The Next President?
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
Muttley
At the Start
Ahem. I think the cameraman was pissed ..
E
Etta Place
Guest
Yes and the outfit doesn't do a lot for her either....but seriously, I would love to see her elected. Whatever her short comings may turn out to be, she can't be any worse than some past presidents have been. I just wonder if she will have problems winning over the more conservative male voters? But go Hilary, and with Bill in the back ground, I think it could be one of the best presidencies ever. (This of course from someone who has no vote or direct say in the matter!)
E
Etta Place
Guest
That's going to be a toughy - maybe work towards being free...might have been better phrasing? It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if most, if not all major oil companies have some kind of alternative they believe they will be able to produce when the oil begins to run out already.
After a poor leader, voters often go for polar opposites
Hard to imagine a bigger opposite to Bush than Hilary...shes smart, hard working, liberal and articulate. he is...
I think she could be a great president. The assumed mysogyny of some of the voters is widely exaggerated (if Turkey can elect a woma president...) and i think she will make it..
Hard to imagine a bigger opposite to Bush than Hilary...shes smart, hard working, liberal and articulate. he is...
I think she could be a great president. The assumed mysogyny of some of the voters is widely exaggerated (if Turkey can elect a woma president...) and i think she will make it..
As I've said before she's just about the most devisive person in American politics, and where as she's undoubtedly got a hard core of supporters, they aren't in the necessary States. I can't think that she'll carry the South to be honest, and when the Democrats realise that they'll go for John Edwards. Basically, for the Democrats to win, they'll need to win Florida. Now Hillary wouldn't be without a chance there, but she's got skeletons galore in that locker of hers. I'd have thought she's got a chance in Arkansas, but ultimately Edwards has stronger claims in places like the Carolina's and New Mexico, and I'd have thought he was stronger than her in Florida too.
New York Senators have a lousy record of running for the top office, as the Big Apple is not universally liked across the country. A lot might very well depend on who looks likely to be the Republican candidate. Much as though I think Rudy would be pure theatre, I suspect they'll go for McCain. I'd expect Hillary to struggle more against McCain than she would Guiliani in honesty, and converesly expect that Rudy would do better against Edwards.
I seriously wouldn't rule out her being VP to Edwards though, and that being the case she might end up as President yet. There's a whole list of people close to Hillary politically, who how can we say this, meet mysterious ends
h34r: The guy who was killed in plane crash, yet whose body was recovered with a bullet hole in his head is my favourite one :brows:
My advice would be to take the 14's about Edwards with Paddy Power. Until recently (I haven't checked yet and would be amazed if the price was right - Oddschecker) but VC Bet had/ have a Republican candidate at 150/1 who was/ is about 2.95 on Betfair to win their nomination. I duly rang them, but they wouldn't give me a price, and was told to ring back etc I never did, as I'd be pretty certain the 150 wasn't available.
New York Senators have a lousy record of running for the top office, as the Big Apple is not universally liked across the country. A lot might very well depend on who looks likely to be the Republican candidate. Much as though I think Rudy would be pure theatre, I suspect they'll go for McCain. I'd expect Hillary to struggle more against McCain than she would Guiliani in honesty, and converesly expect that Rudy would do better against Edwards.
I seriously wouldn't rule out her being VP to Edwards though, and that being the case she might end up as President yet. There's a whole list of people close to Hillary politically, who how can we say this, meet mysterious ends
h34r: The guy who was killed in plane crash, yet whose body was recovered with a bullet hole in his head is my favourite one :brows:My advice would be to take the 14's about Edwards with Paddy Power. Until recently (I haven't checked yet and would be amazed if the price was right - Oddschecker) but VC Bet had/ have a Republican candidate at 150/1 who was/ is about 2.95 on Betfair to win their nomination. I duly rang them, but they wouldn't give me a price, and was told to ring back etc I never did, as I'd be pretty certain the 150 wasn't available.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
What are your fellings about Obama? Word is he`s the likely VP candidate if Edwards gets the nomination.
No great insight beyond the obvious I'm afraid Euro. If Hillary's going to struggle to make gains in the South, then Obama's got no chance. Shifting demographics have also ensured that the composition of the college is changing, and this is making the Southern states even more critical.
I did speak to my man at the UN recently about Obama and the feeling is that he lacks experience at this stage. America will elect a female before it elects a black I'm afraid, and with the demographics shifting as they are, I'm not sure I can ever see it happening.
Hillary is also very popular amongst blacks, though in truth their vote isn't the factor that it might have been once upon a time. The battleground is increasingly falling on the Hispanic vote, and I'd expect Obama to be stronger here than Hillary. Another myth about Hillary concerns the female vote. She holds an advantage but its nothing like as big as the British media like us to think, and there are as many women who frankly loath her, as worhsip her. Don't forget that when America voted in one of these stupid polls to uncover the "most evil person of millenium" Hillary Clinton came 6th (higher than Saddam) :lol:
Obama as a VP would be interesting, but again I can't see it happening. Convention dictates that if your candidates a Northerner, then you take a Southerner as your running mate. It's the principal reason Kennedy took Johnson on the ticket, when Adali Stevenson or Hubert Humphrey would have had better claims on merit. That would mean Obama being an Edwards choice I'd have thought (which having just back read your post, is what you were hypothesising - pay attention Warbler). Clinton would be taking one hell of a chance, if she were to nominate Obama, and might just as well abandon the South and the Mid West, with the possible exception of New Mexico and Arkansas if she were to win. To a large extent, the black vote can be relied on, (provided you can get it out) and so the cynical numbers might dictate that there's greater utility in trying to find someone who can make inroads in the South, or the Hispanics (preferably both). Of the heavyweights, Edwards is your best chance, and he was widely perceived to have had a good campaign LTO, and his foresnically legal mind frequently appeared better than Dick Cheney's. In fact things got so bad that Democrat strategists had to under use him towards the end as he was eclipsing John Kerry.
I can foresee Edwards taking Obama, as he'll need someone to consolidate the Northern states for him, and thus release himself to work the South. Hillary would be a risk, and carries as much danger to the candidate as she does the opposition, as she'll inevitably draw attention her way. Personally, I wouldn't trust her and that's not just based on Ron Brown, Danny Casolaro, Vince Foster or Mary Mahoney et al.
I note incidentally that Paddy Power have cut Edwards into 7's now. My God I only had £50 on him :lol: . If VC Bet are offering 150 about George Allen though, can you put me a tenner on please Shadz
I did speak to my man at the UN recently
about Obama and the feeling is that he lacks experience at this stage. America will elect a female before it elects a black I'm afraid, and with the demographics shifting as they are, I'm not sure I can ever see it happening. Hillary is also very popular amongst blacks, though in truth their vote isn't the factor that it might have been once upon a time. The battleground is increasingly falling on the Hispanic vote, and I'd expect Obama to be stronger here than Hillary. Another myth about Hillary concerns the female vote. She holds an advantage but its nothing like as big as the British media like us to think, and there are as many women who frankly loath her, as worhsip her. Don't forget that when America voted in one of these stupid polls to uncover the "most evil person of millenium" Hillary Clinton came 6th (higher than Saddam) :lol:
Obama as a VP would be interesting, but again I can't see it happening. Convention dictates that if your candidates a Northerner, then you take a Southerner as your running mate. It's the principal reason Kennedy took Johnson on the ticket, when Adali Stevenson or Hubert Humphrey would have had better claims on merit. That would mean Obama being an Edwards choice I'd have thought (which having just back read your post, is what you were hypothesising - pay attention Warbler). Clinton would be taking one hell of a chance, if she were to nominate Obama, and might just as well abandon the South and the Mid West, with the possible exception of New Mexico and Arkansas if she were to win. To a large extent, the black vote can be relied on, (provided you can get it out) and so the cynical numbers might dictate that there's greater utility in trying to find someone who can make inroads in the South, or the Hispanics (preferably both). Of the heavyweights, Edwards is your best chance, and he was widely perceived to have had a good campaign LTO, and his foresnically legal mind frequently appeared better than Dick Cheney's. In fact things got so bad that Democrat strategists had to under use him towards the end as he was eclipsing John Kerry.
I can foresee Edwards taking Obama, as he'll need someone to consolidate the Northern states for him, and thus release himself to work the South. Hillary would be a risk, and carries as much danger to the candidate as she does the opposition, as she'll inevitably draw attention her way. Personally, I wouldn't trust her and that's not just based on Ron Brown, Danny Casolaro, Vince Foster or Mary Mahoney et al.
I note incidentally that Paddy Power have cut Edwards into 7's now. My God I only had £50 on him :lol: . If VC Bet are offering 150 about George Allen though, can you put me a tenner on please Shadz
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
The Democrats are a lock, unless they nominate a woman or a negro as far as i can see.
I don`t know what percentage of the population in the red states are black, but i`d have thought nowadays with drives to get most of them to register and vote that the Republican`s big advantage there was a thing of the past.
I don`t know what percentage of the population in the red states are black, but i`d have thought nowadays with drives to get most of them to register and vote that the Republican`s big advantage there was a thing of the past.
I must admit, I always find it a little difficult to adjust to the reversing of the political colours in the States!!!
To be honest, I don't understand the books that we're currently showing for the race. I can only assume they've been priced up by people who aren't necessarily really locked into American politics?
You've essentially got 225 years of form to work on, and any stats backers will quickly strike a line through both Obama and Clinton, despite them heading the Democrat books. The 14/1 that was available about Edwards a few weeks back was a silly price therefore. You could point to the likes of Rice, Powell and Albright in recent years, but this misses a very critical point. All 3 were appointed. Only Geraldine Ferraro has ever stood on a ticket in over 2 centuries, and she was widely trounced, though in fairness much of that was due to Walter Mondale. She tried standing a couple times for Mayor of New York I seem to think, but couldn't even get the Democrat nomination, despite being a stronger candidate then someone like Ruth Messenger, who Rudy Guiliani did a right number on. God if that was a boxing match the ref would have stopped the fight.
The Republican nomination will be interesting though. McCain is almost evens, and he's one of the few who doesn't necessarily carry Iraq baggage. His reputation has been built on integrity and committee diligence, but over the duration of a long campaign, I'd expect the sharp, younger and more televisual Edwards to beat him. In many respects his candidacy looks a little bit like Nixons, having been up for the nomination and failed previously, (though in fairness Nixon did run for the Oval office, McCain's not got that far yet) so what I'm trying to say is that he's a candidate by default to soem extent. If the Republicans come to the conclusion that they're going to lose, then there is something dispendable about McCain. Equally though, Rudy might be viewed the same, and since he is pure evil (something of the JR Ewing about him :lol: ) he's more likely to land a few blows in going down. Personally, I don't doubt there is any standard on Earth that Guiliani wouldn't crawl under in the name of getting votes, and if the Republicans were looking for something of a shot at nothing, (esepcially against a Clinton candidacy) he might be capable of winning them a negative campaign.
Revise that - I've had a re-think, and reckon Hillary would beat Rudy as she can covefr more bases than he. Quite how the country would react to a NY Senator against a NY Mayor I don't know, so the chocie of running mate really would be critical, but Guiliani is the archetypal New Yorker, and that won't play well with the wider electorate
To be honest, I don't understand the books that we're currently showing for the race. I can only assume they've been priced up by people who aren't necessarily really locked into American politics?
You've essentially got 225 years of form to work on, and any stats backers will quickly strike a line through both Obama and Clinton, despite them heading the Democrat books. The 14/1 that was available about Edwards a few weeks back was a silly price therefore. You could point to the likes of Rice, Powell and Albright in recent years, but this misses a very critical point. All 3 were appointed. Only Geraldine Ferraro has ever stood on a ticket in over 2 centuries, and she was widely trounced, though in fairness much of that was due to Walter Mondale. She tried standing a couple times for Mayor of New York I seem to think, but couldn't even get the Democrat nomination, despite being a stronger candidate then someone like Ruth Messenger, who Rudy Guiliani did a right number on. God if that was a boxing match the ref would have stopped the fight.
The Republican nomination will be interesting though. McCain is almost evens, and he's one of the few who doesn't necessarily carry Iraq baggage. His reputation has been built on integrity and committee diligence, but over the duration of a long campaign, I'd expect the sharp, younger and more televisual Edwards to beat him. In many respects his candidacy looks a little bit like Nixons, having been up for the nomination and failed previously, (though in fairness Nixon did run for the Oval office, McCain's not got that far yet) so what I'm trying to say is that he's a candidate by default to soem extent. If the Republicans come to the conclusion that they're going to lose, then there is something dispendable about McCain. Equally though, Rudy might be viewed the same, and since he is pure evil (something of the JR Ewing about him :lol: ) he's more likely to land a few blows in going down. Personally, I don't doubt there is any standard on Earth that Guiliani wouldn't crawl under in the name of getting votes, and if the Republicans were looking for something of a shot at nothing, (esepcially against a Clinton candidacy) he might be capable of winning them a negative campaign.
Revise that - I've had a re-think, and reckon Hillary would beat Rudy as she can covefr more bases than he. Quite how the country would react to a NY Senator against a NY Mayor I don't know, so the chocie of running mate really would be critical, but Guiliani is the archetypal New Yorker, and that won't play well with the wider electorate
http://www.billy-ball.com/AViewoftheWorldfromNinthAvenue.htm
Whether this works or not I don't know, but having given it a bit of thought, I decided one of the best ways of illustrating the New York thing might to draw on this famous cartoon from the 70's. In many respects it illustrates the antipathy of the New Yorker to rest of the country, and you can reasonably assume the feeling is mutual. Unfortunately I can't blow it up or find a bigger picture, but the tags in the middle ground are US cities such as Chicago, Kansas and LA
I'm pretty certain that the work has been updated since to include a George Bush view of the world
Whether this works or not I don't know, but having given it a bit of thought, I decided one of the best ways of illustrating the New York thing might to draw on this famous cartoon from the 70's. In many respects it illustrates the antipathy of the New Yorker to rest of the country, and you can reasonably assume the feeling is mutual. Unfortunately I can't blow it up or find a bigger picture, but the tags in the middle ground are US cities such as Chicago, Kansas and LA
I'm pretty certain that the work has been updated since to include a George Bush view of the world
ill namedrop here...
Geraldine ferraro works for one of our companies..shes charming....
John edwards should have won last nomination i feel. If he held his own with Cheney (i missed that) then thats strong stuff. Cheney is sinister...but no idiot by a long way
i think hes agood bet too
But i think there could be too many assumptions about the biases in the nominations. Momentum means alot in the USA (they love winners) and HC isnt necessarily identified as Nooyawk and maybe that factor is not quite what it seems anyway
If shes secures the early primaries( new hampshie and is it iowa?) , then it will roll forward...
Geraldine ferraro works for one of our companies..shes charming....
John edwards should have won last nomination i feel. If he held his own with Cheney (i missed that) then thats strong stuff. Cheney is sinister...but no idiot by a long way
i think hes agood bet too
But i think there could be too many assumptions about the biases in the nominations. Momentum means alot in the USA (they love winners) and HC isnt necessarily identified as Nooyawk and maybe that factor is not quite what it seems anyway
If shes secures the early primaries( new hampshie and is it iowa?) , then it will roll forward...
I'm banned from it Clive. :lol: Some people get banned from pubs, I just get banned from the most powerful nation in recorded history. Long story, and I'll spare you
Anyway I think I've found the updated version
http://www.penceland.com/images/ViewOfTheW...vaniaAvenue.gif
And to be honest Ferraro would have been a strong candidate.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
I am always amazed on this forum about how much people know about things like American politics! :blink:
I must have misspent my life watching too much TV, and too much horse-racing on TV in particular. :shy:
I must have misspent my life watching too much TV, and too much horse-racing on TV in particular. :shy:
artic klinsmann
At the Start
IMHO Al Gore is worth a bet at 14 to 1. I think he will run. He is likely to win an Oscar for his global warming documentary, which will increase his profile. That will also be a big issue in 08. He has the experience, and is less wooden than when he ran in 2000. 8 years as a VP in a successful administration. He's won the popular vote before.
He was against Iraq from the outset - so no issues with Senate votes unlike Clinton and Edwards. He has the money to enter late. And I think he could beat Hillary for the nomination. Americans love a 'comeback' story. And after George W, I think they are looking for someone serious about policy - and not just someone 'folksy'.
On the Republican side - they all have flaws. Difficult to call. If Guiliani wasn't a social liberal, he'd be a lock, but he isn't going to get votes from the evangelical block. Romney is a Mormon - and has flipflopped on certain issues. That is a problem. So McCain, despite his hawkish stance on Iraq, is probably favourite. Can't see anyone else.
But the atmosphere certainly favours the Dems at present.
He was against Iraq from the outset - so no issues with Senate votes unlike Clinton and Edwards. He has the money to enter late. And I think he could beat Hillary for the nomination. Americans love a 'comeback' story. And after George W, I think they are looking for someone serious about policy - and not just someone 'folksy'.
On the Republican side - they all have flaws. Difficult to call. If Guiliani wasn't a social liberal, he'd be a lock, but he isn't going to get votes from the evangelical block. Romney is a Mormon - and has flipflopped on certain issues. That is a problem. So McCain, despite his hawkish stance on Iraq, is probably favourite. Can't see anyone else.
But the atmosphere certainly favours the Dems at present.
I think it's difficult to win with a late entry, I can't think that anyone has in my memory, though it strikes me that someone tries to every time round. Wesley Clark was the nearest we got last time, and although such candidates typically experience a bounce in the polls (possibly the result of voter apathy and fatigue) having had the same faces foisted upon them for between 12 - 18 months, they struggle to maintain the momentum, and the voters tend to fall back on those who've been in it from the start. Having made that observation, Gore would probably be better placed then most to try and pull such a stunt, and it would make for in interesting sub plot with WJC's, VP running against his wife.
Rudy I've actually got a sneaking admiration for. I posted elsewhere that he seems to have softend after his prostate cancer, though quite how he's been able to re-invent himself as a social liberal is beyond me? This was the man who gave the world zero tolerance, (or so he'd have us believe) in truth it was probably Bob Bratton who he airbrushed for New York history. He also seemed to have endorsed a shoot to kill policy for the NYPD during his tenure as Mayor too. I'd never under estimate him myself. Heaven knows what he's capable of.
I heard Hillary on the radio this morning, and she doesn't half sound prickly still. The cult of the personality is so important in America, (hence why the placards all carry the candidates name, as opposed to here where it carries the party name). She'll generate early momentum as her candidacy had been widely mooted for years now (almost from the day she first won New York) but I can still see her failing to win a charm offensive over the longer haul, and there's certainly enough ammunition to go at with her.
Edwards might have voted for the Iraq war in 2002, lets be honest it would have been pretty close for any mainstream politican to do otherwise. Unlike Clinton though, he hasn't been a Senator since 2004, and has been able to distance himself a bit more than most, without being continually forced into reasserting his support in subsequent votes. In 2005 he went along way to repudiating his position with the denunciation of mission creep under the auspices of the 'McCain Doctrine'. Interestingly, he appears to making environmental noises this time round, to add to things like poverty which would be his bread and butter. WE'll see but I reckon Hillary has got the more dodgey voting record if Iraq flares up. Don't know why I said If?
Rudy I've actually got a sneaking admiration for. I posted elsewhere that he seems to have softend after his prostate cancer, though quite how he's been able to re-invent himself as a social liberal is beyond me? This was the man who gave the world zero tolerance, (or so he'd have us believe) in truth it was probably Bob Bratton who he airbrushed for New York history. He also seemed to have endorsed a shoot to kill policy for the NYPD during his tenure as Mayor too. I'd never under estimate him myself. Heaven knows what he's capable of.
I heard Hillary on the radio this morning, and she doesn't half sound prickly still. The cult of the personality is so important in America, (hence why the placards all carry the candidates name, as opposed to here where it carries the party name). She'll generate early momentum as her candidacy had been widely mooted for years now (almost from the day she first won New York) but I can still see her failing to win a charm offensive over the longer haul, and there's certainly enough ammunition to go at with her.
Edwards might have voted for the Iraq war in 2002, lets be honest it would have been pretty close for any mainstream politican to do otherwise. Unlike Clinton though, he hasn't been a Senator since 2004, and has been able to distance himself a bit more than most, without being continually forced into reasserting his support in subsequent votes. In 2005 he went along way to repudiating his position with the denunciation of mission creep under the auspices of the 'McCain Doctrine'. Interestingly, he appears to making environmental noises this time round, to add to things like poverty which would be his bread and butter. WE'll see but I reckon Hillary has got the more dodgey voting record if Iraq flares up. Don't know why I said If?
:blink: I think you've scooped the award for the most intriguing bet to date AC, an October revolution
I suppose if George Allen wins you'd have grounds for asking to be paid out :brows: Mind you, I think of a few people who would argue that George W Bush isn't too far removed from your outcome already, though I have to say 16's is a bit skinny I'd have thought, a 5.9% chance 
Couldn't resist resurrecting this one after Nick Mordin's article in today's Weekender, not content with horses and timing errors at Longchamp 'our Nick' has turned his attention to political betting now. Under a slightly curious headline of "Teofilo looking good to bring off first leg of Classic double for Bolger" he proceeds to open his copy thus...
"If you believe the betting for the next US Presidential election, then its a four-horse race for the Democratic candidacy between Hilary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards. But I'm here to tell you Edwards is a stone-cold certainty, despite what the pundits are saying.
The truth is that the American electorate are, to put it kindly, unsophisticated. They are swayed by what a candidate looks like rather than what they stand for. And they've exclusively elected candidates who are white, male and in good shape.
The betting suggests that Clinton and Obama are the most likely winners with Gore a respectable third.
But when the Primary season begins I guarantee that Democrat caucuses will once more vote for the kind of candidate they know appeals to the American electorate - one who is not female or black, and one who hasn't allowed themselves to become overweight. And that means Edwards is home and hosed.
.... (He goes on to develop the theme about looks and uses Raceform comments to advocate for both Bolger horses etc, before signing off on Teofilo's quote of 5/2 thus;
"Okay, that may not be as attractive as the 6/1 or so you can get about Edwards winning the Democratic candidacy. But looking at the stats and Teofilo's record it looks awfully good to me".
Yikes.....!!!!
Now I had a speculative £50 with Paddy Power at 14/1 using much of Nick's analysis, with one important other discriminatory factor that he's omitted which is increasingly in play. Edwards can carry the South, non of the others can. I'm duly hoping that on the verge of power after the Bush years, the Democrat primaries will come to realise this, but the man who told us the Coquerelle is going to be the best 3yo mile and a half horse in Europe this year, has just gone and told us that Edwards is 'home and hosed' as the most powerful man in the world. Shite!!!
Now in fairness Nick lives in New York, and his 'Green card' can't be up for renewal shortly by the sounds of his denunciation of the population, so he might have a better insight than most. He openly admits to being a liberal too, and not surprisingly I suspect would side with the Dem's, and thus take more than a passing interest in the affairs. I'm not massively upset to see him drawing this conclusion, as he's clearly not a stupid man (despite the things we say about him) and I'm sure he's thought this through etc What I can't understand is why he'd back something at 6/1 in an ultimately more competitive four horse field, when he could have about 10's to 11's in a race featuring all the same runners plus one seemingly damaged beyond repair Republican?
"If you believe the betting for the next US Presidential election, then its a four-horse race for the Democratic candidacy between Hilary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards. But I'm here to tell you Edwards is a stone-cold certainty, despite what the pundits are saying.
The truth is that the American electorate are, to put it kindly, unsophisticated. They are swayed by what a candidate looks like rather than what they stand for. And they've exclusively elected candidates who are white, male and in good shape.
The betting suggests that Clinton and Obama are the most likely winners with Gore a respectable third.
But when the Primary season begins I guarantee that Democrat caucuses will once more vote for the kind of candidate they know appeals to the American electorate - one who is not female or black, and one who hasn't allowed themselves to become overweight. And that means Edwards is home and hosed.
.... (He goes on to develop the theme about looks and uses Raceform comments to advocate for both Bolger horses etc, before signing off on Teofilo's quote of 5/2 thus;
"Okay, that may not be as attractive as the 6/1 or so you can get about Edwards winning the Democratic candidacy. But looking at the stats and Teofilo's record it looks awfully good to me".
Yikes.....!!!!
Now I had a speculative £50 with Paddy Power at 14/1 using much of Nick's analysis, with one important other discriminatory factor that he's omitted which is increasingly in play. Edwards can carry the South, non of the others can. I'm duly hoping that on the verge of power after the Bush years, the Democrat primaries will come to realise this, but the man who told us the Coquerelle is going to be the best 3yo mile and a half horse in Europe this year, has just gone and told us that Edwards is 'home and hosed' as the most powerful man in the world. Shite!!!
Now in fairness Nick lives in New York, and his 'Green card' can't be up for renewal shortly by the sounds of his denunciation of the population, so he might have a better insight than most. He openly admits to being a liberal too, and not surprisingly I suspect would side with the Dem's, and thus take more than a passing interest in the affairs. I'm not massively upset to see him drawing this conclusion, as he's clearly not a stupid man (despite the things we say about him) and I'm sure he's thought this through etc What I can't understand is why he'd back something at 6/1 in an ultimately more competitive four horse field, when he could have about 10's to 11's in a race featuring all the same runners plus one seemingly damaged beyond repair Republican?
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Now, Warbs, being that you have brought the subject of politics up, it's your big day isn't it!?
Good luck, Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good luck, Sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or :clap: