Ugh, I need to update this thread when I get home. Been working 12 hour days grading ap tests and haven't had a free moment to really look through the news, but perry and Chaffee have announced it looks like, I might have missed somebody...

ok, looks like the primary is just about set. Scott Walker is going to announce sometime this month, and Kasich a possibility as well. The democratic primary looks about set as Joe Biden and Howard Dean are starting to look like they are going to pass on a run.

... So now the fun begins! Which party do you think looks like it will have a better shot this time?

Personally, I think the republicans probably have some more interesting personalities, but that is probably obvious since there are three times as many candidates... However, that primary is going to be very bloody, whoever gets the nomination is going to be very weak by then and all Clinton will have to do is just point the general electorate to all the blood and the election is hers. I'm guessing democrats retain the white house.

jerry brown still not in the race...
but he has to win! the world and the US needs brown/gore...
and he is the star of one of the greates punk songs ever made...

was he even talking about running again?  I hadn't heard that he had any interest...

he said hes getting to old for this shit some weeks ago, but thats not a no.

and brown/gore would be te best the world could hope for.  he coul be the best president since carter...

Democrats have the advantage but if the right candidate were chosen on the Republican side they could position Clinton as more of the same - a war hawk and dynasty - who will do what Bushes, Obama and (Bill) Clinton have been doing for decades.  In the states that matter (swing states) this could make for an interesting general election. But that is only if the Republicans choose a candidate who isn't a Clinton clone. 

the none clinton clones on the right are all without a chance in the swingstates and even in some red states.

It's quite obvious that you view things with regards to the right-left paradigm and you are what I'd call an axis voter. It is clear to anybody that Clinton is even more of a warhawk than Obama, and much more like Bush Jr. than half of the other candidates. Most informed democrats don't even like Hillary. They want Bernie Sanders to win. 

It is (has been for a while) also obvious that the Republican party is (has been) in the midst of a ideological civil war, and there is a lot of diversity in ideas among the various candidates because of this: most notably the Moderate/Conservative divide, but also the candidates have a variance of social views, and ideas about the scope and role of government in both international and domestic affairs. 

Also, I recommend you look at polls. Swing-states are called swing-states for a reason. 

bush started a war with lying to everybody, not obama.  obama is more for dronekilling than for boots on the ground, not alot better but a bit.  and clinton isnt like bush, she has other moneylines than the bushes, and an fullblown war isnt in the agenda for those shareholders.
i would like to see brown getting the ticket, but sanders/gore would be fine too.

but wanting s winning over c doesnt mean that those people wouldnt vote for c if the alternative to c is assjuice, or vaginalultrasound, or some other lunatic.

there is just bush or mitt as an option to have atleast a chance vs clinton. somebody like cruz cant win outside of the deep red states.

and rand paul will never happen. like ron paul never happened they are to far away from the republican moneybase.

Clinton is a neo-conservative/warhawk through and through. Just look at her voting record and comments on her position. 

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm#Voting_Record

The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to “America First” isolationism.

Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.

• A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
• A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Hillary doesn't have the same cronies that Cheney had, but her cronies still want excessive military spending, drone bombings, and the U.S in the business of every single country in the world. She is a classic Wilsonian progressive, the predecessor to modern day Neo-conservatives (before the rise of Neo-Classical economics in U.S politics.) 

Bush has no chance. The family name is too tainted, and Mitt won't run, nor would he win against Clinton if he were to run- they are too similar. 

If you look at the Republican primary polls you notice that some candidates are more consistently high while others shoot up and down. That is the best indicator of who will win the primary. As for Rand Paul, he is much more political and persuasive than his father. He has a presence on Fox News whereas his father was shunned from Fox News, and that hurt his father's chances considerably. Rand Paul has also been reaching out to alternative money-bases than the typical backers of the establishment Republicans. Rand Paul is often in second or third in polls. While others come and go based on the news at the time. 

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary