« No! Stop! This Time With Substance! | Main | Fairness, Revisited »

January 20, 2007

Place Your Bets

by publius

I'm putting the over/under on the percentage of Corner posts relating to Hillary over the next year at 41%.  I'll take the over.

Posted by at 11:02 PM in Politics |

Comments

And who, pray tell, gets to monitor the Corner to monitor the bet?

Posted by: Andrew | January 20, 2007 at 11:07 PM

me of course. so, um, take the under

Posted by: publius | January 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

me of course.

Lay in a lot of good booze. And maybe some soap.

Posted by: CaseyL | January 20, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Better yet, disinfectant. Something really strong.

Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 21, 2007 at 02:35 AM

for those of you who don't know byrningman, it's his 29th birthday.

i know what you're thinking. i don't care about a dude whose pseudonym is some stoner festival entendre involving his last name.

but i swear, he's an ok guy, living with monks in algeria.

Posted by: kovarsky | January 21, 2007 at 03:42 AM

A birthday prezzie for byrningman

Posted by: liberal japonicus | January 21, 2007 at 06:56 AM

41%? Of course I'll take the over on that. That's like betting on whether or not a politician will lie.

Posted by: Incertus | January 21, 2007 at 01:21 PM

What counts as "relating to"?

Say for instance my dream comes true and Cheney (o please o please o please) is impeached. Do posts about the impeachment process count if they mention HRC in passing? If she is invoked as one bogeyperson among many? If the post starts out being about Cheney's impeachment but then starts talking about Bill's and then about how this all is Hillary's Revenge? Or does HRC have to be mentioned in the post's title, summary, or first paragraph for it to count?

Posted by: Doctor Science | January 21, 2007 at 03:51 PM

Actually, it's kind of funny that the NRO is so obsessed with Hillary-hate. As the Democratic field is shaking up so far, she's the most conservative of the lot.

Posted by: CaseyL | January 21, 2007 at 04:26 PM

but i swear, he's an ok guy

despite kovarsky's endorsement, i really am an ok guy.

Posted by: byrningman | January 21, 2007 at 05:12 PM

btw, does anybody else kinda like Richardson, or am I just projecting my undying enthusiasm for the Very Large Telescope Array in NM for all things New Mexican?

Posted by: byrningman | January 21, 2007 at 05:13 PM

No, I like Richardson very much. He's the most substantive candidate so far, in terms of actually running things and doing things and accomplishing things. It's just that he hasn't gotten much attention yet, and there are (sigh) rumors of personal peccadillos.

I'll be very interested to see what kind of attention he does get, and whether he can shape the coverage to his benefit.

Posted by: CaseyL | January 21, 2007 at 05:18 PM

The thing I don't get is that Hillary is almost coronated queen by the mainstream media and we are TOLD she is our favorite by far (shudder) yet they don't tell about her 6 years passing time in the Senate. for all her hullaballoo about how experienced and great she is, she has not introduced one major peice of legistation. What the hell has she been doing for 6 years? I mean, we have Edwards and Clinton marking time and not doing anything to speak of for 6 years, and yet they say that Obama is a flash? If anyone checked, the man has pages of legislation he has sponsored or co-sponsored in 2 years.
So my question for Hillary is: Where's the Beef????

Posted by: vwcat | January 21, 2007 at 05:49 PM

"there are (sigh) rumors of personal peccadillos"

I've lived in NM for 30 years and I've never heard any such thing. He's generally liked here but some don't like his politics. He's really an old stye democrat. Glad hander, a joker sometimes but very experienced. If not pres the ideal vp.

Posted by: judson | January 23, 2007 at 04:41 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.