While I disagree that the Republicans would never accept a dark skinned person, you can bet that Jindal will be dogged in the primaries by the same type of rumors Obama had to deal with in '08.
It might be a little more subtle coming from fellow Republicans, but you’ll still hear a lot of “he’s a secret Hindu/Muslim,” “he was born overseas,” “he’s a secret Indian government plant” - you get the picture. And of course it doesn’t help that he goes by Bobby when his real name is Piyush, which will inspire a lot of whispering about how “he has something to hide.”
I don’t know. Glenn Beck is a Mormon and he’s a tea party hero.
I don’t know that Beck’s Mormonism is any kind of common knowledge. The only people I’ve ever read or heard even mentioning it are left-wing bloggers. Combine with that the fact that Beck isn’t running for any elective office and has no actual government power.
I think that Obama’s successes will start gathering pace, as his policies of engagement show more and more fruit - with the economy also on the way up, and a long list of achievements that he will be able to show, he will easily win re-election
Hey, I’m from New Orleans, but don’t feel bad–I feel the same way about Ohioans. They are the WORST for puking all over Bourbon Street, then bitching to everyone at home about how sinful New Orleanians are.
Agree that Jindal isn’t the guy, for many of the reasons pointed out. The Republican response speech won’t be soon forgotten, but it’s par for Jindal’s public speaking course. In impromptu news appearances, he talks too quickly in an effort to impress people with his intelligence, but largely says nothing. Or, in a completely opposite vein, during hurricane news briefings he fires off SO much information (most of it only useful to emergency officials) that I begin to nod off after the first few minutes. Hell, Jim Cantore is more useful in a hurricane than Governor Jindal.
Having typed all this, I’m just now realizing…since when have the Republicans minded a candidate who frothed fripperies? Maybe he has a chance after all (though dredging up his Academic All-American record in high school made me laugh.)
Voters don’t really care if the recession is academically over or not; they care about having jobs, about feeling secure in their having a job, about not hearing stories about their friends and loved ones losing or not being able to find jobs. As explained above that change lags but lags in a somewhat predictable fashion. By the time Obama is up for re-election there will be 9-10 more quarters of positive GDP and unemployment will have been falling significantly for several quarters. People will be feeling secure in the economy. No one will have been killed by Healthcare death squads and some of the sure to be popular parts of the healthcare reform package will be being implemented. Obama will end up having a few more items of his to-do list checked off - and have left some on the table rather than betting on losing hands.
I rarely bet (other than on stock plays) but I find it telling that you think there is only a bit better than a 1 in 15 chance that Obama won’t win (which is what your demanding those obscene odds implies).
Oh, then it implies that you think the rest of us are suckers. What is the best odds you’d be willing to take? Any odds that you are not willing to take implies that you think that the odds are that or less that you’d lose. That’s the way people set odds the odds they’d be willing to take you know. How about this, I’ll offer you a smidge over 50:50 - do you take it? Why or why not?
I see three ways the Republican nomination, and subsequent election, can go:
1: The folks in power in the Republican party decide (correctly, I think) that Romney has the best chance of beating Obama. The conservative mainstream media pushes him heavily, the teabaggers either hold their noses and vote for him or stay home in the primary, and he gets the nod. He does better than McCain did in the general election, but still loses if the economy is looking decent, or wins if it’s looking bad.
2: The party base decides that ideological purity (however that’s defined) is more important than sanity, and pushes either Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul through the primary. Once they’re under the microscope for the entire country, moderates realize en masse just how crazy their ideas are, and we see a landslide victory for Obama. Palin is a similar scenario, except the moderates already know she’s an idiot, and I don’t think she’s realistically going to make it through the primary.
3: The Republicans come to the conclusion that they probably won’t be able to win no matter who they run, and decide to use this as an opportunity to propel someone with low name recognition onto the national scene, in preparation for 2016. This will probably be a current governor (not Sanford, Jindal, Palin, or Pawlenty). This dark horse gets more votes than Huckabee or Paul would, but less than Romney would have, and wins 2012 only in a longshot scenario involving a major scandal or poorly-responded-to disaster on the scale of 9-11, but might (or might not, my crystal ball is blurry) do better in the 2016 rematch.
No, actually, he’s right. He’s asserting that the “universe” of possible bettors here means 15 times as much money would be bet on Obama as against him.
Sports betting lines from Vegas aren’t predictions of games’ outcomes either, they’re predictions of what it takes to equalize the money bet either way (so that the house comes out ahead with its cut, no matter what happens).
Romney? Pawlenty? No way. The 2012 nominee will be a white southerner. Someone more mainstream than Huckabee, if such a person can be found.
It fascinates me how folks ascribe an organized strategy to the Republican nomination. If such-and-such happens, they’ll go with so-and-so…. It rarely works out that way. Cash and charm will be the kingmakers. And unless there’s a radical reformation on the right in the next two years, you’ll have a bunch of southern republicans nominating a southern white guy. The odds of a token northerner as VP are 50/50.
Every talk show should have a boxing glove on a big spring ,lined up in the face of the pol being questioned. When they answer like that, the moderator should push the button.
I don’t think it works that way. If 93% of the betters think Obama is going to be the winner (15 Obama betters to every non-Obama better) and you want to equalize the betting, you don’t set the odds at 15-1 against him. That would swing things too far the other way and you’d end up with 99% of your betters betting against Obama. If you want to split the bets 50/50 you’d set the odds around 2-1 or 3-1 against Obama.
