Scalia, maybe, but why Carter? People tried to get Marshall to retire so that Carter could pick his replacement, but he didn’t. And while Scalia’s appointment was due to Reagan’s election, Carter can’t be blamed for Bush winning in 1988.
As I said, justices are non-political, They do not step down based on the political calender. The reason Carter is to blame for Scalia, Thomas, and also Kennedy, is because if he’d been a good President the Reagan Revolution would never have happened.
Bad presidents CAN cost you following elections and the chance to fill a spot on the court, but timing is important. Some administrations may have little to do with filling the courts. Others, like this one, will place 3 or 4 on the bench, securing the status quo. It might be decades before such an opportunity arises again. A long time, even by glacial government standards.
One or two more democratic presidential terms and the balance on the court likely changes. If you’re saying that won’t happen and democrats will pay for a bad Obama administration, let’s reference the 2012 election for the national referendum on that question. Here’s the flaw in the republican’s plan so far: They can gerrymander the House, but if they can’t do better than a circus car full of clowns in the 2016 primary, then they’ll lose the executive branch again. . .and if they keep doing that, the judicial branch will follow.
Likely, they’ll be going all out on the senate races. Should be interesting.
My argument is simply that an effective President, like a Bill Clinton, enhances a party’s fortunes tremendously. Ineffective Presidents damage the brand. So going for the big name or the guy who is most likely to win may sound like a good short term strategy, but if it gets you one or two terms of the spotlight on how awful your party is at governing, it hurts in the long run.
Democrats will exploit GWB for a long time to come. It would have been far better for Republicans if Gore and served two terms.
You know, I’m gonna agree with that. Even a fairly successful Gore would be better for the republicans than the damage Bush did. Two terms, Gore is gone, and it’s a fresh race. They’d still have to trot out better candidates than they did in 2012(which they did in '08, in McCain). The fact that any of them was in the running for the presidency is frightening. I’ll grant that they eventually picked the candidate that was the least shameful of the group, but that’s faint praise, and they simply have to do better. Adaher, I truly think you would’ve been better than a couple of the 2012 republican candidates, and I’ve seen you write favorably about Scott Walker. 
Have your views on McDonnell changed at all in the last couple months?
Probably not, but Thomas got nominated 10 years later. Carter’s poor presidency helped get Reagan nominated in 1980. A lot of other stuff got Bush elected in 1988.
Yes, the opportunity to continue the popular Reagan Presidency. Which is Carter’s fault.
I’m too ignorant to vote in the poll – I’ve not even heard of most of the candidates :smack: but will comment on the math of such betting.
Each odds quote can be converted into an implied percentage. HRC at 5-4 is implied to have 4 chances in 5+4 or 44.44%. Adding all percentages together yields about 96.5%, if my arithmetic is correct. This means the “book” offers slightly negative vigorish. Betting on each candidate in proportion to the implied odds would guarantee 3.5% profit! That’s knowing nothing about the actual candidates’ chances.
If the odds summed to almost exactly 100% (as they usually did for Intrade), it is an interesting (but perhaps little-known) theorem that your expectation is maximized by betting each candidate in proportion to what you think the odds are. For example, if you thought HRC had a 30% chance, you’d place 30% of your aggregate bet on her … regardless of odds offered!
Although I’ve no idea who will be the nominee, I’m doubtful about HRC and hope it isn’t her. For one thing, inauguration in 2017 would make her the 2nd-oldest of any President at initial inauguration. See Wikipedia.
Yeah, but she’s female. Females live longer than men and are less likely to suffer from dementia in their 70s.
90% chance that a President Clinton survives two terms with sound mind. Her husband’s health I wouldn’t bet on though, too much fast food.
Oops. :smack: Perhaps this theorem is “little-known” because I’ve misphrased it. 
The stated strategy is correct to maximize the expected logarithm of one’s resultant bankroll.
ETA: And BTW, my concern about HRC isn’t her competence or potential dementia, but her electability.