Three strongest/weakest candidates

[IceSpear]

From the Wikipedia article, pick the three strongest and weakest Democratic and Republican candidates. You can choose from both the "publicly expressed interest" and "other potential candidates" sections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Strongest Democrats:
1) Hillary Clinton
2) Amy Klobuchar
3) Steve Bullock

Weakest Democrats:
1) Luis Gutierrez
2) Rahm Emanuel
3) George Clooney

Strongest Republicans:
1) John Kasich
2) Scott Walker
3) Rand Paul

Weakest Republicans:
1) Donald Trump
2) Sarah Palin
3) Ted Cruz

[Ljube]

Strongest D:

1) Clinton
2) Webb
3) Warren

Weakest D:

1) Sanders
2) Gore
3) Dean


Strongest R:

1) Walker
2) Christie
3) Paul

Weakest R:

1) Trump
2) Palin
3) Bolton

[dmmidmi]

Strongest Dem:

1. Hildog
.
.
.
2. Howard Dean (I guess)
3. Russ Feingold (I guess)

Weakest Dem:

1. Bernie Sanders (socialist)
2. Tammy Baldwin (the next President is not going to be a lesbian)
3. George Clooney (in the worst Batman film)

Strongest GOP:

1. Marco Rubio
2. Chris Christie
3. Rand Paul

Weakest GOP:

1. Michelle Bachmann (insane)
2. Rick Perry (a stupid version of George Bush)
3. Donald Trump (Does he count? He's quite obviously a joke candidate.)

[GLPman]

If we're limited to both the "publicly expressed interest" and "other potential candidates" sections, then here are my selections:

Strongest Dem:
1. Clinton
2. Webb
3. Warner

Weakest Dem:
1. Sanders
2. Clooney
3. Emanuel

Strongest GOP:
1. Kasich
2. Corker
3. Portman

Weakest GOP:
1. Trump
2. Palin
3. Bachmann

[henster]

Strongest Ds:

1. Kirsten Gillibrand
2. Amy Klobuchar
3. Hillary Clinton

Weakest Ds:

1. Joe Biden
2. Jim Webb
3. Elizabeth Warren

Strongest Rs:

1. John Kasich
2. Scott Walker
3. Rob Portman

Weakest Rs.

1. Ted Cruz
2. Rand Paul
3. Jeb Bush

[NewYorkExpress]

Top-Tier Democrats;

Mark Warner
Amy Klobuchar
Russ Feingold

Second Tier Democrats;
Hillary Clinton
Andrew Cuomo
Al Gore
Joe Biden

Third Tier Democrats
Luis Gutierrez
Howard Dean
Steve Bullock
Maggie Hassan
Jay Nixon
Jim Webb

Wait til 2020 Democrats

Cory Booker
Bernie Sanders
Tammy Baldwin
Martin O'Malley

Worst Possible (Realistic) Democrats;
George Clooney
William H. McRaven
Joe Manchin
Brian Schweitzer
Elizabeth Warren

Top Tier Republicans
Ted Cruz
Chris Christie
Jeb Bush
Marco Rubio
Scott Walker
Paul Ryan (If he decides he doesn't want his life-long dream)

Second Tier Republicans
Kelly Ayotte
Rand Paul
Rick Santorum
Mike Huckabee

Third Tier Republican
Carly Fiorina
Bob Corker
Rick Perry
John Kasich
Sarah Palin

Wait until 2020
Lindsey Graham
Bobby Jindal

Too objectionable
Allen West
Michelle Bachmann
Herman Cain
John Bolton
Susana Martinez
Brian Sandoval
Rob Portman

[Vega]

I'll make my list later, but LOL at a Luis Gutierrez run.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Democrats
Strongest
1. Hillary Clinton
2. Mark Warner
3. Jim Webb

Weakest
1. Rahm Emanuel
2. Tammy Baldwin
3. Joe Manchin

Republicans
Strongest
1. John Kasich
2. Rob Portman
3. Paul Ryan

Weakest
1. Ted Cruz
2. Sarah Palin
3. Michele Bachmann

[Maxwell]

Democrats -

Strongest
- Sherrod Brown
- Hillary Clinton
- Elizabeth WArren

Weakest
- Antonio Villariagosa
- Martin O'Malley
- Andrew Cuomo

Republicans -

Strongest
- Scott Walker
- John Kasich
- Rand Paul (high risk, high reward)

Weakest
- Ben Carson
- Ted Cruz
- Bobby Jindal

[The_Doctor]

I selected only candidates with a serious shot at the party's nomination. Carson, et al are joke candidates. (IMO).

Strongest Democrats

-- Joe Biden (D-Delaware)
-- Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts)
- (No third candidate)

Biden, I think, is the most dangerous candidate. I think once you stop trying to run away from the incumbent President, and you make peace with the fact that no matter what, you're going to be judged on his record, Biden becomes a far more logical candidate. Add to his assets the ability to communicate with blue collar white voters and Biden becomes a formidable Presidential nominee. Joe Biden's candidacy, if he were to ever become the nominee, is a candidacy I would have the greatest concern over. He's tied to Obama, but all of the candidates will be hitched in the voters' minds. From there on, Joe Biden would be the articulate "authentic" candidate who could "Biden explain" to America the benefits of a third Democratic Presidency. Biden has few financial assets, took the Amtrak train as a Delaware Senator, and has cultivated and promoted an image of everyday Joe. "Oh there Joe goes again" is the perfect expression of how Biden has become approachable, likable, and most of all, electable.

Warren, I feel, would lose - but would still make an extremely compelling populist case that could either push the race closer or cause a blowout for the Republican candidate. Warren's economic populism could make her a very attractive candidate in energizing Democratic turnout. I can see significant enthusiasm for the set of issues Warren has pushed - student loan interest rates, taking on the banks, and creating a fair shake for the average worker. I disagree with her as a Republican, but this message is probably the strongest of the pack. Biden could also articulate this message capably. The downside to Warren is that she's got few connections to minority voters, and is inexperienced with a national campaign. She still looks young enough and projects a youthful image to make a competent national campaign.

I feel Hillary Clinton is among the worst possible candidates the Democratic Party could field. She's a dynastic figure, the wife of a economically neoliberal Democratic President, is 67, and is probably the worst messenger of economic populism that the Democrats should make to retain the White House. Unlike Biden or Warren, she has no natural niche in the field of economic populism. Her ties to Wall Street and Goldman Sachs (she was, of all things, New York's Senator, and New York's Senators, regardless of party, have always been extremely cozy with the financial sector) also weaken her in making an appeal to the Democratic base to vote for her. She can't credibly make Warren's pitch and her explicit status as a member of the elite is a strong disadvantage in a year where voters are struggling to make ends. I can't just see Hillary Clinton making the case to elect her. I'm the most bullish on Republicans winning a race against Clinton for these reasons.

Bill Clinton could say "I feel your pain." Hillary Clinton, at this point, cannot. Despite her tears in New Hampshire, and attempting an economically populist message in the closing days of the 2008 Democratic primaries, she still lost. We can't just write off that loss to the President's political organization. She's a fundamentally flawed candidate.

One of the Castro brothers, if they ever make statewide office, will be probably a future Democratic President. But since they haven't made the big statewide jump in Texas, I'm not putting them on here.  

Weakest Democrats

-- Hillary Clinton (D-New York)
-- Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)
-- Andrew Cuomo (D-New York)
-- Martin O'Malley (D-Maryland)

Bernie Sanders is way too old, and has the dreaded socialist label around his neck. He'd get traction, but nothing serious. Cuomo has the ties to the financial sector and the disloyalty to the New York Democratic Party that make him such an unattractive candidate to energize the Democratic base. I've discussed Hillary Clinton already.

I put a fourth name on here, Martin O'Malley (D-Maryland). The thing is, when your deep blue home state elects a Republican governor in direct response to your second term, that really signals your competence and quality as a candidate. The number of regressive taxes on the middle and working class (including the now infamous "rain tax") would doom O'Malley in a general election. This is a guy who tried to stake out a liberal agenda in a second term to appeal to Democratic primary voters and overreached - and saw a Republican elected as Governor. Put it this way. Thanks to his actions, he is one of two Maryland Democratic Governors who have been preceded and succeeded by a Republican. (The other being J. Millard Tawes, during the late 1950s).

Strongest Republicans

-- Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
-- Chris Christie (R-New Jersey)
-- Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin)

Rand Paul is probably the strongest Republican for the Presidency. His actions on courting minority voters, libertarian views on the NSA, and critique of the war on drugs make him a formidable General election nominee. One might point to his civil rights flub in 2010, and his father's beliefs (plus the Paul publications) but it's hard to say that Rand Paul would not appeal to certain segments of the Obama coalition that would be interested in voting for a Republican. States I can think of Paul carrying are Colorado and New Hampshire - both states have libertarian presences. He is pro-life, and all the rest, which would please the Republican base. I think that his actions in seizing the center and making it part of a libertarian brand makes him the best Republican candidate in the general election. Downsides: he is a bit of a radical libertarian at times, and he has not expressed support for Israel as strongly as the other candidates have, which could alienate Jewish voters in Florida. But in the broad picture, Paul represents enough of a break with Republican orthodoxy of the past to make a credible case to voters.

Chris Christie, as much as I dislike him, is an example of a Northeastern Governor who has demonstrated an ability to make inroads with a Democratic electorate. He, more than any other Republican running, understands the frustration of blue state voters with their Democratic governments. That (I think) pushed his investment in Larry Hogan in Maryland, and he has an instinct for appealing to these voters. That makes him a competent nominee, assuming that nothing links him to BridgeGate. He would probably energize the Republican electorate, who would be willing to forgive apostasies over 2012, the Medicaid expansion, and other moderate stances he's staked out, if he were the nominee. The GOP is hungry for a victory and Christie could deliver it.

Scott Walker is a governor who knows how to carry Wisconsin. Give him credit, and I put him on this list, because I don't think Rick Snyder is interested (or else Snyder would be on this list). Walker has demonstrated Midwestern appeal and cachet, and has taken on unions in here, rejuvenating the national right to work movement. For these reasons alone - he should be on the best list of Republican candidates for the Presidency.

Weakest Republicans

-- Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
-- Rick Perry (R-Texas)
-- Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana)  

Ted Cruz is a polarizing radical who can be directly blamed for the government shutdown of 2013 that hurt Republicans dearly. He has alienated leading Republicans and would be a poor candidate in the general election. His radicalism is exactly the brush Democrats want to paint Republicans with and could do so capably. It's the kind of perfect storm that Democrats should hope for in the GOP primary; someone like him being nominated.

Rick Perry is Governor "Oops" who had his chance in 2012.

Bobby Jindal is running on the old Bush social conservative playbook, with a little dash of talking up flat taxes or tax reform. Unlike Paul, he doesn't seem to have demonstrated that he can expand the Republican coalition, and he's uninterested in doing anything but rerunning old playbooks.  

[solarstorm]

Strongest:

1.) Hillary
2.) Schweitzer
3.) Manchin

Weakest:

1.) Cuomo
2.) O'Malley
3.) Warner
Strongest:

1.) Bush
2.) Christie
3.) Sandoval

Weakest:

1.) Palin
2.) Cruz
3.) Perry

[Mr. Smith]

Strongest GOP: Rand Paul (KY), Chris Christie (NJ), John Kasich (OH)

Weakest GOP: Jeb Bush (FL), Ted Cruz (TX), Ben Carson (MD)

Strongest Dems:Hillary Clinton (NY), Brian Schweitzer (MT), Mark Warner (VA)

Weakest Dems: Jim Webb (VA), Howard Dean (VT), Andrew Cuomo (NY)

[MurrayBannerman]

I actually think Cuomo is a strong national candidate.

[Rooney]

The Democrats only have one strong national candidate and that is Hillary Clinton. The Republicans only have one strong national candidate and that is Jeb Bush.

Republicans Scott Walker, Rand Paul and Chris Christie may well evolve into strong national candidates but given the GOPs views on the Darwinian theory I highly doubt it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

2. Rick Perry (a stupid version of George Bush)

Are you implying there ever was a "smart" version?

[Rockefeller GOP]

2. Rick Perry (a stupid version of George Bush)

Are you implying there ever was a "smart" version?

I think most who aren't blinded by hatred would acknowledge Bush wasn't "stupid" but rather extremely adept at playing up his cowboy image.

[IceSpear]

I actually think Cuomo is a strong national candidate.

Why do you think that? You could argue the base would hold their nose and turn out for him anyway (similar to the GOP with Romney), but what about him would appeal to independents or Republicans? Based on his 2014 result, he's lost any semblance of crossover appeal. He has corruption allegations against him. People who would be naturally attracted to his fiscal conservatism would still be turned off by the fact that he's a "gun grabber" and pro-choice/pro-gay marriage. And even if the base still turned out for him, there'd be barely any enthusiasm for him, which could make an impact.

[exopolitician]

Strongest Dems:
Clinton
Warren
Webb

Weakest Dems:
Sanders
O'Malley
Dean

Strongest Republicans:
Bush
Walker
Kasich

Weakest Republicans:
Cruz
Paul
Jindal

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Strongest D

1. Warren

Weakest D
1. Cuomo
2. Emanuel
3. Clooney

Strongest R
1. Walker
2. Bush
3. Kasich

Weakest R
1. Cruz
2. Perry

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Establishment frontrunners now are Hillary and Walker

I would then list in the order shown above

Webb
Martin OMalley
Cuomo


Jeb and then Huckabee for G O P

[Bull Moose Base]

I think there's much less range in the strength of nominees than people here think. I bet, for example, Clinton would get a very similar vote share as Warren, and Bush would get a similar share as Walker. As the country becomes more politically segregated, it's a shrinking % each cycle that is up for grabs. That doesn't mean it can't make any difference- a very close race, or a disastrous nominee (though they almost never make it to the general).

[President Johnson]

Strongrest DEM:

1.) Hillary Clinton
2.) Howard Dean
3.) Joe Biden

Weakest DEM:

1.) Bernie Sanders (too left)
2.) George Clooney (fine actor, but no polictical experience)
3.) Andrew Cuomo (not that popular in NY, corruption charges)

Strongest GOP:

1.) Chris Cristie (by far; he's a charismatic guy, who gets bipatisan work done)
2.) Jeb Bush
3.) John Kasich

Weakest GOP:

1.) Ted Cruz
2.) Rick Perry
3.) Michelle Bachman
all three a kind of a joke. However, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum would also be weak candidates.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Strongest Dem:

Clinton (I don't understand, but she's popular for some reason)
Webb (Strong potential, popular among progressives)
Schweitzer (High-risk/High-reward, could unite moderates and progressives along with taking away votes from the GOP)

Weakest Dem:

Sanders (openly Socialist, let's be realistic)
Cuomo (Corrupt, very unpopular, Republican turnout would hit record levels)
de Blasio (too far left, inexperienced)

Strongest GOP:

Paul (Foreign policy and civil liberties, represents new ideas in a party regarded by many as stale)
Walker (Conservative governor of blue state)
Kasich (popular governor in swing state)

Weakest GOP:

Bolton (Obsessed with hawkish foreign policy)
Graham (See above)
Cruz (will have a hard time reaching out to moderates)

[dmmidmi]

2. Rick Perry (a stupid version of George Bush)

Are you implying there ever was a "smart" version?

No, and that's what makes this funny.

[Bull Moose Base]

I think Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, Warren or Sherrod Brown are a bit stronger than Clinton whose polling is inflated by name rec and whose wealth, record and background create some problems for her.