The Next President?
- Thread starter Guest_
- Start date
VC Bet seem to have put Edwards back in at 20's 
Ladbrokes next best at 10's, everyone else at single figures. Worth snaffling a bit I'd suggest? mind you winning the nomination is probably going to be harder than winning the election proper
Ladbrokes next best at 10's, everyone else at single figures. Worth snaffling a bit I'd suggest? mind you winning the nomination is probably going to be harder than winning the election properThe World Is Not Enough
At the Start
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 9
You should run for President, Warbler.
The World Is Not Enough
At the Start
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 9
I'm confident you'd find a way.
Texas was the traditional route. There was a lovely 'Bushism' on the subject but I can't find it, so I'll try and take it from memory; it went something like this,
"Our border with Mexico is much more secure now. I should know. I used to be responsible for it"
But this one is word for word verbatim (in fact there's loads of them) too many now to find the ones you want.
"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific." —George W. Bush, Tokyo, Feb. 18, 2002
"Our border with Mexico is much more secure now. I should know. I used to be responsible for it"
But this one is word for word verbatim (in fact there's loads of them) too many now to find the ones you want.
"My trip to Asia begins here in Japan for an important reason. It begins here because for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific." —George W. Bush, Tokyo, Feb. 18, 2002
From today's Observer, Ruddy Rudy the next President - God knows what he'd do? Much as though he'd be could value for a run, the prospect of him winning the Oval office wasn't really something I could contemplate. In Warbler's theatre of politics I'd love to see him as a candidate, but as a President The last para is the one I've got my hopes pinned on, as they've come to the same conclusion as me, (withone important difference). I've obviously gambled on the idea that the Democrats will conclude in the longer term that Rudy would beat either of their two front runners, and thus switch to Edwards. The oBserver has gone slightly the other way, and decided that Rudy would also beat Obama or Clinton, but that the Democrats won't realise that in time.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story...2165267,00.html
The last para is the one I've got my hopes pinned on, as they've come to the same conclusion as me, (withone important difference). I've obviously gambled on the idea that the Democrats will conclude in the longer term that Rudy would beat either of their two front runners, and thus switch to Edwards. The oBserver has gone slightly the other way, and decided that Rudy would also beat Obama or Clinton, but that the Democrats won't realise that in time.http://observer.guardian.co.uk/7days/story...2165267,00.html
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
Anybody following the Stephen Colbert story? Pretty funny.
His Facebook group has just passed 900,000 members!
His Facebook group has just passed 900,000 members!
:laughing:
We've said before that he's got skeletons galore, and is always a tad accident prone. It could be one of those bizzarre ones where the final is the semi etc as whoever gets the Democrat vote is a shoe in. Personally I could do with Rudy staying prominent as he's the one whose most likely to put Hillary under pressure.
Still a long way to go yet
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Have actually laid Giuliani (for peanuts admittedly) with a view to backing him after the first primary states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina)..
Given the strategy that he's pursuing, it won't matter a **** how he does in the traditional "defining" states of Iowa and NH, although he's in with a definite chance in South Carolina (especially given the endorsement of Robertson).. first must-win for Rudy isn't until Florida..
D-day doesn't come around until February 5, when more than 1,300 delegates will be up for grabs.. Rudi looks bomb proof in New York, New Jersey, Connec. and Delaware... should really win California as well, though Illinois isn't as cut and dry as it appears at first glance..
As far as Giuliani is concerned, the traditional 2 (Iowa, NH) won't break his momentum heading into February.. given his base is rock solid (much more so than any of the other Republicans) I would tend to agree.. my thinking is that i might catch him a shade higher than his current price after the first 3 primaries...
Given the strategy that he's pursuing, it won't matter a **** how he does in the traditional "defining" states of Iowa and NH, although he's in with a definite chance in South Carolina (especially given the endorsement of Robertson).. first must-win for Rudy isn't until Florida..
D-day doesn't come around until February 5, when more than 1,300 delegates will be up for grabs.. Rudi looks bomb proof in New York, New Jersey, Connec. and Delaware... should really win California as well, though Illinois isn't as cut and dry as it appears at first glance..
As far as Giuliani is concerned, the traditional 2 (Iowa, NH) won't break his momentum heading into February.. given his base is rock solid (much more so than any of the other Republicans) I would tend to agree.. my thinking is that i might catch him a shade higher than his current price after the first 3 primaries...
betsmate
At the Start
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 5,752
http://www.kongregate.com/games/thup/campaign-game
A bit of a laugh. I just defeated Clinton with Guiliani. By the end of my campaign I was all but broke and held no states, but had attacked Clinton so viciously that she was no longer a credible candidate and I took victory by default. Lots of ways to play it.
EDIT: Just taken Obama down using undercover operatives.
A bit of a laugh. I just defeated Clinton with Guiliani. By the end of my campaign I was all but broke and held no states, but had attacked Clinton so viciously that she was no longer a credible candidate and I took victory by default. Lots of ways to play it.
EDIT: Just taken Obama down using undercover operatives.
Iowa and New Hampshire on Tuesday.
Sky News doing a piece on the Obama versus Clinton race. They lead in with a piece about the importance of the Iowa caucaus, and the energy that Clint and Barrack bring, basically loading a piece up for UK viewers, whilst skating over the republicans, describing the Dem's battle as fascinating etc "lets go across now for the latest, from our Correspondent"
"Correspondents name; whose winning between Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama?"
"Well" he says, with a bit of a pause, whilst trying to work out how to respond. "We've got a fascinating 3 way tie, with Hilary Clinton seemingly losing ground"
We'll see? But his general view was that Edwards "might very well win Iowa" but would ultimately fail due to not having enough cash and not having anything like the size of campaign machine of the other two.
Perosnally, I'm not so sure. The growing consensus seems to be that the election for the White House is taking place a few months earlier this year,and is known more popularly as the Democrat nomination. That being so, I can easily see a sudden swing of money to Edwards as corporate backers try and hedge their bets in terms of buying influence etc if they've decided it truly is a 3 horse race, and all of them are blue.
On the red side incidentally, it would be my guess that Romney could be a dead duck by Wednesday if he's failed in Iowa, and with Huckerbee hoovering up the bible vote, it's probably what i expetc to happen.
Rudy will probably fail in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and I'd expect a bounce for McCain of all people.
Huckerbee has to show well in Iowa as he'll bomb in New Hampshire, hell they didn't even vote for Bill Clinton and he wasn't a bible bashing nutter whose campaigning off slogans such as "It's God not the economy stupid" and attributes his rise to prominence with "the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed five thousand" agggggh this man is dangerous. Luckily he appears to have been crying crocodile tears for Bhutto, and generally trying to sound knowledgable on the subject. That was until some journo presented him with a map of the world and asked him to identify where Pakistan was :laughing: (accoridng to Fox anyway, I haven't seen the footage) Mind you, Governor Bush was asked to name the President of Pakistan in 1999, and fumbled about when answering with a succession errrr's and urms, before saying "It's the General. General someone. He's just been elected you know".
Wonder if he's had cause to learn his name since?
Mind you, being a moron who'd only stepped outside of his own country for a total of 2 weeks whilst on holiday to Mexico, didn't stop Bush winning the White House. President Huckerbee? oh God forbid
Sky News doing a piece on the Obama versus Clinton race. They lead in with a piece about the importance of the Iowa caucaus, and the energy that Clint and Barrack bring, basically loading a piece up for UK viewers, whilst skating over the republicans, describing the Dem's battle as fascinating etc "lets go across now for the latest, from our Correspondent"
"Correspondents name; whose winning between Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama?"
"Well" he says, with a bit of a pause, whilst trying to work out how to respond. "We've got a fascinating 3 way tie, with Hilary Clinton seemingly losing ground"
We'll see? But his general view was that Edwards "might very well win Iowa" but would ultimately fail due to not having enough cash and not having anything like the size of campaign machine of the other two.
Perosnally, I'm not so sure. The growing consensus seems to be that the election for the White House is taking place a few months earlier this year,and is known more popularly as the Democrat nomination. That being so, I can easily see a sudden swing of money to Edwards as corporate backers try and hedge their bets in terms of buying influence etc if they've decided it truly is a 3 horse race, and all of them are blue.
On the red side incidentally, it would be my guess that Romney could be a dead duck by Wednesday if he's failed in Iowa, and with Huckerbee hoovering up the bible vote, it's probably what i expetc to happen.
Rudy will probably fail in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and I'd expect a bounce for McCain of all people.
Huckerbee has to show well in Iowa as he'll bomb in New Hampshire, hell they didn't even vote for Bill Clinton and he wasn't a bible bashing nutter whose campaigning off slogans such as "It's God not the economy stupid" and attributes his rise to prominence with "the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed five thousand"
agggggh this man is dangerous. Luckily he appears to have been crying crocodile tears for Bhutto, and generally trying to sound knowledgable on the subject. That was until some journo presented him with a map of the world and asked him to identify where Pakistan was :laughing: (accoridng to Fox anyway, I haven't seen the footage) Mind you, Governor Bush was asked to name the President of Pakistan in 1999, and fumbled about when answering with a succession errrr's and urms, before saying "It's the General. General someone. He's just been elected you know". Wonder if he's had cause to learn his name since?
Mind you, being a moron who'd only stepped outside of his own country for a total of 2 weeks whilst on holiday to Mexico, didn't stop Bush winning the White House. President Huckerbee? oh God forbid
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
Agree with you re McCain in New Hampshire, Warbler..
Situation in Pakistan helping to emphasize his sterling foreign policy credentials.. newspaper endorsements should not be underestimated in NH either, another factor that McCain has to his advantage..
Have a feeling that the wind may be out of Romney's sails by the time the travelling circus swings in to New Hampshire, and McCain may be just the man to capitalize.. not willing to get involved at 6/5 though mind..
This is all music to the ears of Rudy of course, who'll be doing everything he can with his team to get Huckabee a victory in Iowa..
On the Democratic side, it's even more fluid.. I will admit that I wrote of Edwards too quickly, though he can afford no worse than a close second in Iowa.. in his favour, however, is the fact that he has probably the most committed base in Iowa (a base which has been loyal to him since '04), which could prove crucial as much will hinge on who actually shows up on the night.. Hillary and Barack also relying heavily on voters who probably may not be totally committed caucas goers (Hillary with her old bettys and Barrack relying heavily on the youth vote..
Another potentially critical aspect of the Democratic caucus is that in order to be considered "viable", a candidate must have at least 14% of the individual precinct vote. In the event that the candidate does not, his/her supporters are given the opportunity to switch to a viable candidate (wtf is that, seriously) or decide to remain undecided.. could prove critical with the likes of Richardson/Dodd/Kucinich etc.
Situation in Pakistan helping to emphasize his sterling foreign policy credentials.. newspaper endorsements should not be underestimated in NH either, another factor that McCain has to his advantage..
Have a feeling that the wind may be out of Romney's sails by the time the travelling circus swings in to New Hampshire, and McCain may be just the man to capitalize.. not willing to get involved at 6/5 though mind..
This is all music to the ears of Rudy of course, who'll be doing everything he can with his team to get Huckabee a victory in Iowa..
On the Democratic side, it's even more fluid.. I will admit that I wrote of Edwards too quickly, though he can afford no worse than a close second in Iowa.. in his favour, however, is the fact that he has probably the most committed base in Iowa (a base which has been loyal to him since '04), which could prove crucial as much will hinge on who actually shows up on the night.. Hillary and Barack also relying heavily on voters who probably may not be totally committed caucas goers (Hillary with her old bettys and Barrack relying heavily on the youth vote..
Another potentially critical aspect of the Democratic caucus is that in order to be considered "viable", a candidate must have at least 14% of the individual precinct vote. In the event that the candidate does not, his/her supporters are given the opportunity to switch to a viable candidate (wtf is that, seriously) or decide to remain undecided.. could prove critical with the likes of Richardson/Dodd/Kucinich etc.
Well he seems to have wheeled Elizabeth in recent weeks and there's a kind of unwritten rule that anyone who attacks her is committing electoral suicide. She plays well with voters.
I should perhaps recant a story of a drink i had with some visiting professor whose based at Pembroke Collge I think it was? I gave him my logic on Edwards and the composition of the college vote and Hilary's inability to carry the South etc and he was mightly impressed and said I'd got a better take on things than he's under graduates
I felt empowered. He wanted to know which College I was at, and although lying was an option it would quickly unravel so I played it straight. Suffice to say the wind slowly came out of my sails as it became apparent he was a personal friend of "Johnny" and committed Democrat, and therefore my theories would only have been a case of him hearing what he believed himself.
Still I was still emboldend, until he told me who he thought would probably win. Guiliani
What i hadn't appreciated was that the Democratic vote was essentially "stupid" and had a habit of finding the most unelectable candidate it could (mind you, you might expect such sentiments from a cynical academic). His idea was that they'll elect Hillary eventually, before it dawned on them "too late" that she can't win them the White House by virtue of failing in the South. The more savvy Republicans will by this time have recognised that Rudy can beat her, and however unpalatable that may be to neo cons and religious zealots alike, it presents the less of two evils if she's the alternative.
My hope of course is that Edwards can get a bandwagon rolling and that money and bodies, which he lags behind in, will flow in as backers hedge etc
I should perhaps recant a story of a drink i had with some visiting professor whose based at Pembroke Collge I think it was? I gave him my logic on Edwards and the composition of the college vote and Hilary's inability to carry the South etc and he was mightly impressed and said I'd got a better take on things than he's under graduates
I felt empowered. He wanted to know which College I was at, and although lying was an option it would quickly unravel so I played it straight. Suffice to say the wind slowly came out of my sails as it became apparent he was a personal friend of "Johnny" and committed Democrat, and therefore my theories would only have been a case of him hearing what he believed himself.Still I was still emboldend, until he told me who he thought would probably win. Guiliani
What i hadn't appreciated was that the Democratic vote was essentially "stupid" and had a habit of finding the most unelectable candidate it could (mind you, you might expect such sentiments from a cynical academic). His idea was that they'll elect Hillary eventually, before it dawned on them "too late" that she can't win them the White House by virtue of failing in the South. The more savvy Republicans will by this time have recognised that Rudy can beat her, and however unpalatable that may be to neo cons and religious zealots alike, it presents the less of two evils if she's the alternative.
My hope of course is that Edwards can get a bandwagon rolling and that money and bodies, which he lags behind in, will flow in as backers hedge etc
G
Gearoid
Guest
Have you had a bet Warbler?
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
That'll be where we disagree then I suppose, Warbler, as I don't buy in to the notion that Hillary's perceived weakness in the "bible belt" automatically precludes her from winning the election..
FWIW, on the Republican side I reckon Huckabee will win Iowa, McCain New Hampshire, and Giuliani the nomination..
FWIW, on the Republican side I reckon Huckabee will win Iowa, McCain New Hampshire, and Giuliani the nomination..
G
Gearoid
Guest
20/1 Edwards? 38 the last price matched on Betfair. 14.5 to win the nomination.
Georoid - Americans can't use betting exchanges (i believe ?) so i'd I 've thought a lot of what you're getting is opinion that reflects European media coverage which has become intoxicated on Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama and drip fed it for about 12 months now. 38 is a fair trading position, especially as Edwards could well win Iowa, in which he'd have to collapse given the volatility of American polling. Hillary's made a few 'big city' gaffes there, and Obama's being put under pressure. I can't think there's any point in backing Edwards at half the odds to win the nomination? If he succeeds in this, he'll win the White House (the Presidency is the easy bit, the candidacy will be the tougher assignment). Take the bigger price for the bigger prize if you're going to get involved.
I think your Republican call is spot on, Trackside- and expect Romney could well be toast by Wednesday (our time). That would be my reading of it as things stand today
I still can't see Hillary carrying the South. Her figures will be pretty well the same today as they will be in 12 months time I reckon, as people tend to have fixed an opinion on her by now, and don't change it. Having said that, if she can get Florida, it'll be game over, she can afford to let the Republicans keep all their other states, and even let a few of the smaller ones go red if she can turn the Sunshine state blue. Which means it's going to come down against getting the urban vote in Miami, Tampa and Jacksonville out against the pan handle. Mind you, the state governor will probably have disqualified half the population from voting by then (again)
I think your Republican call is spot on, Trackside- and expect Romney could well be toast by Wednesday (our time). That would be my reading of it as things stand today
I still can't see Hillary carrying the South. Her figures will be pretty well the same today as they will be in 12 months time I reckon, as people tend to have fixed an opinion on her by now, and don't change it. Having said that, if she can get Florida, it'll be game over, she can afford to let the Republicans keep all their other states, and even let a few of the smaller ones go red if she can turn the Sunshine state blue. Which means it's going to come down against getting the urban vote in Miami, Tampa and Jacksonville out against the pan handle. Mind you, the state governor will probably have disqualified half the population from voting by then (again)