Presidential Primaries Bets

[Tom B]

I am no expert on Presidential wagering but my gut feeling is Obama is running four years too early.

He has only been on the national scene for a couple of years and I think he could use the 4 more years to build the Obama brand. Of course the nightmare scenario with that is Edwards, Clinton etc get in and lock up the office for 8 years and then get a strong VP elected and then Obama could be waiting for 8-12-16 years for a real legit shot to win.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I acknowledge that there are some people who won't vote for a candidate because he's black (5%, according to the latest poll, compared to 7% who wouldn't vote for a Jew, or 11% who wouldn't vote for a woman)

[/ QUOTE ]

A poll is definitely a terrible way to try to find out that info.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, people may be reluctant to say they're racist to a pollster. But it's not like people were shy about their views. More than 20% wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Fewer than 50% would vote for a homosexual. (These results are available at pollingreport.com)

Maybe the real number is 10% that wouldn't vote for a black candidate. Then the real number who wouldn't vote for a woman should be around 22%. Prejudice will hurt Clinton more than Obama. And in any case, very few of these people are the hard-core Democratic activists that vote in the primaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2008 I dont think the US would have a problem electing a Black President. What I do believe you underestimate is that the US will not elect a Muslim sounding canidate. Yes I know he was only a Muslim for a few years as a child, but after 9/11 the US will not be open to it.

California also moved up their primary in the last week to an Early Feb date. Clinton has the popularity and the money to easily win California.

[caguma]

I still don't get why the Dems are even considering running Hillary. She's so far to the left its gonna ruin what should be a landslide for them in the fall. All they need to do is put forward a likable, more moderate candidate and they'll win by a large margin and have the political capital to get things done. Edwards maybe? I'm not familiar with his policies though so I'm not sure.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
I still don't get why the Dems are even considering running Hillary. She's so far to the left its gonna ruin what should be a landslide for them in the fall.

[/ QUOTE ]

She's actually fairly centrist. She voted for the Iraq war and, unlike Edwards, has refused to apologize for it. She takes pains to make symbolic centrist gestures like an anti-flag-burning amendment.

Posts like the one above illustrate Hillary's problem. People inside the Democratic party think she's too cynical/conservative, and people outside the party think she's a left-wing nut. The flag-burning amendment in particular was dismissed by Democrats and Republicans both as hollow pandering--she'll never convince Republicans she's not secretly liberal, but she can convince Democrats she has no real convictions and will say and do anything to win.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I know he was only a Muslim for a few years as a child, but after 9/11 the US will not be open to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obama was never a muslim. That rumor is just an early campaign smear.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

[dlorc]

This thread exemplifies all that is wrong with the American political system.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, I like your analysis and the only recommendation I would make is to give the other side of the argument and address it. In other words, if what you say is true then why is Hillary so heavily favored and what are the flaws in those reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good question. Hillary is favored because she has a lot of money, very strong name recognition, and a considerable asset in her husband. She's also currently leading in the IA and NH polls. The most recent I could find put Iowa at:
Clinton 35
Edwards 18
Obama 14
Vilsack 12

The money issue I think I've dealt with earlier. This is definitely an advantage for her, but not as big as everyone thinks. Clinton will be able to get her message out, but if no one's listening, it won't help her. Obama and Edwards will have enough to stay competitive, and there will be extensive free media for everyone.

Bill Clinton is probably as much liability as asset. He'll bring in the money, and serve as a great second campaigner, but of course he'll also remind people that the Clintons' marriage is based mostly on political ambition. He's also somewhat distrusted by liberals because of his triangulation strategy in the 90s.

Name recognition and polling go hand in hand. Polls this early are basically measures of familiarity. Joe Lieberman absolutely dominated the polls at this point in 2003. Everyone knows and has an opinion about Hillary. The most recent poll puts her at 58% favorable, 40% unfavorable, and 1% unsure. For Obama, it's 53% favorable, 18% unfavorable, 16% never heard of, and 12% unsure. This will change in time.

Lastly, I thought this thread was entertaining. An informal poll of who people don't want to see nominated by their own party. Right now it's Hillary 8, Edwards 2, Obama 0.

[mosta]

My intuition is that Obama's biggest weakness at this moment (bad timing for him) is that he doesn't portray an image (for a few reasons) of someone who will bring the hammer down on Islamic militants whenever the opportunity arises. Maybe my impression of the country's taste for conflict is backwards, but my sense is that the public would be happy to be out of Iraq but then going after the real enemies. Obama reeks of softness and through no fault of his own evokes several unfortunate resemblances.

As much as I loathe GWB, it warms my heart that the US was involved in airstrikes and a naval mini-blockade in Somalia just a couple weeks ago. (and I'm surprized that was such a small blip in the media). I assume most people would agree with me that we need more of that.