Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (39697)	7/17/2007 11:02:18 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 541371

Handicapping the Presidential Race - Democrats Winning the "money primary" doesn't necessarily mean winning a presidential nomination. In 1996, Phil Gramm had more money than the rest of the Republican field before the Iowa caucuses. He ran such a sucky campaign he dropped out of the race before New Hampshire. Still, money is a good way of keeping score before the votes are cast, especially small donations. Same rules as last before, I'll be offering my odds and, for comparison, in red the odds calculated by the Intrade Trading Exchange. Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY) - 1.5 to 1 (1.2 to 1) Seems to be running a solid campaign, although if you go to events you sometimes wonder whether Bill Clinton is running instead. Her fund raising is sufficient to lubricate her expensive campaign staff, she is in no danger of pulling a McCain. Barack Obama (Sen-IL) - 1.6 to 1 (1.6 to 1) Winning the money primary and the runaway winner of the small donor race. Obama has spent more money this past quarter than Clinton but much of that was his extensive small donor fundraising efforts which has the added benefit of being an aggressive voter outreach program. It is money well spent. It is telling that both Obama and Clinton have each raised more money in the past quarter than all of the Republican candidates combined. John Edwards (former Sen-NC) - 20 to 1 (17 to 1) Still the show horse. I really don't have any comments because he is barely visible. Al Gore (TN) - 50 to 1 (16 to 1) He is not running. I grieve. Chris Dodd (Sen-Conn) - 100 to 1 (300 to 1) I heard one of Dodd's stump speeches last month and was impressed, more impressed than I am with either Clinton or Obama. He has enough money ($6.4 million) to stay in the race and if enough people hear him speak he has a chance. They won't. Bill Richardson (Gov-NM) - 150 to 1 (50 to 1) Going nowhere, slowly. The Field - 1000 to 1 There is no one else out there with a chance and no one will crawl in under the baseboard to compete. The Democratic presidential nominee will be one of these six people. Five excluding Gore (I grieve again). Posted by KnightErrant at 9:18 AM

To: epicure who wrote (39697)	7/17/2007 1:33:43 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541371

>>You don't have to go on a cruise, you just read some of the threads on SI.<< Iktomi - It's true. One thing that confuses me is how the "WMDs were sent to Syria" story keeps being repeated as a fact. If it is true that Saddam had massive amounts of viable WMDs that were sent to Syria just before the war, then I have three questions. There are other questions, as well, but these are the main ones: 1) If having those weapons in the hands of a hostile regime was a critical threat to our national security when they were in Iraq, then why hasn't the Bush Administration done anything about these massive stockpiles of WMDs now that they're in Syria? 2) Why haven't these alleged weapons made their way into the hands of terrorists yet? Why weren't they given to Hezbollah when the Israelis invaded Lebanon? 3) Why is it that George Tenet to this very day says the CIA got it wrong about the WMDs? - Allen