Hillary In A Walk In '08?

"The way we see it the next President of the United States is either Hillary Clinton or John McCain" says Sportsinteraction.com. "Though the smart money is on Hillary."

Read the evidence and weep. At 5-2 odds, the junior Senator from New York takes the field from Arizona's McNasty. Those hoping for a Hillary Clinton-Rudolph Giuliani rematch will be disappointed, as McCain, at 7-1, narrowly edges out the former mayor (8-1). The last time Hillary and Rudy faced off, of course, members of the Clintons' coven obtained a piece of Giuliani's hairpiece and were able to strike him down with a medical malediction. Will the melanoma- and prostate-stricken erstwhile Cap'n of the Straight Talk Express fare any better? My own bet for the Democratic nomination, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, is puffing and wheezing in the middle of the pack, alongside old grey mares like John "I'll sue ya!" Edwards and Evan "I'm a legacy" Bayh. And sweeping up confetti in the back are such dark horses as Jeb Bush (25-1), Tom Daschle (33-1), and John Kerry (50-1).

Sportsinteraction.com brags that it's a regulated gambling site, so maybe the fix is in for the establishment schmos? Probably not. Playersonly.com (which isn't getting top billing only because, unlike Sportsinteraction, it didn't spam me the results this morning), has more or less similar numbers for the frontrunners, and puts Richardson back with such hopeless causes as Kerry, Tom Daschle, and Tom Ridge (the last man to die for George W. Bush's mistakes). In the unlikely event of a Bill Maher-Michael Moore presidential race, by the way, the smart money's on Maher. Oddschecker.com has McCain and George Allen (was he the coach of the Redskins or something?) well ahead of Giuliani for the Republicans, and Hillary without serious competition for the Democrats. The futures market at Intrade.com lists a 30.7 bid price for McCain and a 41.6 bid price for Hillary.

One bet you'll definitely want to take: The loser in 2008 will be the United States of America.

If you're in the mood for a mushmouthed pitch for Sportsinteraction.com by USFL breakout star and four-time Super Bowl loser Jim Kelly, you're in luck.

Comments

[CTD]

Remember when Dean was a total lock for the D nom?

[wayne]

CTD, You are now on my enemies list as I wanted to be the first to post.

[M'Tuklavier]

Remember when Dean was a total lock for the D nom?

No, not off hand, but I'm feeling very, very sad and uneasy.

[M'Tuklavier]

I didn't want to be first, I wanted to be second. Thanks!

[Ed]

Shit, it has finally come true: Every day in America is an election year.

[wayne]

M, sorry, I never thought of that. Now, I will have to lay in wait for #69.

[Deus ex Machina]

Forget Dean, remember Edward Muskie, Gary Hart, Scoop Jackson, RFK, Edward Kennedy, Gerald Ford in '80...

[plunge]

LOL, that actual Democratic winner isn't even on that list. It's way too early to even know who's running, and most of the big players won't evne be known until next year. But here's a hint about a major factor not evne listed: guess who just dropped a HUMUNGOUS amount of cash in New Hampshire and is speaking there soon, broadcast on CPSAN for the first time of his New Hampshire career? There's your guy.

[Deus ex Machina]

Reason Pillow Girl for President in '08!

[thoreau]

I'd like to think that America can elect a President who isn't related (by either blood or marriage) to a former President.

Fun facts on Presidential relatives:

In 1824, the namesake son of John Adams came second in the electoral vote, but since nobody got a majority it went to the House for a runoff, where he won. To the extent that a popular vote can be inferred he lost that as well, but in 1824 the electoral college didn't operate quite the way it does today. In some states the electors were appointed by the legislature, so the popular vote wasn't a nation-wide tally. And I don't know if any states allowed people to vote for unpledged electors or mixed slates. Still, the son of a former President did pretty poorly in the election of 1824 and only won because the election was decided by some officials in DC.

In 1888, William Henry Harrison's grandson lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote.

Franklin Roosevelt was only a distant relative of Teddy Roosevelt. He did pretty well in his 4 elections.

In 2000, the namesake son of George Bush lost the popular vote. The electoral vote hinged on a single close state, so the election hinged on a Supreme Court ruling.

Hillary Clinton may not be a descendant of Bill Clinton, but she is a member of his immediate family. I predict that if she's nominated she'll lose the popular vote but win the electoral vote.

[Stephen Macklin]

I can't really imagine a worse scenario than a choice between Hillary and McCain.

It is too much to contemplate without a good deal of alcohol.

[M'Tuklavier]

thoreau,

I'm not sure but I think George Washington wasn't a relative of a former president. I could be wrong.

[thoreau]

I predict that in another generation or two most of our Presidents will be relatives of Bill Clinton, but they won't have the last name Clinton.

Then again, most Americans who aren't President will also be relatives of Bill Clinton in another generation or two.

[M'Tuklavier]

I can't really imagine a worse scenario than a choice between Hillary and McCain.

That thought has been giving me night terrors for awhile now.

[SR]

I keep wondering why nobody in Congress proposes this relatively straightforward Constitutional amendment:

I. No present or former spouse nor any first degree relative, whether by blood or adoption, of a person who holds, or has held, the office of the President shall be eligible to hold that same office. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

(I lifted part of the language from the 22nd Amendment.)

I actually think this could work on a bipartisan basis, since it is anti-Hillary Clinton and anti-Jeb Bush.

[M'Tuklavier]

Oprah for vice prez!

[John C. Randolph]

I'm looking forward to Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nomination. It would probably scare the Republicans enough to put the FairTax in their platform.

Of course, Clinton might just be smug enough to beat Walter Mondale's record, and not even carry the District of Columbia. Wouldn't that be a hoot?

-jcr

[Yogi]

I can't really imagine a worse scenario than a choice between Hillary and McCain.

You can't? How about Jeb vs. Hillary? It seems to me there are a lot worse people the Republicans could nominate than McCain even if he isn't on our shortlist.

[happyjuggler0]

SR,

As soon as that amendment passes I'm sure we'll find out that Bill Clinton never had marital relations with that woman, i.e. Hillary. They'll claim they had their fingers crossed when they took their marriage vows and thus they aren't really married. We'll also be unable to find a copy of their marriage certificate and a rumor will go around that Oliver Stone had something to do with its disappearance.

[mewsifer]

I don't care who we nominate (except I hope it's Rudy ...); please, please God let the Democrats nominate Hillary.

[m g]

Whats with the lack of love for warner? Sportsinteraction doesnt even list him.

Tradesports has him at 20% likely to get the democratic nom. And tradesports doesn't set the odds, the contracts work just like a futures market.

[wayne]

"Whats with the lack of love for warner? Sportsinteraction doesnt even list him."

Who's Warner?

[Rick Barton]

I make it that McCain is a lot less offensive than
Clinton. Despite his many deficiencies, he's a Hell of a lot more frugal then her on government spending...

McCain:

http://tinyurl.com/9ywzb

Clinton:

http://tinyurl.com/apmpl

And I can't think of one area where war hawk Hillary is less statist than McCain. Can anyone?

[LUSH RIMBAUGH]

SHE CAN'T RUN FOR A THIRD TERM, GODDAMIT!!!!!!!

[Jason Sonenshein]

Whats with the lack of love for warner? Sportsinteraction doesnt even list him.

Yeah, I thought that was odd, too.

Who's Warner?

Fmr. Gov. Mark Warner (D-Va.)

[panurge]

I think there's a really good chance the Dems could split in '08. An intelligent liberal like Russ Feingold could prove to be the Eugene McCarthy to Hillary Clinton's Lyndon Johnson.

If that happens, the Dems, as usual, will have a lot of difficulty pulling themselves back together. I also think that Tom Vilsack could drain a lot of energy from Clinton in the primaries, since he could win Iowa and pick up steam from there. I have a funny feeling the Democratic nomination will NOT be a cakewalk for Clinton.

In any case, McCain will beat her.

[Matt Tievsky]

Perhaps I'm deluded, but I've always given credit to McCain for being true to his beliefs (or admitting when he failed to do so, as in the South Carolina confederate flag incident), though I often disagree with those beliefs. And for generally being interested in reforming his system, e.g., his opposition to pork and his support for campaign finance regulation (which I strongly oppose). So, if forced to pick between the two without knowing who controls Congress, I'd lean towards McCain.

Whenever I think well of a successful politician, I begin to suspect I'm ignorant of something. So, anyone care to disabuse me of this limited, favorable impression that I have of McCain?

[Eric II]

Unless the GOP gets trounced this November, there's no way McCain's getting the elephant nomination. The religious right, after having had a President more or less in their pocket for eight years, just won't allow it. A party might be willing to shift political gears and nominate someone seen less committed to kissing the asses of the hard-core loyalists if they feel desperate (though as the 2002 California gubernatorial primaries showed, even that's no guarantee). But they won't do it if they feel that they're still riding a huge wave of success. This is true for McCain, and is doubly true for a Northeastern RINO/drag queen like Giuliani.

At this point, I'd give George Allen the inside track to get the GOP nod, followed by Jeb, and with Frist having an outside shot.

[thoreau]

Eric, your posts are always very astute. I like your observations about the 2002 gubernatorial primaries in CA.

[JD]

I just think anybody who says Hillary's a walk is...well, somebody I suspect isn't thinking hard enough. She's had what, one term as junior senator? That doesn't even sound like nomination material, much less a presidential winner. Also, although she gets a lot of people fired up in a positive way, she also gets a lot of people fired up just as strong if not stronger in a negative way. Better to choose someone a little safer, without her tons of baggage.

[Rick Barton]

RINO...like Giuliani.

That's for sure

[Douglas Fletcher]

Haven't seen any mention of my favorite senator, Biden. Oops, sorry.

[SM]

How democrats can take back the country -
http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2483

[wayne]

"Who's Warner?

Fmr. Gov. Mark Warner (D-Va.)"

Yeah, but my point is: Who is Warner? The rest of us in America, fly-over country and the west, just don't know or care. Just another beltway bandit. No offense intended to all you Direct Current types.

[Jack]

Rick Barton wrote: "And I can't think of one area where war hawk Hillary is less statist than McCain. Can anyone?"

McCain is a strong proponent of compulsory national service. I've never seen H.C. push for it to anywhere near the extent he has. And on a *completely* unrelated topic, why has political assassination declined as an artform in the United States?

[Douglas Fletcher]

Maybe because since the decline of everyone wearing short haircuts like they did in the early 1960s, it's too easy to spot the nuts? I mean, when you walk through a political rally with swastikas tattooed on your head, you might well get a second look from the Secret Service, you know?

[Kahn]

Matt,

Whenever I think well of a successful politician, I begin to suspect I'm ignorant of something. So, anyone care to disabuse me of this limited, favorable impression that I have of McCain?

First of all, McCain gives the lesser unfavorable impression. The impression he gives should not in any way be construed as particularly "favorable" on net. But it sounds like you know that much.

Second, whoever we vote into the White House will transmorgify into someone we don't know anymore, no matter what else happens. Like Our Lord the Burning Bush, who was going to do great things like privatize SS and all, but instead spends better than LBJ. And Arnold the Guvinator who was going to fix California's budget disaster, but who in practice can't even get dish-rag warm proposals through that suggest "someday soon, we might start actually doing something about our over drawn checking account".

I consider Arnold proof that California is now ungovernable. The same is true at the national level, we just don't know it yet.

Think about it. Does anybody here really, actually want to be president? What kinds of shit would you have to be ready to tolerate? What kind of person would actually want the job today?

Consider what happened to the Guvinator, who (I believe) actually intended to do something good for California's budget disaster, at least initially. But he got chewed up and spit out.

We shouldn't be surprised at what our voting options are. Nobody good wants the job, and anybody good that tries gets turned into hamburger.

[PapayaSF]

I'm not weeping, because I see almost no way it could happen. The last I checked, 50%+ of the populace disliked her, everyone (including the normally-fawning media) thinks her attempts to appear tough on defense are just posturing, and she can't articulate a clear position without ticking off either her left-wing base or the centrists she needs to win the general election.

P.S.: That "Give me a Valentine I won't forget" ad really cracks me up. It's true: give your girlfriend a political magazine subscription for Valentine's Day, and she'll always remember (as will all her friends) the stupid ex-boyfriend who once gave her a political magazine subscription for Valentine's Day.

[John C. Randolph]

Worse than Clinton and McCain? Easy!

Pat Robertson vs. Al Sharpton.
Michael Moore vs. Rush Limbaugh.
Noam Chomsky vs. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Jos? Padilla vs. John Poindexter.
Janet Reno vs. Jimmy Swaggart.

Really, your imagination is quite limited, if hillary and john were the worst you could come up with.

-jcr

[Akira MacKenzie]

Best line in SM's Something Awful article:

"Start supporting the second amendment, because all of our liberal gun control talk is about to take a big ironic shit in our mouth."

[Kahn]

Really, your imagination is quite limited, if hillary and john were the worst you could come up with.

Unless, you're considering people who might actually end up getting nominated.

A Billary vs McSlain runoff is worth getting drunk over. Several times.

But relax. The Big Bad Bush is going to be there for a while. We can start saving up now, so we can all get good and drunk when time comes.

[Kahn]

she can't articulate a clear position without ticking off either her left-wing base or the centrists she needs to win the general election

Show me a politician who doesn't have the same problem. What can any politician say without ticking off somebody?

I would think Billary was a sure-to-loose bet. But the Republicans are not opposed to nominating dish rags, consider Clinton's second term election. I swear the Republicans had no desire to win that presidential race.

Maybe they'll feel the same way about Billary.

Oh, I get it. It's because all the true, old fashioned gentelmen in this country are in the Republican party and they just aren't going to fight with no woman now, ya hear?

[BarryJV]

Deus ex Machina: Reason Pillow Girl for President in '08!
Who's pillow girl, is she any relation to carpet humping guy?

How come I'm not seeing Condi Rice mentioned here at all? I don't think Democrats are allowed to vote against black women candidates are they?

[Matt]

I don't think Democrats are allowed to vote against black women candidates are they?

No, that's not quite it. They can't vote against a black candidate, and they can't vote against a woman candidate, so she'd have double coverage....

[rdkraus]

Hill vs. Mc ???

Wow, either stay home or vote Lib.

Can't imagine voting for either of them.

Can barely imagine living in the US with one of them as Pres.

[thoreau]

and she can't articulate a clear position without ticking off either her left-wing base or the centrists she needs to win the general election

PapayaSF, I don't think the Dems will face that problem. The fact that they nominated Kerry proves it. Yeah, I know, he's a far lefty by any H&R standard, but by the standards of the Dems he is only somewhat left of center. They knew he wasn't a hard left ideologue, but they nominated him because he seemed like he could win.

Yeah, obviously they were wrong about that, but the point is that they didn't nominate the perceived leftist (Dean), they nominated a perceived centrist with a perceived ability to win. And they stuck together in the general election, with only a very minor Nader problem.

I think that in 2008 they'll be disciplined enough to avoid nominating a far lefty, and they'll stick together in the general election.

The big question is whether they'll be able to identify somebody who can win over the center. They'll certainly try, but they may turn out to be dramatically mistaken in their assessments.

My hunch is that the difficulty in assessing electability may have something to do with letting Iowa and New Hampshire pick the nominees.

[Jason Ligon]

Hillary vs. McCain is a recurring nightmare of mine.

Question: Do you really think McCain has enough party loyalty to get an elephantine nod in the primary? He has spent the last three years pooping where he sleeps.

From where I'm sitting, the best of reasonably likely contests would be Bayh vs. Giuliani.

[Pro Libertate]

Senator Clinton won't even make it to nomination time--i.e., she'll drop out earlier in the primaries. To begin with, this "pre-annointing" thing doesn't work very well anymore. Also, she is too polarizing, has been amazingly unimpressive as a senator, offends people who don't see the presidency as a hereditary fiefdom, and almost certainly has enough scandal in her background (which will be brought back to life by Democrats during the primary, don't forget) to derail her candidacy.

It's frankly pathetic that some of the left and a lot of the media are pushing her so hard. We can do so much better, and we'll need a good president to help unravel some of the mess the last two or three have helped make worse. This certainly isn't the time to vote for a poor candidate solely because she's a woman, either, for any so inclined.

My bet is that Bill Richardson and Mark Warner make a big run. For those of you who don't know Warner, he seems to do well with moderate Republicans as well as Democrats, which is a huge advantage when it comes time for the general election.

For the Republicans, it's hard to read at this point. However, I think if Condoleezza Rice gives in and runs, she wins it all. She's perceived as competent and intelligent, and has the whole black woman thing going for her, too. She's reputedly fairly moderate as well.

Of course, I'll end up voting for whatever crank the LP puts up in the general election. I expect someone extra bizarre this time. Maybe a fictional character?

[Jason Ligon]

PL:

"Maybe a fictional character?"

Truth is stranger than fiction. Send in the clowns. What we really need is more people thinking small government is for loons.

[Pro Libertate]

Sherlock Holmes? No, wait, he's not American. Can't have a fictional non-American as our president.

How about Captain Kirk? He's good on foreign policy.

[mk]

You guys seem to be forgetting something.

Mark Warner is tall. Therefore, he will be the next Dem Nominee for president.

It really is that simple.

[theCoach]

I find it hard to believe that every sane person in the US who has paid any attention to the news in this country could possibly think that either John McCain or Hillary Clinton would not be an order of magnitude better than the current President is now.
Bigger deficits? Higher Spending? More war? More Total Information Awareness? More Warrantless Searches? More dishonesty? More Corruption?
What could it possible be?

[Pro Libertate]

theCoach, don't take this the wrong way, but George W. Bush isn't running in 2008. If he has been bad--and he has--why aim low for his replacement? Clinton would be as bad in many respects (she's shown almost no backbone). McCain is principled in his way and might not be all bad, but he's shown some very bad traits that we're all quite familiar with. It's only 2006, so maybe the Democrats will realize that throwing all of their weight behind Clinton is dumb and will look for a good candidate. Like I said earlier, Richardson and Warner are respectable potential nominees, and they would put real pressure on the GOP to run someone halfway decent.

[Captain Holly]

"Start supporting the second amendment, because all of our liberal gun control talk is about to take a big ironic shit in our mouth."

That, in a nutshell, is the biggest reason the Democrats consistently lose. There are more gun owners, and more people who don't own guns but like the idea of being able to if they wish, than the Media, pollsters, and DNC wonks think.

If the Democrats could outflank the Republicans on the gun control issue they'd recapture alot of Red America.

[joe]

Aw, look, they're writing off Kerry early again.

That's so cute.

Yep, the perception that he's bungled his chance with a badly run campaign means he's finished.

And, besides, Gephardt's sure to win Iowa, because his state is right next door.

What year is it again?

[Pro Libertate]

Um, joe, Kerry couldn't beat Bush. And he's not been impressive since the election, either. It would take Massachusetts-colored lenses to think otherwise 🙂 Like I said, the Democrats can back a good candidate or leave the GOP in power.

[R C Dean]

Perhaps I'm deluded, but I've always given credit to McCain for being true to his beliefs

Its just that his core belief is that he knows better than you, and is willing to throw your ass in jail if you don't come around muy pronto.

[Isaac Bartram]

If the Democrats could outflank the Republicans on the gun control issue they'd recapture alot of Red America.

That's the impression I get when I read Field & Stream and Outdoor life.

And I'm wiiling to bet that a lot of readers of American Hunter get a little tired of the steady dose of Republican propaganda that has nothing to do with gun rights that they get from NRA flaks.

The Democrats will need to come up with a more convincing hunter than John Kerry, though.

[Captain Holly]

The Democrats will need to come up with a more convincing hunter than John Kerry, though.

More than that, they'll actually have to drop their "we support gun ownership for hunting, but" platform.

They have to state the "Second Amendment is Individual Right" in their platform; at that point it will be serious. Whether or not gun owners will believe them is another story.

[Daze]

These odds translate to: 28% chance Hilary wins, 12% chance McCain wins, 11% chance for Giuliani, total of 62% for the others.

The Dem total is slightly higher than the Rep total, around 57.5% to 55.5%.

[joe]

Pro Libertate,

This country has never - never - voted a sitting president out of office during wartime. The closest we have ever come was Kerry's campaign in 2004. Had Bush not been the incumbant, Bush would have lost by even more than he did in 2000.

[Pro Libertate]

I don't buy it. Kerry was a poor candidate, which most of the Democrats I know say now with great force. Kind of like Dole in 1996.

Bush won in 2000, joe.

[Pro Libertate]

Oh, and I think it's a fair statement that LBJ would've lost if he'd run. That's a recent piece of contrary evidence on the war election front.

Aside from Kerry, who do you like, by the way?

[thoreau]

joe-

If that historical rule continues to hold then we may be in for a string of 2-termers, since it is generally believed that this will be a very, very long war.

[joe]

Pro Lib,

"Bush won in 2000, joe." By an impressive -537,000 votes.

Democrats always talk trash about candidates who lose - which is a mistake, as "losers" like Reagan '76 and Poppy '80 demonstrate.

We can speculate all we want about "wouldas," be we have no way of knowing what would have happened if Johnson had run again.

Who do I like? I like Feingold, Clark, and Gore, other than Kerry.

Who do I "like," as in, predict will win? Warner. In fact, I'm predicting a Warner vs. Warner, Virginia vs. Virginia campaign.

[Pro Libertate]

I agree about Warner. He looks like a strong candidate. But you never know. I thought about Reagan when you first mentioned Kerry, but, whatever one might think about Reagan, he did have a powerful message and means of delivering it. Kerry just doesn't do that for many people.

As for the popular vote issue, well, it's never been a popular election for president. And, I, for one, don't think it should be. I know this has been argued to death here, but I think we're safer with the checks we originally built into the system--checks on the general electorate as well as on the elected officials. We're all capable of tyranny and abuse. That's human nature, and we need controls to protect us from, yes, ourselves. Which is why I think the 17th Amendment was a bad idea, too.

[wayne]

"Who do I "like," as in, predict will win? Warner. In fact, I'm predicting a Warner vs. Warner, Virginia vs. Virginia campaign."

Who is Warner? A little tongue in cheek here, but here is an honest question: Who is the second Warner? I know a little of John Warner, he is Mr. Wonder Woman, right? But is there a second Warner?

[Isaac Bartram]

In fact, I'm predicting a Warner vs. Warner...

Boy howdy, if you think the geezers in West Palm had a problem with the "Butterfly Ballot" just think how much trouble they'll have with that one.

[Douglas Fletcher]

I know a little of John Warner, he is Mr. Wonder Woman, right?

No, that was Elizabeth Taylor he was married to, back when she was eating whales.

[thoreau]

Doug gets the award for post #69 in this thread.

Isaac-

Nah, voting will be easy. Just vote for the Warner from Virginia! 🙂

[kmw]

For your reading pleasure, I give you ___this link___ on Hillary's sinking fortunes.

[Isaac Bartram]

thoreau

😮

[Syd]

Pro Libertate,
This country has never - never - voted a sitting president out of office during wartime. The closest we have ever come was Kerry's campaign in 2004. Had Bush not been the incumbant, Bush would have lost by even more than he did in 2000.
Comment by: joe at February 9, 2006 02:21 PM

That's because we vote them out during the primaries.

[Rick Barton]

Ron Paul!

[Matt Damon]

Matt Damon!