Hillary Clinton seems more "exposed" and experienced than the rest. Bernie Sanders seems people-friendly but the overseas community is another issue. I don't think Mr Sanders can last the backbreaking kick and mentally-gruelling grind. Donald Trump is dangerous in the sense that he tends to be stupidly careless, mouth-wise. I don't want to judge his capability to lead but leadership also concerns the ability to control what comes out of one's/his mouth especially that we are crossing cultural sensibilities and sensitivities. If it matters at all, the coming of women leaders in other countries may also prove useful and relevant to Hillary's ascent to power.
Meanwhile, as per current surveys, Trump leads the GOP pack while it's a close fight between Sanders and Hillary on the other side. Why do I call this race “worst” as per people's choice, for the moment? The polar extremes (and the stacked-up probables on the Republican side against the Dems' two-person tilt). Trump followers project what the world fears about America—supremacist, brinkmanship arrogance, anti-minority/immigrant etc. The Bernie side conjures a socialist idealism that while it is populist and what could be the best answer to America's present-day woes, it is also quixotic in the sense that the 1 Percent that controls America and the West is sure to object. Whoever the Gods of Profit chooses wins in the White House—and that is the Great American Interest, whether we adhere to that or not. Although such installation of power isn't that “blatant.” The Masters of the Universe is closely watching who their choice is but they are strategizing, watching closely—as ever. But the 1 Percent isn't budging, historically, in regards foreign policy...
Hint: The US (and China) are two of the world's largest drinkers of oil—and when I say China, think US/West-controlled factories. Socialism doesn't work for the Koch Brothers and AC Morgan Chase, I reckon—and how'd The D sit with the Muslim-controlled OPEC, insult them?
Hillary's anti-this and pro-that stance, what political pundits call “polarizing” persona, could spell difference though, aside from the fact that she has the personality and experience to strike deals with China and Russia, India and Brazil, and the European Union. The US as a world power exists because the rest of the world believe so—and since many peoples of the world have elevated woman power up there, Hillary could be a more effective charisma than an aging Bernie and a rude Trump.
Moreover, Sanders can be the true voice of the people. But would the people vote for him? And would the 1 Percent install a leader who voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China, saying that they have resulted in American corporations moving abroad. He is also against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which he says was "written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street." True, very true. But would that belief and position work out?
Meantime, Hillary continues to do well in Gallup's most admired man and woman poll and in 2015 she was named the most admired woman by Americans for a record fourteenth straight time and twentieth time overall. Her favorability ratings dropped, however, after she left office and began to be viewed in the context of partisan politics again. What would that say? If Hillary kind of distances herself from party-politics and project herself as the true independent voice, she may just win it.
Trump? I got nothing to say because there's nothing to say.