Is anyone else dissatisfied with ALL the candidates?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

To a large extent yes.  I doubt anybody running for president will be as good of a president as Obama has been.

Clinton has my vote, but she has weaknesses that make her far from my ideal candidate.  While I agree with Sanders on many issues, his strategy of hoping for a political revolution to push his agenda through is too divorced from reality, not to mention he wouldn't run a good general election campaign.

Yes, but looking at America's history, Obama has been an abnormally good POTUS. Definitely the best President since at least Truman, maybe better than him (people look back at old Harry with tinted goggles). America will be lucky to find a president as remotely competent as Obama within our lifetimes.

[SillyAmerican]

Try to look at Hillary Clinton objectively.  If you strip away the anti-Clinton lies, which were just generated because he was a popular Democratic President, she's not corrupt at all.  The Clinton derangement syndrome in the 1990s isn't much different from the Obama derangement syndrome, Benghazi!!!1, etc.  Hillary Clinton is basically just an extremely competent, intelligent, pragmatic liberal Democrat. 

So the fact that over 60% of the electorate feels she's a liar, does that particular qualification fall under competent, intelligent, or pragmatic? Just kinda curious...

[Reaganfan]

To some extent. I'm not looking for Reagan in the way many Republicans do. I understand Reagan held some "moderate" views, and that he and Tip compromised. Anyone who knows anything about recent American history knows that if we went to a time machine to November 16, 1982 and went to a bar and brought up Reagan, you'd probably find alot of negative things said about him. It really wasn't a great first two years and compromises were made with Congress. This idea of not working with Congress at all or making any compromise is a bit childish.

I'm looking for Reagan in the sense of the old school "shining city on a hill" type of attitude. I don't get that vibe from anyone except Marco Rubio, to be honest. That's why he's my candidate as of today.

[exopolitician]

Yes, they are all pretty bad. This is the first time I might vote Third Party.

[Intell]

To a large extent yes.  I doubt anybody running for president will be as good of a president as Obama has been.

Clinton has my vote, but she has weaknesses that make her far from my ideal candidate.  While I agree with Sanders on many issues, his strategy of hoping for a political revolution to push his agenda through is too divorced from reality, not to mention he wouldn't run a good general election campaign.

You have got to be kidding me on Obama being a good President? I guess being dishonest, abusing power, prolonging a recession and cutting deals with outlaw regimes is your definition of a "good President" but it sure as heck isn't mine.

Abusing Power, what. Prolonging the recession, compare America to the rest of Europe please. Stimulus works so much better than austerity, or just  tax cuts. Iran is a outlaw regime, Nixon went to china please and china was a million times worse than the Iran of today and you know we need to work with other countries and this gives us a relationship with Iran and provides a more stable middle east.

[Eraserhead]

I like Sanders quite a bit but he is very much flawed as a candidate obviously. Trump is greatly entertaining.

The rest of them deserve to be flushed down the toilet.

[Mercenary]

None are good, so yes I am disappointed. But still some like Paul and Kasich are less bad when you ignore their awful campaigns and focus just on the issues. I wish elections were abiut issues more than campaign populatity contests. Not sure why the ability to get good one liners in a debate is somehow a way to dominate an election.

I cannot expect a 100%.or hhecl even a 70% match though since candidates seem so locked into boxes. Why does one have to define themselves as conservative or liberal and then be that way on all issues instead of just having the positions they think are best on each individual issue? Give me some pro environement anyi war economic moderate republicans or some pro-life pro localist government democrats and I would be much more satisifed with my chioices. It would be nice to have a real choice because ultimately the people.in either party are basically 90% the same as each other.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Before Walker turned into a complete disaster he would have been the one I was most satisfied with, even if he wasn't my first choice.

[I support Sanders]

Maybe Obama spoiled us, but honestly....At this point, I'm not feeling any of the candidates on any side. You have a pack of lunatics on one side, and a pack of boring idiots on the other. They all have mentioned Eisenhower in their debates, but I don't see a candidate of Eisenhower or even Obama's caliber among them. You've got:

-An utterly corrupt, tired old political dinosaur
-A goofy old Socialist who only talks about one issue
-A psychopath with a bad toupee who only talks about one issue
-A hobgoblin Joe McCarthy look-a-like who wants to take America back a hundred years or so
-A junior Senator who thinks he's the Cuban JFK....With none of Kennedy's charm or intellect
-A milquetoast former governor who no one cares about
-A brain surgeon who is a loonytune who is probably on heavy drugs
-A vicious, shrill, job shredding harpie
-A 1990s Republican no one cares about
-A boring, borderline mentally challenged Shrub

Where's the Obama of 2016? Where's the stand-out, exciting candidate who has good ideas and a good presentation to along with it? This election is both a joke and actually pretty depressing.

 

Are these supposed to be attacks? Who is the mentally challenged shrub.

[I support Sanders]

Maybe Obama spoiled us, but honestly....At this point, I'm not feeling any of the candidates on any side. You have a pack of lunatics on one side, and a pack of boring idiots on the other. They all have mentioned Eisenhower in their debates, but I don't see a candidate of Eisenhower or even Obama's caliber among them. You've got:

-An utterly corrupt, tired old political dinosaur
-A goofy old Socialist who only talks about one issue
-A psychopath with a bad toupee who only talks about one issue
-A hobgoblin Joe McCarthy look-a-like who wants to take America back a hundred years or so
-A junior Senator who thinks he's the Cuban JFK....With none of Kennedy's charm or intellect
-A milquetoast former governor who no one cares about
-A brain surgeon who is a loonytune who is probably on heavy drugs
-A vicious, shrill, job shredding harpie
-A 1990s Republican no one cares about
-A boring, borderline mentally challenged Shrub

Where's the Obama of 2016? Where's the stand-out, exciting candidate who has good ideas and a good presentation to along with it? This election is both a joke and actually pretty depressing.

 

Are these supposed to be attacks? "Goofy old socialist" must be the most substantive attack I've heard in my life. To answer your question, there aplenty of good candidates on both sides.

Democratic: Sanders, O'Malley, Chafee, and Webb are all good candidates.
Republican: Kasich, Pataki, Graham, Gilmore, and Trump are all good candidates.

[Torie]

Yep.

[Blair]

To a large extent yes.  I doubt anybody running for president will be as good of a president as Obama has been.

Clinton has my vote, but she has weaknesses that make her far from my ideal candidate.  While I agree with Sanders on many issues, his strategy of hoping for a political revolution to push his agenda through is too divorced from reality, not to mention he wouldn't run a good general election campaign.

You have got to be kidding me on Obama being a good President? I guess being dishonest, abusing power, prolonging a recession and cutting deals with outlaw regimes is your definition of a "good President" but it sure as heck isn't mine.

You seem confused, you're talking about George Bush