And even then Kodos might not get a lectern at one of the candidate's debates.

This guy. We've done worse after all...http://imgur.com/gallery/CjMPk

yay

Alright, as an ex-conservative who lives in a red state and who's parents are conservatives, I think I can answer this:

Hoping: Rand, I guess. He's the closest thing to a libertarian in the main two parties, which is a sad thought, but true.

Thinking: Cruz or Rubio. The conservative base is sick of establishment moderates like McCain, Romney, and now Jeb. As much as everyone left-of-center despises him, Cruz says everything the conservatives want to here.

Rubio is a bit unpopular because of amnesty (I like that, conservatives don't), but if anyone can win over the social conservative faction, the conservative-libertarian faction, and the establishment faction, it's Rubio.

Rand is the favorite of the libertarian faction of the party, but that's a small faction, because most libertarians aren't anywhere in the Repulsive-can base. He's not going to beat Cruz, Huckabee, et. al. in the social conservative faction, and he's not going to beat Jeb, Christie, et. al. in the moderate faction. Therefore, he won't win. Sadly.

In that same vein, guys like Huckabee, Santorum (aka a less likable Huckabee), et. al., are beloved with social conservatives, or the "Christian right," but they won't win either the liberty-loving Justin Amash faction (why can't he run?), or the moderate/establishment faction. Huckabee has defended the welfare state, and Santorum is in favor of raising the minimum wage. That won't get you the nomination.

Also, Donald Trump will never, ever win. Ever. And I think we're all happy with that.

Nor will Carly Fiorina or Ben Carson. You need experience, not necessarily because that will help them win, but because they're less likely to make mistakes or split the vote.

IN CONCLUSION: To win the Republican primary, you need to get support from both the social conservatives and the libertarian conservatives, and probably the moderates, too. As much as you all hate him, Ted Cruz is the only one who can do that. Rubio and perhaps Walker might be able to get all 3 factions. Everyone else has a shot, I guess, except Trump, but it would be harder to do.

In the general election, I could stomach voting for Rand. Anyone else and I'll be voting for the Libertarian Party. Hilary vs. Cruz, Jeb, Rubio, or anyone else is just different flavors of statists.

TL;DR:

Hoping will: no one that's running.

Reluctantly hoping will: Rand Paul.

Hoping won't: basically everyone else.

Thinking will: Cruz, Rubio.

Thinking might: Walker, Huckabee, Jeb.

Thinking won't: Almost everyone else.

Knowing won't: Trump.

Jeb Bush has it locked up. All else is jockeying for veep.

Watch the Republicans pick some one that could lose to Clinton even with all her problems.

I swear if it's Bush Vs Clinton I'm going to flip tables.

It's like we're having a fight for who claims the kingdom as the royal family and who gets their head chopped off.

All the conservatives hate Jeb Bush, and there's tons of choices that they like much better. Yes, the moderates and establishment like him, but that's not going to win again. There is a grassroots movement that hates the Jebs, Romneys, and McCains almost as much as the Obamas and Hillarys (Hillaries?).

Hillary should also be losing, but the Democrats don't have enough other candidates, sadly. I think Bernie Sanders isn't going to get the mainstream support. To me, that's a shame, because even though I disagree with his opinions, I'd much rather a grassroots candidate than an establishment one, and Bernie Sanders, having never been a member of the Democratic Party until now, fits that bill quite nicely.

Honestly, the thought of any of these people on either party, except Rand, being president is nauseating. Even Rand is far too conservative for my taste. I wish he was his dad, or Justin Amash. Even then I'm cynical.

The way I see it: you're going to lose no matter what, so vote third party next November.

Hillary might not be the Democratic nominee, but Jeb Bush will be the GOP nominee. More than ever, "Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line."

I hope all 15 of them fall down a ravine.

I thought Jon Huntsman seemed like the least crazy candidate last time around. That must've been why he polled so poorly.

Yep. Jon Huntsman would have a great shot in the general election but he'd be pummeled in the GOP primary.

He actually might make a great veep candidate for Jeb.

If it comes to Bush vs. Clinton, we may see the first significant third party in quite a while.

*for POTUS

Vermin Supreme FTW!

Money talks in politics and the two with the most are Bush and Clinton. Unless another Perot comes along that is willing to spend his own fortune, you won't see another viable candidate.

Who needs their own money when ultra-wealthy right-wing zionist gazillionaires can fund the campaign of their preferred candidate without limitations?

In order of likeliest to win the nomination:
Better than 25% chance of winning nomination
Rubio - hope he wins, best chance to defeat Hilary
Walker - fine with him, think he would also have a good chance against Hilary
Bush - not excited about his candidacy but he is polling best against Hilary right now (though at this point it is still mostly name recognition on both sides)

Better than 3% chance of winning nomination but less than 10%
Huckabee - not a fan, doubt he wins primary, also doubt he would have a chance in general election
Cruz - I think he will finish better than 5th overall in the primary, but I do not think he is particularly likely to win the primary (he would probably be the first or second name I would list if you asked me who will finish 2nd or 3rd in the primary). I like him okay but doubt he would do well in general election.
Paul - fine by me, but I doubt he comes anywhere close to winning the nomination.
Perry - never really recovered from his stumbles during last campaign. He'd be fine by me but I don't see him getting enough momentum in this crowded field to stick around long. If he survives the early cuts and raises enough money to still be in it when the field is narrowed to 3-4 then maybe he could win the primary but I think that is unlikely.

Almost no chance of winning the primary
Christie - burned too many bridges last election to win Republican primary. Would have best chance vs Hilary in general of anyone in this bottom tier.
Kasich - similar to Jeb but without the name baggage. Downside of that for him is not well known at all. I'd be okay with him I guess, but don't see him emerging from this crowded field.
Jindal - very smart guy, would probably make a good President. Not nearly charismatic enough to win primary or general though.
Trump - not really a Republican, has donated significantly to the Clintons in the past. More interested in keeping his name in the news than actually running.
Carly Fiorina - would make a much better President than Hilary. No chance of winning primary or general election though due to lack of political experience and name recognition.
Santorum - go away, no thanks. Cruz and Huckabee will get most of the people that voted for him last time. He is Pareto-dominated by them both in the primary candidate space.
Lindsey Graham - maybe just set some money on fire instead of running. Do not like, no chance of winning primary. Probably won't finish top 3 in his home state primary. I don't know any Republicans or conservatives that actually like Lindsey Graham or want him to run.
Ben Carson - seems like a nice guy, but no chance of winning primary.

Jindal would have been a contender except that he took a very hard right tack in the past 3 years or so. Bad idea on his part IMO.

I see what you did there with Christie and bridges.....

Are these sweeping claims about all the Republican candidates true? It would be helpful if someone familiar with the candidates could provide a counter-example.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/102227800261183349957/posts/HjS7D6Kxa2J
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102227800261183349957/posts/H6s3rxT4LxQ
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102227800261183349957/posts/izZaLrseAVQ
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102227800261183349957/posts/RErN1oHfG4M

All 4 are correct. Rand Paul has been squishy on gay marriage in the past, but has hardened as he realized that he'd be killed by the republican base. While I can't state definitively that all "19" are climate change deniers, all of the declared candidates, plus Bush, Walker, Jindal and many of the others are. I get the feeling that Christie would like to avoid the Climate Change question, which is almost as bad, because it's probably the #1 problem the world faces.

But yes, all the republican candidates want to cut taxes on the wealthy and cut social programs to balance it. It's a core part of their message - a message that has been disprove since the era of "trickle-down economics". Give more money to the poor, they spend it and the economy moves, and the middle class re-appears. Give more money to the rich, and they just enrich themselves, increasing inequality.

Still blows my mind that the GOP has convinced middle-class America that voting to make the rich richer is good for them.

"Still blows my mind that the GOP has convinced middle-class America that voting to make the rich richer is good for them."

Hasn't worked the last two presidential elections. They control congress because of extreme gerrymandering.

Eh, I think that taxing is a violation of the non-aggression principle, even if it's taxing the rich. Besides, the government doesn't have enough money to keep up these welfare programs. Maybe they'd have more if they stopped waging illegal wars of aggression and spying on it's citizens, but I still think it's not an efficient plan.

Now, back to analyzing rather than providing unpopular opinions:

Why does everyone think moderates like Huntsman, Christie, and Jeb would do good? They already played the moderate card with McCain and Romney, and it failed. I heard a story that an anonymous candidate said that they haven't seen any Jeb Bush activists. He just isn't popular with the conservative base at all. How can he be the favorite? Name ID?

Now, Hillary might be less popular with the Democratic base, but I don't see as many alternatives in the field. I've already established that Bernie Sanders is unlikely to win enough votes among the more moderate voters. Maybe someone else will build up name recognition and win, but as of yet I'm not sure if that will happen.

I think the Democrats need a new Obama. Not necessarily politically or even demographically (although being a minority and/or woman would help, I think), but someone likable and with enough experience to know what they're doing, but a small amount so that they're still fresh.

"Maybe they'd have more if they stopped waging illegal wars of aggression and spying on it's citizens, but I still think it's not an efficient plan."

Maybe add onto this extraneous government expenses, wages, and getting a tad bit more efficient, among 50,000 other things, before cutting welfare and continually failing to address the environment, which is tightly related to the plight of the lower classes in this country despite what krellin and ssorenn might try to tell you.

True, true, but I'm still not convinced involuntary taxes and a welfare program is the best method. I mean, if I came up to you and demanded money, that's illegal. But the government does it and it's okay? Even if you say that they can do it because they're backed by the majority of people, doing something wrong because of majority opinion is called "mob rule," not democracy.

I'm fully aware everyone thinks that's a crazy idea, and I'm okay with that. But I think I agree with most of you on social issues and foreign policy.

@Jeff

"They control congress because of extreme gerrymandering."

I hate the Republicans probably as much as you, but I think that's a false statement. They won 51.2% of the popular vote compared to 45.5% for the democrats. They still would've won the election in a non-gerrymandered, even non-FPTP system.