[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Sanji Himura]

Problem: they are already doing that. Their main pony in this race is Jeb Bush, someone that no one really wants in office.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/election-2016-rand-paul-south-carolina/index.html

CNN and Wolf Blitzer are already playing the "gender card", quoting the Washington Post suggesting Rand Paul has a problem with female reporters in particular.

 

[JMoney]

The party and/or media decide for you anyway. I knew Mitt had it won last time after just the first few states. Plus, at the convention the delegates don't have to vote with the election results.

True that. Both Cain and Gingrich were shot down by the media in 2012. I'm sure either of them, especially Cain because he could have won black votes, could have defeated Obama. Romney just wasn't exciting enough of a candidate, but I don't think that will be a problem again in 2016. Jeb seems like the middle candidate this year, and even he is more exciting than Romney was just because of his last name. It's that reason I hope Walker and Santorum don't get the nomination because they aren't very interesting candidates (no, not because one is from Wisconsin and the other is outspoken against Protestants).

The worst case scenario for the Republicans would be Christie getting nominated (or Trump), but I seriously doubt that will happen if either of them even run. I'm certain Rand, Cruz, or Rubio (my second choice) will beat Hillary. With all the others it's still possible but much less likely.

 

[Sanji Himura]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/election-2016-rand-paul-south-carolina/index.html

CNN and Wolf Blitzer are already playing the "gender card", quoting the Washington Post suggesting Rand Paul has a problem with female reporters in particular.

Yeah, because Rand wouldn't play ball with the female interviewer by answering the gotcha questions that she was lying out.

 

[Omnis]

I'm pretty impressed with how Rand has crafted his message. That said, I can't believe the flak he's getting. The media is already putting him through a jobbystorm, as if they've been preparing since his filibuster.

The one thing I can't stand about campaign season is how out of touch with reality, common sense, and sound reasoning people can be. It makes me sick that people with so much exposure are allowed to be misinformed, disingenuous, and/or as manipulative as they can be. Did anyone see Rand's interview with Megyn Kelly? I can't believe Charles Krauthammer is allowed to get away with saying what he said. Megyn gave Rand heat for the shushing thing and it was an interesting and I think productive exchange, but in Rand's defense I think he has a big point on the issue of "editorializing" in the news, as he put it.

In college, I studied the effects of framing and presented on the topic. Trust me, framing a debate or the questions you ask has a HUGE effect on what people take away from an interview or exchange. In fact, most people will remember the way something was framed rather than what actually happened or what was presented. As an example, most laypeople think Edward Snowden sold government secrets or was some kind of traitor or the guy that create wikileaks, etc. Why? Because the news was framed that way. So if you frame someone as being "close to Obama" or mention "flip-flopping" or any of these things, they all evoke feedback in the minds of the masses, such that only these few key frames of reference resonate and impress upon people things that may not even be true. I've already seen it take hold on facebook, including comments made by our friends Mr. Empty Polisci-Guy Commentary aka @YSSMAN and @Joey D as well.

Anyway, I have to agree with Chris Matthews when he said that these piggish-money-ads shouldn't even be shown. Like, how false does an ad need to be before someone somewhere goes, "Wait, this is bullsquirt. We can't run this."

I really feel like journalism is the biggest failure of a profession in the last 50 years. Honestly, what else has utterly collapsed the way professionalism in TV and mass media has? Journalists are supposed to be the way laymen stay informed. All of this editorialism in news media, where it's right vs. left and everyone comes in with a big ****ing chip on their shoulders... it's all rotten stuff. And the evidence is in how stupid everyone still is, despite all the great advancements in infotech the world has seen.

 

[Crash]

Wait... in the USA if you register as a member of a party you can't vote for a different party?

Specifically for primaries, it depends on the state. The primaries inhabit this weird middle ground where it's not really a regular election, rather it's a party event. However, the party selection process is ran by the government. Some states have official party registrations, some states have party affiliations (preferences, but aren't official registrations), and some states don't consider party affiliation at all.

Some states have just a primary, some states have just a caucus, and some states have both, with a proportion of the state's party delegates being divided up based on the results of primary or caucus, or based on a mix of the caucus and primary results for some states that hold both. But then, how the delegates will vote at the convention actually depends on if the primary/caucus is a winner-take-all or proportional, and so if it's binding or non-binding.

Primaries are like your traditional voting that you may think of; people going to the booths. Caucuses though are like local town hall meetings, with numerous meeting locations state wide, except limited to party members (or in some states, those who professes to prefer a particular party). There, they debate and vote among themselves until they reach some decision.

At one end of the spectrum, some states allow anyone to vote in any primary, switching between parties as they wish between the years without any formal reregistration process, while at the other end, some states limit voting within a primary to only registered party members, and requiring a formal registration process. Some states allow non-party registered voters (independents) to vote in primaries, while some states do not. Caucuses are almost always limited to just party members (or affiliates, for those states without formal party registrations).

Presidential primary and caucus system can get really convoluted, with different states having different rules and methods. Wikipedia has a decent article on how it generally works.

For General Elections, you are free to vote for whomever you want, or write in someone, or submit a blank ballot, regardless of party affiliation, if any.

Then there are the Super-Delegates, which to be honest, are party members who hold public office at either the state or federal level. A vote from them is weighted more than a delegate vote, and is largely the cause of securing Obama's path to the nomination. Also, they are not bound by the results of their state's primary/caucus.

A Super Delegate's vote is worth the same amount as a regular Delegate's vote at the Party Convention. The Super Delegate's vote is powerful because as they are typically public officials already (Congresspeople, Governors, etc.), they can have significant influence in getting their state/constituents to vote for a certain candidate during the primaries, as well as influencing their peer Super Delegates to throw their support behind a candidate. Also, Super Delegate votes are non-binding based on state primary results; they can change how they will vote at any time up until the Convention, so between two (or more) candidates with similar amount of regular Delegate votes, it may then essentially be up to the Super Delegates to throw their support behind one person in order to officially choose the Party's Nominee.

 

[YSSMAN]

I really feel like journalism is the biggest failure of a profession in the last 50 years. Honestly, what else has utterly collapsed the way professionalism in TV and mass media has? Journalists are supposed to be the way laymen stay informed. All of this editorialism in news media, where it's right vs. left and everyone comes in with a big ****ing chip on their shoulders... it's all rotten stuff. And the evidence is in how stupid everyone still is, despite all the great advancements in infotech the world has seen.

This. All of it.

It's sad when a comedy show is often more of an in-depth discussion of politics, and its host is harder on candidates and pundits than people who actually control the news cycle. We're sitting in the **** that Reagan created, restructuring FCC to allow consolidation in media outlets, and removing the Fairness Doctrine - and to get any of that back, the money would need to be shifted out of the news completely. Maybe if things continue to shift more to online, yeah, it could get better. But, given the frothing stew of garbage that is every comment section everywhere, I'm not going to count on it.

This cycle won't be fun, particularly with completely clear tickets for both sides. Although I think some Democrats feel like the seat has already been promised to Clinton, outsiders like Warren and Sanders will likely do their best to pull the ticket to the left - with all the false ideas of actual change to come with it. Flip it the other way, Cruz and Paul are promising to "take the country back," from who, well, I've yet to understand. I may not be able to rationalize much of what Cruz has to say, but, at the very least, a lot of us young, mostly-rational folks can at least agree with Paul on the ol' horseshoe of politics. But, banking on all of those positions to hold as he gets closer to the candidacy, I think that's a bit naive to hold onto. But, hey - it isn't like my usual, "Yeah, I'll probably vote Democrat" folks are any better. Clinton seems like the shoe-in, and as much as us kids want Sanders or Warren as a candidate, it won't happen... And its very unfortunate, because a Clinton lock is just as dangerous as putting Karl Marx on the ticket.

 

[Omnis]

I would absolutely vote for Bernie Sanders as long as I could be assured of a GOP vicegrip on congress.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This. All of it.

It's sad when a comedy show is often more of an in-depth discussion of politics, and its host is harder on candidates and pundits than people who actually control the news cycle. We're sitting in the **** that Reagan created, restructuring FCC to allow consolidation in media outlets, and removing the Fairness Doctrine - and to get any of that back, the money would need to be shifted out of the news completely. Maybe if things continue to shift more to online, yeah, it could get better. But, given the frothing stew of garbage that is every comment section everywhere, I'm not going to count on it.

This cycle won't be fun, particularly with completely clear tickets for both sides. Although I think some Democrats feel like the seat has already been promised to Clinton, outsiders like Warren and Sanders will likely do their best to pull the ticket to the left - with all the false ideas of actual change to come with it. Flip it the other way, Cruz and Paul are promising to "take the country back," from who, well, I've yet to understand. I may not be able to rationalize much of what Cruz has to say, but, at the very least, a lot of us young, mostly-rational folks can at least agree with Paul on the ol' horseshoe of politics. But, banking on all of those positions to hold as he gets closer to the candidacy, I think that's a bit naive to hold onto. But, hey - it isn't like my usual, "Yeah, I'll probably vote Democrat" folks are any better. Clinton seems like the shoe-in, and as much as us kids want Sanders or Warren as a candidate, it won't happen... And its very unfortunate, because a Clinton lock is just as dangerous as putting Karl Marx on the ticket.

I'm hoping Paul is pushing right to win the primary but will actually pursue more moderate/left social policies in the libertarian sense. One thing that Rand has that his father does not is his ability to play politics. Ron was hopeless at it and whenever he defended his positions, whether or not what he was saying was brilliant or not, it sounded like this:

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm pretty impressed with how Rand has crafted his message. That said, I can't believe the flak he's getting. The media is already putting him through a jobbystorm, as if they've been preparing since his filibuster.

The one thing I can't stand about campaign season is how out of touch with reality, common sense, and sound reasoning people can be. It makes me sick that people with so much exposure are allowed to be misinformed, disingenuous, and/or as manipulative as they can be. Did anyone see Rand's interview with Megyn Kelly? I can't believe Charles Krauthammer is allowed to get away with saying what he said. Megyn gave Rand heat for the shushing thing and it was an interesting and I think productive exchange, but in Rand's defense I think he has a big point on the issue of "editorializing" in the news, as he put it.

In college, I studied the effects of framing and presented on the topic. Trust me, framing a debate or the questions you ask has a HUGE effect on what people take away from an interview or exchange. In fact, most people will remember the way something was framed rather than what actually happened or what was presented. As an example, most laypeople think Edward Snowden sold government secrets or was some kind of traitor or the guy that create wikileaks, etc. Why? Because the news was framed that way. So if you frame someone as being "close to Obama" or mention "flip-flopping" or any of these things, they all evoke feedback in the minds of the masses, such that only these few key frames of reference resonate and impress upon people things that may not even be true. I've already seen it take hold on facebook, including comments made by our friends Mr. Empty Polisci-Guy Commentary aka @YSSMAN and @Joey D as well.

Anyway, I have to agree with Chris Matthews when he said that these piggish-money-ads shouldn't even be shown. Like, how false does an ad need to be before someone somewhere goes, "Wait, this is bullsquirt. We can't run this."

I really feel like journalism is the biggest failure of a profession in the last 50 years. Honestly, what else has utterly collapsed the way professionalism in TV and mass media has? Journalists are supposed to be the way laymen stay informed. All of this editorialism in news media, where it's right vs. left and everyone comes in with a big ****ing chip on their shoulders... it's all rotten stuff. And the evidence is in how stupid everyone still is, despite all the great advancements in infotech the world has seen.

This. I can't stand loaded questions. "Mr. Candidate, a very well known celebrity made a tweet that said you hate gay people. Why do you hate gay people Mr. Candidate?" Another good one is setting up a story by saying, "People on social media are all abuzz about...", and somehow that makes it both a legitimate news story worthy of national attention and lends credibility to the social media trends.

What would have been considered a ridiculous question from a serious journalist not that long ago is now the norm. Whenever I'm watching any kind of exchange and the editorializing begins I usually tune out and if I continue to watch, it's only to see what kind of a train wreck it'll become.

All kudos to Mr. Paul for calling a spade a spade. He'd be halfway to getting my vote just for that

 

[Touring Mars]

I find it quite ludicrous that we could be looking at Bush v Clinton II and the very real possibility of a third Bush in the White House. Even Rand Paul is trading on his family name somewhat...

I will be following the election as closely as I can - pointers from last time, however, lead me to think that Rand Paul's apparent support online is far greater than his support where it really matters - I don't think he will get the Republican nomination. At this juncture it is far too early to say, but I somehow doubt that Rand Paul can convince the GOP that he is on-message while effectively running on the ticket that he is 'a different kind of Republican'.

Meanwhile, Clinton will formally launch her Presidential campaign this weekend - can anyone beat her to the Democratic nomination, and can anyone beat her in the Presidential election? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Dotini]

I find it quite ludicrous that we could be looking at Bush v Clinton II and the very real possibility of a third Bush in the White House. Even Rand Paul is trading on his family name somewhat...

I will be following the election as closely as I can - pointers from last time, however, lead me to think that Rand Paul's apparent support online is far greater than his support where it really matters - I don't think he will get the Republican nomination. At this juncture it is far too early to say, but I somehow doubt that Rand Paul can convince the GOP that he is on-message while effectively running on the ticket that he is 'a different kind of Republican'.

Meanwhile, Clinton will formally launch her Presidential campaign this weekend - can anyone beat her to the Democratic nomination, and can anyone beat her in the Presidential election? Somehow I doubt it.

Liberal females will reflexively and uncritically support Hillary Clinton. Fortunately, she is carrying several millstones around her neck which will thwart her attempts to rule - or even gain the nomination of her party, IMO.

 

[Draggon]

I've got a very progressive friend, who refused to vote for Hillary last time, stating that she could never support a woman who stayed by her husband after what Bill had done. She seems to have developed a peculiar form of amnesia, and now tells me something like "who could NOT vote to put the first woman in the White House" Ugh.

 

[FoolKiller]

Depending on whether or not Democratic supporters decide they are hawkish on war or not will determine Hilary's viability, I suspect. The ultimate irony would be if it were Paul vs Clinton and the Republican was arguing for less military intervention and the Democrat was arguing for drone bombing the entire Middle East.

She seems to have developed a peculiar form of amnesia, and now tells me something like "who could NOT vote to put the first woman in the White House" Ugh.

Well, that's sexist.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I've got a very progressive friend, who refused to vote for Hillary last time, stating that she could never support a woman who stayed by her husband after what Bill had done. She seems to have developed a peculiar form of amnesia, and now tells me something like "who could NOT vote to put the first woman in the White House" Ugh.

For a lot of lefties, values are a moving target.

 

[Brutaka]

who are some key candidates to look at? I want to start my research.

 

[Touring Mars]

The race for the Republican nomination will be much tighter and much more interesting than the Democratic nomination, unless Clinton really screws up...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Well, that's sexist.

It gets worse. I've already seen at least one article declaring that Clinton has three bonus features working in her favour that set her apart from Obama - she's old, she's white and she's a she. It is quite ridiculous to think that any of these things should play a role (let alone a major one) in determining whether or not Hillary Clinton is presidential material, but alas I'm in no doubt that it will.

 

[FoolKiller]

American politics is so broke it isn't funny. No one really cares about the issues anymore. They have a team and they cheer them on.

 

[Crash]

Meanwhile, Clinton will formally launch her Presidential campaign this weekend - can anyone beat her to the Democratic nomination, and can anyone beat her in the Presidential election? Somehow I doubt it.

Back in the 2008 elections, all the pundits were saying the same thing early on, that the Democratic nomination was Hillary's to lose, but obviously, Barack Obama beat her to the nomination.

I feel that there is the same sense of inevitability on the Democratic side with regards to Hillary this time around as the last time around, and that may well be justified, but I wouldn't just write the Democratic primary race off just yet.

For a lot of lefties, values are a moving target.

Frankly, that's not just limited to those on the left. Shifting values are true of a lot of people, left, center, or right.

 

[Sanji Himura]

who are some key candidates to look at? I want to start my research.

Assuming that it is apples to oranges, there hasn't been any open seats yet announced besides Harry Reid and quite possibly Rand Paul. That should make 32 senate seats held by someone who is an incumbent in the coming election. If anything, I would start locally, then spread out to state wide elections and finally to the Presidential election.

 

[squadops]

This isn't a bad place to start if you're only looking for Presidential potentials. They have all parties and independents as well.

The first few thoughts on candidates as I skim down the list:

Joe Biden. Doesn't do much, doesn't like guns, not afraid of the mud.
Hillary Clinton. Libya, email, regulate everything, never goes away.
Bernie Sanders. Maple syrup, c02, socialist.

Jeb Bush. Please no, face of the failing same old in the party.
Chris Christie. Disaster relief money, closing a bridge, goes crazy on camera.
Ted Cruz. Tea party rah rah, scary Texan, says no a lot to the status quo.

I'm not very excited about any of them, maybe I'm just sick and tired of politics in general.

I left Rand Paul out because I have more than a passing few thoughts about him. I like him but he doesn't excite me the way his dad did. At the moment he would get my vote.

Here is one for fun:

I am aware that I do not look like other candidates, that is because I am unlike all other candidates. I can assure you that I will be the next President of the United States. I challenge all of the so called candidates including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Randal Paul and Ben Carson to a debate about any and all issues relevant to this campaign in a public forum.

I love the Joe Namath type guarantee Unfortunately he's just an average citizen who's upset about something.

There is someone I'm going to be keeping an eye out for, I don't think there has been any talk about him and this presidential election but I think he has everything needed to win the Republican Primary and possibly win it all. He could also solidify someone as their running mate. I would not vote for him and he probably won't even run, I'm looking for something positive in the party, something that could tidy up the mess they have become.

His name is Tom Cotton, he's a young junior senator from Arkansas who won his seat with surprising ease. Born and raised on an Arkansas farm, graduated from Harvard magna cum laude, and then from Harvard Law. He started a law career but after a few years he joined the Army. As a 2nd Lieutenant in the infantry he served a few tours and earned a Bronze Star. Of course he did not have to go into the infantry but chose to, so now instead of JAG on his resume he has Star. People like that out of their Commander and Chief, seems he planned this stuff out.

He joined up with the PAC Club for Growth so his politics stem from there and so does his backing, enough to get him into congress. I looked up CFG to see exactly what they are up two, here are a few quotes from their site.

The Club for Growth is a national network of over 100,000 pro-growth, limited government Americans who share in the belief that prosperity and opportunity come from economic freedom.

The Club’s Political Action Committee (PAC) endorses and raises money for candidates who stay true to the fundamental principles of limited government and economic freedom. One of the benefits of joining Club for Growth is that you receive detailed information on candidates endorsed by the Club for Growth PAC and are able to contribute to their campaigns directly through the PAC.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/

Being liked by that organization he's heavily backed by them, as well as other powerful political ins, evident by his senate seat. I'm sure this is the grooming process for the GOP system and many being fortunate enough to pursue and get that far in politics would consider it a win but I think he has higher aspirations as do his supporters. So I google, "could Tom Cotton run for President?", and find a few interesting things.

He just arrived in the Senate, but home-state Republicans are already thinking the Oval Office

A bill that would make it easier for the Republican senator to run for re-election and the White House at the same time in 2020 is advancing in the Arkansas state Senate — barely three months after Cotton was sworn in at the U.S. Senate.

Well that escalated quickly

Here is a state proposed bill that would allow him to run for more than one Federal Office at a time, it's the same obstacle Rand Paul is facing and the reason he his talking about a caucus. The sponsor of the bill makes no bones about his intent to help Cotton.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
20
21 SECTION 1. Arkansas Code § 7-8-303 is amended to read as follows:
22 7-8-303. Right of nominee to be candidate for other office.
23 (a) The appearance on the general election ballot of the name of a
24 party nominee for the office of President or Vice President of the United
25 States in lieu of the names of the candidates for electors for the offices
26 shall not limit or restrict the party nominee so named from being a candidate
27 in his or her own right for any office to be filled at the general election.
28 (b) A person may be a candidate for President or Vice President of the
29 United States and United States Senate or United States House of
30 Representatives in the same primary and general election.

One thing that strikes me is the speed in which these things are happening. The fact Obama was on a fast track combined with the GOP having flip all for candidates lately is causing them to change up strategies. I wonder if this is going to be a new norm. A bonus to it being a fast tracker should have less skeletons in the closet, if they perform well, people will be willing to vote for less experienced candidates in the future. Lets have a look at his track record here, and here, just to take a quick look since he's not been around long enough to make a lasting impression in people's minds.

He seems to be, if nothing else, a much better statesmen than Ted Cruz and the other republican freshman who rattle cages and cause a ruckus. He's liked by the old guard and even though he's not done much work across the isle that doesn't seem to be a real issue either. He is polished in his actions and comes off likeable enough to accomplish things in the hostile environment in which he works.

I believe he could win over moderate conservatives and gain trust in those who are frightened by tea party types. He is a neo-con with even more conservative ideas in some cases, I'd like to see one of these guys succeed in reducing the size of government, the spending of government, and the over regulations by government. They all say it to get elected. So anyway...

He's a Methodist although I don't know how deep that runs but a proclaimed Protestant Christian is still in favor with Republicans. He is recently married and expecting a child I believe. A 'true' American who worked hard on a farm, educated himself, served in war, he dots his i's and crosses his t's. Time will tell if I'm making any sense in judging the main voting block of republicans, if he can keep the press at bay, and if he can gain the trust required to be President of The United States.(if he ever runs)

Oh, maybe we need to see what he looks like and see if he passes the camera test lol, here we go.

*I wrote this for myself mainly as an exercise to keep my thoughts in order as I try to stay informed with general social aspects. I don't care much for this politician in particular and would write something similar for any one of many others. I happened to find information and articles leaning towards the same ideas.

 

[Draggon]

If Jimmy "The Rent is too Damn High" McMillen were to run, he'd have my vote for sure!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party

 

[Johnnypenso]

Joe Biden. Doesn't do much, doesn't like guns, not afraid of the mud.

Smilin' Joe Biden doesn't like guns? What about firing a 12 gauge into the air off your back porch scaring away the intruders, while breaking the law at the same time?

 

[squadops]

Damn, completely forgot about that one

Well I did say first thoughts, should have said 'doesn't like you to have guns.'

 

[Sanji Himura]

An apt comparison about Baseball and Congress. Fast forward to 17:45, if you please...

 

[savage388]

It's a shame how far the U.S has tumbled downhill in the past few decades through dirty politics and media, that being said there has really been a moderate in the white house in some time so I'd give Jeb Bush the nod, if I remember correctly he was never the right wing extremest in Florida George H.W and little George were. It'll never happen though, too many people are brainwashed by he taking sides mentality as well as the parties insistance on always picking far left or right candidates with ridiculous plans and ideals so even people who actually think are forced to choose a "lesser of two evils". /rant over

 

[mustafur]

I have a fear Rand Paul will end up like Reagan.

But then I Remember his dad is Ron.

The Problem is being part of the two party System means he won't be able to do much regardless.

But his personal Views would appeal to more liberals then any Democratic candidate.

 

[BobK]

I have a fear Rand Paul will end up like Reagan.

But then I Remember his dad is Ron.

The Problem is being part of the two party System means he won't be able to do much regardless.

But his personal Views would appeal to more liberals then any Democratic candidate.

Massively off-topic but I have to ask: is there a reason why you capitalized the words Remember, Problem, System and Views in your post?

Back on topic, personally I would like to see Rand Paul get the nomination, in which case he would get my vote given that I identify more with the libertarian viewpoint. I've seen a few attack pieces on Paul on Yahoo news, which makes me think the left sees him as a viable candidate.

 

[mustafur]

Massively off-topic but I have to ask: is there a reason why you capitalized the words Remember, Problem, System and Views in your post?

Back on topic, personally I would like to see Rand Paul get the nomination, in which case he would get my vote given that I identify more with the libertarian viewpoint. I've seen a few attack pieces on Paul on Yahoo news, which makes me think the left sees him as a viable candidate.

Yes its because my sumsung has a mind of it own.

Also the media sensationalist garbage gets very bad before elections, anyone remember when Kelly Clarkson was labled a racist when she supported Ron Paul on her Twitter?

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's a shame how far the U.S has tumbled downhill in the past few decades through dirty politics and media, that being said there has really been a moderate in the white house in some time so I'd give Jeb Bush the nod, if I remember correctly he was never the right wing extremest in Florida George H.W and little George were. It'll never happen though, too many people are brainwashed by he taking sides mentality as well as the parties insistance on always picking far left or right candidates with ridiculous plans and ideals so even people who actually think are forced to choose a "lesser of two evils". /rant over

No offense, but I always find it funny to hear Americans (I live in a border town) and American media talking about right wing or left wing extremists when both of your parties are just right and just left of centre. I'm not sure anyone knows what the word "extremist" or "far left/far right" even means in the U.S. anymore. The words are so overused they've become meaningless.

On another note, it looks like we can look forward to some unbiased media coverage for the upcoming election campaign. This is a picture of some of the attendees to a recent "off the record" cocktail party thrown by Hillary's campaign staffers:

/sarcasm

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/587274340938420224/photo/1