Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)

is there any bet place˝ with odds for the present candidates for the upcoming elections

somehow i personally think that Senator Mccain will win this elections

we could if given permission make two polls. one for each party and have people ether vote on who they want to win in that party or better who they think will win the party nomination.
then when we have that in a few months we can do the same for pres.

I think the odds makers still have Hillary as the favorite, though she pays better than she once did  :wink:

I have to be honest… as a mostly conservative Libertarian, I do not see anyone beating Hillary for 2008.  McCain would be the most likely to do so, but with him not gaining the “knock out” blow early against the other Republicans, that trashed his chance to beat her.

Too many folks think that “Clinton” means a return to the prosperity of the 1990’s, not realizing that Hillary is NOT Bill…

i’d put my money on people remembering hillary from the 90’s and all the rediculous offending statements she has had.

most people would see her as the devil, and her running could only help the republicans.  its been their strategy for some time.

i ve just jumped to wikipedia to see about the elections and i ve found that among few most exponed candidates are one Croat-in the democratic lines and one Black man in republican lines-

and i ve started to read a little about Senator Mccains life, and i must say his biography is impresive, he is if we see exp the man with most who could run your country as i see it,

thats all from me

for now

and i like the idea about poll, but i would like to find some ˝true poll˝ standings, there must be some English betting house with odds for it, they had odds posted when the pope was to be elected so…

Actually, I think Mitt is carrying the most delegates, he just hasn’t won any states yet.  Remember, this is the primary, the states don’t go 100% for the winner, they can (and I believe most do) split based on percentages of the votes.

@Cmdr:

Actually, I think Mitt is carrying the most delegates, he just hasn’t won any states yet.  Remember, this is the primary, the states don’t go 100% for the winner, they can (and I believe most do) split based on percentages of the votes.

in any case it will be an interesting (pre)election and election campaign this year :wink:

@Cmdr:

Actually, I think Mitt is carrying the most delegates, he just hasn’t won any states yet.

Actually he did win the Wyoming Caucuses.  He came in second in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Okay.  I was unaware he won a primary.  Thing is, he doesn’t need to win any states, he just needs to have the most delegates when the smoke clears.  Just like the President doesn’t need to win the popular vote, he just needs the most electoral votes at the end of the game. (I say he, because I honestly don’t think Mrs. Bill Clinton has a chance of winning.  To the contrary, I think that if she does get nominated, then the Republicans will get the White House again.)

I know that Hillary has some SERIOUS negatives, and Gods know that I do not want her in the White House.  However…  What are the Republicans putting up against her?

Huckabee?  A Baptist Minister?  OK, you win the South, but you lose New England, the West Coast and the Mid West… Election Democrats.

Romney?  A Mormon?  You LOSE the South, New England, the West Coast, the Mid West, and half of the Great Plains.

Guiliani?  An Authoritarian Pro War Social Liberal?  You lose the South, most of New England, the Mid West and the Pacific Coast.

McCain is the only hope the Republicans have…  And I have to be honest, I hate that fact, because McCain is NOT my kind of moderate Republican…  Truth be told, I would almost rather vote Hillary and hope that Bill can keep her from being TOO insane…

I think you are giving too much stock to Hillary and you are weighing a person’s religion way too heavily.

At worst, their religious beliefs will be canceled by Hillary being a woman, bring them on a level playing field there.

Now, factor in why Hillary cried when she was losing the election, but not when Clinton cheated on her, not when we were attacked on 9/11, not when discussing dieing soldiers, etc.  Why only for the election?  We all know THAT will be used against her if she is nominated.

Also factor in that Hillary was the original champion of socialist health care and she failed.

Factor in that Hillary was already co-President for 8 years.

Factor in that the new generation doesn’t WANT the Vietnam generation in the White House anymore and will vote for just about anyone to get them out and one of our generation in this time around.  Most of the elderly do not look back on the Clintons favorably and most of the younger generations don’t remember what the Clintons did that was so great, other then redefining sex so it didn’t include oral sex anymore.  The only generation gunning for her are the baby boomers and they are out numbered.  Not only out numbered but they are almost all, exclusively, busy working and probably won’t go to the polls anyway, while our generation are mostly students and younger employees who don’t take naps over the lunch hour because they are energetic, not decreppiled and ready to retire, if only they could count on retirement accounts!

Sure, Huckabee’s a Baptist.  So what?  Kennedy was a Catholic and he was elected.  Romney’s a Mormon, and if he lets the campaign revolve around his religion he might have speed bumps, but he’s still more electable then Hillary is.

If the Dems want the White House, then they need to put the Black Man in there.  Hillary will NOT carry the Soccer Mom vote.  Bill did because the Soccer Moms wanted to have sex with him!  Hillary isn’t that attractive anymore, actually, she’s kind of old looking.  I think she has her right niche in the Senate, she should stay there where she can represent 1% of America’s interest.

Obama at least is newer.  Sure, he played the Chicago election game, with all the inherent overt and covert scandals that includes to get elected to the Senate, and sure, he never finished a single term as senator, but he’s part of our generation, he’s a minority, he can carry the negro vote and he can keep the democrats loyal to their own party after this fiasco of a congress/senate they have given us.

Remember, people are getting down right sick of the Democrats right now.  Over 70% of people (close to 78% last time I looked) are not in favor of the democrats. (Congress’ approval ratings are below 22%, since Congress is the Democrat Party right now, I correlated them.  Just like the White House is the Republicans with a 37% approval rating.)

huckabee might acutally stand a chance. i’m not for his way cooky religious views, but hey, to each their own. especially if he is serious about colbert.  its weird, people would call it a mockery, but if colbert says he will become serious, they stand a chance.  he is more anti-evolution than i would prefer.  i basically believe in evolution, but there are huge gaps that are overlooked. and inconsistencies.  instead of saying its wrong, just say it has gaps and inconsistencies.

and is romney playing guiliani’s card?  dont care about caucuses and wait for the big states?

and let me guess switch, its McCains social stances you dont like.

and clinton is way too crazy.  there are soundbytes out there that make people cringe.  insulting ones.  she would get run over.  i think thats the point.  if politics is just a front to keep people from thinking this country was bought long ago, then whoever runs our country would know that you cant leave iraq to the iranians or al-qaeda, the stakes are way to freakin high, so they’ll have the democrats choose clinton, so after they lose, they can blame the loss on a bad choice. (crazy paranoid conspiracy about america that is 99% probably not true)  :-P

and jen, McCain would make hillary cry… :cry:                          :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

oh and mark twain (a baptist)  said “either two things happen when you are baptized a baptist, either you drown, or even worse…you emerge a baptist”.      :lol:

McCain-Feingold – the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy – the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman – the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry – through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases – in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards – the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Re-importation of Drugs – a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety since the FDA will NOT be monitoring drugs from OTHER nations.

These are NOT conservative programs!  These are liberal programs!  They seek to expand the power of the central government!  McCain will never get the electoral vote for President if the republicans remember all these liberal policies he has forged and pushed to a vote.

And let’s not forget the group of 14 that stopped Republicans from forcing judge appointments to get a normal 51% yea vote to be appointed instead of the 61% that the democrats forced with their ridiculous antics filibustering every nominee that was sent up.

I understand where y’all are coming from.

However…
Religious Right is an automatic loss outside of the South. 
That trashes Huckabee (much as I hate to say it since he is a Fair Tax supporter).  Mormonism is “devil worship” in the South.

Again, hate to say it, but Romney has no chance of winning anything south of Maryland and east of Texas.  He is also weak in New England and on the West coast.  That means Romney LOSES.

The Republicans simply have not put a candidate forward that can beat Hillary.  They CAN beat Obama, but not Hillary (racism beats out sexism).  As a Libertarian, I am not happy about that fact, but at present I have to say that President Clinton (Mrs, #44) is highly probable in the current field.

I agree with switch’s assement. I also think the Democratic canidate will win this election. Look at what happened with the Democrats in '04 after trying to appeal to the more fringe elements of the party none of the Democratic canidates were electabile to mainstream America. I think the Republicans will end up doing the same this year. I also think that Reaganomics regurgitated is not going to sell very well by the time of the national elections when the country is in a reccession.

@ncscswitch:

It is a shame that no candidate has that ultra pragmatic position on illegals…  Draconian enforcement against employers who hire illegals… problem solved, and the illegals go home at their own expense.  Not even Tancredo who is now out of the race embraced that simple, practical and REVENUE GENERATING solution.

There is a simple reason for that, Switch.  Do that, and you SHUT DOWN the entire construction industry in this country.  Outside of Union-controlled areas up North, easily 80% of your labor on construction projects are undocumented illegals (think carpenters, roofers, drywall installers, brick layers, etc.).  You shut down construction, you are guaranteed a recession for a VERY LONG time.  The problem is not, per se, illegal immigration.  The problem is a labor SHORTAGE in construction in particular coupled with absurdly low legal immigration quotas which forces these labor shortages to be met, through the “iron law” of supply and demand (read Adam Smith), through illegal immigrants.  Fix our broken immigration policy which is based on short-sighted and nativist anti-immigrant bias (nothing new under the sun in that respect in this country – always has been that way) on the one hand, encourage investment in Latin America (on a non-exploitive basis) to lift those economies whose stagnant nature drives people here in the first place, and you have the beginnings of a workable solution.  Throwing up a wall and hiring 1000 more border guards just pushes us further in the wrong direction because it denies and defies economic reality.

I will also point at that, as a construction lawyer, I have counseled NUMEROUS legal immigrants to this country (including Russians, Albanians, Croatians, etc.) who are entrepenuers and investors in our economy who have come over here with basically nothing and have created their own businesses, thereby creating jobs and, through competition, kept costs down.  From my observation, it would appear legal immigrant-related businesses are largely replacing businesses started by natural born Americans in fields like carpentry, drywall and roofing for the simple reason that natural-born Americans no longer pursue these trades, by and large.  Instead, the children of roofers and carpenters are going to college, or just getting by on the old man’s money (or, worse, living paycheck to paycheck), with no ambition to start their own businesses.  Basically, without the “fresh blood” that new immigrants provide, I feel our country would lose its “edge” and enter into a long, slow slide into mediocrity.  In fact, we might already be on that path.

So what does this have to do with the election?  I have no idea – none of the candidates are addressing anything substantive, but just re-gurgitating old, largely irrelevant slogans.  Romney and Guiliani are the worst offenders so far – based on their ads that I have seen.  Huckabee is just an evangelical nut with a smooth delivery (which, delivery-wise, is more than you can say for Romney, that’s for sure).  The Democrat nominee, whomever that might be, has to have the edge after 8 years of Bush (at 37% or whatever his approval rating is, not many Republicans like him either), but McCain may just be the one candidate who would stand a chance against Hillary or Obama as one who is definitely NOT a Bush clone who could still draw enough independents and Republicans (and even a few Democrats) who would have qualms about turning over the most powerful office in the world to a Hillary or an Obama, neither of whom truly have the experience the job requires (or should require).  Of course, in retrospect, neither did Bush . . .

I disagree, a44, Reagonomics was elected during the worst recession this nation had ever seen under President Carter.

And with this being the WORST Congress in the history of the nation, with the lowest approval rating EVER, the Republicans have a lot of propaganda they can use.  Things like: “Look at their leadership in Congress, they already screwed that up, do you want them to screw up the White House too???”  And the Betray-Us ads will resurge to remind us of why we shouldn’t give the power of the military back to the democrats.  Sound clips of influential democrats, like Kennedy, Murtha, Reid and Durbin slandering our troops will be played over and over and over again.

You guys seem to forget that the democrats have done some pretty bad things and that the Republicans could wisen up and play dirty politics and win despite President Bush’s approval ratings (which, for the record, are significantly higher then Congress’s.)

Reagan was elected mostly on the hostage crisis as I recall. Yes the economy was in bad shape under Carter but in a different way from what will be happening by fall of next year. What has passed so far is just the tip of the iceberg and has been along time coming for various reasons. I would not be surprised if we went into a full scale depression.

Also consider that the average American is nowhere near as politically savvy as posters on a site such as this so the approval ratings for congress I think will not matter. I have noticed that the Dems are playing it very safe this time around after '04 and that the Republicans are acting like the Dems who figured anybody could be beat Bush. Ie. all your arguments and it will be a cake walk slam for the Republicans.

@balungaloaf:

viacom took the video off of youtube.  probably b/c it would of helped huckabee too much b/c its so freakin halarious.  viacom is not a friend of republicans.  :x

Probably because it was in violation of copyright.  That’s generally the reason why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom#Copyright_complaints_against_YouTube

@Cmdr:

McCain-Feingold – the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

---

McCain-Kennedy – the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

---

McCain-Lieberman – the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry – through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases – in American history.

---

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards – the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

---

McCain-Re-importation of Drugs – a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety since the FDA will NOT be monitoring drugs from OTHER nations.

---

---

These are NOT conservative programs!  These are liberal programs!  They seek to expand the power of the central government!  McCain will never get the electoral vote for President if the republicans remember all these liberal policies he has forged and pushed to a vote.

And let’s not forget the group of 14 that stopped Republicans from forcing judge appointments to get a normal 51% yea vote to be appointed instead of the 61% that the democrats forced with their ridiculous antics filibustering every nominee that was sent up.

It’s exactly these actions that make McCain poison to the conservatives.  It’s no secret that he’s the darling of the left-wing media, and that a large part of his support comes from independents.  That helps him in states like NH, but when we get past those states and he has to run in “Republican only” primaries his support will melt away, just like it did in 2000.