Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« An Open Letter to Thomas Hardy | More Good News from the Forgot... »

Monday, December 4, 2006

For Hardcore Junkies Only

posted by on December 4 at 18:07 PM

A good friend of minea whip smart researcher for a fancy Wall Street firmis pretty obsessive about politics, and he just did his own poll of colleagues, family and friends (nationwide) to come up with betting odds on which Democrat and which Republican will get their party’s nomination in ‘08. (This guy is also a bit of a gambler.)

I was one of the people he polled, so, you may want to discount his research right off the bat, but here’s his current odds. And at the end, he does a little analysis.

Democratic Party Nomination odds (X:1)

1) Hillary Clinton 1.8
2) Barack Obama 2.7
3) John Edwards 8.7

4) Al Gore 13.0
5) Evan Bayh 15.2
6) Wes Clark 28.3
7) Joe Biden 29.0
8) John Kerry 35.8
9) Howard Dean 73.1
10) Tom Vilsack 170.4
11) Harold Ford, Jr. 186.5
12) Janet Napolitano 192.5
13) Tim Kaine 192.5
14) Bill Richardson 199.0
15) Andy Stern 5999.0
16) Jennifer Granholm 5999.0

Republican Party Nomination odds (X:1)

1) John McCain 1.8
2) Rudy Giuliani 3.7
3) Mitt Romney 6.2

4) Jeb Bush 13.3
5) Newt Gingrich 24.0
6) Dick Cheney 26.3
7) Mike Huckabee 33.9
8) Chuck Hagel 36.5
9) Bill Frist 38.7
10) Condoleeza Rice 53.5
11) Sam Brownback 71.3
12) Colin Powell 84.7
13) Bill Owens 192.5
14) George Pataki 399.0
15) Dick Armey 499.0
16) George Allen 544.5
17) Patrick Fitzgerald 544.5
18) Duncan Hunter 544.5
19) Tim Pawlenty 544.5
20) Mark Sanford 544.5
21) Tom Tancredo 544.5

Obviously Frist is now out. Interesting stuff: Obama is really close to Hillary. Al Gore could make things interesting if he announces. Guys like Vilsack and Richardson are toast, in my opinion. Jeb Bush is way too high, he may get a chance, but not the next go round - people need a break from “Bush.” I wonder if Condy Rice could shoot up to #2 or #3 if she announced? From this list it looks like the Republicans will pragmatically swing towards the middle (McCain, Giuliani, Romney). I’m not so sure they will though - it wouldn’t surprise me if guy like Huckabee or Brownback consolidates the religious and far right vote as a counter to McCain or Giuliani. McCain is obviously trying to veer right to head off that strategy. If Obama jumps in, I think a bunch of those dems should just drop out - Obama will siphon off tons of money and talent.

RSS icon Comments


I think we should just officially replace all political commentary with odds charts like this. It's kind of brilliant, because it's no less arbitrary than prose.

Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | December 4, 2006 6:08 PM

I think boys endlessly talking about which Beatles album is best—is also arbitrary.

Posted by Josh Feit | December 4, 2006 6:20 PM

I assume that Grandholm's long odds take the likelihood of a fast-track change to the Constitution into account?

Posted by josh | December 4, 2006 6:27 PM

If Granholm's (non-existent) probability of being elected President is on the list, why not Schwarzenegger's (equally non-existent) probability? Hell, why not Henry Kissinger's or Neil Young's (equally non-existent) probabilities?

There will be no Constitutional amendment to change the native-born requirement in any of their lifetimes.

Posted by N in Seattle | December 4, 2006 6:39 PM

Rudy over Romney? Please.

Posted by Whitney | December 4, 2006 6:55 PM

I’m personally hoping for a Wes Clark/John Edwards Dem ticket. They would kick ass.

No way that Clinton or Obama will win. If there’s two things Americans hate, it’s women who don’t know their place and racial minorities.

McCain, Romney and Giuliani likewise don’t have a chance. They’re just not anti-gay and racist enough, and they’ll never make it past the sociopathic nuts running the GOP. Especially Romney, who’s allowed crazed sodomites to enter into legally binding, loving, long term relationships on his watch. GOPer’s despise that equality and dignity BS.

I’d say that Jeb Bush, Huckabee or Brownback are the most likely candidates here.

Posted by Andrew | December 4, 2006 7:20 PM

yeah, josh, but the difference is that the beatles MATTER.

Posted by SEAN NELSON, EMERITUS | December 4, 2006 7:48 PM

What really matters is which Beatle wrote the best songs?

I'm not sure, but McCartney definitely wrote some of their worst.

Posted by Sean | December 4, 2006 8:24 PM

This is the lamest attempt to build Andy Stern buzz I've ever seen, Josh...

Posted by G. Gordon | December 4, 2006 10:08 PM

abbey road. and paul is the best. carry on.

Posted by Charles | December 4, 2006 11:12 PM

I'm calling it right here: Edwards/Obama '08. And Revolver.

Posted by Mike | December 5, 2006 2:00 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).