The Next President?

The thing is Warbler, with regards to social leanings, there are only two issues which actually matter: abortion and gay marriage.. Giuliani's positions on these issues singularly mark him down as "left-leaning" and possibly could serve to alienate him from the GOP's core-base (the evangelical vote).. while this vote is without doubt the most solid voting block in the GOP, they are also liable to turn on a whim against someone who "doesn't share their values" (for example, they stayed at home for the '06 election)..

Very good hard-hitting article about Giuliani by Matt Taibbi (one of the few men willing to tell it like it is in American political journalism and a top man as well):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story...than_bush/print
 
A bit off-topic, but Al Gore's son has been arrested for posession of drugs - after being stopped travelling over 100mph in an eco-friendly hybrid Toyota Prius.

I loved the title on Digg.

"An Inconvenient Youth"
 
A very true article and one that encapsulates so much of the Giuliani I came across. The man is ruthless and unprincipaled in so far as I don't believe there is a stone small enough that he wouldn't crawl under to get a vote. But make no mistake, never underestimate what he's capable of. He is a very shrewd operator and has a sixth sense in being able to plug into the GP.

The observation about his bullying is very true. Rudy it seemed to me was a master at picking on the weakest in society and demonising them with a zealous pursuit (even though he couldn't get UN parking tickets enforced :laughing: that used to rankle with him). To some extent it is his persecution of the most vulnerable that made me think of Thatcher. The observation of him appealing to the masses who are too stupid to figure it out is very pertinent I feel as well. Rudy knows how to play that card and milks it in gallons.

The idea that he can't think on his feet in terms of humour isn't true. He's got a caustic observational wit that marks him out as being very different to Bush. The line he delivered about the lad who wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer, was actually quite good in an American context, even if it wasn't delivered word perfect. I suspect Giuliani had set it up anyway.

I was actually struck in the '96 Mayorals (or was it '97 - time is playing tricks on my whizzend memory) how he was able to move between territory at such speed that dear old Ruth was constantly playing catch up on the previous days agendas. Rudy was a snatch and grab merchant who gave the impression of being very much the man in control who was setting the agenda. A punchy set piece, delievred with panache and off he went onto a different stump. He was relentless, and there seemed to be more than just a bit of cruelty about it.

Rudy senses weakness and exploits it mercilessly. As soon as he smells blood in the water he kills with no sense of feeling. It's this that makes him so lethal. Few Americans seem to be able to see through him, and New York is one the more educated electorates in the States.

As I've said before Rudy v's Hillary would be pure theatre, both have skeletons galore, and both wouldn't draw a line anywhere I suspect in terms of where the boundaries of decency lie. Unfortunately, his cancer denied us this run off for the Senators job, which was the last time I was there. She hadn't declared at that point, was busy in the process of giving stump speaches in the dockyards and touring local schools etc Rudy was in the process of 'gloving up' and wheeling in his money men. You could see that this was going to be a battle royal that would easily eclipse the Bush - Gore one. The New Yorker carried a lovely front page cartoon of Hillary looking lost walking through Central Park with a tourist map, whilst Giuliani waited behind a tree waiting to mug her. It's difficult to know who would have won, but despite the initial enthusiasm for a Clinton run, Rudy was experiencing a poll bounce when I left as his electoral machinary cranked into action, and his was playing the NY card on her. His appeal was at a base level sure. Hillary went to watch the Yankees (Giuliani's a fanatical supporter) which sent him into a tiraid as clearly she knew none of the players or the club at all. Rudy sensing his advanatge on a popularist vote screwed her for it (couldn't resist that, sorry folks)

Is Rudy worse than Bush? Crikey wouldn't like to say. He's a damn sight better operator, much more intelligent and much more articulate (low baseline admittedly). There's something of the JR Ewing about Rudolph. I do believe however that John Edwards would beat him. I'm half holding out for the impression that I was forming in NY though, that Rudy would have won
 
Agree with much of that Warbler..

Not sure his wit is that compatible to the American "kiss as many babies as you can" campaign style though..

I would be very interested in seeing Edwards Vs. Giuliani actually.. completely different personalities (cuddly v. macho), north vs. south, both able to get through to the ordinary man fairly well.. neither will stop at anything to win either (Edwards doesn't know the meaning of the word decency IMO)..

Much too close to call at this point according to the polls (any RCP average +/-5 points in a national poll is considered "too close to call" at this stage)..
 
From 365 Media Group:

With his Live Earth concerts in the news, Al Gore has been heavily backed to run for President and win the forthcoming US Election.

William Hill have slashed his odds from 12/1 to 5/1 second favourite and spokesman Graham Sharpe said: "Gore has yet to deny he will run in absolute terms and punters seem convinced that he will eventually decide to stand again."

Hills currently make Hillary Clinton Even money favourite to win the US Presidential Election and also offer 5/1 Gore, Fred Thompson, Barak Obama, 7/1 Rudolph Giuliani, 10/1 Milt Romney, 16/1 John Edwards, 25/1 John McCain.
 
It's British money though creating an artifical glut.

In the first case Gore will need to lose weight (America doesn't vote for fat Presidents) but that shouldn't be beyond his scope. If you see him trimming down I'd take that as a bigger sign than any bookie having to cut their liabilities.

It's not without precedent that a defeated candidate rises in a reincarnation, but the last time it was done (only time?) involved an opportunist who was narrowly defeated in the second most fraudulant election in history (argubaly worse than 2000 in fairness) who was then written off completely, and only managed to get a return in 1968 on the back of a deeply unpopular and devisive war. So no paralells there then :D

Clinton's VP, against Clinton's wife? Can't see it. Hillary's got first run on him, and I daren't think how much dirt these two must have on each other. Clinton is still well liked in the US and would have won 2000 were he allowed to run. The Gore campaign however, made the critical mistake of sidelining him on the back of Monica Lewinsky, and tried to carve out an identity for their own man. There can be little doubt that in doing so, their best endorsement went, and that Bill will side with his wife over Gore. It's not beyond the realms of possibility of course that some kind of deal will be done allowing Gore to serve in the administration in a 'pet project' role in return for his compliance, and I'd rate that as a better bet than the 5/1 on him winning the White House.

I'm far from convinced he's electable anyway. He's perhaps the one candidate who could be presented as a liberal (which in America means Commie) and tantamount to a sounding of the death knell.

Some candidates play the 'will he? won't he card?' and build up a circus of expectation, but few win (you can only anounce once etc). In fact I can't think of one in recent history. What typically happens is that they milk the expectation, then if, they decide to run (and quite a lot don't) they get a poll bounce, before being slowly deconstructed for lack of decisiveness/ commitment etc.

I would imagine Gore would be the candidate that the Republicans would most like to fight (he or Barrack). As soon as his environmentalist position is explained to them in terms of 'gas prices' (or to be more accurate) mis-explained to them, it would be good night Vienna.

5/1 about a non-runner at this stage is insane
 
I managed to shoe horn a group of 5 Americans last night into giving me some feedback on this one. Very interesting in truth, but then there's nos hortage of Americans knocking round Oxford at the best times. There initial reaction was one of nervousness as I explained the subject and some of the opinions I was after (I think they were expecting another European to launch into an anti diatribe against them) but in truth it was a very split discussion.

The consensus amongst them with one exception was that Hillary was unelectable, and that Obama was starting to make mistakes now. Perhaps quite tellingly, it was also felt that he more so than any other candidate is likely to be granted less tolerence/ forgiveness in the 'let him off' stakes. They hadn't considered Edwards to the level that I had, but then again, much of my rationale involves an observation which Americans might not necessarily have of themselves. As I explained it, they all conceeded that he could well be the dark horse. "He could do it you know" was the conclusion they conceeded.

Anyway, one of the most interesting things that the females in group said, was that they couldn't vote for Hillary because her husband cheated on her :eek: I couldn't follow the logic, but broadly speaking they were prepared to question her ability to manage a country if she couldn't manage her marriage etc and in some way the fact that she was a partner to this whole affair (however innocent) somehow tarnished her. Anyway the 20's about Edwards available a couple of months back has gone now with VC Bet being top price at 14's.

Interesting positions that Boyles and Chandlers have taken up (if Oddschecker can be relied on) with the two firms clearly taking very, very different views on the whole affair. I've thought for some time that Chandlers compilers have got this all wrong. Indeed, only a few months ago they were quoting a Republican at something like 10/1 to win the nomination and 100/1 the Presidency :eek: The Boyles book looks much nearer how I'd be tempted to assess the prospects. Boyles are top price about Obama, Clinton and Rudy.


Obama 9/2 Boyles........... 4/1 VC
Clinton 2/1 Boyles............5/4 VC
Guiliani 8/1 Boyles...........5/1 VC

McCain 3/1 Boyles..........25/1 VC
Edwards 6/1 Boyles.........14/1 VC

Very strange indeed, especially the prices on John McCain and Rudy. IF the Republicans are 7/5 to win, and Rudy's about 13/8 to win the nomination, I'm not sure what Boyles are doing making him 8/1 the Presidency. I'll try and check what price you can McCain at too, for if VC really are 25/1 about him.....???? Boyles quote for Clinton is a seemingly brave call too. The most cowardly one though has to be Ladbrokes 6/1 about Gore
 
Originally posted by Warbler@Jul 14 2007, 04:56 PM
As soon as his environmentalist position is explained to them in terms of 'gas prices' or (to be more accurate) mis-explained to them, it would be good night Vienna.
Click to expand...
Hor hor Warbler, that really made me crease up!

A few general points:

The kind of American you are likley to meet in Oxford - or anywhere in Europe for that matter - is totally unrepresentative of the norm. 99% ++ of Americans have never been abroad and aren't even sure where it is. The straw poll you took in Oxford is meaningless in terms of how the mass of Americans might vote, imo.

Re the women's curious antpathy to Hillary regarding her husband's fidelity: might it be that they suspect, or sense rather, that there must have been collusion? - which indeed there must. No man can be a career philanderer on the epic scale of Bill Clinton without his wife turning a blind eye to his bits on the side. This would be an outrageously liberal/bohemian outlook for most bible-belt conventional Americans [and most do come into that kind of category]. They'd think it really tacky, esp the women. The Kennedys managed to keep that aspect of their marriage very quiet of course :laughing:
 
Well I don't think PP are about to get the Queens medal for gallantry on this one Gearoid. Al Gore could probably get a poll bounce if he decides to enter, but typically such things are temporary and opportune and the voters tend to revert to type within a few months. Johny come lately gatecrashers haven't got a good record.

It goes without saying HS, that me corraling 5 Americans is hardly going to be representative of a country of about 350M, but there's no shortage of them in Oxford and they're normally quite obliging to discuss the elections provided you're able to explain early that you're after their observations and predictions rather than an opinion (the latter invariably follows anyway once they feel comfortable to talk about issues). What they will be able to do is reflect the mood of the country, provided I'm able to ask the right questions.

The observation that struck me as being perhaps the most pertinent was that Obama was likely to be cut less slack than any other candidate in the event of a few gaffs. His advocacy for bombing Pakistan recently wasn't necessarily the smartest move for a war weary population, for instance, and as he remains largely unproven and unknown, it's only going to require a few injudicious comments to spark a degree of nervousness

It was observed in 1992 that Bill Clinton had done something hitherto unheard of post war - he won an election based laregly on the economy and a domestic agenda. Some commentators spoke about the landscape changing etc and denied of their traditional anti-commie foreign policy positions, Republicans were going to have to re-invent themselves. To some extent you could argue they did, it's just that they converted it into some kind of neo evangelical crusade about morality (remember "compassionate Conservatism"?) - GW Bush.

I personally think what happened, is that America had grown complacent and decadent with the Clinton years and a sense of security had taken hold etc Things seemed quite straight forward around the turn of the century, and they reverted to voting for personality rather than substance (the cult of the personality over the party, the individual over a philosophy etc) has always been a much bigger feature of American elections than ours for instance. As I've noted before, in America its the candidates name that adorns the plackards, T-Shirts and badges etc In this country of course it's the parties. Anyway, the jokesy, folksey Governor from Texas had more charisma than the largely wooden Gore.

Americans don't particularly root for the underdog either, they prefer to associate with success, and that Gore has already lost one election won't count in his favour, though it's not without precedent of course for a defeated candidate to win the Whitehouse, and there are chilling paralells with the prevailing conditions that last allowed it to happen. Similarly, Americans don't like being duped, and increasingly it appears they've finally wisened up to Bush 8 years late. Their response is usually to punish the associated, and I note that the Republicans are drifting, as the Democrats go even further odds on.
 
Excellent thread Warbler. I dont follow it closely enough but have a great interest in it since I layed John Kerry at €500/€400. Someone has given me money to back Al Gore. I did not realise there was 12/1 avaliable.

Btw John McCain is indeed 25/1 with VC. He would be my pick at the prices.
 
Betfair haven`t got a market up for the Presidency, just who will win their party`s nomination.

This caught my eye though, Female President:

Yes - 2.6
No - 1.6

Buying money?
 
There's certainly some bizzarre books about Gearoid, hence why I highlighted the discrepencies between Chandlers and Boyles. My own guess is that the Boyles book is the more thoughtful, as Chandlers give me the impression that they've priced up according to European perceptions, which is fine in reflecting liabilities I suppose, but the Boyles book looks like its been put together with a better appreciation of American society and how they vote etc which has allowed them to be big about the front 3.

The first thing to do is look at the most likely party winner. It's the obvious place to start? In theory you can throw out 50% of the field, if betting the Presidential result. As things stand, there can only be one winner, but America is fickle, and the roll played by a candidate above their party is very significant, so a charismatic Republican might emerge yet, but even if one did, they'd be carrying huge baggage, and would have to gamble on distancing themselves from the incumbent which could prove damaging.

If you were to use a stats approach much beloved of racing fans, try the following

Number of Black Presidents = 0 (Obama)
Number of female Presidents = 0 (Hillary)
Number of Catholic Presidents = 1 (Guiliani - and the 1 got assasinated)
Number of previously failed President getting elected = 2* (Gore)

Strictly speaking it's much more than 2, but most these occurred before 1850 when the true party affiliations were still being established. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington all stood in the inaugural elections as principal independence leaders, and went onto become President in their own rights ultimately. John Quincy Adams also stood in the 2nd election I think. William Harrison did too

I've used the figure of 2 to reflect modern times (and I've pushed that definition a bit) by allowing Grover Cleveland 1892 into it, though clearly Richard Nixon 1968 would be the only example of it happening in the last 100+ years. Theres plenty of others like Ronald Reagan who sought a party nomination, and failed before coming back to succeed later. As such it's the weakest stat, but then since Gore isn't even a candidate, I don't see how anyone could consider backing him.

People might point towards Colin Powell and Condaleza Rice as black Secretary's of State. They might invoke Madeline Albright and Condi as females too, and suggest that things are changing, but this misses one critical factor. All of these people were appointed, none of them has faced the electorate and asked for a mandate. The political classes of DC aren't anywhere like as prejudiced as the rest of the country, and the sifting demographics to the South now mean that those who would normally expect to be the victims of such reactionary thinking have to crack the crucial states to win. Mathematically, it's pretty nigh on impossible to win it now from the traditional industrial heartlands, where both Hillary and Obama will have significant, and loyal support.

Once you start striking a line through the candidates based on these filters see what you're left with?

It's quite easy based on all known form :D
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Aug 11 2007, 11:06 AM
99% ++ of Americans have never been abroad
Click to expand...

There's more than 1% of Americans living abroad.
Click to expand...
- nof 350 million people? I don't think so!
Where did you get that stat Gareth?
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Aug 11 2007, 03:23 AM
99% ++ of Americans have never been abroad and aren't even sure where it is.
Click to expand...
Have to say Headstrong, with all due respect, that is utter bollocks..

Having the observed the Democratic scene quite closely over the last few months, I have been very impressed with the way Hilary has conducted herself..

Obama and especially Edwards seem to be getting more and more desperate as Hilary's lead increasing in the polls..

Their latest tactic, highlighted in a AFL-CIO union debate (a particularly sad affair in which none of the candidates had the balls to stand up to the unions at all), is to try to use her experience against her by painting her as a Washington insider..

Edwards and Obama seem to be resorting to more and more personal attacks (hardly surprising for Edwards really), which seem to be having little impact other than making Hilary look like the one grown up in a crew of whingey children..

As for Gore, he has no hope at all, if for no other reason than he hasn't nearly enough money raised..

As for the polls...

Democratic National

Poll Date Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson Gore Spread
RCP Average 07/25 to 08/09 41.1 22.0 11.4 3.7 12.8 Clinton +19.1
Rasmussen 08/06 - 08/09 40 27 11 5 -- Clinton +13
CNN 08/06 - 08/07 40 21 13 5 11 Clinton +19
USA Today/Gallup 08/03 - 08/05 42 19 10 3 18 Clinton +23
Cook/RT Strategies 08/02 - 08/05 39 21 8 4 10 Clinton +18
Newsweek 08/01 - 08/01 44 23 14 1 -- Clinton +21
NBC/WSJ 07/27 - 07/30 43 22 13 6 -- Clinton +21
Pew Research 07/25 - 07/29 40 21 11 2 12 Clinton +19

Republican National

Poll Date Giuliani Thompson McCain Romney Gingrich Spread
RCP Average 07/25 to 08/09 28.7 18.7 14.3 9.6 9.5 Giuliani +10.0
Rasmussen 08/06 - 08/09 28 19 10 12 -- Giuliani +9
CNN 08/06 - 08/08 27 19 14 11 12 Giuliani +8
USA Today/Gallup 08/03 - 08/05 30 19 14 6 10 Giuliani +11
Cook/RT Strategies 08/02 - 08/05 26 14 16 7 8 Giuliani +10
Newsweek 08/01 - 08/01 30 22 13 10 -- Giuliani +8
NBC/WSJ 07/27 - 07/30 33 20 17 11 -- Giuliani +13
Pew Research 07/25 - 07/29 27 18 16 10 8 Giuliani +9

Iowa Democratic Caucus

Poll Date Sample Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson Spread
RCP Average 07/23 to 08/05 - 26.3 24.0 20.0 11.0 Clinton +2.3
Univ. of Iowa 07/29 - 08/05 425 LV 27 22 22 9 Clinton +5
ABC News/Wash Post 07/26 - 07/31 500 LV 26 26 27 11 Obama +1 American Res. Group 07/26 - 07/30 600 LV 30 21 15 13 Clinton +9 Research 2000 07/23 - 07/25 400 LV 22 27 16 11 Edwards +5

New Hampshire Primary

Poll Date Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson Gore Spread
RCP Average 07/09 - 07/30 31.8 24.5 11.8 9.3 -- Clinton +7.3
American Res. Group 07/26 - 07/30 31 31 14 7 -- Tie
Hart/McLaughlin 07/24 - 07/26 36 19 15 12 -- Clinton +17.0
CNN/WMUR 07/09 - 07/17 33 25 8 10 8 Clinton +8.0
Monitor/Research2000 07/09 - 07/11 27 23 10 8 14 Clinton +4.0
 
That was largely because no one wanted to defend Bush's legacy :laughing: and McCain was just about (still is just about) the only Republican who thinks the Iraq war is, really good. He has criticised it in areas I seem to think, but this is largely about it's prosecution rather than it's concept.

The principal runners are

Clinton 2/1 - Boyles (5/4 VC)
Obama 9/2 - Boyles
Thompson 11/2 - VC
Giuliani 8/1 - Boyles (5/1 VC)
Romney 12/1 - Boyles
Edwards 14/1 - VC (6/1 Boyles)
Gore 16/1 - B Sq (6/1 Laddies)
McCain 25/1 - VC (3/1 Boyles)
Bloomberg - 25/1 VC
Ridge - 50/1 Boyles.

First filter lets take out all Republicans

Clinton 2/1 - Boyles (5/4 VC)
Obama 9/2 - Boyles
Edwards 14/1 - VC (6/1 Boyles)
Gore 16/1 - B Sq (6/1 Laddies)

I should say that Ridge has to carry the additional baggage of being a Dubya man, and that both Bloomberg and Giuliani quite apart from being on the wrong side of the draw, are both trying to do something that's never been done before too i.e. win the Whitehouse from the base of New York Mayor. Giuliani also has to overcome the Catholic thing as well.

2nd filter (designed to get Hillary) She's not only a woman, but she's a deeply unpopular one at that in the key battleground states of the South. New York state Governors have won the Whitehouse (Theodore Roosevelt, Martin Van Buren and Grover Cleveland - yes I had to look that up) but only one State Senator has done it from the Big Apple (FDR). Indeed, you have to go back 48 years I seem to recall to find the last example of a sitting Senator winning the Oval Office, and that was a highly dubious victory at that too. Governors and Congressmen tend to have better records in recent years.

Third filter; the colour of the candidates skin. This barely needs qualifying. As I said other African Americans have been appointed, I just can't see a black person winning votes outside of the Eastern Seaboard and the Industrial North. California would probably go his way, but he won't be able to carry the college. We might like to think of ourselves as more open minded in Europe, but ask yourself what the realistic prospects of a black person becoming Prime Minister would be if a half credible candidate appeared tomorrow and then imagine what prospects they'd have in country with a much more recent history and a more deeply engrained one at that.

Edwards 14/1 - VC (6/1 Boyles)
Gore 16/1 - B Sq (6/1 Laddies)

Final filter; the candidate isn't a candidate,

and in any case, he's too fat, too environmental and has lost previously. Ladbrokes think he's over twice the chance, of another white male whose more televisual, and as a Carolinian stands a better chance than any of the other Democrat heavy weights of making the inroads into dixie, that two of them really can't hope to.

So there you have it;

Edwards 14/1 - VC (6/1 Boyles)

Anyone with a VC account could do a lot worse than taking advantage of their political compilers rick, I reckon? That's not to say Edwards will win, just that he's no where close to being 14/1.

Ironically Clinton and Barrack's best chances seem to lie with the Dem's getting so far ahead in the polls that their core voters start believing any candidate can win etc For such time as the Republicans can mount a challenge I reckon this should concentrate Democrat minds on selecting a candidate most likely to beat the Republican (not dissimilar to the way Labour selected Blair, and the Tories have now selected Cameron). Provided Edwards can stay in the early rounds, this pressure will intensify in 2008. My biggest fear would be him failing to achieve early momentum and falling out, before the penny drops with the Democrat primaries that they could be heading towards self-destruction.

Trackside was in the process of putting up some polls up not so long ago, and these illustrate the point perfectly.

They ask the standard question of Dem v's Rep, and the Dem's show a comfortable lead. Then they start asking hypothetical head to head match up questions (remember the campaign will be fought on such a basis). When this happens, it was notable how much people like Clinton were unable to convert her parties support, into a personal vote. The two winners on these types of polls had been Giuliani and Edwards to date.

It strikes me that Boyles have given this more thought than VC and drawn up a book based on American rather than European perceptions.
 
Ron Paul in to a best price of 50/1 now. Get on before the results of today's Iowa straw poll are out ;)
 
Looks like I over posted trackiside in transit :laughing:

They're seriously impressive Clinton figures though, and I'm struggling to believe she can be that high? The electorate isn't unknown to indicate left and turn right, where pollsters are concerned. Presumebly these are for registered Democrat voters? We know she's strong there, but to win the Whitehouse she's got to appeal to people who voted Republican last time, and I can't see that happening in the numbers necessary. When the Dem's realise that they'll be forced into finding a winning candidate, and one that they can sell to the swing states and softer Republican vote

Actually if I take that logic forward, Rudy might be worth a saver, in case Hillary does win the nomination. Aspects of his latter day conversion to some more liberal ideas would make him the best 'Stop Hillary' candidate. Republicans would still have to vote for him even if they don't like him for that very reason, and those Dem's who don't like Hillary might just about be able to live with Rudy. In any case, if he's ahead and available at 8's in what will become a 2 horse race eventually, you've got a trade? Think on it though. Will he win the nomination? There's a couple of other springers in there too, though I can only see McCain getting weaker.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong+Aug 11 2007, 05:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Headstrong @ Aug 11 2007, 05:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gareth Flynn@Aug 11 2007, 11:06 AM
99% ++ of Americans have never been abroad
Click to expand...

There's more than 1% of Americans living abroad.
Click to expand...
- nof 350 million people? I don't think so!
Where did you get that stat Gareth? [/b][/quote]
Certainly not the same place that gave you the population of the US to be 350 million!
 
350M was my best guess Gareth, based on the fact that the last time I could recall a figure it was 320M so I added some on for population growth, rather than resort to Google where I subsequently discover it's about 300M.

Anyway, I thought I'd chuck the Edwards wiki link up.

Ask yourselves this, if you had to manufacture an identikit all American politican, it would look pretty well something like John Edwards :laughing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards
 
Back
Top