The Hillary Investment Strategy

I am now formulating my strategy for buying Hillary futures. Tradesports already has McCain contracts for the Republican nomination trading at close to $28, but I didn't see any for the Dems side. My strategy is to wait, as I think Hillary will initially be overpriced, just as I think McCain is now. Why? Because McCain and Hillary are pretty much the two sure-fire bets for being in the hunt, and with money to spare, and right now who will oppose them is a question mark that I think naturally gets underpriced. It would be like a contract on Tiger in the Masters without knowing who the rest of the field will be - whether or not Vijay is going to play or Mickelson. So I will wait for the entrance of somebody, like Dean, who gets an initial enormous buzz due to their novelty, to drive down the Hillary price, at which time I will buy! buy! buy! The media will create a story of a tight race because it is in their interest to do so - that plays perfectly to my strategy! I'll get so rich off of the next election that in 2012 I will be able to play the George Soros role for the Republicans - and I won't even need to cause an Asian financial crisis to get there. Just another example of the comparative humanity of Republicans.

2008 will be very interesting. The internal fighting among Reps will be inversely proportional to the primacy of the War of Terror and foreign policy. If there are a string of successes, and the issue recedes a bit, other issues where Republicans don't see eye to eye will become more important. Ditto for the economy - if it goes well, as I think it will, again more secondary issues will come to the fore.

Interesting things to look forward to:
1) Will Guiliani take on Hillary in 2006? He might be too "cold" otherwise for the 2008 nomination, and every day without a terrorist attack is a day where his bravery and composure recede into memory. It's a gamble - if he loses to Hillary, he'd probably be done. But if he won, and Republicans think that he could deliver NY in 2008, he could be in prime position to win the nomination. I think everyone in the Rep party respects his leadership, and I say that even though I am against most of his social policies (at least those not related to fighting crime).

2) If not Guiliani, another moderate leaning Republican like McCain could be the guy on the ticket, which will make for interesting dynamics in the Dems race. If the Rep guy is pro-choice (not sure if McCain is pro-life or pro-choice - does anybody know?), how do you diffuse him being viable in places like California or NY? Maybe the Dems need to go to a very conservative Democrat - I am not sure one exists outside of Lieberman to try to swing other states into their column. I think Hillary's only shot would be against a very conservative Republican.

3) Any failures (real or perceived) on the part of the Bush admin over the next four years will not be as pinnable to the Republican nominee, unless the guy has a Senate record of constant agreement with the President, which McCain clearly does not have now. How will this play for Democrats? Will they just try to oppose the President at every turn, or will they play ball, come closer to the center, and try to establish more credibility on national security? I could see them coming to the center, as simple opposition didn't win them anything this time, and they may realize that they have to live with Ralph Nader polling 4 percent and try to make it up by drawing in swing voters.

4) Bush has an historic opportunity - he almost has a free swing at the ball. Will he take on Social Security or Medicare Reform? To me, it's a non-starter if you are running for re-election, or if the legislative branch is run by the opposition - under those circumstances, it would be dead on arrival. But neither of those circumstances apply.

5) The Court - conservatives think that Bush made a deal with the devil - Arlen Specter - thinking that might swing him Pennsylvania. He was in a tough primary battle against a much more conservative Republican, and Bush through his weight behind Specter. Now Specter is the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and in his campaign trumpeted the fact that he would not let any extremist judges (read - any one who cannot infer the many penumbras in the constitution) get through on his watch. Not sure how much that matters, but I suspect it will a lot.