Clinton looks like being the Dem nominee, but it's way too early in the cycle to say she absolutely will be. She has a popularity problem to overcome, and there's a sizable ABH contingent within the Democratic Party. She's stunning for her almost complete lack of charisma, her ability to make any displays of empathy or emotion look fake, her enthusiastic embrace of clearly flawed establishment positions on every issue, and a resume that looks like a set of check boxes rather than useful experience.
I can more confidently say I think Sanders is toast, and I don't see Warren as terribly likely either. Sanders is too much of a Ron Paul candidate to do anything but make a lot of noise. Warren has future potential, but she would have had to start "campaigning" four years ago. She's shown herself to be "tough on bad things", but not really anything else.
On the Republican side:
- Again, too early to completely rule out Trump but I'm finding it ridiculously unlikely he'll get the nomination. That view might change if he actually polls well in any early primaries.
- I honestly can't tell about the others. Well, I think the Republicans are unlikely to nominate the religious or ideological extremists (who are mostly positioning themselves for future jobs on Fox anyway), so that leaves - of the ones Fox is picking for their main debates - Bush, Christie, Kasich, Rubio, and Walker. It's tempting to find reasons to disqualify each. Bush is an establishment figure loathed by the grassroots... like Romney (2012). Christie is a populist pseudo-centrist loathed by the grassroots... like McCain (2008). Walker and Kasich are merely known as right wing governors at this point, like numerous former nominees. And Rubio is treading a relatively untrodden path and is fairly popular.
So, TL;DR, I just think it's too early to assume anything. Clinton may win, but if she does, she'll be our McCain (2008) candidate, and we might just lose as a result.