Odds on the 2008 GOP nominee

bestbetting.com ^ | Paddy Power

[JLS]

Bill First 5/2 John McCain 7/2 Rudolph Guiliani 7/2 George Pataki 9/2 Chuck Hagel 6 Mitt Romney 6 Bill Owens 8 Tom Ridge 8 George Allen 12 Norm Coleman 12 Lindsey Graham 14 Sam Brownback 14 Arnold Schwarzenegger 66 Dick Cheney 66 Jeb Bush 66 Laura Bush 100

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Mormonism is a CULT, plain and simple.

Having said that, I don't think those who fear a backlash against Romney are giving Southern voters enough credit. I think most Christian voters would be more tolerant than that. My own choice would be Bill Owens/Tim Pawlenty. Both have developed strong track records as Governers of their states, although anybody would have been an improvement over Jesse "Out of his Mind" Ventura. I would also suggest Tommy Franks as the next Secretary of Defense and Rice as head of Homeland Security.

[free_life]

No one mentioned even comes close to our current President George W. Bush

He is in a field by himself! We may never top him.

[JLS]

And you have shown you can handle yourself in the rough and tumble of a moderate to big statewide election. That is why I think all the Rice, Powell, Keyes, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc ideas are pipe dreams. I would even take a Congressman who fought and won in a Congressional district like JC Watts over any of them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Jesus!

There's no guarantee we will all be here tomorrow, is there?

But you save money, buy stocks, and plan vacations anyway!

I follow politics, and anyone who follows politics who does not believe that the DNC, SPECIALLY IF TERRY MCAULIFFE IS STILL IN CHARGE IN 2008, will not heavily promote Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate is not very politically knowledgeable.

Barack Obama's DNC convention address was a test, and he passed it with flying colors. Unfortunately, the Illinois GOP hand-delivered a notch in Obama's gun when they "imported" Alan Keyes to run against him. Now, Obama's resumé will include conservative icon slayer.

Political Parties do not wait until election year to decide who is going to run, and who they like.

[Jacvin]

Excuse my ignorance on this one but who is Michael Steele?

[HighWheeler]

It will be a state governor. Governors win, senators lose.

[pollywog]

Laura Bush/Hillary Clinton 2008 !!!LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
Laura would win by a landslide on looks alone.

[Brandon]

You're making my point for me, actually. Every candidate is a mix of good and bad. Bush & Cheney were no exception. The successful candidates are the ones who manage to get people to forgive them their flaws and honor their virtues -- which is exactly what Bush and Cheney did. There is no reason to suppose that Giuliani couldn't do the same -- while he has some serious negatives in his personal life, he also has some serious positives in his record, both as mayor of New York, and as one of the national heroes of 9/11.

[Dan from Michigan]

Bill First 5/2 - He may run, but senators don't win.
John McCain 7/2 - He PO'ed the base - no chance.
Rudolph Guiliani 7/2 - Maybe
George Pataki 9/2 - Gun grabber. I doubt he'd be the nominee.
Chuck Hagel 6 - Too tight with McCain. Senators don't win
Mitt Romney 6 - Just signed a gun grab.
Bill Owens 8 - Watch him. Western Governor.
Tom Ridge 8 - Pro-abort and anti-gun
George Allen 12 - Former governor, but current senator. Norm Coleman 12 - Senator
Lindsey Graham 14 - Senator
Sam Brownback 14 - Senator
Arnold Schwarzenegger 66 - Not unless an amendment is passed.
Dick Cheney 66 - Doubt it. I like Cheney but his health is a big concern.
Jeb Bush 66 Laura Bush 100 - No dynasty.

On the dems side, watch Bill Richardson.

[finnigan2]

Giuliani has two routes to go to move to the inside track for the White House in 2008:
1) to be elected Governor of New York. A good route, except many Pataki supporters hate him and he could fracture the New York Party base to win;
2) to beat Hitlery for the Senate in 2006. A win-win for Rudy. He would become the darling of the Party for 2008. If Rice has succeeded in being elected to some office between now and then, they would be a formidable combination.
His only opposition comes from the rabid pro life and anti gay marriage factions. If Rudy fudges a bit around the edges on these two issues, he could retain their reluctant support.

[JLS]

Yep that is why I think Jeb's odds are way too low. And I would love it because the hard left would hate it so much.

All these people here saying America would not go for a dynasty clearly do not remember that America might well have elected any number of the Kennedy family given the chance. Dynasty was not a dirty word back then.

[JohnnyZ]

Actually you are wrong on both counts:
I know you can argue you are technically right on both

Uh-huh.

[2nd Amendment]

General Tommy Franks!

[bdeaner]

Mitt Romney is where I'd put my chips, if I were a betting man. I'm not saying he's the best man for the job, but all the signs point toward him. Great speech at the Convention. Handsome guy; very likeable. Moderate.

Frist will be a close call.

My personal pick would be Owens, but his family troubles will probably hurt him. He may also be too right-leaning to get the RNC nod.

McCain. No friggin' way. He's more popular with the Dems than with his own party. Plus, he's old and he's short.

Has Jeb said he will run? If he does, he will be a strong contender.

Guiliani? One of the best speeches at the Convention. An American hero after 9/11. He has a good chance. But he will be hurt by his lisp and his looks.

Schwarzenneger would be a shoe-in if he was qualified, but that ain't gonna happen.

Pataki is a not a very good speaker. He botched the Convention speech. I don't give him very good odds.

The rest I'm writing off.

[JLS]

You are wrong. Reelection after appointment is a very different animal than winning office in the first place.

[FreeReign]

I'd throw up consistenly if McCain or Hagel get anywhere near the nomination ..

FreeRepublic needs to make sure this doesn't happen. Bookmark everything on Hagel.

[Brandon]

All these people here saying America would not go for a dynasty clearly do not remember that America might well have elected any number of the Kennedy family given the chance. Dynasty was not a dirty word back then.

Might have is not the same has has. In fact, only one Kennedy was elected president. RFK would probably have won the nomination in 1968, but I doubt if he could have won the general -- anti-war candidates don't win. Teddy took his shot in 1980 and didn't even come close.

We have a history of electing two presidents from the same family: the two Adamses; the two Harrisons; the two Roosevelts; now the two Bushes. I can't think of a case where we've elected three, nor of any case where family members were elected back-to-back.

[Jacvin]

Well, you may follow politics but I work in politics 24/7.

I'm a professional political consultant in Florida for whatever that's worth.

The GOP does not have the power to select the candidate for President. No party does.

Primary voters have their own minds, especially in the GOP.

Question #1: We've won the House, The Senate and the Presidency with the social Conservative coalition.

In Florida we control the Governorship, the house and the Senate.

Why would we intentionally wreck the winning est coalition since Roosevelt?

#2 Where are you from in Florida?

[Dan from Michigan]

So why is any Federal candidates opinion relavent?

1. Because they can vote to fund abortions with MY money.
2. Because they appoint judges.