 3 decades of presidents before him (can't comment on anything prior to my lifetime). So no...not really. He doesn't boil my potatoes, if that's what you're asking.

But do those 20-year old liberal chicks? I bet they do. :)

Yeah, I've been on record as saying that you want your liberal (or conservative) firebrands influencing legislation in Congress, and that you want your Presidential candidate to be a) electable and b) sympathetic to your goals even if he isn't overtly a flag-waving standard bearer for your ideology.

Democrats shouldn't want a President Warren or a President Sanders. That takes them out of the Senate where they can influence the legislation that whoever gets elected can sign.

Republicans shouldn't want a President Cruz. Same rationale.

Now, I mean...I can see an argument for "if we get the guy who's a self-described democratic socialist elected and the world doesn't end, maybe we'll finally get traction on getting democratic socialists elected to Congress in any numbers."

I don't think it'd work out all that well, but I can see the argument for putting the cart before the horse that way.

Outside of that, I think it's mainly wishcasting that Sanders would be their liberal dream with the muscle of an LBJ to force compliance from Congress.

Nobody is going to get anything meaningful through congress, so I don't think the difference between Sanders and Clinton matters. Thhrough 2020 at least the GOP is going to have a lock on at least one house of congress and their districts provide no incentive to compromise. The one advantage I can see with Sanders is pushing the window of acceptability to the left.

That being said, I don't think Sanders can win and I'm more in favor of Hillary.

Well, when I talk about about the President signing anything, I'm talking in general terms. In general, you don't want your Presidential candidate to be a lightning rod. You want a candidate acceptable enough to win and pliable enough to sign the legislation your ideologues in Congress send to him or her.

It's going to take a massive GOTV, either in 2016 or 2020, to get the House back, but getting the House back is secondary to getting control of the statehouses back. If you can get the statehouses back in 2020, then you can redistrict something that doesn't have you winning 60% of your state's ballots cast and getting 40% of the state delegation to Congress (he said as he eyed his own state).

I think Obama's biggest failure was a lack of a plan for 2010. That cost him six years of GOP veto and will guarantee a first-term GOP veto if a Dem wins in 2016.

And that's where the GOP has been playing varsity while the Dems have been playing JV. The GOP got that the presidency is a big important job and they tried to win it. But their real successful efforts have been at the state and local level. They have realized that the majority of policy happens at that level. And that control of the states gives you control of the federal districting. And they've worked to get those state houses, while the Dems have under-committed resources to those races.

And, when the GOP does get control of the statehouses, they have plug-n-play ALEC bills that they push through on party-line votes. They don't waste time figuring out what to do when they are in charge. They immediately push through their policies. I don't agree with those polices, but I give them an A+ for execution.

The high-profile nature of the presidency, where the Dems have done pretty decently, masks the single biggest development in American politics in the last 15-20 years: how much better than the Dems the GOP is at politics.

+1 to that

If you add up 60 and 20 you get 80. That means 20 are undecided.

I mean just look at that graph. Look at Hillary's drop from July and Biden's rise from July. They literally look like mirror images of each other. Sanders' rise started before July and doesn't seem to exactly match Hillary's fall. I think it's quite apparent.

And when you look at things like CNN's poll that says when you take out Biden from the equation, Hillary has 30-40 lead on Sanders... well, there you go. I'll quote the CNN poll:

It's pretty funny when a debate features the frontrunner, a guy who can't win, 3 fractional percentage support candidates and doesn't include the 3rd place guy who can't even be bothered to decide. Should be interesting tonight.

So are you predicting/expecting Biden to enter the race then? Because he's the only potential candidate that has a snowball's chance in hell of beating her.

People still underestimating Bernie.

+1

The differences between he and Hillary will really start to show tonight. This debate gives Bernie the platform to reach those who aren't familiar with him.

I'm excited.

Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

I was at an event last week in Baltimore with a number of still-faithful O'Malley loyalists. The TV was running ads for the debate, and I was mocking the presentation... a big lingering screen with the names CLINTON SANDERS, and then a super-quick flash with O'MALLEY WEBB CHAFEE after that. It came off just like the obligatory legal disclaimer language sounds... "well, I guess we have to tell people we are letting these other clowns take the stage, too."

The tenor of Team O'Malley remains upbeat, they are keeping in mind the whole cycle with the GOP field from 4 years ago. They are split whether a Biden run would be good for them.

Meanwhile, a Maryland-only poll found MOM with only 4% here in his home state. These things do tend to simply reinforce themselves (people back the leaders), but that's just an eye-popping low number.

And to me, the most intriguing thing about Sanders in this debate is not at all connected to what he actually says. The transcript likely doesn't matter. I think the biggest issue is whether on this stage, and in this setting, he "looks presidential." He's got a ton of images floating around where he looks windswept and unkempt, and that's pretty clearly the kind of guy he has always been - but even liberals want their candidate to fill out a business suit and look the damned part. He can't remain viable if it's only Ben, Jerry, and the rest of the Kucinich voters who remain behind him. That's his house of cards here, more than anything he's very likely to say, I think.

I love Bernie Sanders. I saw him speak in Iowa last year when I was working on a campaign. I think a world where Bernie Sanders can be president is a nice world. I do not live in that world.

I really don't think so. If you're the 20 in a 70-20-10misc split (or 65-35-10) then you're pretty much irrelevant. The difference in those splits are garbage time touchdowns in a 50 point blowout game. And that's exactly what I expect will happen in the large majority of states.

And, just for the record I guess, I believe I've proven that I can set aside my feelings for anyone & objectively assess a contest. I mean, LSU & UGA both appear frequently in my college football polls and generally within the norms of other assessments. I honestly don't believe my intense feelings about Sanders have an impact on what I anticipate. If anything, given my fatalistic nature, I'd tend to overestimate him.

:withstupid:

Did you go see him in Portland a few months back?

I didn't, actually as I was out of town at the time.

To me, HRC has a Nixionioan task of coming off likable and trustworthy.

Since Nixon won 2(3?) elections, she should feel pretty good about that.

Yep. Just think it is harder to convince voters you are likable and trustworthy than being qualified. Harder, but not impossible.

The more I think about it, the more I like the comparison as it applies to 1968. Nixon in 1968 convinced the country to go with the controversial, but capable candidate over the crazy loons in the Dem party.

Sounds like 2016.

It will be good for Clinton if she gets bloodied a bit here. If she wins what appears to be a real fight, that makes her a "winner" and helps with likability. But there needs to be a fight for her to win.

Just so long as she doesn't have blood coming out of her whatever.

Please, she went through menopause 2 decades ago probably.

**Disclaimer** I never want to get into these political threads, but...

No matter what you think of Bernie Sanders, I don't see how anybody is going to win the White House by saying we should be like Denmark.

This, especially because I feel strongly that mre policy should be done on a state level. I live in Massachusetts (and a very liberal town in that state), so it's funny hearing Sanders described as a crazy socialist when much of what he's advocating has already passed at the state level. Things like required health care, a higher minimum wage, tougher gun control laws, higher corporate taxes etc were all passed here before they were a big deal nationally. And on issues like that I can't understand why there need to be exact national standards. Texas and California are bigger than most countries in the world, why not let them try different approaches. Not only can you then let people vote with their feet (or actually vote at the state level) if they feel strongly, but you'd also get a look at different approaches. And if we're being honest there isn't a gun control law that should apply to both Vermont and Baltimore.

Idk if it's the moderators or the candidates but I did feel the Republican debate went much smoother than this one.

Watching the debate now. The one thing that sticks out is the Chafee seems to be out of his league right now.

His response of "It was my first day" was one of the worst answers I've ever heard

Chafee's done. If they do play a clip of him it will be the "It was my first day" line. All Webb did was complain about the debate. O'Malley didn't do much to stand out. Those 3 should just drop out and Biden get in the race. Hillary and Bernie both did fine.

Chafee was only polling a slight bit higher than "Random FOFC guy" going in.

I did enjoy O'Malley's dig at Debbie Wasserman Schultz though. Even if it means he won't be invited to participate in any more debates.

Seriously, how in the world did he think that was a good answer to anything? Webb's my enemy was the due I killed in 'Nam was almost as bad as well - and channeled Walter from the Big Lebowski.

Hillary Clinton seemed to be the only candidate that really did substantial debate prep at times.

In reality, you'd have to think that she's really the only one with anything to lose.

It was definitely a softer and friendlier debate - that's the Democratic advantage with CNN. The audience seemed to have a lot of high-up Democrats.

Chafee was weak - no idea why he wants to run. Webb makes the mistake of telling the voters they should vote for him and he will cheerfully spend the next hour telling you more if they let him. So he's the Democratic version of Kasich. O'Malley is the guy who always one-ups you and tries to make it sound like it was his idea in the first place. Sanders stuck to his message and was effective, and wins easily if you use the criteria of having control over the message from the party. But he doesn't look very presidential - just angry and old. Clinton was strong, but used the "first woman president" line too much. Is that why we should vote for her?

The debate's theme was basically, "what should we do if we could raise an infinite amount of money by taxing rich people?" We hear this every four years, but it seems like every effort to tax rich people invariably ends up socking the rest of us. Oh, well. It's nice to dream.

I don't think the debate changed any minds. But it seemed more intended as a campaign commercial.

I think I've had enough of Chafee, Webb and O'Malley. Though Biden's strategy of bidin' his time is probably the correct one for now. I would like to see a real debate at some point involving Sanders and Clinton. She's smart enough to try and avoid that - I wouldn't be surprised if her people were able to keep it to this kind of friendly event.

What could Biden offer? Sanders and Clinton are going nuclear on the Republicans. Clinton uses every opportunity to tell us they're evil. OK, maybe they are, but that isn't going to get legislation passed. Sanders admits he can't work with them, so his plan is to get people to vote the Republicans out of office. So Biden could make his mark letting them attack and sounding like the guy who could actually get their policies in place (ironic considering his role during the Obama campaign).

I mostly agree with the gentleman from the state up north.

Since I know O'Malley well, I'm sure I paid closer attention to him than the average viewer. I think he reached toward the high end of his possible outcomes from last night, not a home run but perhaps a ground rule double. He benefited from the placement, and managed a good number of two-way or three-way camera shots. He was pretty good, but not great, on guns - an issue where I think he should be focusing more aggressively.

I think it's O'Malley who is the Kasich of this field in the ways that matter -- he's got the "I actually did this stuff" message much better than even HRC. He fails to crush it, but that's really his best angle.

I think he should see a tiny bump in polling, and should feel good that the two fringe candidates all but buried themselves last night. Bernie didn't implode, but I think the fissures are there. Either a botched or non-existent run from Biden would, I think, still offer a path to victory for him, albeit a still tenuous one.

His whole angle is the 2012 cycle with Romney-versus-whomever. Everyone on the list got a shot being the alternative to the front runner, including the people who polled terribly through important periods. That can surely still happen here.

Fun coverage: The real reason Hillary Clinton won the debate: No one else was on her level - Salon.com

I think Biden missed his chance. And every talking head apparently is saying this as well. Especially as Clinton had taken the position of being strongly pro-Obama on most issues.

Who thought it would be a Democratic candidate who first mentioned killing someone?

I have a hard time seeing the Bernie supporters jumping to O'Malley. He doesn't seem like their bag.

Democratic, Republican, whatever - we should have universal healthcare and good educations shouldn't cost money. (Disclaimer: I'm not entirely sure what Denmark has, but I imagine it's something like that)

For me, it's pretty clear that there's only one Democrat running for president who is actually qualified to have that job. Which is really bewildering considering the gains Democrats have made in other offices, and in party registration in general. And considering how many people don't like Clinton, and how our society is still in a place where people are making period jokes when a woman happens to be campaigning for a position of power. Where are all the younger rising Democrats who should be making waves right now, promoting a new way of doing business? I kind of get the raw appeal of a guy like Sanders but at the end of the day he's kind of just like a angry liberal redditor yelling about what he would do if he was king of America in a one-party system. Where are the younger competent electable Democrats with realistic plans to promote their party's policy through the top executive branch job? A person like that without Clinton's baggage would destroy any of the top Republicans next year.

To be fair, a lot of them are on Hillary Clinton's team (ie, have backed her). No one really wants to run into that buzzsaw in this election. There is a handful of younger Democratic governors who are interesting (Beshear, Bullock, Hickenlooper, Hassan, etc).

I just saw a link to the Drudge poll about yesterday's debate:

Sanders 54%, Webb 25%, Clinton 9%, O'Malley 7%, Chafee 4%.

So the important question is - is this bot behavior or is there really no poll and it's just random numbers?

I don't know which piece of this "poll" is the silliest - maybe it's the 4% for Chafee.

One narrative I'm seeing, and I tend to agree with it, is... was the moment when Sanders said he knew this wasn't the right move politically but it was time to stop talking about the emails... was that the moment Clinton secured the nomination?

Otherwise, Clinton is so heavily entrenched and endorsed that the only narrative for un-entrenching is the trustworthiness argument. If you rally behind her on it, that issue goes away... until the general. Which gives both sides about nine months to figure out how to use it/defend it.

Is that a good strategy? I think so, under the circumstances. It's not a great hand the Democrats were dealt for 2016, but this is one way to play it that may work and takes full advantage of what will be a longer, more contentious Republican primary.

Webb at 25% is hilarious. I think that even bots wouldn't do that.

I think that they are waiting their turn.

Which I really disagree with. Not to get all hyperbolic, but do you really have what it takes to be President if you are scared of taking on a front-runner in the primary?

It's not being scared; it's being smart. By backing the front runner, you may have a good shot and taking over the campaign apparatus when you want to run. Starting your own campaign team while the best minds are working for the front runner isn't necessarily the best option - and a lot of those best minds will be spending a lot of time digging up stuff on you or trying to destroy you, so may not be people who will jump when it's "your turn".

The whole Clinton dynasty started when Bill wasn't afraid to take on the unbeatable Bush where so many more established names in his party were.

Obama took on the front-runner in his own party when it would have been safer and easier to back Clinton and setup himself up for later.

Do you really think there is going to be any sort of bi-partisan, legislation making coalition that stems from the '16 elections? The Republicans are doubling-down on their strategy of "no compromise ever", so what should Clinton do? Do you think the Dems solution should be "let's move closer to the right to get things done"?

I think both sides are in a protected bubble where they each say the other side has doubled down on its strategy of no compromise ever.

They each repeat it to their followers, and it has become the law of the land. And they firmly believe that the other side is 100% to blame.

However, compromise is not saying, "we're going to do this, and you can either sign it with us or not" when the other side is saying we should do something entirely different. Both sides are guilty of this.

We'll never get anywhere until both sides admit that polarization and identity politics have done incredible damage.

Compromise also isn't just settling for half of what you want, when the other side doesn't doesn't want to do that half.

I don't agree with that equivalence. The GOP has moved farther to the right than the Dems have to the left. The Dems' biggest legislative achievement was modeled on the plan used by the GOP's most recent presidential candidate.



This is probably an agree to disagree point. And there are a lot of political problems where I would agree that the Dems and the GOP are equally to blame. But everything I see demonstrates that polarization is not one of those problems. There, the GOP deserves more blame than the Dems.

dola. Sorry for the chart size

Therefore we have to learn to compromise on what it means to compromise.

We have a long way to go. So the question is whether the declarations of war we're seeing on both sides during the primary are moving us closer to compromise or further away.

That chart is making the rounds lately. And the authors state, in their explanation, that while they feel the Republicans have moved further away from the norm, the Democrats are more entrenched in identity politics.

As researchers of social science, though, they've had to make decisions about what the norm is. And they've decided to move with public consensus. The Republicans haven't moved with the consensus on abortion issues (about where the divide gets wider) and gay rights. So does that lack of movement mean polarization is their fault? After all, we're only 20 years removed from Clinton's DOMA, which had broad bipartisan support.

I don't know the answer. This chart is one way to frame it. I think the Brookings guys are doing the best they can to honestly assess the issue, but their choice of norms is being misused by the Democrats to show something the researchers probably didn't intend.

How long till Trump starts tweeting a body count?

Just gonna leave this here...

The big difference is that the GOP has refused to support anything from Obama even when it moves the ball in their direction. They decided that and GOP support gives the appearance of bipartisanship and that makes Obama stronger. Obama was willing to give on Medicare and Social Security and they still said no.

The Dems have issues where they won't budge, but most will go along with the opposition if they think it advances the ball. A sizable portion, enough to control the House, sees compromise itself as the enemy.

I think the vote of no confidence on Boehner speaks volumes about the actual source of these "compromise" problems.

And I believe according to polling, more voters believe Republicans are responsible for gridlock overall and the last government shutdown. So who really stands to lose when the political arena becomes more polarized?

Bill Clinton actually waited his turn. He was being mentioned for 1998 and he passed. 1992 was actually not a bad time to run to be the party's nominee since there were a good number of Democrats running in the primaries and the big names that were being mentioned (Cuomo, Gore) decided not to run.

Yeah, and there's a difference between running against a prohibitive favorite in the opposition party and one in your own party. Bill Clinton didn't burn any bridges by running where someone running against Hillary may.