Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoman
OT: 4 years ago-ish, John Kerry was a phenomenal 10/1 to win the Democratic nomination.
It was after a relatively good performance on a CNN debate where he stood out amongst the other Democratic candidates that shrunk his odds almost immediately (much like David Cameron impressing against a rather insipid David Davis in an early Conservative conference where he was also 10/1).
We'll see more conferences, more mud-slinging, more televised debates and more polls but I think most Democratic and Republican voters will be sheep and follow the one most likely to seemingly attract floating voters (well duh) and it will be dirty tricks, perception of public personas and 'personality politics' at play in which Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani hold the lead...for now.
...to think I pooh-poohed Barack Obama's chances a year or so ago! He was 50/1! :wasntme
|
I'm neither a Republican nor one who thinks they've got a great chance in 2008, so I won't be looking at their primaries too closely. You know they've got a problem when its own
party members distanced and dissociated themselves from the President (it's no secret numerous Republican candidates running for Congress in 2006 didn't exactly find the idea of having Bush campaigning for them flattering, eh?).
That said, I think it's worth noting, unlike 2004 where there was a dearth of heavyweights on the Democratic front, the Democratic contest is more keenly contested this time than any point in time since 1968.
Being totally honest, I don't think too many will disagree that had Hillary Clinton or Al Gore run in 2004, there's every chance one of them would have secured the Democratic nomination instead of John Kerry. Given the pedigree and experience of the frontrunners this time, I just don't see any parallel between 2004 and 2008.
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have got proven political track records in their own capacities in the (Bill)Clinton administration and what they've gotten up to since Bill Clinton left office - 8 years on (and especially in light of the mess Bush has created in Iraq and with the American economy), the wounds, divisions and splits arising from the Lewinsky affair should have subsided somewhat and both - unlike Gore's reluctance to have anything to do with Bill in 2000 - should have little trouble identifying themselves with Bill Clinton and capitalise on Clinton's Presidential achievements which, on the economic front at least, remain as the finest of any Presidential term in American history.
Barack Obama, too, has proved his worth over the last year and a half with his voting records reflecting his stance on numerous issues close to the hearts of those marginalised by the Republicans. Throw in his experience as a successful trial lawyer and it's not hard to see why his odds have been cut from 50/1 in barely under a year. John Edwards, while arguably the lightweight amongst the 4 frontrunners, too looks a much more serious contender than he had been 4 years ago when his whole campaign looked nothing more than a hastily arranged affair.
All in all, I realise Al Gore's odds have shortened considerably - on last check,
Ladbrokes are offering him at 7/1 for the Presidency and 5/1 to secure the Democratic nomination. Anyone come across better odds on either market, anywhere?