Mostly speculation and a lack of sources make it difficult to contextualize the authors statements. The piece is based off the NYT article, and unfortunately the author doesn't provide any differentiators. Its shorter and direct article, but lacks weight.

The article is entirely based on the New York Times report which itself is based on interviews with a very large number of Republicans and all the quotes are actually referenced to real human beings. It is basically just the Reader's Digest version of the NY Times article. To those who say it is not credible....did you actually check the links? When we determine credibility, it we have take the time to click on the links that substantiate the claims and verify that they really do. In this case, the short little article accurately represents what is in the longer, very credible article in the New York Times.

This is just speculation. The NYT doesn't give any source, again. Politicians campaign, that's what they do.

Seems like pretty clear political speculation. Would bother reading this article over/and the NYT article linked.

I found more information about his potential 2020 presidential campaign in the NYT article linked at the bottom of this article. I would recommend skipping straight to that. The title is pretty misleading.

Didn't find much content in this article.

Generally speculative.

A summary of a NYT article with less information leading to even more speculation than the original article. Well written but unnecessary.

Clearly this is gossip

This article is mostly wishful thinking on the part of the Republican and Democratic establishment. Most of this piece is speculative and it's light on investigative research and context. Kyle Kulinski does a fantastic job breaking down this article in this segment here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOyFnyLq7tM]

Not even to be considered an article. There is no substance at all, and the referencing to the few things mentioned is poor.

This doesn't really feel like it's actually news. It's more like an article saying another article exists and then describing the NYtimes article without adding any other value.

This piece is a regurgitation of NYT piece (which is linked in the article) but without the additional information, links, or quotes that NYT provides. I want to rate this article as a surface-level article for those reasons.

Political speculation. Duh

I don't think there's much substance here...although I do think it's interesting that McCain said there's weakness in this president on the record.