Time Magazine's Presidential Odds...

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

Mizzougrad96

Active Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
56,139
According to Time Magazine, these are the odds to win the presidency...

Hillary Clinton - 11 to 8
John McCain - 5 to 1
John Edwards - 11 to 2
Barack Obama - 7 to 1
Rudy Giuliani - 11 to 1
Al Gore - 14 to 1
Mitt Romney - 20 to 1
Newt Gingrich - 50 to 1
Mike Huckabee - 50 to 1


To me, it seems absurd that Hillary is that big a favorite.

Thoughts?
 
So many ways that can play out, 11-8 for Hillary is rather foolish.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Based on the history of each party's nominating process and how strongly Edwards ran in the early primaries / caucuses in Aught-Four, I'd put some money on the Faceman.

But since Gore hasn't declared anything yet, I'd lay down a C-note on him as a prop before he declares and the money starts going his way.
 
All the polling I've seen is not favorable to Hillary. The only thing she seems to have going for her is money, but if she places 3rd or 4th in Iowa, her $$ takes a hit.

For Hillary, the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore might run.

Carville says he sees Gore running as a definite.

I'd love to get TigerVols thoughts on this....
 
If there were only three or four candidates announced, I could see someone being listed at 11-8. But with such a crowded field already, I can't see it making any sense to have anyone at better than 3-1 or 4-1 at this point.
 
Based on money raised alone, Hillary is the clear frontrunner for the Dem nomination. Based on the national climate, the Dems are favored for the presidency. I think that's why she's favored overall.

Still, will she carry even one state in the South? Will she even carry Arkansas?
She'll have to outKerry Kerry, winning both coasts and hope for Ohio.
 
For once I'm in agreement with Mizzou. (Stop the presses!) I think Hillary turns off lots of people. I would love to see Webb run...
 
I still say the only way she wins is if the Republicans are stupid enough to run someone who is ultra conservative like Gingrich or one of the other longshots...
 
Omar_dont_scare said:
For once I'm in agreement with Mizzou. (Stop the presses!) I think Hillary turns off lots of people. I would love to see Webb run...

Webb followed up a great SOTU rebuttal with a solid performance on Fox News Sunday. There's nothing wimpy about him. If he ran for the Dems, forget it, chances are he'd do very well.
 
Lugnuts said:
All the polling I've seen is not favorable to Hillary. The only thing she seems to have going for her is money, but if she places 3rd or 4th in Iowa, her $$ takes a hit.

For Hillary, the inconvenient truth is that Al Gore might run.

Carville says he sees Gore running as a definite.

I'd love to get TigerVols thoughts on this....

First things first: Who supports Hillary? I know plenty of people from all wings of the Democratic party including several who are old-school women libbers and I know of no one who is supporting Hillary. I think her alleged front-runner status is a media creation.

Secondly, on the GOP side: Mitt is growing in popularity and I hope he gets the nomination because running a Mormon in the south will make Gore's choosing a Jew seem like political brilliance. Many evangelical Christians would choose a NAMBLA member for President before they'd choose a Mormon.

Now on to Gore:

I think he's in. Hillary and Barrack are running hard now because they need to raise $$$ for their campaigns. All Gore needs to do is cash a check -- his personal stake in Google stock is valued at between $50 and $125 million.

I think Mark Warner, who was planning on hiring up a lot of ex-Gore Campaign operatives, knows this and that's why he backed out of running.

And a little bird within the family who is politically active with Barrack says she thinks Gore will get in, and Barrack thinks that too and that's another reason why he's campaigning hard now, so that he can survive when Gore gets in and knocks Hillary out.

Gore will run and win and help save this country from the disastrous mess it's in.
 
spnited said:
21 months before the election...totally useless bull****.

yeah, it's kind of like the July odds for teams getting to the Super Bowl...useless bull****. But it will be fun to go back and see what actually happened. I like Giuliani and Clinton to win their respective nominations and another 50-50 split of the election results. This one could be nastier than 2000 as far as seating an officer by the inaugural date.
 
I just don't see the people of this country "ready" to elect a woman or minority to the presidency.

I still see Hillary as a longshot, and Obama has about as much chance as I do.

Not saying I agree with it, just that there are still a lot of voters in this country who grew up in a racist/sexist society.

I will say this: If any woman gets it in our lifetimes, Hillary has the best shot. And the fact that there are no strong republicans this year certainly makes her a possible surprise.

McCain isn't a republican - he just says he is. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. I wouldn't vote for him for Boy scout troop leader.
 
Isn't it wonderful that winning the presidency (or a nomination) seems to come down to how much money you can raise?
 
lantaur said:
Isn't it wonderful that winning the presidency (or a nomination) seems to come down to how much money you can raise?

Having cash doesn't hurt, but I think moveon and other grass-roots efforts like that will make it easier in the little guys in the future if they have a good populist message.
 
With the Democrats all over the map in term of demographics, I wonder who will be tapped to be VP by whoever wins the nomination. And I'd love to see the nomination up for grabs at the convention, but that's probably just a pipe dream.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top