11-10-2008, 07:09 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
|
Intrade Odds
for 2012. This reminds me of when Hamlet asked his mother if, after Old Hamlet died, she had moved into Claudius's room that very night, or waited a whole week out of respect for the dead.
For the GOP nomination: 1) Mitt Romney 24.5 percent, 2) Mike Huckabee 11.1 percent, 3) Sarah Palin 10.5 percent, 4) Newt Gingrich 8.9 percent Interesting that Jindal's not even listed yet. Odds that the Republicans will win in 2012: 40% |
11-10-2008, 03:47 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
|
Could be wrong, but that sounds more like the Princess Bride than Hamlet.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
11-10-2008, 03:53 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
|
|
11-10-2008, 04:08 PM | #4 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 63
|
Quote:
I refuse to believe that the GOP could be so stupid as to actually nominate a hillbilly like Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. If Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric wasn't enough to convince people that Palin isn't a viable national candidate (not to mention she's not really fit to be President), then the GOP is truly a lost party. BTW, I would welcome Newt Gingrich running. He would bring some candidness and intelligence to the race, I think. |
|
11-10-2008, 04:21 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
|
Quote:
Well, it's not the GOP's say. It's the voters'. If the DNC had had its way, Hillary would have been the nominee. And Jindal, I don't know what to think. He's what the party desperately needs, but I just don't see America supporting two racial-minority nominees in a row. The white guys get freaked out. |
|
11-10-2008, 04:38 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where do you think?
Posts: 1,201
|
But Jindal speaks with a white guy's southern accent. That should count for something.
|
11-10-2008, 04:54 PM | #7 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
Are there archives showing what the opening odds were for 2008, four years ago?
|
11-10-2008, 05:11 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
|
11-10-2008, 05:25 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
How is Mitt going to be a viable candidate in 2012?
All his negatives from 2008 are still there....and by 2011, he will have been removed from any public office for 3 years. He wasn't even really close in 2008, why would 2012 be any different? I think Jeb Bush would be the best choice, frankly, but for W screwing that whole thing up.
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
11-10-2008, 05:37 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where do you think?
Posts: 1,201
|
Quote:
Why wouldn't he be a viable candidate in 2012? Being removed from public office for 3 years will probably help him. Last edited by NorCal Cat; 11-10-2008 at 05:37 PM. Reason: typo |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|