US Presidential Elections 2008
Current betting is on Hilliary Clinton versus John McCain. With Hillary going on to win the Presidency.
Thing is I'd be surprised if either of these candidates wins the nomination from their respective parties. That's just my personal take on it, although when you think back to my previous predictions I did remarkably well two years ago predicting both the US and Australian elections correctly well in advance.
However seeing as I'm not putting up cold hard cash perhaps I'm reading the US electorate incorrectly. We'll know in 2 years.
Thing is I'd be surprised if either of these candidates wins the nomination from their respective parties. That's just my personal take on it, although when you think back to my previous predictions I did remarkably well two years ago predicting both the US and Australian elections correctly well in advance.
However seeing as I'm not putting up cold hard cash perhaps I'm reading the US electorate incorrectly. We'll know in 2 years.
5 Comments:
McCain 41%
Giuliani 19%
Romney 17%
Allen 7%
Condi Rice 5%
Gingrich 4%
Huckabee 4%
Then quite a few around 1%, including:
Jeb Bush 1%
These odds come from the futures market. Essentially Jeb is offering 100 to 1. I wouldn't worry about it Tzar, there's not much chance of him being the nominee.
My current guess is Giuliani as the Republican nominee - I think Governer's come with a lot less baggage than senators. For that reason Romney's in with a shot as well.
We're a long way out and a lot could change between now and 08.
Thanks for the link to Hillary.
I had a read through and she sounds serious on the important issues.
The problem I see ahead for her is winning the nomination, more so than winning the election.
Joe Lieberman
http://lieberman.senate.gov/
is someone who is leftwing (like Hillary - just see their voting records) but he is being potentially pushed out of the party by people even further to the left.
The problem is that if Hillary chooses to dance with the left to secure the nomination she isn't going to appeal to the middle to win the election. She's walking a fine line.
That's what Bill did so well. A southern governor who could capture the middle.
As I predicted months in advance last time, Kerry was the wrong candidate to go up against Bush. He couldn't win the middle.
The Democrats are hurting themselves by playing with the lefty nuts (the Michael Moore fruitbat crowd). It's all about the middle, Democrats need to stay away from the far left, wheras conversely the Republicans need to stay away from the far right.
I'll watch from the centre and see who is taking what stands on the big issues.
Heh, on the 30th July 2004 I posted
"Still, it would be interesting to have a President Hillary Clinton with Bill the first lady. That's only going to happen if Bush wins. 2012 is too long to wait for Hillary."
However I think you're deluding yourself if you think a significant proportion of Democrats deliberately lost in 2004. Their hatred of Bush would have trumped any scheming to set up Hillary four years later. After all voter turnout was the highest since way back in the 60's.
I think you're right about the average Joe. However there is also a significant proportion of US citizens who pump their shotguns at the very mention of the name Hillary. Putting her up would energise her opponents to turnout as much if not more than her own side.
Still it would be funny that if you had Hillary for the next 8 years then you would have had 2 families in power for 24 years. Nepotism at its finest on both sides.
Good point.
That's why I'm not an accountant.
Btw: 28 years is ridiclous.
I saw some polling data the other day on Hillary. She basically loses against any Republican.
I don't however put that much faith in polls. I prefer to watch the markets. I'll post up something on the Democratic potential candidates for ya.
Post a Comment
<< Home