Mitt³ or Bush³

This is the tantalizing choice that will face Republicans in 2016. The Republican party insiders have already decided these are the only two candidates acceptable to them. I note this will save the GOP a lot of money as either candidate can run on "Because The Third Time's The Charm." So no matter which candidate secures the nomination they can both use the same campaign signs.

Don't forget Clinton 4

That would be Clinton 2 and which is it for you triple looser Mitt or do you think Bush number 3 is the best Bush yet?

We've had enough of the Bushes and Clintons. Its time for new blood.

the last election, I was hoping Mitt and Ann could restore some class to the white house.

From a legislative perspective there is not going to be much difference between any candidate of any party that gets elected. So most of their campaign platform is just going to be .... well.... bullshit. The mathematics of 2016 pretty much guarantee Democrats will regain the Senate while Republicans will maintain the House.

The big difference will be regarding Supreme Court nominees which might see as many as 3 positions opening. Perhaps foreign policy would take a very different turn if someone like Rand Paul were to be elected. I would actually embrace his foreign policy probably more than any of the mainstream candidates - and that's about all I would embrace from Rand Paul.

"The mathematics of 2016 pretty much guarantee Democrats will regain the Senate while Republicans will maintain the House. "

PJ is reading the democratic press releases again.

In order to win the Senate the democrats have to win in Illinois, New Hampshire, Penn and Wisconsin. Penn & Wisconsin are not sure things.

They will also have to flip N. Carolina and Florida, even less of a sure thing.

And they will have to hold onto Nevada and Colorado

keep dreaming, Hoops.

SENATORS UP FOR RE-ELECTION IN 2016

DEMOCRATS

Michael Bennet (Colorado)
Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut)
Barbara Boxer (California) retiring in 2016
Patrick Leahy (Vermont)
Barbara Mikulski (Maryland)
Patty Murray (Washington)
Harry Reid (Nevada)
Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
Charles Schumer (New York)
Ron Wyden (Oregon)



REPUBLICANS

Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
John Boozman (Arkansas)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Dan Coats (Indiana)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
John Hoeven (North Dakota)
Johnny Isakson (Georgia)
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
James Lankford (Oklahoma)
Mike Lee (Utah)
John McCain (Arizona)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Marco Rubio (Florida)
Tim Scott (South Carolina)
Richard Shelby (Alabama)
John Thune (South Dakota)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)
David Vitter (Louisiana)

Which of those Republican Senators are vulnerable?

Probably the ones in blue or purple states? What-da-ya-think? And, of course, there's always the potential for a mental-patient to win a primary to unseat a Republican which would put even more seats in play. I like to call it the "Sharon Angle" factor.

Kelly Ayotte (New Hampshire)
Roy Blunt (Missouri)
Richard Burr (North Carolina)
Dan Coats (Indiana)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
John Hoeven (North Dakota)
Ron Johnson (Wisconsin)
Mark Kirk (Illinois)
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Rand Paul (Kentucky)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Marco Rubio (Florida)
Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania)