Form Book 2016 US Election, All Candidates on Both Sides Rated - Rubio strongest on GOP but Cruz has easiest path to nomination; either to face a steamrolling Hillary

This is the total candidate Form Book for the 2016 election, both parties, all major aspects. We now know support ie polling, we know fund-raising, we've seen their debates, and we can make a preliminary evaluation of their path to the nomination based on the delegate math. An early view to electability is also now possible. That is what this blog is about, to rate the two sides of the race to 2016, one year before the election takes place and three months before the primary season starts in Iowa.

I have collected into one place everything you might want to know, even such details as when is their home election and how big is that in terms of delegate count. As many are also interested in the sugar-daddies, I have also included a part about the secret funding, who are the biggest donors and more importantly, what businesses do they represent. Are we surprised that many billionaires buying candidates have oil pipeline businesses or are in the oil or fracking business? Like I do with the smartphone wars (I usually write about tech and mobile), I will cover each candidate in order starting from strongest to weakest. I used the US school grading system where A is Excellent B is good C is fair, D is passing and F is failing (there is no E grade). When calculating the average score, A is worth 4 points, B 3 points, C 2 points, D 1 point and F 0 points.

REPUBLICAN FIELD

Lets do the Republcican field first, so we start with their strongest candidate who is not Trump, it is

1ST - MARCO RUBIO - A- (3.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . B
Fund-raising . . . . . . .B
Debating . . . . . . . . . .A
Path to nomination . . A
Electability . . . . . . . . A
Home Field Advantage: 99 delegates winner-take-all in Round 9 (15 March) (note is elimination round vs Jeb Bush)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 3: Norman Braman (Cars), Larry Ellison (IT), Isaac Perlmutter (entertainment)

Marco Rubio is the strongest of the Republican field in the early going of 2016. His debating has been excellent, as is his path to nomination, as is his actual electability in the general election. Where Marco fails from perfection so far, is the popularity contest, his polling is only good, and his fund-raising which is also good. Note that his megadonors include three Billionaires of very varied industries - a car dealer, an IT guy (Larry Ellison of Oracle) and the founder of Marvel comics. So his 'support' base is not particularly 'polluted' in industries, nor is his support base narrow in focus. The billionaire money goes mostly to the SuperPAC of course, so in the direct fund-raising to his campaign Rubio suffers somewhat.

Marco doesn't have the easiest path to victory (that is with Ted Cruz and Donald Trump also has an easier path) but in the general, Marco on the ticket would almost guarantee the vote of Florida to the Republican side, whether he is on the top, or if he's the Vice President. He has weaknesses mostly due to youth, a first-term Senator, this is more a burden on the Republican side than it would be on the Democrat side, Republicans like Governors more than Senators, and they want a candidate who is experienced. Its the Democrats who ever so often nominate unknown outsiders (like Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama). Rubio suffers even more by his looks. He was blessed with a baby face, he looks far younger than he is. Maybe he should add some color of grey in to his hair haha. The worst baggage is that he seems like Obama did in 2008, young, inspirational, great speaker, but inexperienced. And reminding Republicans of seeming like Obama is a very undesirable thing in the nomination fight. So Rubio has all this to overcome.

Then there is Florida. In the nomination fight he - and Jeb Bush - have their face-off in their home state of Florida. Florida delegates are awarded on a 'winner-takes-all' basis, so its almost sure that one of the two will not continue in the race on March 16, the day after Florida has voted. While Marco is currently somewhat ahead of Jeb in Florida (but Trump utterly crushes them both in current polling) the actual voting in that very large and expensive state will be influenced very dramatically by TV advertising, as we saw by MItt Romney in 2012. Marco has his challenges but he also is lucky. Most of all, his lucky call on Putin and Syria, in the last debate. The 2016 election will be more of a foreign policy election than an economy election (unless the USA falls into a deep recession). Putin is likely to be the biggest foreign policy monster in the news for the next 12 months, and Syria will be a continuing war zone and crisis. Marco will be seen as wise for that call, he will milk that well into credibility on foreign policy. Meanwhile he also has damaged his chances, from calling Hillary Clinton the most competent candidate on either side (she has that well stored on videotape) and to saying he wants to eliminate abortion even for rape, incest and life of the mother. On many positions, Rubio is very extreme. He did have a position on a comprehensive immigration reform, it could have played very well with Hispanics (Rubio himself is a Hispanic, parents from Cuba) but he's abandoned those which lessens his appeal with that demographic. Rubio may win the nomination, and if he's on the top of the ticket, Rubio could win Florida for the Republican ticket, which si the largest 'swing state' and would be a huge prize. Rubio polls well against Hillary and could present a strong contrast starting with age.

2ND - JEB BUSH - B (3.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . .B
Fund-raising . . . . . . . A
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C
Path to nomination . . B
Electability . . . . . . . . .B
Home Field Advantage: 99 delegates Winner-take-all in Round 9 (15 March) (note is elimination round vs Marco Rubio)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 5: Miguel Fernandez (healthcare), William Obendorf (education), Charles Schwab (investing), Julian Robertson (hedge fund), Rich Kinder (oil pipelines)

Jeb Bush is the second strongest candidate. Jeb's strength comes from the Bush family, and it is fund-raising. But he is turning out somewhat of a paper tiger, on nothing else is Jeb that strong. He's ok in polling, on his path to the nomination and on electability. On his debating skills, Jeb is only fair. This is not the candidate who inspires confidence that he can take on Hillary Clinton, which is why his polling is stuck in single digits and many of his fund-raisers are starting to be concerned. They've already paid a massive 100 million dollars to his SuperPAC and more to his actual campaign but now worry whether that money was wasted. If Jeb loses Florida, he is toast. Even if he manages to klll off Marco Rubio, is his style going to play against Hillary in the main election. In a Bushes versus Clintons name popularity contest, the Bush family loses seriously to the Clintons on all counts, starting with the economy and ending with the wars.

Jeb Bush has also shown an alarming blindness about his brother George W Bush, almost as a rule, making blunders when he is asked about issues relating to his brother. Jeb said he is his own man when it comes to the foreign policy, yet almost all of his advisers come from the W Bush years. When asked was the Iraq war a mistake, Jeb fumbled the question for five days. Now, as Trump has been attacking Jeb about 'he kept us safe' - Jeb does not have the political instinct to instantly end that issue and put it to rest. He should have said simply 'I mis-spoke, I meant, as anyone can understand, that after September 11, my brother kept us safe'. That would have ended this 'issue' which has hounded Jeb for a week now, with Trump prodding him time and again on it. The Republican base knows what Jeb means, that it was shorthand, meaning - of course - that 'after September 11, he kept us safe' but as Jeb said those dumb words in the debate in front of 24 million people, Hillary has collected that video tape and will run it endlessly if Jeb is the nominee, in the general election. It totally serves Democratic interests to tie Jeb to W Bush, to remind all about the terrorist attack happening during W Bush's watch, and that Hillary was in the room with Obama when Obama took Osama Bin Laden out. W Bush had even said before he quit office, that he didn't care if they ever caught Bin Laden. The whole 'he kept us safe' slogan is pure poison for the general election and this was an unforced error by Jeb. Trump is cleverly capitalizing on it now.

That all being said, the role of money is enormous and this year's campaign will cost one Billion dollars to go all the way to win the Presidency. The Bush machine is the best at fund-raising on the Republican side. Some of that support is, yes, oil money like Rich Kinder in the pipelines business, but Jeb's reach is widest and he has yes, five personal Billionaires that have tossed a million dollars into his war chest already. In the last cycle, there were only 7 Billionaires in total that took the big bets in the nomination fight in what was the opera of MItt Romney and the Midgets. The first four states in 2016 will not depend on money. But March 1, the SEC Primary day, that is when money will utterly rule, and Jeb should have a dominating day. If Jeb cannot win half of the states on March 1, we know he is a paper tiger. If he wins half of the states, he is very much stronger than what the early Form Book tells us. But on his debating, yes, Trump is right, Jeb needs to be a bit more high energy.

Incidentally Jeb is the unluckiest politician this cycle. He wanted to block moderates, by having a 'shock and awe' fund-raising quarter, when he raised $100 million. It was meant to keep Chris Christie and John Kasich out of the race. They came in. His 'protege' Marco Rubio rushed early into this race, and by US election rules, the same State cannot nominate both the President and VP (or can, but they lose half the votes, so nobody would ever do this). Then worst, in came Donald Trump, who made Jeb his personal target at every possible moment, just massacring Jeb's polling support. All pundits said Trump was a summer fling that only lasts a month, three months later, he's still attacking Jeb. The two Republicans who quit, were not moderates, both were conservatives (Rick Perry, Scott Walker) so they make it easier for Ted Cruz to win, and Jeb's main rivals, John Kasich and Chris Christie keep hanging on and draining his votes... Unluckiest man in this cycle (compare to Cruz below)

3RD - DONALD TRUMP - B- (2.8 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . A
Fund-raising . . . . . . . B*
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C
Path to nomination . . A
Electability . . . . . . . . D
Home Field Advantage: 95 Delegates winner-take-all in Round 12 (19 April)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: none (but in reality he has two if he needed it, himself and Carl Icahn has launched a 150 million dollar SuperPAC not to help Trump but aligned with Trump mission, so it will likely work in Trump's favor at least worth some millions):
* - I gave Trump a higher grade, he 'earned' a C because this is without any begging for funds. No fund-raising mailers, or websites begging for money, he collected 4 million dollars while saying he wants nothing, essentially selling his hats. So if he asked for money it would be at least a B (could be A) 

Donald Trump was the always-tease candidate who never ran. He was supporting all other Republican candidates in all sorts of elections, doing robo-calls, and blessing their candidacies and contributing to them. And then he also supported Democrats. But now for the 2016 election, he stopped teasing and actually announced his run. And ever since he announced, Trump jumped to a lead in the polls, for a while over 30% and still today well in mid-20s according to the Real Clear Politics latest polling average. He has led the race for more than three months now. More than national polls, in almost every state-wide poll he has led since the first debate. I think I've seen only two state-wide polls where Trump was termporarily in second place. While Trump polling fell after the second debate, from the 30s to the 20s, his polling has again turned to a climb and his margin to the second place Dr Ben Carson is about 5 points.

Trump is in very many ways a mystery candidate and might turn out into some mirage or he might fold suddenly. I joked about how much Trump seems like a Trojan Horse candidate, sent to the Republican race to ruin all rivals and destroy the party. You might enjoy the humor of my imagined telephone conversation between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, just before he announced. If you look at what the base of the Republican field has been demanding very vocally, like a repeal of Obamacare, or hatred of the Clintons, or refusing raising taxes for the rich, Trump sounds like a Democrat. Yet he has a massive lead in the current polling. I have said that Trump has a ceiling, the majority of Republicans will not vote for him, but he doesn't need a majority, to win the nomination. As I calculated in the delegate hunt, Trump has the second easiest path to the nomination, because he only needs a plurality of votes to win a given state, and then the wide field of 15 candidates helps Trump secure wins even if he only gets 25% or 30% of a given state. He could win the first state of Iowa with even less than 20% of the vote. That much is a core Trump vote (in the teens) that he has now locked, by pandering to the xenophobic racist wing, the conspiracy wing, and various extreme bigot Tea Party extremists, that the other candidates dare not pursue (except maybe Dr Carson).

The general election with Trump as the nominee would be a total massive national catastrophe for the Republicans. Now, as the math suggests Trump might win the Republican nomination, the leadership in the Republican party is waking up to the horror, that if Trump wins the nomination, in the subsequent general election they'll lose not only the race to the White House but they'll lose their control of the Senate and also the House which was supposed to be unassailable. The attacks on Trump are growing, yet he seems immune to their effects. His polling is at least stable, or in slight increase in the past days and week. What will tell a lot, will be the next Republican TV debate. In the first debate Trump was combative and scored well. He came to the second debate over-confident and ill-prepared. He was attacked by most of the field. He didn't enjoy that, but he tried to withhold his counterpunching. I think the next debate will tell a lot, can Trump master the debate format or can the field get to him and pound him down to the teens in support. I think Trump cannot get above the 30s in his national polling. But all pundits have under-estimated Trump many times. He may well run away with it. Like I calculated, Trump has the second easiest path to the Republican nomination. One last point, the money. This early stage, up to the first four states in February, is 'cheap' that Trump can do without spending millions in TV ad money. From March on, the race would get incredibly expensive. Trump is worth many Billions, he can easily afford the 100 million the nomination fight would cost, to win, but most self-made megarich are very stingy with their own money, and Trump will not want to throw that away. This early race is easily earned back massively by book sales, by hat sales, and Trump's speaking fees into the future. But the Spring race? He may quite suddenly quit. And what about the general election. I am certain Trump will not throw a Billion dollars to fight Hillary in the general election. Would the Republican party throw that kind of money into this losing project, I don't think so. His campaign is likely a mirage, and Trump will take some 'off-ramp' when the convenient exit comes along. He is smart enough to know, he would lose at least 45 states against Hillary in the general election.

Note also the total disconnect with reality. Trump claims he is loved by the Hispanics (because he employs some). Trump claims he'll win the Hispanic vote. The latest polling is pure poison. Hispanics hate Trump, only 15% would vote for him. The Republicans have counted that if they lose the Hispanic vote by 40% to 60%, similar to Mitt Romney, it will become a losing election for them. Marco Rubio might do better than 40%, but Donald Trump? He won't get to half that. Just the Hispanic vote will ruin his run in the general election. Then those veterans. His hostile words about war hero Senator John McCain. Trump went on to the big battleship to take an 'endorsement' by a 'veterans group' (called Veterans for a Strong America) which turned out to be a total fraud (the group, not Trump). Its a one-man-dark-money-operation loosely affiliated with the Koch brothers that runs occasional 'swiftboat' style attack ads. It has lost its federal tax-exempt status. It has no 'members' so Trump's claims that huge amounts of veterans endorse him, is ludicrous. We don't know if Trump got played or he was part of the sham on Battleship Iowa. As Trump likes to celebrate how he is loved by the Hispanics and veterans, he says that he adores women, and women will vote for him. Again his gender gap is atrocious. The Republican women voters far prefer Dr Carson while its men mostly who support Trump. Delusions. (Or he knows the truth, but he is smart enough to see the difference, and callous enough to push something he knows is a lie). The only thing the Democrats calculate even better than a Dr Ben Carson nomination to Republican President, would be a Trump nomination. The resulting landslide would mean flipping the Senate and the House. The Republicans can now do the same math, it is very clear, and the panic is rising, can Trump be stopped. And how. Expect it to get more vicious in the coming weeks.

Which then raises of course the spectre of Trump running as an Independent. This, even more possible now, that Jim Webb has floated the same idea. And Trump as an independent would not win either but would take most of his votes from the Republicans, not the Democrats. But wait, there is yet another option. Remember, Trump has a thin skin and is incredibly vengeful; and he doesn't keep his word. So if he feels the Republicans are ganging up on him, what he could do, while keeping to 'his word' of not running against the Republican nominee as an Independent - would be to ENDORSE HILLARY. Can you imagine the next 4 months of Trump on TV every day and in continuous loop specifically on Fox as a nominally Republican candidate, on legitimate campaign issues; and then he suddenly cries 'foul' about the 'evil corrupt' party playing unfair. And then Trump drops out ...and tells all his supporters to vote for Hillary. We already know he admires and likes the Clintons and has donated to them in the past. Trump will always latch out and take revenge. And seeing how childish he is about any 'slight' against him, he could well do this. For the Repoblican party, Trump is a hand grenade with the pin removed, rolling inside their car, underneath the seat, while the car is stuck in rush-hour inside a long tunnel. When will it explode? With Trump the Republican party truly is doomed whether Trump wins the nomination of not.

4TH - TED CRUZ - B- (2.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . B
Fund-raising . . . . . . . A
Debating . . . . . . . . . . D
Path to nomination . . A
Electability . . . . . . . . . D
Home Field Advantage: 155 Delegates but Proportional in Round 5 (1 March)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 2 - Toby Neugebauer (oil), Wilks brothers (Dan & Farris) (oil fracking). 

So Ted Cruz. The luckiest politician in this election cycle. He saw the two strongest conservative rivals, Scott Walker and Rick Perry quit. And then by not attacking Trump, he's been delighted at how hard Trump is striking Cruz's main remaining opposition, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Carly Fiorina. Now as I calculated, because he has no strong conservative rivals (nearest is Mike Huckabee who polls at 5%) Cruz has the easiest path to the nomination. Its not by any means guaranteed, but Cruz will most definitely stay in the race till the end and will have a big haul of delegates. He's nearly certain to be on the ticket, by delegates collected, if it comes to a brokered convention, meaning either President or Vice President. Ted's polling is good, his fund-raising is great, but his debate performance is poor. This is even more bizarre has Ted was celebrated as a champion college debater from his youth. I think he needs to fire his debate and speech coach, fast, and get a new one. His current style of speaking is, to be kind, scary. He is not presidential. He may well win the nomination but he is toast in the general election. His nomination path is the easiest but he cannot win the general election if he goes up against Hillary. His positions are almost perfectly the mirror of Hillary's where on every issue he has taken the view that is against the US majority view. He cannot win the general, and he would at least flip the Senate to the Democrats he if he was on the top of the ticket. If he didn't improve his debating skills, he could even cause the flipping of the house to the Democrats.

Ted is a Texas guy so his big supporters tend to be oil men. The two billionaires that are his sugar-daddies, have ponied up the most money to any SuperPAC, the two guys alone have supported Ted's campaign by a whopping 24 million dollars so far. Why? Oil and fracking. Ted is already in the Senate where he can filibuster any laws against the oilmen, and as President, he'd likely be in their pocket. But this kind of funding does give Ted a kind of safety to say and do just about anything. He knows what these two want, and they can do the math just like I can. Ted has the easiest path to the nomination. As a week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity. These two Texas oil tycoons may have bought themselves a genuine Texas-born President. The Cruz nomination delegate plan is to wait for Trump and Carson to implode or quit. But even if they don't, Cruz has a better path to the nomination than Trump. If both quit, Cruz's gains are likely to be quite significant, although he is unlikely to get a majority of delegates, he could have a strong lead in his plurality by June of 2016. Cruz in the general election is a toxic candidate because of his constant feuding with all of his Senate colleagues and most mainstream Republicans at all levels. He is a Tea Party rebel, so if he was on the top of the ticket, some Republicans would openly refuse to support him - and actually endorse Hillary. Others would passively avoid supporting Ted's cause. He can't win the general election in 2016 but if he's on the top of the ticket, he'd cause a rout in the support of Republicans and push a huge wave to Democrats, and both the Senate and the House would flip. The traditional Republicans also know this, that Ted Cruz is no better than Trump, for down-ticket Republican chances in 2016, and are trying to organize against him. The Tea Party tends to love Cruz but they are a minority of Republicans and merely a fringe in the general election. Ted Cruz as the nominee would make 2016 seem like the Republican version of Walter Mondale's disastrous run against Reagan in 1984. Mondale only won his home state, lost 49 states.

5TH - CARLY FIORINA - C+ (2.4 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . C
Fund-raising . . . . . . . B
Debating . . . . . . . . . . A
Path to nomination . . C
Electability . . . . . . . . D
Home Field Advantage: 172 Delegates winner-take-all Round 17 (7 June)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M:(none)

Carly Fiorina shines in the debates. She won her promotion from the 'kids table' debate in the first debate that she won, and again, in the second debate, she won. Those two performances raised her to momentary peaks of as high as second ranking in the polling and 15% level. But that has since disappeared, and now Fiorina is down to about 5% level by RCP average. Apart from excellent debate performances, her polling is fair, her fund-raising is good, her path to the nomination is only fair, and her electability is poor. She has gotten recently a lot of funds at the back of her debates, but when the SuperPACs reported, she had not yet found any Billionaires to support her cause. She may have gotten one or two since.

So Carly is the ex CEO of Hewlett Packard. The failed CEO, as many would point out, she was ousted by a unanimous decision by the Board - that is very bad. She was listed in several 'worst CEO in America' lists - that is very bad. Her tenure at HP resulted in the share price falling dramatically, that also is obviously very bad. If Fiorina wants to claim she should be President because her record as HP is a sign of how she would manage, that is a horrid record. Its not far from what we saw here in the mobile industry, of Nokia's disasterous CEO, Stephen Elop, asking to be voted President of Finland... But the political play against her is the stuff that Barbara Boxer ran, that while Fiorina fired 30,000 at HP, she then gave herself a raise and had the company buy 5 corporate jets. Doesn't play well in politics She lost to Boxer in the California election by 10 points, a landslide. But she has been really good on the stump, and in the debates, whether attacking Hillary or attacking Trump. Of all the candidates on either side, Fiorina is the best natural attack-dog. She'd make a terrific VP in that role. Except.

Except for the delusions. Now, that Planned Parenthood video nonsense 'keeping the fetus alive for harvesting their brains' is batshit-crazy. Its at the level of Michelle Bachmann 'I know women whose kids have autism because of vaccinations' - crazy. Its Christine O'Donnell 'I am not a witch' - crazy. Its Sarah Palin 'I read all the newspapers' - crazy. Fiorina has not been able to come clean about that video, that she was remembering a propaganda video, and that Planned Parenthood has never been caught on any video harvesting brains - she is now on the border of becoming unelectable. John McCain found in the 2008 election exit polls that Sarah Palin had become so toxic, more people voted against Palin than the conservative voters she brought to the ticket, who voted for her. She broke the first rule of politics for a VP, do no harm. She actually caused damage to the ticket. McCain would have won more votes against Obama, if Palin was not on the ticket. Fiorina is not there yet, but you can be sure, that Hillary has recorded 'harvesting their brains' onto videotape and have the TV ads ready to run, if Fiorina is on the ticket in the general election. But judging by how much her campaign is already tanking, I don't think there is much danger of that anymore. And this is a shame, for Republicans, because Carly - if we ignore brain-harvesting - would be a very powerful attack dog against Hillary. And as a woman on the ticket, help neutralize Hillary's advantage as a woman. So imagine say Fiorina and Rubio as the ticket. A Woman and a Hispanic, plus winning Florida... but she is nearly unelectable now, and her clock is ticking. Her credibility is being eroded to the core. If she doesn't fix the mistake, after this run, she will be ousted like well, I am not a witch..

6TH - CHRIS CHRISTIE - C+ (2.2 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . D
Fund-raising . . . . . . . C
Debating . . . . . . . . . . A
Path to nomination . . D
Electability . . . . . . . . B
Home Field Advantage: 51 Delegates winner-take-all Round 17 (7 June)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M:(none)

Chris Christie is a kind of one-trick pony. He is really good at the debates (and yes in some public speaking settings). He polls poorly, his fund-raising is only fair, his path to the nomination is difficult but if he managed that feat, he would be pretty well electable. He has some funding support but no Billionaire has ponied up a million dollars for his SuperPAC. But Christie is that superstar on TV, who can knock it out of the park. At any one debate, he could have that winning moment that everybody talks about, like how Newt Gingrich has his boost for the South Carolina primary based on his debate exchange with CNN's Anderson Cooper.

We've seen hints of that so far, where Christie takes a swing and nearly connected on a home run. I expect a break-out performance to happen soon, that should propel him higher in the polls and improve his fund-raising. Christie needs the TV exposure as much as Trump does, and ironically Trump's bombastic campaigning style has made Christie seem less rude by contrast. But like Trump, Christie is also the natural bully who tells nice old ladies on a town-hall meeting to 'shut up ad sit down'. He can thus implode just as much as he can have a good moment. Christie needs the debates. He is happy his side has 11 debates and he almost missed the cut-off into this next debate. But he is that wild card that can be all the talk the next day. And Christie has not been afraid to attack Trump and has done it pretty well so far. He could emerge as the 'dragon slayer'.

Even a successful debate-propelled rise would likely be mercurial. Christie is still a bully. His approval at home in New Jersey is abysmal and should Christie catch fire, Trump would likely hit him with essentially the same book he used against Walker, and thus Christie is quite vulnerable. Especially to Trump. If he were to pull some Jedi move and get the nomination, Christie would fare far better in the general election as one of the more electable, more moderate of the Republicans. My gut says that if Christie did become the front-runner, he could not hold his tongue and temper in check, and he'd say something revolting that would then end his run. Christie doesn't have the teflon-coating that Trump has, who can say outrageous political-career-ending things and still survive.

7TH - JOHN KASICH - C (2.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . D
Fund-raising . . . . . . . C
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C
Path to nomination . . D
Electability . . . . . . . . A
Home Field Advantage 66 Delegates winner-take-all in Round 9 (15 March)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M:(none)

John Kasich is the boring technocrat who is the most electable of the Republican field, who is the rare moderate. He has a hard time getting noticed, far less getting to the nomination. His polling is weak, his fund-raising only fair, his debating is also only fair and his path to the nomination is weak. If he made it there, he would be the most electable Republican who also would be guaranteed to win his home state, the always vital swing-state of Ohio, where he is a sitting Governor with very high favorability ratings. He is a moderate by his political views and he has accepted Obamacare into his state, to generally popular acceptance. As of the filing of the SuperPAC finances, Kasich had not attracted any billionaires but that is likely due to his late filing for his candidacy. He should have one or two by now possibly from those who were with one of those first two to drop out who both had several billionaires in their pockets (or perhaps more appropriately, who had sat into the pockets of several). I think Kasich is somewhat below the radar, very technocrat yes, doing all the things right but not getting any major attention. He hasn't resorted to media attention gimmicks, and he hasn't been engaging in attacks on his rivals.

If we think of the ultimate ticket for the Republicans, as Kasich is so strong that he'd win Ohio even as VP, but Rubio is not that strong to guarantee Florida if VP, I would say the strongest ticket for the party would be Rubio as President and Kasich as VP. Then they'd win both Florida and Ohio, and now two of the biggest 'must win' swing states would go red. But unless Hillary stumbles really badly, she'd just then pick up the lost votes from other states, like North Carolina and Georgia. But yeah, of this field, the Rubio-Kasich ticket to me seems strongest for the Republicans. Its not a likely ticket, however. Its far more likely, even if Rubio gets the nomination, that he has to pick a VP who finished much higher than Kasich in the final delegate count, just to quell a riot in the party, most likely Ted Cruz.

8TH - RAND PAUL - C- (1.8 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . .C
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D
Debating . . . . . . . . . . D
Path to nomination . . C
Electability . . . . . . . . .B
Home Field Advantage: 45 Delegates but Proportional in Round 6 (5 March)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 1 - Jeffrey Yass (options trader)

Rand Paul gets a C-minus grade with no highlights. Its all pretty bad for him. In polling he's only fair, in fund-raising he's weak, in debating he's weak, his path to the nomination is only fair, but on electability his chances would be good. He has one sugardaddy Billionaire who is an options trader. Rand doesn't really have any strong up-side. He seems to have raised to his level of incompetence and can't get beyond it. What seems to be underneath, is a smart guy, who also clearly knows the ropes, his dad Ron Paul was a Congressman from Texas whose life mission was to run in every Presidential election. Now Rand Paul has taken over the family tradition. But Rand seems undisciplined and unfocused. Its as if he got it all too easy so he doesn't bother to prepare, doesn't bother to make a solid effort and doesn't bother to take it too seriously. Oh, and Rand totally can't pull off the appearance of being Presidential, starting with that hairdo which always seems like he is coming from an all-night rave party. Appearances do matter and he loses also on this count. I think Rand could maybe evolve into a serious and strong candidate, but he needs many years to get there, this candidate seems like a college kid who stayed up too late and didn't bother to do his homework, and is now winging it, to very poor results.

9TH (Tie) - BEN CARSON - C- (1.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . A
Fund-raising . . . . . . . A
Debating . . . . . . . . . . F
Path to nomination . . F
Electability . . . . . . . . .F
(has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)

Dr Ben Carson, yeah, second in the polls, great. Huge fund-raising, even better. But can he debate? No. he is a joke. Is there any path for him to get the nomination, not a prayer. Can he be elected, utterly not. Carson is a Tea Party and ultra-conservative religious voter favorite who will not win any meaningful amount of delegates and at some point he will quit. But he is using the 2016 cycle to raise his profile, sell books and raise his speaking fee levels. He is not even taking the race seriously. He suspended his campaign so he can go on a book tour. He knows he isn't going to win anything, but the Republican nomination does offer kooky author-speakers a platform to advertise themselves, so that is what he's doing. And as he's gotten hundreds of thousands of supporters duped, he is raking in the millions and living large spending the campaign donations on a lavish lifestyle, as long as this lasts. Good for him. But lets not confuse his run as a candidate for President.

9TH (Tie) - MIKE HUCKABEE - C- (1.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . D
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D
Debating . . . . . . . . . . B
Path to nomination . . C
Electability . . . . . . . . D
Home Field Advantage 40 Delegates but Proportional in Round 5 (1 March)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 1 - Ronald Cameron (poultry)

Mike Huckabee was the runner-up to John McCain finishing second in the 2008 Republlican run. He won Iowa, he was the darling of the ultra conservatives and the evangelical voters - he is a former preacher as well as a former Governor of Arkansas. He was seen as one of the stronger candidates to then sit it out for 2012 when Mitt Romney ran, and many were asking Huckabee come save them from Romney. Huckabee was not getting into the fight against a sitting President but he knew he was coming back. Huckabee went and took a job on Fox to build his brand and audience. With that, how is the experienced former number two, doing now? He is doing quite poorly, actually. Polling is weak. Fund-raising is weak. His path to the nomination is modest, and his overall electability is weak. The one thing Huckabee has shown he still has, is his debate skills, they are good. And he has one megadonor in his corner who is an Arkansas poultry tycoon. 

So what is the story with Huckabee. I think its one of two very opposite theories. Either Huckabee is past his prime, this is his last rodeo and he will ride into the sunset, playing the bass guitar (yes, he also plays the guitar). An old warhorse on its way to the pasture. Ok, that could be it.

Or else, if you had already done this run before. And you sat out last time, but observed keenly the race, and saw how useless it is to peak too early. And you worked diligently for nearly a decade to get to this point, including a long stint at Fox TV to learn the TV game, interviewing conservatives and building your brand. If you have no need whatsoever to introduce yourself to Republican voters. And you have secured your own campaign financial security with even your own Billionaire. If you know you are a great debater, and great public speaker. Then why not wait. Why not, play possum. To lie low. To avoid the slings from the Trumpo-monster. Let the others pretend to have their early peaks, and burn out, and crash out. Why not just work on what really matters - Iowa is won on the ground. Huckabee knows this better than anyone else in this field except Rick Santorum, because Huckabee did it in 2008 (and Santorum then repeated that in 2012 when Huckabee wasn't in it; and did it by the way, by courting the same evangelical vote that is Huckabee's base).

And I need to discuss the debate skills here (what with me being the ex Debate Coach haha back in my college career). There are only four candidates in this field, who can have a dramatic break-out moment through the debates. Anyone can have a failing moment, but only four are that good debaters, that they can at any TV debate, have a winning moment that propels them to big gains in the polls. Those four are Fiorina, Rubio, Christie and Huckabee. Only these four are that good,. Each has a different style. Fiorina does it with her passion and even anger. She turns that on very well in debates. Christie does with pure argument, the more you get him riled and fired up, the more he can fight you. Rubio is different again, he does it with oratory and hope, just like Obama. Not the confrontation but the inspiration. And what about Huckabee. He does it with charm and a joke. Listen to him in the next debate. He does it every time. He charms the audience and he makes them laugh with him. He also answers honestly and oozes total conservative and evangelical values. But never in a threatening way. He is most like Ronald Reagan in that way, the Great Communicator. Reagan did that all the time, while his rhetoric was very conservative, it was never threatening like say Ted Cruz, it was charming and Reagan would always inject humor into his debate answers. It came naturally to Reagan, and it comes naturally to Huckabee. I don't mean that the jokes are not pre-planned and tested, of course they are. But nobody else bothers to go that distance in the answer on the Republican side, to get the audience always to laugh with them. Huckabee does that, every single answer, every time. Incidentally, that's how Bill Clinton debated. Just like Reagan, he too, charming and always the joke, but Clinton of course, taking the liberal-Democratic angle to the answer, but he left you with a smile. Every time. (and PS who has been coaching his wife to do the same now, look at how comfortable Hillary is doing that now. She didn't do that against Obama in 2008)

So Huckabee. Its possible he is a spent force and about to retire. Or. He might be the wily fox who knows that peaking too early will only wear you out. The optimal time to peak in the Republican debates isn't until January or earliest December, for February when we get the first votes in Iowa. Huckabee has done perhaps the longest and most thorough preparation of improvement from his previous run of the Republican field, to get ready for 2016. He won Iowa before. What if he is deliberately pulling his punches now. Waiting for others to get rid of Trump. To wait until turning his full charm and fire and brimstone and preaching - and perhaps also a Reaganesque 'Shining City on a Hill' metaphor that Huckabee has had 8 years of time to refine. We could be in for a big shock in the Republican debates of December or January. I see no signs of weakness in Huckabee, I see the skill all there and the twinkle in his eye. I would suggest its this second theory which applies to Huckabee and he'll suddenly surge just in time to steal a victory or strong showing in Iowa, and be right in the hunt for the race. But that may just be me, the old debate coach, hoping to see the brilliance we saw before in this kid, back in 2008. 

Even so, he has a difficult path to the nomination, and then his ultra-conservative positions make Huckabee very poorly electable. So he's unlikely to be the nominee, but keep him earmarked for a black horse run, and lets monitor the debates of December and January, that is when he would have to turn it on. It could tumble the status quo quite radically if Huckabee suddenly challenges Ted Cruz and Ben Carson for the evangelical and very conservative vote.

11TH - LINDSAY GRAHAM - D+ (1.2 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . F
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C
Path to nomination . . D
Electability . . . . . . . . C
(Has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (None)

Senator Lindsay Graham polling is so poor it rounds off to zero. His fund-raising is weak. He is only mediocre in debating, his path to the nomination is poor and his electability is modest. I have Graham on the quitting-watch due to all his support being so weak. He hopes and wishes he'll have a miracle in his home state of South Carolina, which is the third state to pick delegates in February. I really don't see him surviving that far. He was almost eliminated from the kids table already for this next debate. What can we say, he is the warmonger in the group, part of John McCain's bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb bomb Iran, gang. He gets often onto TV and the Sunday talk shows but is utterly incapable of turning any of that free media into any support. He's on nobody's VP lists either. That he isn't near the top in his home state of South Carolina tells us all we need to know. 

12TH - RICK SANTORUM- D- (0.8 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . D
Fund-raising . . . . . . . F
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C
Path to nomination . . D
Electability . . . . . . . . .F
(has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (None)

So then we have the former Senator, Rick Santorum, who finished second in 2012 in the weak field against Mitt Romney. He has never managed more than one or two points in the polls, has only participated in the kids table debates, where he hasn't shined. His polling is weak, his fundraising is a disaster. His debating is mediocre at best, hi path to the nomination is miserable and his electability utterly hopeless. But he's hanging in there. Rick won the Iowa caucuses last time, which propelled his unlikely challenger run. He's a very religious guy who is no doubt praying feverishly to get a miracle. It isn't coming Rick. He will somehow survive to Iowa even without any significant funds, but after Iowa, Rick will go home. He is a nobody in politics.

13TH (Tie) - BOBBY JINDAL - F (0.4 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . F
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D
Debating . . . . . . . . . . F
Path to nomination . . F
Electability . . . . . . . .  D
(has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (None)

Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana was once thought of a future star of the Republican party. He is not that now. His polling is failing. His fundraising is bad. His debating is useless. HIs path to the nominations non-existent, and his electability is bad. Jindal will soon pull the plug on this hopeless endeavour. I don't think he survives to Iowa's first votes.

13TH (Tie) - GEORGE PATAKI - F (0.4 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . F
Fund-raising . . . . . . . F
Debating . . . . . . . . . . F
Path to nomination . . F
Electability . . . . . . . . C
(has no home field advantage)
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (None)

New York's past Governor George Pataki fails on all scores except that his electability would be mediocre. But he has no polling support, no funding support, no skill at debating and he has no path to the nomination. Pataki's moderate positions don't play well in Iowa, so he would have to hang into the New Hampshire election even to get any delegate votes, which won't be coming. Pataki will quit before February. He may quit before the year ends. He may have quit before you've finished reading this blog.

Gilmore whatshisname isn't even polled by most pollsters.

Now, on the two candidates who had quit, just to give us context, here they are:

QUIT RACE - SCOTT WALKER - D+ (1.4 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . C
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D
Debating . . . . . . . . . . D
Path to nomination . . C
Electability . . . . . . . . . D
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 2 - Joe Rickets (Ameritrade founder) and Diane Hendricks, widow of Ken who was founder of ABC Supply.

QUIT RACE - RICK PERRY - D- (0.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . D
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D
Debating . . . . . . . . . . F
Path to nomination . . F
Electability . . . . . . . . D
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 2 - Kelcy Warren (oil pipelines) and Darwin Deason (IT)

So that is the Republican field. While he got huge pre-season press, Scott Walker turned out to be a paper tiger. Perry was obviously still the same Governor Oops who failed fast the last time as well. So we can see, when the candidate is in the D ratings of this Form Book, it is truly game-over. So curtains will come soon to Santorum, Jindal, Pataki, Graham as well,

On the megadonors, I only included Billionaires who paid more one million dollars or more for some candidate. We can see that four Billionaires from Walker and Perry are available or were, and no doubt will soon, if have not already, pick their next favorite with Candidate Cash, in this Billionaire Bingo of Presidential Poker. Some famous Republican-supporting Billionaires have not yet picked their choice, like the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess. And on the Koch brothers. Early this year they shocked the political world when they promised that their funding network would generate donations of nearly a Billion dollars - they pledged a massive 900 million dollars where most would come from their network not from the two brothers themselves. But now they have downgraded that to 250 million which is spread beyond the Presidential election.

On the delegate hunt, the Republicans have 2,470 total delegates so to clinch the nomination would take 1,236 Delegates. That is the magic number. Because the field is so broad and so many have good funding, and no clear front-runner is emerging, this race is likely to go all the way to the last vote, and the Delegate hunt winner is likely to fall short of the 1,236 number in the end, resulting in what is known as a 'brokered convention' situation. That is however, highly unlikely to go to the convention floor as a battle of delegates and floor votes; its far more likely that some compromise or alliance will be formed among those candidates with the most Delegates, such as dividing who will stand for President and who will be the Vice President nominee (or even Secretary of State).

So on the real race. When I was preparing this first Form Book, I was working on the theory that there were five serious candidates but Fiorina has kept falling and I dropped her. The race for the Republican nominee is between Ted Cruz, Donald Trump (yes), Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Thats the real race, the rest is noise. I'd give it say a 90% or higher probability that the Republican nominee is one of those four. and 80% chance the VP also comes from that quartet. Note, on March 15, one of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio will be eliminated when Florida picks their preference among these two. The dark horses who have a chance but need a ton of luck (or change, Fiorina) are Chris Christie, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. These five are also far more likely to get the VP slot than be on top of the ticket. Dr Ben Carson will not be the nominee. And the kids table candidates are already politically dead men walking whose campaign termination (or 'suspension') is certain. Now lets switch to the other side

DEMOCRATIC SIDE

So lets go to the Democratic side. Same grading scale but note that I grade the two groups within their groups. The Democrats have less nominees, so the top polling scores far higher. Same with fund-raising, the Republicans have to split fund-raising between 15 candidates while the Democrats had 5 (now 4 after Jim Webb quit). So we can't directly compare Republican scores to Democratic scores, but within either group, we can compare rivals. When we get to the general election and see the full tickets on both sides, I will of course do a deeper Form Book on the four finalists on the two tickets (or perhaps six, if Trump runs as an independent and/or of the Tea Party splits and nominates for example Ted Cruz)

1ST - HILLARY CLINTON - A (4.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . A
Fund-raising . . . . . . . .A
Debating . . . . . . . . . . A
Path to nomination . . A
Electability . . . . . . . . . A
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: 4 - Haim Saban (Univision), George Soros (hedge fund manager), Jeffrey Katzenberg (hollywood), Steven Spielberg (hollywood)

So the only perfect score from either party is Hillary Clinton. She is excellent in polling, excellent in fund-raising, excellent in debating, has an easy path to her nomination and has excellent electablility. I have made the point before, that if US politics was scored like some professional sports, like tennis or boxing or golf, then Hillary would be a 'ranked' player, and her world ranking currently would be number 2 (where Obama is number 1, and the Republican field all would be beneath these two). Why is that. Understand the sports metaphor. It is Hillary who gave the current champion the toughest race. She is most definitely a better candidate than John McCain or Mitt Romney, both who lost decisively to Barack Obama. He beat McCain by 7 points in the 2008 general election and beat Romney by 5 points in 2012. But Hillary's loss to Obama was only one percentage of the votes in the 2008 Democratic nomination, and she was still in the race to the last day of voting. If we agree that Barack Obama among current politicians, is the best at campaigning (lets ignore arguments now about whether he is a good President) then arguably, Hillary is ranked number 2. Certainly Hillary seems to be better than Romney or McCain. And Romney beat Rick Santorum and Rick Perry of this current field. And John McCain beat Mike Huckabee of this field (as well as beating Mitt Romney).

On her popularity with democrats, partly her high scoring reflects the weakness of her opposition but for most of the polls in the past year, Hillary has dominated the full Republican field in head-to-head match-ups. Ironically for the Republicans, their only candidate who has consistently beat Hillary in head-to-head polling matchups is the one who won't be the nominee: Dr Ben Carson. Hillary's fund-raising was strong already in 2008, using the Clinton machine. Now combined with the Obama machine, Hillary's fund-raising is a juggernaut, totally dwarfing all other rivals on either side. If you're not yet crying then remember, Hillary did this, while Joe Biden was keeping his dream alive, and many party supporters were waiting to hear his decision. There will still be yet another surge now in her fund-raising.

While I discussed the top debaters from the Republican side here is the debate coach's evaluation of the top Democratic debater. Hillary has refined her style and is a pure pro. Every question she handles it like a perfectly tuned machine: answer question. Pivot. Get your talking point in, which usually is closely related to the question. Include a JOKE. Smile. This is refinement on what she did in 2008. We just witnessed the true test of Hillary as a debater in the Benghazi hearing. 11 hours of grilling by the seven Republicans and they could not get her to drop her cool. She appeared unflappable and smiled all the way through, seeming ever more Presidential as the day went into late evening. Contrast her poise to how Donald Trump feels a 3 hour debate is an ordeal. What we saw in Hillary is a pro debater. She's the strongest debater from either side, although Fiorina probably could cause Hillary's smile to crack somewhat.

What should cause intense worry on the Republican side is her feverish spending. What is that money going into. She has spent 44 million dollars already. Spent! This is not the superPAC, this is Hillarys own campaign. Hillary's campaign SPENT as much as Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Fiorina, Paul, Kasich and Huckabee COLLECTED, COMBINED. She spent that amount? What is she using it on, is she using a space shuttle as her campaign plane? No. Hillary is running a tight spend-thrift campaign such as using bus transportation where possible and drinking from disposable plastic cups. Its not a lavish lifestyle. Hillary Clinton's campaign biggest expenditure is ... a DATA MINING operation. Did anyone say Obama 2012? Narwhal? The most expensive, most powerful data mining system ever built for a political campaign, and the sixth largest data processing system on the planet. Obama 2012 campaign's biggest expenditure was its data mining operation. The data guru for Hillary's campaign is Teddy Goff. Where did we hear that name before? Yeah. Was Obama's digital boss. If you remember the 2012 election aftermath, the one group that Obama went to thank personally, who delivered his win, was the digital data-mining team that powered his ground game and polling. Obama's Narwhal was state-of-the-art and cost 100 million dollars in 2008. Of that 44 million, Hillary has spent at least 35 million already in Narwhal 2.0. Jeb Bush is also buildilng a data mining operation but Jeb Bush's total expenditure so far - the richest of hte Republican campaigns - his total expendture was 14 million. His normal campaign costs like salaries and travel will be at least half that, so he can have spent, at best, 7 million on the rival system. This looks eerily similar to the Narwhal Orca massacre of competing data systems. Again, with Democrats with a massive advantage. An advantage which last time delivered 4 points of the 5 point victory for Obama. That is why the only team he came to thank in public, immediately after the victory was his data mining geeks. Now Hillary is on pace to spend about twice what Obama did... I would not sleep well if I was a Repubican strategist watching this, and then seeing how Trump is causing the Republican field to waste their funds on deliberate fratricide.

But Hillary. Her fund raising is enormous. She has four billionaries who already ponied up a million dollars or more, three from media and one from Wall Street. She also has a vast donor pool of small donations. Not as vast as Obama had or Bernie now has, but still, a formidable one. Her polling up to this Form Book was based on polling results that included Joe Biden, who just announced he is not running. When Joe Biden is removed, Hillary's lead to Bernie leaps to 25 points or more. It is a rout. Her debating skills are far above her Democratic rivals (including those of Joe Biden) and her path to nomination is certain, unless she has a health episode like a heart attack. And her electability is excellent. Whats not to like. She wins the Democratic nomination without breaking a sweat. We can end the Democratic Form Book right now. But I wouldn't do that to you, my readers. So lets do the three remaining dwarfs.

2ND - BERNIE SANDERS - B- (2.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . B
Fund-raising . . . . . . . A
Debating . . . . . . . . . . C
Path to nomination . . C
Electability . . . . . . . . . C
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)

Bernie Sanders was a forgettable nobody from a tiny state, until his late blooming to cult hero status now. The self-declared socialist and lifelong Independent decided to run against Hillary knowing he can't win but wanted to raise issues for the party to consider. He has put up a respectable campaign. His polling is (to be kind, these were calculated before Joe Biden dropped out) good, his fundraising is (genuinely) excellent, his debating os only fair, and his path to the nomination is technically fair but would only be valid if Hillary stumbles ie has a health episode. Bernie's electability would also only be fair. He is proudly rejecting megadonors. An old school politician who kindly pointed out that the email story should be killed, while observing it isn't good politically for him to say that. And both were true. And Hillary returned the favor by hitting Bernie about his position on guns. Nice guys finish last, or at least, won't finish first. Bernie is one of the last truly nice guys in US politics. We will miss his kind.

3RD - MARTIN O'MALLEY - C- (1.8 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . .D
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D
Debating . . . . . . . . . . B
Path to nomination . . D
Electability . . . . . . . . . B
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)

Do we need to? Really? Martin O'Malley could have had a chance in a normal year, but not the year of Hillary's belated coronation. He now polls weakly, his fundraising is weak. His debating is actually good, but his path to the nomination is weak and if he ever made it to the race, his electability would be better than Bernie's. Not this year Martin. And as Hillary will pick Julian Castro as her VP, your run won't even get you a VP slot. Best to hope for some modest Cabinet position.

4TH - LINCOLN CHAFEE - F (0.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . .F
Fund-raising . . . . . . . F
Debating . . . . . . . . . .F
Path to nomination . . F
Electability . . . . . . . . F
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)

Lincoln Chafee scores a perfect zero, he is hopeless at all categories. Then lets do the one candidate who quit (UPDATE : only hours after I posted this blog, Lincoln Chafee announced he is also quitting the race)

QUIT RACE - JIM WEBB - D (1.0 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . D
Fund-raising . . . . . . . D
Debating . . . . . . . . . . D
Path to nomination . . F
Electability . . . . . . . . C
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none)

And yes, after Jim Webb, we can also do the hypothetical candiacy of Joe Biden. Note, that I have estimated his fund-raising and debating capability as we have not seen them recently.

DID NOT ENTER - JOE BIDEN - B- (2.6 average)
Polling . . . . . . . . . . . .C
Fund-raising . . . . . . .(B)
Debating . . . . . . . . . (B)
Path to nomination . . C
Electability . . . . . . . . .B
Billionaires who gave more than $1M: (none, but probably would have found several, easily)

Thats the Democratic field. It is now Hillary, there is no more suspense. Bernie will make a brave run of it, and will energize many youth voters but his run is ultimately futile. Hillary will coast to victory and will be well rested as the Republicans tear each other apart in the bloodiest battle as far as one can remember. Thats my Form Book first edition. I will come back to this a bit before the first voting starts when we have seen more of the field and probably the field is also culled somewhat.

MY CRYSTAL BALL

The Republican field has so many permutations that its really fuzzy to see any clarity about that ticket at this point. We know for sure only two things: Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio cannot be on the same ticket, and that Trump will never agree to be the VP choice. But if I was forced to guess, the greatest likelihood of the ticket would be Ted Cruz for President and Marco Rubio for VP. How confident am I? I'd give this ticket a 20% likelihood (and maybe 15% chance for the reverse, ie Rubio on top, Cruz as VP). That Cruz-Rubio ticket would lose colossally but Rubio might steal Florida for the Republicans in that loss (likelihood this ticket loses general: 95%). On the Democratic side there is utterly no confusion at all. Hillary Clinton will be the nominee for President (likelihood: 98%). She will have no meaningful challenge from her side, thus she can ignore her 'rivals' in selecting her VP. She will go for her best gains in the general election so the Vice Presidential nominee will be Julian Castro of Texas, former Mayor of San Antonio and currently Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration (BTW who has a twin brother Joaquin who is a Democrat Congressman from Texas). (Likelihood its Castro? 80%). Clinton-Castro will win by landslide drawing both a historic female voter surge (and massive gender gap) and also the biggest Hispanic voter surge (likelihood of Hillary ticket winning: 95%). Current media darlings, Dr Ben Carson and Donald Trump will both quit before March when the race would get prohibitively expensive unless you are seriously in it to win it (likelihoods? Carson 90%, Trump 60%). The Republican nomination fight will not find a nominee with the required Delegates to clinch by the end of the process, so their race goes to a brokered convention (likelihood, 70%). Hillary clinches her nomination on the first date that is mathematically plausible, eliminating Bernie's brave but futile last hurrah campaign (likelihood clinches on first date possible, 80%).

READING THE TEA LEAVES

So then the coffee-drinker's reading of the tea-leaves. Into the far future. If Cruz-Rubio is the Republican ticket for 2016 stampeding to glorious defeat powered by extreme right-wing rhetoric, the election will be a rout. But it won't damage Marco. Then Rubio will run in 2020 (or 2024) as the overwhelming front-runner and he'll pick a woman as VP, possibly Condi Rice. Cruz will be a pariah of the party (worse than W Bush, think Mondale with Democrats). Flip the two names if Rubio is on top and Cruz the VP in 2016. Then Marco would be exiled but Ted be the front-runner to 'save' the party in 2020.

Other wild and less wild guesses. Trump will once again threaten he'll do another run but won't run. Ben Carson will do another fake run to sell his latest book. Romney will beg to be wanted to run and all will again ignore him. As Governor Oops doesn't know how to count to three, Rick Perry will again appear briefly as a nominee before dropping out again. And on the Democratic side, the front-runner after Hillary will be Julian Castro but Michelle Obama may be challenging him if it is 2024 not 2020. Imagine Rubio-Rice vs Castro-Obama haha, an all-minorities pairing on both sides. It could happen..

STARGAZING INTO NEXT GALAXY

So in a galaxy far, far away into the future? Then after Hillary Clinton, the third Clinton to run for President will be Chelsea.. but give her about two decades to get to that level in her political ambitions. The first daughter of a President, to be elected President?

Thats it. I usually write about mobile, tech & digital media related topics, but the US elections are a hobby for me (I am a Finn, living in Hong Kong, so I have no dog in this fight, I am utterly neutral, I can't even vote for either side). If you enjoyed my analysis here, and would like some more, then a few articles related to the 2016 election worth noting are:

My latest serious blog about US 2016 election is this, the first analysis anywhere that does the tull delegate math for the nomination fight. Lots of math stats and very detailed.

And if you want my 2016 previews, the general election preview is here (very long, detailed, full of numbers and stats) and the preview of the nomination battle 2016 is here.

In a related area, as this blog is a tech/mobile/new media blog, the last time I discussed the use of tech in politics to win using modern digital media (2012 election) the deepest analysis of tech use in an election, with tons and tons of cases and stats, is here. This analysis has been referenced to in several published books on US politics already, its the deepest analysis of its kind in the world, that is in the public domain. I have heard from several inside sources who have confirmed that my methodology and findings are sound.

And if you'd like to read a joke about this election cycle, I just did the 'Secret Transcript of the Bill Clinton and Donald Trump phone call'. A previous joke blog about the US 2016 election is this: on the return of the GOP clown car

Comments

[Winter]

Tomi, you forgot to mention staying power.

Who of the other would-be presidents would keep a cool head in an 11 hour cross examination? And not get the opposition a single sound-bite?

I think Hillery just preempted any attempt to get her on her age.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Winter

LOL very good. But we haven't (yet) tested all the other candidates on 11-hour congressional hearing marathons...

SRSLY, I did expect her to come really prepared but I was still impressed that she held out that well. Did you see the Republicans towards the end. Trey Gowdy was so red in his face, I was afraid my TV was starting to lose its color balance haha, he was looking like he was getting ill. And like we learn in basic debate, the side who gets angry, has lost. How many times did that Ohio guy, Jordan raise his voice.. The split-screen views were priceless with Hillary often smiling as if she was a mom watching a toddler having a tantrum. Yeah, that performance will be studied for decades by future hearing-prep lawyers on pure excellence in how to perform in front of Congress.

PS this hearing... now consider Hillary in the general election debate... She walks into that debate as the favorite against anyone from that Republican field. This year's Hillary would beat Obama of 2008 in head-to-head debates..

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[RobDK]

Hi Tomi

Great review! I have travelled and worked in the USA and am like you fascinated by their political system. Live in Scandinavia now. What a contrast to the USA!!

I think you are spot on. Looking forward to seeing your coming articles on the subject matter.

[mpinco]

Jeb is toast

Gone in day or a few weeks

[mpinco]

Jeb campaign cutting near 50% of all spending and some staff.

Life support

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Rob and mpinco

Rob - thanks. I will do that from time to time. This has just been a very busy time of big news with the first Democratic debate and now the Benghazi hearing and the campaign finances were reported, etc. But yes, I probably will do a big review as we approach the first elections, say December or January. And then occasional events will drive some blog articles either some big news or else if I spot some issues that I feel are not adequately covered, like the Delegate Math article I wrote a few days ago.

mpinco - haha, yeah, Jeb's campaign is now signalling it is going the way of Walker. A second staff budget cut in what, a month. And what I think is a sign they are desperate, is that Jeb rolled out brother W Bush to do fund-raising. I know he's popular with part of the party but that is really bad optics for Jeb, in the light of 'he kept us safe' etc. Now, if the Jeb Bush campaign was run professionally, he should not be in any jeopardy of folding. And Jeb did have the choice of most of the best Republican talent when he set it up, its run by Mike Murphy a career Republican (moderate) operative, who seems quite smart when he's on TV. He's (Murphy) been saying for months that this is a long haul race, that they will not obsess about daily Trumpisms. And obviously they've raised the most cash. If this is a professionally-run campaign, it should not be in danger of collapsing, like Scott Walker's campaign did. But...

The press is that his donor base is freaking out. The campaign donations to the SuperPAC were huge for his launch but been miniscule in the 3 months since. Its quite possible that most Jeb supporters have not paid really anything since he launched, and as they watched Trump take Jeb apart in the early going. If the money spigots have dried up, then no amount of staff cuts can save this campaign. Iowa is too far ahead and Jeb will do poorly in that vote anyway. His first good chance is New Hampshire.

Note that if Jeb drops out, the delegate math hell will not shift an inch. He was in the Florida run-off so the only thing we'd know is that Rubio would the own the 99 delegates of Florida. But Jeb's supporters will not go to Cruz or Rubio or Trump (or Carson). The will go to another moderate, so Kasich would be biggest beneficiary with Christie also. Any other leading candidate except Rubio or Bush, would at least shrink the field for real, in the delegate hunt. But Jeb (or Marco) dropping out would not change the delegate hunt futility where nobody can clinch the overall nomination before June.

Hey mpinco, what did you think of my ratings? Reasonable? Roughly in line with how you see it (especially the Republican side?)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

To all

Wired has just written a story about the data-mining 'gap' that is forming where Hillary builds but the Republicans have stopped building a big data system. Obviously its the same story I mentioned (first) on this blog

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/why-the-gop-just-cant-kick-its-tech-talent-problem/

Note. First. That the biggest expenditure of Hillary's huge spending so far, has been to build that updated version of the data-mining juggernaut of the Obama 2012 campaign (6th largest database on the planet, and the only one that was a 'disposable' database, built only for the four-month campaign run. Obama spent 100 million dollars on that). Hillary hired many of the same people, and they are building something that is even bigger and more powerful.

So then, Jeb Bush. I mentioned that Jeb is the one spending second most. That was BEFORE he made his big staff cuts and sent most of those who remain to go fight for the early-voting states. The big data project has been gutted if not shelved or cancelled. So who else spent on a big data operation? That was Walker, who has quit the race. And his project has not found any buyers. No other campaign (except Jeb) was willing to spend the kind of enormous amounts to build something like that, and Jeb was already building his. So now this rump of a project is stuck and most of that effort probably will be wasted (and if Jeb quits, the same will be true of his project).

In 2012 when the Romney team figured out what the Obama team was doing, they created a rush-project and throw tons of money onto it. They brought in Microsoft to help build what was called Orca. Like any Microsoft project it was delayed and went over budget and underperformed. The big data system was turned on only on election day! The thousands of staff and volunteers who were supposed to use it, received a huge manual of tons of pages of techno-babble of how to use that 'machine'. Then tons of typical glitches of any big tech prototypes appeared, so that for example in North Carolina nobody was able to use that expensive data-mining tool at all.

Meanwhile the Obama machine called Narwhal (actually a series of interconnected databases) was deployed months before, tested and perfected, used to guide TV advertising and the ground-game of visiting homes, making phone calls etc. All people who were needed to use Narwhal had long since received their passwords, and their training, and all the bugs were worked out of the system. Oh, Obama's team had brought in those people smarter than Microsoft, haha, they had Google, Facebook, Amazon and other modern tech companies helping them. The one team that Obama went to thank personally, and in public, immediately after his surprisingly large election victory - was the Narwhal datamining geeks and nerds. The only team he went to thank personally, in public. That is how important it was to win 2012.

Hillary hired many of the top people who built that. She knows. And she's now throwing even bigger mountains of money at this project. The smart people at the Republicans know that Romney's Orca was too little and too late to bring them the balance in that battle. They wanted to start early and build robustly a far bigger system now. Some of those people were hired by Scott Walker. They are now adrift without a job and with a barely begun tech project in shatters. The other rival project was with Jeb Bush. He has now gutted if not terminated that project, with its technology in tatters. There was also a rumor that the Koch brothers would build their own big data system to help their favorite candidates. Well, the Koch brothers just announced that their total funding for the 2016 election cycle will not be 900 million, but a tiny fraction of that. I would guess that their data-mining mission went out that window.

Watch this space. Read the Wired article and then re-read the data-mining part in this blog (it was in the Hillary section). This will be a part of the race that will mostly be hidden. I will report on it of course, if and when we see anything, because that is of specific interest to our readers here.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Winter]

@Tomi
"Well, the Koch brothers just announced that their total funding for the 2016 election cycle will not be 900 million, but a tiny fraction of that. I would guess that their data-mining mission went out that window."

Does this signal that the Koch brothers admit defeat? That is, they expect Hillary to win.

[millard filmore]

@Winter

"Does this signal that the Koch brothers admit defeat? That is, they expect Hillary to win."

By golly Winter, you just made my day!

[Paul]

Another argument for pro-Hillary: "Support for Tea Party Drops to New Low" http://www.gallup.com/poll/186338/support-tea-party-drops-new-low.aspx

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi all

Mark Halpern at Bloomberg wrote a good article about Hillary's chances as a kind of check-list of advantages that she now holds (many that she has held all along, he points out) and the article is well in line with espeically my 2016 election preview on things I wrote there, about the convention advantage, the electoral college advantage, the role of Bill Clinton as a surrogate, and how an easy nomination race on Hillary's side helps her while a long nomination battle creates more damaged rival on the Republican side. Its a very good article, I would recommend reading it

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-26/the-most-likely-next-president-is-hillary-clinton

But the really interesting part in the article is the part about Republican delusion relating to Hillary Clinton. There is a true deep-held hatered about her, and this blinds them to obvious realities. There is a level of denial about Hillary. This means they are doing dumb things as a party, such as this witch-hunt relating to emails and Benghazi. While the base loves this kind of feuding with Hillary, the Independents in the middle see it for what it obviously is, a partisan attack and hack-job. This will earn her sympathy that turns against the Republicans. It - the delusions that the Republicans and Conservatives have about Hillary - is an aspect I had not discussed and it is a further weakness across the board for 2016 compared to the Democrats.

First, remember me and my crusade to get Stephen Elop removed from the job of running Nokia? I was relentless in describing his multitude of massive errors that he committed as CEO. Yes, I was chronicling them all and wrote long articles that were extremely critical of Elop. But along the way, I didn't lose a sense of realism, when, occasionally, he did something good for Nokia, I was able to see that as well. See the good sides as well. Such as reversing the idiotic decision to go with naming only by numbers. Or launching the best camera ever seen on a phone (the Symbian based 808 Pureview) etc. This blog was not only an 'anti Elop' blog, I discussed EACH move made by Elop, and because most were stupid, I called him out on those, but whenever he did or said something sensible, I also reported on those (when they rarely happened) such as for example when he admitted his memo did damage Nokia sales. I would say the difference is, that I was able to keep reality in view, while being critical. Same of Nokia prior to Elop. Some thought I was pure love and joy of Nokia, but if you read the reviews I had of Nokia performance in 2010, I was very critical of Nokia often, that it was poorly managed, even while Nokia reported profits, I said they were under-performing.

Now, with all that, lets get back to conservatives and Republicans looking at Hillary. Its like a red flag to a bull. they go off the rails. Where is the realism. They should note clearly, that Hillary is a frightfully strong TV performer and debater. They should make this a clear ISSUE now. And they should insist that the Republican rival show he or she IS ALSO strong in TV debates. Look at how weak Trump was (complaining about 3 hours being too long). Look at how 'low energy' Dr Carson is haha and Jeb Bush? He's no match to Hillary! Ted Cruz came to us on the reputation of a chammpion debater in college. He clearly isn't that (I wonder where he debated and how he achieved such a reputation, when I was judging, I can't see giving him any victories). Who is good at the debates? Fiorina, Christie, Rubio and Huckabee. A few others (Kasich, Bush, Paul) could become strong if they got some good coaching and plenty of practice. But for the right wing to insist Hillary is weak and will fall to emails or Benghazi, that is only avoiding the truth and preventing a good response to her. Note, it also would be in the Republican nominee's best interest to create the public perception that Hillary is a supremely strong debater, to lower the standards for the Republican candidate, and increase the chances that if the Republican performs well on TV they would have an upset. Its partly expectation on TV debates vs reality.

Oh, one more example. Look at what a blind spot Jeb Bush has about his brother. This is a danger I think the Republicans have about Hillary. They have created an alternate reality where she is hated (because she IS hated among Fox news and its friends) and thus would be a weak candidate who cannot win. If they go into that battle, against the imaginary Hillary, they will WASTE THEIR EFFORT to try to defeat a ghost, while the real Hillary coasts to an election landslide victory. This delusion is dangerous for the Republicans. It will damage them more in 2016. Consider the alternative. Consider if Republican leadership, especially some of the candidates, wanted to show they are the 'grown up' party. They would take the Benghazi hearing, scold Trey Gowdy in public for running a farce and damaging the Republican party (and Congress) reputation - and end the witch-hunt. And clearly, in public, reprimand Gowdy for what he did. Instead, what are they now doing? They have launched a NEW witch-hunt hearing about Planned Parenthood (because Fiorina - another delusional candidate - imagined something apocalyptical when she watched a video).

Would admitting that some zealots had launched a witch-hunt within their own ranks, hurt the Republicans in 2016? No. That is the truth. The Democrats will run that as a major issue, with ads that start with Kevin McCarty's bragging of how the Benghazi hearings were created to drive down Hillary's numbers, and then ending with Gowdy admitting no they didn't learn anything new. And interspersed with costs wasted that will end up so big, they would have paid for a quarter of the 20 million dollars that Hillary had requested for added security funding but the Republican Congress didn't give her, prior to Benghazi.

This will be a particularly damaging TV ad because it damages the INTEGRITY of the Republican party, hurting every candidate up and down the field, especially all incumbent Republican members of Congress. So, we know Hillary is vindictive (her surname is Clinton) so we KNOW this is coming. IF we're honest now, and we see reality now, we can plan on preparing for it. The SMART move by the Republicans is to now end the sham hearings and to DIFFUSE this issue for the next election. To blame it on just Gowdy's over-reaching investigation and the hyper-partisans on that committee. If the Republican party was able to see clearly, it would do this. It would diffuse the issue for 2016. Then even if Hillary ran those TV ads, it would be 'water under the bridge' and that the Republican leadership has dealt with it 'last year' and is no longer going to happen... Rather, it now raises the issue that the Democrats can argue, that Republicans are so irresponsible, they will spend millions in persecuting future candidates for President on witch-hunts at the taxpayer's expense, rather than give the money to make those embassies safe...

Interesting angle by Halperin, a delusion that very clearly clouds much of the discussion about Hillary in the current Republican field.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[millard filmore]

@Tomi, I will start with a quote that comes to mind:

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. - Lily Tomlin

You mention that the Republicans will do this all over again: "They have launched a NEW witch-hunt hearing about Planned Parenthood"

Its actually even worse than you think. The witch hunts can keep on comm'in. Currently in the pipeline and already in operation is the Climate Denier's committee: "the House science committee, under the chairmanship of Lamar Smith (R-TX)"

... http://www.vox.com/2015/10/26/9616370/science-committee-worse-benghazi-committee

As this link and the next (below) explain, the purpose of these investigations is to harass and drain the target of resources, waste time and money finding, producing, copying documents, working with lawyers, depositions, and on and on and on. Straight out of L Ron Hubbard's playbook.

The House Republicans have given a select number (select? these two links are not clear on how limited this number is) of committees vast powers. "No longer is the [committee] chair required to consult with the ranking member before launching investigations or issuing subpoenas."

... http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/oh-look-another-witch-hunt.html

Tomi, the Republicans in Congress have gone feral. Do not expect good things from them.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi all

The 3rd Republican debate is tomorrow on CNBC. There are plenty of candidates who need a strong showing but I think this is existential threat time for Jeb Bush. He has made such a long series of blunders and is really on the ropes, I think he has to come out swinging and hit Trump hard.

The mocking that Trump did at Jeb 'he's gone home to mommy and daddy in Texas to ask for more money' hurts. The meekness and modesty of his campaigning hurts. The financial problems, two cuts in staff, hurts. The stories that fund-raising is suffering and now needs brother W Bush (wow, that means its REALLY bad) and tow 90-year olds Daddy and Mommy Bush to beg for donations for Jeb, all this is bad.

What is devastating, however, is that Jeb said on the weekend that he doesn't need to do this, that he could go home and watch it on TV rather than be beaten up by Trump. Come on. Its the job of being President of the USA. Jeb Bush more than any other candidate knows EXACTLY how hard it is, from both his father and his brother serving a total of 12 years as President. And both who had strongly disapproving terms by the end, so Jeb should know that the Presidency gets it FAR WORSE than what Trump says about - gosh wow, does it hurt really - that Jeb is 'low energy'. What will Kim Jong Un say about Jeb as President? What will Putin say about him? The Iranians sing every week songs that the USA is the Great Satan. Someone threw shoes at his brother when visiting the Middle East. And Jeb is hurt that the nomination fight is a bit ugly. He does not have any fighter instinct in him. He is a wimp, more so even than his dad. And what clearly W Bush over-compensated with his moronic walking style and hiring Cheney and his cronies to be W Bush's bullies to show how 'Texas Tough' W Bush was. Jeb is no fighter. He will be crushed by this process.

So the narrative is solidifying that Jeb is weak (something Trump loves to drive into voter minds). This is the first debate after the Repbulican voters saw Hillary being tested both in the Democratic debate, and more impressively even, in the Benghazi hearings. What they now want, is a Hillary-killer on the debate stage. If Jeb cannot handle Trump, what hope is there for voters to send Jeb against the far more formidable Hillary Clinton?

This is really an existential threat now to Jeb's candidacy. He is routinely fumbling his chances with massive self-induced errors like now that stupid statement that he'd rahter be at home than take the 'abuse' of the campaigning. Sorry Jeb, you have to show backbone. The Republican base wants a fighter. Hillary has shown her side that she is truly the fighter who can take on 7 rivals at a time for 11 hours straight, and still keep a broad smile on her face and emerge the winner. Jeb, you need to raise you game. Jeb needs to hit Trump really hard and repeatedly. Show 'energy' and passion. To a FAR larger degree than he's shown before. Or the narrative sets, that Jeb is not up to taking the fight to Hillary. And he can't win anything. And as Jeb built a big organization, if his fundraising really dries up, he will fold like Scott Walker and Rick Perry. This debate is that test now, if the supporters are willing to throw more money into the Jeb gamble. Its looking awefully perilous.

PS Carson now first national poll large lead over Trump. Carson should draw fire in the debate also. He can't handle that nearly as well as Trump did, and Carson will be only a 'flavor of the month' who will be out of the lead by December. Trump has solid base support of 11% but the other 11% of his support is soft and will continue to erode. So who is the 'Flavor of the month' AFTER Carson. For December. Whoever that is, that candidate is an early serious candidate for winning in the early States. I can't see Cruz getting to a lead position until Trump or Carson or both quit. So who? Someone could have a breakout debate moment - best bets Fiorina, Rubio, Christie and Huckabee. And remember Rubio made that brilliant call on Putin and Syria. Brilliant call. It will come up several times tomorrow in the debate haha...

But of course the best time to peak would be January when voting starts in February... We may still see a few of the best candidates 'shadow boxing' and not giving it their best yet. And Trump? He has TONS of weapons he hasn't yet used starting with advertising. He's been kind of coasting the past two months or so. He may show up tomorrow really fired up and have a breakout debate himself - and again leapfrog Dr Carson back to the lead...

Oh I love this race this time. The most entertaining race ever..

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Stephen Reed]

I appreciate your model. However, I believe that "Issues" should somehow be a factor. Trump, for whom I will be volunteering in Texas for the primary, is considered by many to be a populist - having talking points for issues that are widely accepted. For example, most Americans believe that persons should not enter the country illegally. Trump, alone among the candidates, wants to build a wall on the USA / Mexico border.

I suppose too, that Trump's position on trade imbalances would lead directly to a stand that cellphones sold in the USA should be manufactured in the USA - if that was necessary to improve the trade imbalance between the USA and China. I wonder if Americans are willing to pay more for phones in return for local jobs.

As I write this, Trump has lost his lead in Iowa to Ben Carson. Trump says that he will work harder in that state and spend more money, suggesting that if he wins Iowa then the resulting huge momentum will carry him to the nomination.

You may know that the Republican National Committee has created rules for this cycle's nominating convention that favor a candidate who may not lead in every state, but who is relatively strong in many states. For example, Carson must win eight of the states and territories before his name can be placed in nomination. Presently, Trump is the only candidate favored to win in more than eight states.

I will stick with my prediction, based upon current poll trends and an expectation that Iowa will be fixed, that Donald Trump wins every state.

It will be great reading your articles after each of the early voting primary states in February and March of next year. Maybe I will be changing my predictions...

Regarding Hillary Clinton, the US FBI has said that they are attempting to complete their investigation of her private email server by the end of this year. Obama's Justice Department will have to decide whether to indict Hillary should the FBI find evidence that classified data was not properly secured. There are actually several sorts of national security felonies that Hillary could have committed.

There is a non-zero chance that Hillary will not be the Democratic nominee at this time next year due to an indictment. And if the FBI publishes evidence that the Obama Justice Dept says is not sufficient for an indictment, then that evidence becomes a focal point of Republican negative advertising none the less. E.g. how can a person who arguably risked the nation's security be commander in chief?

If Trump is the Republican nominee, then it is clear that many hundreds of millions of political action committee money will be spent against the Democratic candidate even if Trump says he does not want the other billionaires' money. The current terrible system in the USA permits this anyway.

I predict that Trump will poll well in some historically Democratic states, resulting in a historic landslide for Donald Trump in the general election.

One day I would like to purchase an iPhone made in the USA.

[millard filmore]

@Stephen Reed

Trump's indifference to his followers beating up random people is troubling, but his statement that police need more power goes way over the top. More power. Wow! Did you know that plain-clothes police can already snatch 12yo girls off a front lawn, stuff her in the back of a nondescript unmarked van, and beat her senseless when she resists?

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/police-get-the-wrong-house-in-galveston-allegedly-assault-12-year-old-girl-6735520

There were not "rogue" cops. The department and the city backed them up. Instead of disciplinary actions, they went on to get promotions, raises, awards, bonuses. What kind of power can you add to smacking around a 12 year old girl? What more power does Trump think the police need? Maybe (look left, look right, stage whisper) no one ever need find the body?

More power for the police. Maybe Trump will push to make it a federal crime to video the police as they commit felonies on public streets.

Be careful what you wish for, we may end up with a police force that would be the pride of the Belgian Congo.

(sorry to go off the rails here, Tomi)

[Winter]

@Stephen Reed
"Trump, for whom I will be volunteering in Texas for the primary, is considered by many to be a populist - having talking points for issues that are widely accepted."

No, he is considered a populist because he says what his followers want to hear irrespective whether it is true or feasible. I admit that this is also a matter of degree. But, e.g., promising that he will take away citizenship from those who were born on US soil is not his to decide and there is zero chance that it will fly.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi millard and Stephen

millard - haha, gosh I love Lily Tomlin. One of the all time greatest sketches was her Phone Company Lady on Saturday Night Live in the early years when she was a guest host. Its the one where she was an evil phone company switchboard operator, who after spying in on phone calls and being abusive to callers, would turn to the camera and say, 'We don't care. And we don't have to. We are the Phone Company'... gosh I love her humor. That quote you found, I hadn't heard that. It reminds me of the one about the tunnel - the light at the end of the tunnel.. may be an onrushing train.

But yeah, thanks, I spotted that too. Really its now hearings galore. I totally get it, if there WAS a scandal but Mr No Drama Obama has had no real scandals. His is THE cleanest administration evah. Which of course drives the haters nuts because they want to catch him with something like what idiot W Bush did (or worse). But this WILL come back at them when the Democrats get both houses, and because there IS plenty rotten in their methods. Some members of Congress and many of their aides will go to prison for clear partisan abuses of power. What I hope to see however, rather than this petty partisan bickering, is the real serious crimes by Cheney and Rumsfeld and their buddies, the tortures and wars and spying etc. Those hearings will be coming too, because the liberal base of Democrats will demand it and Hillary will delight in approving it, as will Nancy Pelosi and I suspect so too will Chuck Schumer. Oh, and those new subpoena powers.. gosh, how sad. But as they say, power corrupts... And eventually after the serious abuses, there will be new legislation that will govern this, making it illegal for just the chairman to unilaterally harass people like that..

Stephen - thanks or the background. FYI I lived in Texas for a year, Houston. Studied there at TSU Texas Southern University yes the all-black university right next to University of Houston. Initially I was accepted to UoH but their debate coach was fired for some improprieties just the season I was doing my transfer papers, and they suspended their nationally ranked debate team. I had already found a family to support me so I was going to come to Houston anyway, so I picked the next best debate school in town, next door was TSU, and I arrived, white-faced boy, to discover a campus that was literally 97% black... Haha, weird feeling but not one iota of discrimination against me haha and we had fun with that debate team, until I moved back to Pennsylvania the next year. So I kinda have a bit of an understanding of that peculiar brand of being an American, in Texas it is definitely Texan first, American second, eh? (And I've visited Dallas, Ft Worth, Texarkana, Austin, San Antonio, Galveston, Laredo, MacAllen, Corpus Christi, Lubbock and Amarillo. I've driven I-10 across the state and what is the next Interstate, I guess msut be I-20 haha. And North-and-South too from Gulf of Mexico to Oklahoma..

(I love Texas, and the women... gosh, that accent, I am totally butter in the hands of any Texan if she speaks that accent). Now to the issues. Fair point, issues probably should be in, but its a very hard item to quantify and also to select. Its a bit like reading the Exit Polls. First, you love it seeing what was asked but in only mere minutes you notice, wait, they didn't ask X and they also didn't ask Y and not Z etc.. So should I take guns. Ok. What about gun safety. What about mental illness. As same as gun safety or separate. What about police killings. Part of guns or separate... etc etc etc. Gets very messy and each candidate of course tries to spin their support of a given issue to gain maximum advantage however they perceive that, sometimes very vaguely, sometimes defining it weirdly etc... I do agree it matters. I find it hard to imagine how it could be done fairly to cover roughly all relevant issues without having a list of 300 issues haha...

It will matter, most definitely, and my model ignores the issues. Mainly out of the imprecision where I couldn't trust the model could be fair and clean and reasonably unbiased. But good of you to notice and mention.

Now lets talk a bit about the handset tariffs issue you bring up. Fair point, this is in line with Trump's stated trade policy position. He wants to be the President who slaps on unilateral tariffs on imports to bully his view to world trade contracts to try to unilaterally renegotiate them. I hope you knew, that essentially all foreign trade experts and economists who have commented on this ludicrous idea, have said it is totally unworkable and would intensely backfire on US itself, damaging US trade and jobs and balance of trade. It would instantly ignite trade wars that would damage the USA far far more than the counterparts. Trump has a valid point that some countries - often for example China and at times yes, Japan - have abused trade deals. Even so, the latest achieved trade deals with those countries have GREATLY benefitted US companies, at EVERY step of the lessening of world tarriffs and increasing open world trade. The latest, TPP is once again a MASSIVE lowering of international tariff regimes which again helps US corporations disproportionately more than any others in that trade partnership area. EVERY cycle of lowering of tariffs has helped US corporations. Always trade wars have hit US corporations the most. Trump KNOWS this but he is now pandering to the populists on this issue. So about your 'made in USA iPhone' please trust me, even if Trump was the President, even Trump would not follow through on this silly political promise. If the USA raised tariffs on phones for example (and targeting China) China would retaliate by raising tariffs on airplanes. Now what. USA has no other place to buy iPhones than from China. But China HAS a cheaper place to buy airplanes than Boeings from Seattle - they would buy Airbusses. This is INSTANT damage to US trade and employment at FAR bigger scale than the benefits to phone manufacturing employment in the USA haha... sorry, I appreciate it that you are patriotic in this way, but an iPhone manufactured in the USA would cost at least 1,200 US dollars without contract or probably 800 dollars with 2 year contract. Do you want that? Nobody would buy those, they would buy Samsungs coming from South Korea who don't have the tariffs and still sell at same prices as today..

(I will post these and come back with more)

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Stephen, millard and Winter

Stephen - on Iowa. It is a state not naturally well suited for Trump's run. It is exceptionally well suited for Carson. I don't think Trump really needs to win Iowa, and as his lead there has ended, its quite difficult for him to regain it. I don't doubt Trump will quit Iowa yet and he can do ok by just grabbing a share of the delegates if he finished say 2nd or 3rd. New Hampshire fits Trump far better and is very bad fit for Carson..

On RNC rules about nominees, no I didn't know that 8 state rule. Interesting. I would guess that only applies for 'first round' votes or a few first rounds. If no nominee is found, eventually all delegates are released and the haggling really starts... But yeah, I didn't know that, thanks. it does mean that mathematically no more than 6 candidates can be finalists with enough states won, and likely only 3 or 4. But that means top of ticket, and VP choice could still be someone who has tons of delegates but only a few states won...

Now on Trump winning every state, I hear you but I say that is 'statistically impossible'. Not with this field and the early support. Trump currently leads Florida. Fine. But ACTUAL Florida will be a TV bloodbath where Jeb and Rubio have a HUGE home field ORGANIZING advantage. It would be prohibitively expensive for Trump to go try to set a rival ground game - the THIRD parallel in that state - to try to defeat both. The same day Oct 15 is Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina and Illinois. If Kasich is still running, he WILL easily win Ohio. Just look at the dumb stuff Trump said about Ford and Ohio factories. It was Kasich who NEGOTIATED that deal in 2011. Who will Ohio car workers vote for. Their fave Gov of course. Now, Florida, expensive, near impossible. Ohio, expensive, near impossible. Why not go to Illinois, or Missouri or NC? They don't have a home field player. Trump would have FAR bigger chance to win one or some of those, at FAR less cost.

There are several of the winner-take-all days that are like this, where it is almost certain that if 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 candidates are running, they will disperse to try to win one or 2, not all states that day. Mar 15, Apr 26 and June 7 are such days (as is SEC primary Mar 1 but not winner-take-all). But it is technically plausible that one candidate catches fire and then wins a perfect streak of all the states. Because Trump has such a low ceiling (so many Republicans say they will not vote for him) that is highly unlikely to be Trump. Rubio has a better chance for a total clean sweep.

haha on the articles thanks. Today obviously the debate criteria is up and later, after the CNBC debate, will do debate scoring...

On the FBI investigation. Fine, maybe a 1% chance that she is indicted and then... remember these are the Clintons. They are lawyers to the core, you think they'll ever be convicted of anything this moronic. But ok, there is a slight outside chance that her run is sunk by the FBI. Please do not hold your breath haha...

Finally the general election match-up. Lets see what the next polling tells us. It will be the first that reflects a Hillary campaign that has started with the first debate done and her Benghazi hearing. I am guessing Hillary-Trump head-to-head will be about 10 points for Hillary, maybe more. This is now, when everybody KNOWS Hillary and nobody really knows yet fully Trump as a Presidential candidate. So Hillary's 'negatives' are baked in. But Trump's negatives will only appear in the continued attacks from all sides, driving up his negatives both by Republicans and especially Independents. He has taken so many extremist positions, he cannot win a general election. I know you feel strongly about the Immigration issue and others he stands for - but on that too - the vast majority of Americans prefer to give some legal status for illegals in the USA - Hillary's position - while only a minority want to try to deport them all - Trump's position. BTW the fence he wants to build and the deportations he wants to do, will cost huge - HUUUUGE - amounts of EXTRA money for Goverment to spend. So how to pay for it? Trump previously said he wants higher taxes especially for the rich. How well does that play? Or if he now says no, no more taxes, and his plan is scored, and it causes a huge increase of the bugdet deficits. So now he, Mr bankruptcy-prone 'businessman' wants to balloon the national debt? All of his promises are vaporware and utterly impractical. But he expresses his views with such strong conviction, they must be right.. haha...

millard - no problem, it was within the general scope and I agree. The majority of Americans think the police have been behaving irresponsibly and they must have some changes to their rules and such monitoring tech as cameras etc... Some of the worst abuses are really depressing to watch.

Winter - agreed and thanks. And yes, its pandering to the xenophobic racist wing, the promise of removing the Constitutional protection that anyone born in the USA, is a citizen of the USA with all rights. It will never ever be revoked but some extremists can peddle such views and now unfortunately Trump (but there was another candidate too who embraced that, was it Ted Cruz)

Thank you all, lets keep the discussion going and enjoy the debate on CNBC today. Lets talk after it about what you thought.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Stephen Reed]

After watching the CNBC GOP debate, I suppose that Jeb Bush will drop a bit in subsequent polls, his lost share going to Marco Rubio - due to their relative performance. Trump as usual won the online (non scientific) post debate popularity polls by large margins.

Notably the moderators were trying to make the candidates look bad - and were in turn scolded by the candidates, in particular by Ted Cruz. Perhaps a future GOP debate will be moderated by well-known conservatives.

I believe that Marco Rubio's past support for amnesty with regard to illegal immigrants will keep him from rising to the top tier occupied by Trump and Carson.

Carly Fiorina did not help herself as much as in the prior debates and I think she will stay well below 10% in the polls. Cruz performed well in the debate, but not as well as Rubio. So I think Cruz may gain a bit but also stay below 10%.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Stephen

I did my debate review in a new blog. But thinking now specifically about poll results, a few comments. First, I am stunned at how much the early press praised Rubio's performace and was utterly brutal about Jeb Bush. I personally agree Jeb campaign may not survive that debate, but am stunned at how vicious the early reviews were about him. Then I rated Christie as the best out of the debate, thinking the Republicans will be considering a match-up with Hillary. But almost all early reviews rank Christie around 4th or so, and praise Rubio and Cruz usually (I ranked Cruz second).

With those slight adjustements to my original unpolluted debate review, I think the horse race will shift thus. Trump has his base, he did not gain, I don't see him really losing. His base saw enough of what they want, and nothing to scare them. Carson did surprisingly well (but is utterly hopeless in an eventual match-up against Hillary) and those who already have picked Carson will find comfort in that debate, which was the best we've seen of Carson so far, but he is still the worst debater on either side. Considering the Democrats has clueless Lincoln Chafee, that is really saying a lot about how bad Carson is (in a real world). It doesn't matter to his loyal supporters. So Carson won't lose but I don't see him strongly growing either.

The conservatives found their man now. Ted Cruz had a great debate and most of all, he showed how he can think on his feet and he played the room well. This is a strong candidate who is adjusting his skills to learn the TV debate format and doing that remarkably well now. It doesn't hurt him that Huckabee messed up almost all of his replies that started sharp and degenerated into confused ramblings. So the conservative bracket is now becoming Cruz's. He should see a big bounce from the debate. Huckabee should see a decline but he doesn't have that much to give.

On the modereate bracket, Jeb is now going to see his support collapse. Kasich will also see a strong erosion of his support. The moderates see two strong candidates who will take all that, Rubio and Christie. I believe that as the conservative pundits start to ponder the match-ups vs Hillary, they will very often note, that actually Christie looks like their strongest TV debater against Hillary (note, not Fiorina). And as Christie rises in the polls, he'll be closer to the center next time, and I am sure, he will again shine and reinforce that feeling. Part of the damage will be to Fiorina who saw strong rises last two debates, but now the better debater bounce goes to Christie instead, so Fiorina is likely to be about flat out of this debate. Christie might not rise to the top level yet but a strong mid-fielder. And Rubio will be the strongest traditional candidate who should lock now support in the double digits.

Trump didn't hurt or help himself, but he was on a gradual downward polling trajectory. Carson will become the man of the month for November before he falls out and will be irrelevant by New Hamsphire. His support will almost all end up with Cruz. Trump meanwhile, will resort to more outrageous TV gimmicks to power his polling. He dreads the debates.

And the next debate, as this was so mild, almost no attacks on each other, next debate will compensate and there will be fierce feuding.

Thats my gut feeling. Meanwhile the moderators. Gosh, I Tweeted about it during the debate, they were the pits. PS we could move the direct debate evaluation discussion to the blog entry of the debate performance review..

Tomi Ahonen :-)