The "best chance to win" math requires accounting for more than one party. If it didn't, you'd never see another Democrat President...and we all know that's not likely. Just like the Bernie supporters who ultimately voted for Hilary did so to stop Trump, regardless of their vitriol for Hilary during the primary. Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with Trump having already shown he could withstand attacks from Hilary, the presumptive dem candidate, without being cowed like Republicans tend to be under accusations of racism, sexism, etc.. Any other male candidate could have just as easy disarmed the sexist, misogynist accusations...especially while having the kind of skeletons Trump did. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or...most Republican candidates could never reach the level of attack nor media coverage necessary to disarm such accusations. Believe whatever comforts you...or your echo chamber tells you to believe. Sure, the First Amendment doesn't cover both the freedom of speech and the freedom of association, e.g. "the right of individuals to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members". How radical! Do you also dislike the Court's "radical alterations" of its own precedent of many cases supporting slave owner rights? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And where did any Republican say, "Bribery is speech, and expression of opinion"? Cite your source. 39.2% of Democrat Representatives and 58% of Democrat Senators (including Hilary) voted in favor of the Iraq resolution. The fallout, either way, is immaterial to the fact. Unless you can cite a significant Republican source denying the Iraq war, I can only assume this is a lazy straw man. Most Republicans simply blame Bush for the flip-flopping on nation building and Obama for the premature pull out. Results After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of most of the lifetime Axis I and Axis II mental disorders was associated with lower levels of income. Participants with household income of less than $20 000 per year were at increased risk of incident mood disorders during the 3-year follow-up period in comparison with those with income of $70 000 or more per year. A decrease in household income during the 2 time points was also associated with an increased risk of incident mood, anxiety, or substance use disorders (adjusted odds ratio, 1.30; 99% confidence interval, 1.06-1.60) in comparison with respondents with no change in income. Baseline presence of mental disorders did not increase the risk of change in personal or household income in the follow-up period. Conclusions Low levels of household income are associated with several lifetime mental disorders and suicide attempts, and a reduction in household income is associated with increased risk for incident mental disorders. - http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/211213 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!You were saying? So you'd rather restrain all of your principled Congressmen because the other party won POTUS and will veto everything they do? How principled is it to KNOW that your principles won't translate into action? Apparently you're not familiar with reconciling conflicting principles. Yep, you're missing that the "top-tier candidate" was already overwhelmed by Trump's characterizations in his inordinate, free media coverage (which was also the reason people thought he could handle Hilary...because he had enough coverage to drive the narrative). I certainly wouldn't miss your replies. But for some reason I doubt you'd put me on ignore unless you can convince enough of your compatriots to do so as well. You just don't strike me as a very independent person.