I like sanders due to the excessive number of war hawks, and the fact that He is the sole candidate left enough for me to agree with on more than 90% of issues. Also, the millennial vote has grown to a much larger share than the last election, as such a Ron Paul pt3 may actually prevail, but it seems unlikely. Democratic side is going to be a game of momentum. If Sanders can win Iowa and New Hampshire, and put up a good fight or even steal South Carolina and Nevada, he probably wins, but it's more unlikely than Obama. Whereas, if Clinton wins Iowa or New Hampshire, the race is probably over for Sanders. Sander's also lacks a "First" scenario that propelled Obama past clinton amongst african-American voters, so it seems unlikely. The race may be over by New Hampshire, or may extend to the very end.

As for the Republican race, I would prefer rand paul due to the fact that he's a non-interventionist, but in reality the current 4 front-runners are the only ones that have rational chances, and I agree with Knyte's general analysis above on the republican party. That being said, I feel that it is going to end up as Cruz, not Rubio just due to his lack of support nationally compared to the other 3, and that Carson/Trump supporters are more likely to flock to Cruz than Rubio.

Edited 1/3/2016 18:11:39

go Trump

honestly Japan, I like sanders, hes a nice guy, hes honest, I love his environment polices ( except keystone that was just a democrat talking point ). however, his philosophy and his economic beliefs scare the hell out of me. Hes a socialist, no way around it. Free college, free healthcare, free everything! sounds nice and good morally until the average citizen finds out she or he is paying for irresponsible teens to go to college where they may or not drop out. Taxing a citizen so others can have free healthcare or college is unlawful and unconstitutional because your making someone else pay for somebody elses cost. Something else to consider is this, if college becomes free it actually makes a college degree less valuable. why? because its more common to the point where its an every day thing it will take the value of a degree down. if you take down the value of a college degree that's not good ( their are some good things to this internationally but that's another point ). I am sorry, but I don't want to pay for someone elses college, healthcare ect. it may sound selfish ( as many democrats have screamed in my face before ) but one day I am gonna have my own problems and my own costs so the last thing I want is to pay for some teenage idiots college. my own parents are gonna be stretched extremely thin because my family is full of special needs people which already costs a lot of money but now the government is saying they have to pay for other peoples healthcare plus their own. people talk about how great their Obama care insurance is......everyone on those adds that is lol. my familys regular insurance has gone up a lot because Obama care has forced the rates up. when Obama said " if you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare " he was right, hes not forcing anyone under obamacare......hes just making hellish not too. its kinda the out of the frying pan and into the fire problem, theres no way to win. if Bernie or Hillary wins they are gonna most likely expand this to college which will cripple my family and many others. it will bankrupt the middle class to put these taxes in place to give free everything. my final point, we must look at the world with realistic view. if we implement free healthcare and college together today, we will all die of bankruptcy tomorrow or at least most of the middle class. btw I am libertarian

#RandForPrez

#Icansettleforrubio

#pleasenotbush

#killmeiftrumpwins

#kasichisbae

#cruzwillkillusatthechurch

#Carsoniscurrentlynapping

#fioriniaisneverhappy

Well I'll agree with you on a few points and provide my point of view on others.

1. Socialist and democratic Socialist are two different things, a pure Socialist means the government running every aspect of the economy, and giving everyone everything equal the same(pretty much Communism with a gov't). Democratic Socialism is a further left version of liberalism, in which the gov't is tasked with attempting to even the playing field for everyone, and eliminate harmful businesses.

2. https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/ explains his general economic plan, which should cover majority of your issues, there was also a NYT article that I can't find that explains how he would actually end up with a net surplus in the governmental budget

3. Obamacare, I agree is not necessarily a good idea. It maintains corporate structure costs along with new governmental structure costs, which just compound on each other, you go full one way or the other, and I believe that a fully nationalized health care system makes more sense that returning to the former system. This is why Canada or Scandinavia have much lower health costs than the US does.

4. US health costs are stupidly high because physicians cannot be certain that they will be paid properly, a nationalized health system would insure that, and most likely drive down prices.

5. Also, people profiting off of your health is just plain messed up.

it works in Scandinavia and Canada because their population is so small and tolerate with a completely different culture. It won't work in America because we have a completely different mind set and culture plus national health care is extremely expensive for the middle class but in countries like Canada and Scandinavia where living prices are smallerand you get paid more by average, it won't kill them to pay high taxes for things like national health care because they can afford it based off the things I just mentioned, everyday Americans can't

Edited 1/4/2016 02:19:22

I Want and expect Cruz to win.

Marco Rubio should wait a few years and then run again.

Christie would have beat Obama in 2012 but did not run.

Bush is hated for his name, I hate him for his views on certain areas.

Fiorina and Carson get the Sarah Paylin award for getting 15 minutes of fame and then next to nothing

Rand Paul is barely a Republican.

Kasich,Huckabee,Santorum and Gilmore (who is terribly representing my home state of Virginia) have no support what so ever.


No one has even heard of Fellure and Martin...

(the ones that dropped out)

I wanted Perry and or Scott Walker but Trump took away any and all attention they could have gotten for their campaign.




Is it me or did Virginia lose the ability to make good leaders after the first 5 presidents...

Virginia lost the ability once you guys began BIG LIBERALS

Mate, Blame Fairfax and Arlington, the two counties that told washington to fuck off, and is now washingtons bitches

Edited 1/4/2016 05:28:50

I don't want Cruz. He won't work with the other side and he won't gain the middle vote. Not only can't he win, he won't even be able to win the national election

1. Obama doesnt cooperate on anything, he got 2 terms... 2 TERMS AND HE IS ONE OF THE WORST


2. The Senate and House are Republican, and with any republican picking the Supreme court, we are fine on all three branches


3. and Trump would be any better working with liberals?

Trump wouldn't work with democrats either. He won't always get in charge Relm, in fact if Cruz became president I would be willing to bet republicans would lose the Senate in his second term

I said Trump would be terrible in terms of getting along with democrats...


should not matter, Republicans would hold the Senate...

I highly doubt it. Of course neither of us can control the Senate but so far republicans have done jackshit besides a couple weak attempts at removing Obamacare. If they keep it up, eventually The ideas of " free everything if you vote for me " will come back into style and a second controversial term of president Cruz would probably be just enough to get the Liberal flame going again

yes... because the "vote me for stuff" is really giving Obama alot of great ratings in opinion poles so far XD

I'M TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING ELECTION

+1 @Genghis

Well alternitavely we have Bitch Clinton (supported by Dick Clinton, who is busy giving sax lessons to every girl he meets)



A socialist. need I say more, or should I go into how Socialism is basically obstructing basic human rights 101



Jim Web, a Virginian war hero badass... who noone gave a shit about



Martin O malley... the "best" of the democrats in terms of politics... unfortunatly someone with the name Clinton ran




Then we have the Green,Independant, and liberatarion... who will never get anywhere unless you pull a Ross Perot and fuck over your own party

Sanders is a really cool guy. Anybody who doesn't like him is scared that he'll turn USA into CCCP2. It's not going to happen lol. Socialism is good for youseall.

Here's my outline on everyone's chances:

Rand Paul has essentially no chance and he knows that. As the only neo-libertarian and non-interventionist with clear foreign policy differences with the rest of the GOP, he's simply staying in the race to progress an alternate party policy. That being said he should focus on his Kentucky Senate Reelection campaign...Alison Lundergan Grimes is once again contesting in 2016 and Mitch McConnell had his hands full in 2014 defeating her.

Kasich is clearly not aiming to win a single state. His only goal now is to "audition" for the VP spot. He knows that as a popular governor of a hugely important swing state he has the leverage on any candidate the GOP decides to make the nominee. As Ohio goes, so goes the nation (as they say). If a movement conservative wins the Nominee (e.g. Cruz, Rubio, or Carson) expect Kasich to get the nod for his spot on the Ticket.

Santorum and Huckabee are going to be the clear casualties of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary. They have no chance of placing in the top 5 in either one of those states and they won't have enough money in 1-2 months to carry on their pointless campaigns. They're candidates of a bygone era and generation...Huckabee hasn't been governor for I believe 1 decade. It doesn't really matter. NO GOP candidate is running on experience...the electorate doesn't care about the job record or experience in governance (its a huge turnoff). The SoCon vote is just too small to focus on...and its basically the only voting block that Huckabee or Santorum can court.

Jeb? or Jeb! What can I say about the "low-energy" candidate. Once the heir elect to be the GOP nominee, the dynastic black sheep of the family is a long shot at best. Even the establishment has their doubts now. He lacks the passion and clarity of voice to lead a disgruntled and highly fragmented GOP. Even if he miraculously plays comeback king like McCain in 2008 or Kerry in 2004 expect the GOP grassroots base to stay home at election day. 40% of the GOP has already said they refuse to vote for another bush...and I have a feeling America at large has the same feeling. If the establishment makes the mistake of pulling the cards for a Bush win expect a disastrous 2016 election and the official splitting of the GOP into 2 warring parties.

Rubio - Knyte (I hate agreeing with him) hit the nail on the head. Rubio is a lazy candidate. He already thinks he's won the nomination and shows little very ground effort in Iowa or NH to connect with voters. He may win the nomination though because no conservative outright hates him...and the election may come down to electability. National polls put him within striking distance of beating Hillary (losing by +1.5) and that may establishment republicans and foreign policy hawks to coalesce around him as the winner. In all honesty I would hate a rubio presidency...soft on immigration and too hawkish on the military.

Carson - He's just stuck in the middle between a very top-heavy field. He's lost all his momentum, replaced his top campaign advisers, and is sitting on too much cash with too little to use it on (attack ads and positive ads seem to have 0% effect on poll numbers this cycle). Expect him to leave after South Carolina. He was supposed to be the Messiah of the Republican party. Someone who could appeal to all wings and court Black voters away from Hillary...but new polls show only about 11-15% of African Americans support him. He offers nothing for the GOP...all polls show him losing a head to head with Hillary and he's not the right material for the VP spot. Expect him to fade into oblivion like Hermann Cain (although without all the controversy).

Cruz - Loved by the grassroots base, the tea party, social conservatives, and libertarians he has the best chance of winning the nomination hands down. He has hard money (from both big and small donors), a strong ground campaign (he has a field office in every county of Iowa!!), and will gain an early lead from the large number of southern states that have primaries right after Nevada. Although he's hated by the eastern establishment wing of the GOP, he may gain their support if he becomes the only viable alternative to Trump. Expect him to gain in the polls when Santorum and Huckabee drop out, since their social conservative voters like Cruz's push for religious liberty. He's also the 3rd most likable candidate in the GOP according to NBC polling.

Fiorina - She's stuck. She may be auditioning for the VP slot like Kasich but I doubt she brings anything to the table. She may be a chaos candidate like Palin so I expect Kasich beats her out for the ticket. Who knows...maybe she is trying to fill her job resume to become CEO of Yahoo.

Trump - Oh man where to start. Trumpism is probably the death knell of the Republican party if he gets elected. Seriously all you have to do is ask yourself this question: will he help us increase the GOP share of latinos, asian americans, or african americans? If your answer is no move on to another candidate. 49% of Asian Americans voted with the Republicans in 2014...expect that number to be cut in at least half if Trump gets the nomination. He may have cash and have 40% of support among polling data but that does not translate into Caucus votes. People should read up on the rules of a GOP caucus. It requires extreme ground organization which Trump lacks completely. The process is not just go vote and leave. You have to be ready to sit by 7:00 PM and then sit with other people for 2-3 hours while the process takes place. There are a series of ballot votes among the people who show up. If your candidate doesn't reach a threshold number of votes you have to go vote for someone else regardless of your opinions. If all these low tier guys (Kasich, Paul, Huckabee, Santorum) don't get enough votes they're gonna go to Cruz or Rubio. Trump won't win Iowa. If he wins S. Carolina and NH...then well the whole race goes insane and I have no idea who wins at that point.

Christie - The bush alternative is the establishment candidate with the best chance behind rubio of beating Trump and Cruz. That being said he can't win any southern state or Iowa. He'll win NH and that's it.

All in all I basically agree. If Cruz Wins the nomination he can't best Hillary however. Hillary is the oddest Presidential candidate I have ever seen in all honesty. She is rare in the sense that she strongly attracts grass roots democrats ( taking second only to Sanders ) and yet she isn't extreme enough to throw off the swing votes....in fact she's moderate enough to have a good chance at getting them. The only Republican who could win honestly are Kasich, Rubio, And Christie. They have not very much baggage and they have the best chance of getting the swing voters. In fact, in American political history overall I find that usually the moderate Republicans have the best chance out of anyone n getting the votes needed to win a national election. It's because people like Republican Economics better then Socialism ( on average ) however most of America thinks republicans are backwards on Social issues and invading anyone who poses the slightest threat. Therefore, a moderate Republican is the best fit.

Edited 1/4/2016 20:50:30