I don't recall ever having so many presidential candidates to choose from, yet so few actually worthy of our consideration. Most seem more interested in padding their personal wealth by cozying up to billionaires than to actually lead the country anywhere. I have no interest in electing another member of the two royal families, Clinton nor Bush. Having actually been in rivalry between Tektronix and HP in the '80's and '90's, it is sad to see both as only shells of the tech leaders they used to be. Fiorina bears responsibility for her part in HP's demise while she was at the helm. I frankly think she played so well in the last debate only due to Trump's bullying insults. Maybe she should thank him for opening that door.
Most Republican candidates come across as rich guys, or owned by even richer guys, and uncaring about the poor or aging. Hillary seems bought by similar wealth, but somewhat from a different part of the political spectrum, though not all. Most have financial/career ties to Wall Street, and it is unbecoming.
Sanders and Carson seem to be the exceptions. I find myself disagreeing with Sanders on many issues, though agreeing also on many. We agree on single payer health care, as the largest inpact on reducing healthcare costs is to cut out the insurance companies' bureaucracy out of the equation. Oddly, it may be the Republican's best way out of Obamacare. I also agree on breaking up the big banks, and campaign finace reform, to get the rich super-PACs out of the elections. They can't buy my vote or my country. My biggest issue with Carson is that he frequently talks before he thinks, unnecessarily offending many whose votes he needs for election. Maybe that is because he's not a polished politician (or former CEO like Fiorina), but it may inhibit his electability or ability to lead our diverse nation.
It will be fun to see it all play out, but maybe less so without Jon Stewart poking fun at them all.