Who would be the worst candidates that the two major parties can nominate?

[SWE]

Cuomo and Romney.

[Boston Bread]

Cuomo: what's the point of going centrist if you can't appeal to independents outside New York?
Cruz: Not the worst option electorally, believe it or not (Palin is), but it would take the GOP in a dangerous direction. I would rather have a GOP that's reasonable but competitive than a GOP that would blow everything up upon the slightest touch of power federally.
Palin, Cain, Carson: Would self-destruct spectacularly. Sadly it would happen in the primary and not the general if they ran.

[Suburbia]

Cuomo: what's the point of going centrist if you can't appeal to independents outside New York?
Cruz: Not the worst option electorally, believe or not (Palin is), but it would take the GOP in a dangerous direction. I would rather have a GOP that's reasonable but competitive than a GOP that would blow everything up upon the slightest touch of power federally.
Palin, Cain, Carson: Would self-destruct spectacularly. Sadly it would happen in the primary and not the general if they ran.

That's true. I think Cuomo may be too corrupt to win.

[Lincoln Republican]

There are so many terrible candidates to choose from for both parties it's hard to choose, but

Republicans

Santorum
Palin

Democrats

Cuomo
Dean

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A lot of people here are falling into the "mo' moderate is mo' electable" trap. In reality, "extreme" candidates like Cruz and Sanders aren't necessarily dead in the water because of their ideology; and moderates like Huntsman or Manchin aren't going to be party Messiahs. Sanders/Cruz would certainly do better than a particularly gloopy centrist, or some kind of Bloomberg-esque weirdo.

Worst candidate for the Republicans? Apart from joke candidates like Peter King; I'd say Romney 3.0 and Santorum. (Santorum's schtick, social conservatism mixed with a friendly big government, was rather dated even in 2012) Condi Rice would also be a terribad candidate, but it's not like she's going to run anyway, so who cares?

For the Democrats, any urban, white, north-east, dull male stands off in a disadvantaged position. This is mainly targeted at O'Malley and Cuomo. More idiosyncratic Democrats, like Schweitzer or Sanders, are in a tight bind - things could go well, but alternatively they could fall completely off the rails. Not that it matters, because the Clintbot will steamroll them in the primary anyway.

[Mister Mets]

Certain candidates are high-risk high-reward. So it's not that they're guaranteed to be bad, but that they could really screw up. The counterargument is that anyone who wins a nomination has a certain level of political talent, and a lot of consultants keeping them from major screw-ups.

Republicans would get trounced if they nominate a theocratic Mike Huckabee who talks to all crowds as if they're evangelicals, or a Rand Paul who forgets about message discipline the moment he wins the primary.

Elizabeth Warren might have difficulties communicating with the center, as an academic/ liberal fave elected in Massachusetts. Or she might come across as a grandmother who understands politics. Deval Patrick (unlikely to run) might also wear poorly outside the state/ legal circles. Or he might come across as a respectable prosecutor Governor.

[H. Ross Peron]

Cruz vs. Cuomo. I'd probably write-in Hubert Humphrey on my ballot,