FRONTRUNNER ODDS

In an attempt to better visualize the histogram of the 2016 presidential frontrunners, one must zoom out to thirty thousand feet and glimpse at the patterns below. While it may be true we are at best five political lifetimes away from election day, there are already discernible formations emerging, which portend to the presidential frontrunners a year hence and perhaps even to the 45th President of the United States. What metrics should we be focusing on?

For example, over 50% of Republicans favor Trump and Carson; both with no previous political experience. This crop circle has never before appeared in US politics. Assuming the Democrats will be shut out given the meager choice they provide by way of an iconoclastic democratic socialist in the persona of Bernie Sanders, the scandal-riddled functionary hawk Hillary Clinton, reason dictates this time around the Democrats won't get in the White House. Given this dynamic, expect the next Commander in Chief to be an outsider. 

Jeb Bush increasingly has positioned himself as the milk carton with the expired date.

26 Presidents in US politics were previously lawyers. The odds seem to weigh heavily in favor of a presidential candidate with some legal background. That eliminates the front-runners, but favors Hillary Clinton.

Dwight Eisenhower was a military man with no prior political experience and yet he is regarded as one of the most revered Presidents in US history. Clearly, if previous legislative experience was the sine qua none of a Presidential aspirant, then how to account for such abject failures as Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro), George W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, and James Buchanan, whose positions on graft, slavery and militarism consigned them to footnote status?

Ulysses S. Grant, the General with no prior political experience is another example of ineptness. He caved in to the political machinery of his day - euphemistically known to us as the controllers.

Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the military-industrial complex, which is fueled by propagating endless wars on phantom enemies, which in turn have a tendency to torque the National Debt.


Perhaps the metrics that matter most in picking a winning horse in this age of transparent social media, whistle-blowers and freedom of information, is not so much the charisma, the grandstanding or the political experience, as much as the intelligence, honesty, humility, humanity and the vision for a once again emancipated America. Somehow the nation senses it's at the cusp of either emerging refitted and stronger than ever, or devolving into third world status to join the ranks of Greece, as the debt hovers close to 200% of GDP. This is why this time around, every voter who does not vote should have their citizenship revoked, and every candidate should cling to the Constitution as he enters what promises to be a vicious bare-knuckles political fight.

Paddy Power spares us the circumlocution and gets right down to brass-tacks with comparative odds for the top 20 candidates. We examine the top 20 frontrunners (declared and undeclared):

1. Hillary Clinton: 11/10 odds. Wellesley College, Yale Law School.  Lawyer. Career Politician.

2. Jeb Bush: 4/1 odds. University of Texas. Businessman. Career Politician.

3. Donald Trump: 13/2 odds. University of Pennsylvania Wharton School. Businessman.

4. Joe Biden: 10/1 odds. University of Delaware. Syracuse University Law School. Lawyer. Career Politician.

5. Scott Walker: 12/1 odds. Marquette University. Did not graduate. Career Politician.

6. Bernie Sanders: 12/1 odds. Brooklyn College. University of Chicago. Career Politician.

7. Marco Rubio: 14/1 odds. University of Florida. University of Miami Law School. Lawyer. Career Politician.

8. John Kasich: 20/1 odds. Ohio State University. Career Civil Servant. Career Politician.

9. Elizabeth Warren: 33/1 odds. University of Houston. Rutgers School of Law. Lawyer. Career Politician. [Ms. Warren will not be running in this election].

10. Rand Paul: 33/1 odds. Baylor University. Duke University School of Medicine. Ophthalmologist. Career Politician.

11. Chris Christie: 40/1 odds. University of Delaware. Seton Hall University School of Law. Lawyer. Career Politician.

12. Andrew Cuomo: 40/1 odds. Fordham University. Albany Law School. Lawyer. Career Politician. [Mr. Cuomo will not be running in this election].

13. Martin O'Malley: 40/1 odds.  The Catholic University of America. University of Maryland School of Law. Lawyer. Career Politician.

14. John Kerry: 40/1 odds. Yale University. Boston College Law School. Lawyer. Career Politician. [Mr. Kerry will not be running in this election].

15. Andrew Basiago: 40/1 odds. University of California at Los Angeles. University of Cambridge. Lewis & Clark Law School. Lawyer. [Mr. Basiago will be declaring his candidacy in November, 2015].

16. Ben Carson: 40/1 odds. University of Michigan Health System. Neurosurgeon.

17. Bobby Jindal: 40/1 odds.  Tulane University. Brown University. University of Oxford. Administrator. Career Politician.

18. Mitt Romney: 50/1 odds. Cranbrook School. Stanford University.  Brigham Young University. Harvard Business School. Businessman. Career Politician. [Mr. Romney will not be running in this election].

19. Ted Cruz: 50:1 odds. Princeton University. Harvard Law School. Lawyer. Career Politician.

20. Susana Martinez. 50:1 odds. University of Texas. University of Oklahoma College of Law.  Lawyer. Politician.

[Mike Huckabee's odds are also 50/1. Carly Fiorina's and Rick Santorum's are at 66/1].

What does a candidate's website project about their character and competence?

Carly Fiorina

This may not be the most complementary picture of Carly. The attire evokes an insular administration with very little to offer (just 3 buttons to click on).

Real Leadership? As opposed to what? As opposed to not being fired unceremoniously from Hewlett Packard?

Ted Cruz

A despondent looking Cruz marketing his gear signals: I am in desperate need of your support.

I have no hope, and this is the reason I am clinging to Trump for my dear political life.

A hint of a smile would work wonders.

Bobby Jindal

Is there was a better way to communicate anonymity? (Yes. O'Malley does it better). He is lost in a sea of faces, as is his campaign.

Clashing graphic styles at the bottom project a mishmash of policies.

His Youtube channel is an utter disaster.




Ben Carson

I am going to sit this one out and wait.

Great shot for a book cover; not the best image for a Presidential frontrunner.

The contemplative statesman-in-the-wings sitting in a dark background hints at what we can expect: a lot of thought in dark times, and very little action.

Martin O'Malley

Obscurity redefined.  Tucked away neatly in the lower right quadrant as opposed to the upper left quadrant where the eye first begins to scan a page, Martin's website mirrors his amorphous and beleaguered campaign.

Chris Christie

A Youtube video is the landing page of his website. It resembles a Police Alert. Chris intends to subjugate the American people to voting for him by instilling fear and angst. 

Rand Paul

This is an engaging voter-friendly site. A toothy smile would have been preferable. The issues and the slogan are hip and timely; except the issues in the foreground are obstructing our view of Rand. Too much crammed into a small space.

The Dr. could have come across as more personable if he had simply introduced himself by his first name.

John Kasich

The ruffled hair loses me. This is not what a Presidential candidate ought to look like. And the form requesting voter registration front and center telegraphs "we can't afford to waste space or time, it's now or never".  

The slogan Let's Keep Our Momentum Growing is as tiresome and mind-numbing as a twenty hour filibuster.

Marco Rubio

Note the intrusive pop-up on the upper left, strategically placed to catch our attention at the outset, whose function is to capture information about the viewer, thus violating the viewer's privacy. We see a non-descript, elevated sombre-looking juvenile senator with rolled-up sleeves next to his modelesque face and we sense that this election is more about Rubio than about America. Tucking his shirt in his pants and donning a jacket would be a first good step.

Bernie Sanders

Age and wind-swept hair aside, for a far left politician this is one Centered, self-assured shot.

Had he used the White House as a backdrop he would have been a shoo-in for the job. Toothy smile, a hint of a tan, jacket, open collar, a people-person who is in it for the people. Bernie repeatedly maintains he cannot do this alone and needs us as much as we need him.

Scott Walker

Part of the problem in the opening slideshow is that we never get to see the windows to his soul, his eyes. Subliminally, that is code for You Can't Trust Me.  Add the ever mounting flubs and shift on issues and it's no wonder his campaign has tanked and cratered.

The shifty slideshow intro fits Walker's wobbly positions. The Koch brothers should have picked a more sure-footed horse.

Donald Trump

A jubilant toothy smile and an emperor's wreath would have done it. The backdrop is too sombre for such a triumphal pose. Blue skies with a fluttering flag would have been better. Horses racing in a Colosseum would have been optimal. Is that a Nixon or a Churchill V-sign? 

On the whole, this is a classy presidential landing page. 

Jeb Bush

In contrast, here's  an amorphous, pedestrian website to match the unimaginative, cloned Jeb.

  

All In For Jeb? Is this the best slogan your camp can come up with? They need to stop taking advice from your brother, Number 43. I'm Jeb Bush and I'm asking for your support?

People are trying to help, but you won't listen.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary has two web sites. One is not enough. Extravagance signals control in a furtive attempt to gain favor with the American voters.

Madison Avenue is projecting a woman in cool blue attire being adored.

The reality is entirely different. She is anything but cool given her predicament and her popularity is spiralling out of control.

They are pulling all the stops to win this race for her, but unfortunately her opposition simply has too many bones to pick with her, given all the skeletons she has accumulated in her closets.

Her 11/10 odds should taper to 10/1 by year-end.

The campaign condition is critical and the websites are oozing with damage control.

Let's consider a significant pattern that emerges if we use set theory.

Of the top 20 Candidates in Paddy Power, 5 will not be running, and 1 intends to declare his candidacy in November. That leaves us with a total of 16 potential candidates.

If we consider only those candidates with 40/1 or better odds, the field is reduced to 14.

If we extract only those candidates without any previous political experience, we are left with 2.

If we create a subset of candidates who are lawyers, the number is 6.

Considering that historically there has been a strong bias for lawyers to be elected President, and given that in the Republican camp the polls favor a candidate with no previous political experience, and given that the Democrats can't possibly expect to win this election, we could predict with some certainty the next President of the United States using set theory.

It appears that the 45th President of the United States will be Andrew Basiago, if these premises hold true.

HILLARY CLINTON'S PRIVATE EMAILS

It reminds me of the Obama birth certificate debacle. The "administration" did finally relent and publish his birth certificate on an official White House web site. The certificate was later pulled down after expert analysis proved it was 100% Photoshoped.  Still, we bought into the story and "birthers" were marginalized as crackpots.

Now, we have a presidential candidate who is facing possible criminal charges for erasing sensitive classified information from her email server. But, what did she erase? Was it Benghazi-related information? Why erase information in the first place? Isn't it convenient to erase emails which were private? "Private" by whose definition? 

Even her own staff was not apprised of the fact that she had started using the email address hrd22@clintonmail.com. Would it not make sense to forewarn the staff about pending changes in an email server?

  

How does the mainstream media weigh in on Hillary? Will they throw her under the bus like they did Petraeus whose offense pales in comparison, or will they sell us another birth certificate story? Are the masses completely under the spell of the shadow government to matter anymore? Are we going to be hoodwinked once again?

Here is what the media has to say about Hillary's email saga:

Reuters: Reading Hillary Clinton’s body language when she talks about the email debacle.
The article suggests she is guilty. 
Politico: Emails show Hillary's political sleuthing.
They lean towards possible exoneration. 

BBC News: Hillary Clinton emails: Thousands of new pages released

They suggest the controversy will fade into background noise.

WSJ:  Largest Batch to Date of Hillary Clinton Emails Released by State Department

They created a special video to explain away her use of a private server. Investing in Hillary is the same as exonerating her.

NBC News: 125 Clinton Emails Released Contain Now-Classified Info


MSNBC:

She is on the hook.

ABC News: About 150 New Hillary Clinton Emails Now Deemed Classified
Not Guilty.
The Guardian: Hillary Clinton emails: 'lazy' Republicans, impeaching justices ... and gefilte fish

October 12 hearing will resolve it. Joe Biden coming into the race to rescue the party.

CNN News: Clinton emails: Gefilte fish, TV shows and redactions

Downplaying.

FOX News: State Department releases thousands of Clinton emails, 125 contain classified information

Throwing her under the bus with the attending video.

NYT: Insights, and Redactions, in Latest Release of Hillary Clinton’s Emails
Exonerate her.

USA TODAY: 

Exonerate her.

Huffington Post: State Department Releases Another Batch Of Hillary Clinton's Emails
Downplays the scandal.
And finally, the Clinton campaign web site: a case study on damage control.
If emails which were not deemed classified at the time they were sent or received are now deemed classified, this would suggest that sending emails from a private email server by a Secretary of State is an act of incompetence at best, and a criminal act at worst. 

Was ambassador's Stevens travel schedule going through her "Private" email server? Was that another "private" email that she deleted? How will we ever know? But, according to Hillary, she simply made some regrettable bad choices. Will they check his server for her emails? Surely, she must have emailed him. Which server did she use to email him? Why are these questions not asked by the lame mainstream media?

It's looking more and more like a cover-up by the controllers. We may ask, where does Hillary find the chutzpah to go against the implied unwritten ethical grain of the nation? It may well have to do with the fact that her thesis as a college senior was on Saul Alinsky's Rules for Rebels, the recognized combat handbook of the left, which Saul unapologetically dedicated to Lucifer, the archetype Rebel.

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

But, here's perhaps the real reason Hillary Clinton must not be elected President:

****News Flash***** .....September 2, 2105

According to RadarOnline.com, a hacker is selling 32,000 of Hillary's private emails - many are Libya related and highly sensitive - to the highest bidder. Here's the story.

THE PHENOMENON THAT WAS TRUMP

Three hundred years from now historians will probably have this to say concerning a bid for the US Presidency by the bombastic billionaire, Donald J. Trump: His armor had a chink. He was another flash in the pan.

We cannot underestimate flamboyant Donald's mastery of showmanship in this made-to-order reality show dubbed the 2016 Presidential Race. Trump, whose real estate empire was built by finessing politicians, factoring in lawsuits as a necessary cost of doing business, and cajoling investors even as he was walking out of bankruptcy courts, is a seasoned carny who knows what it takes to get a joint full.

What matters most to Donald Trump is the Trump brand. His mission is to milk this election. Like every other success in his life,  he views any undertaking in terms of Return On Investment. He is a capitalist, first and foremost, not a politician. Even his carefully chosen slogan Make America Great Again smacks of marketeering. It telegraphs: this slogan was carefully selected to yield the greatest ROI. The Trump Matrix is creating a political tectonic shift reminiscent of Ross Perot's.

Does anyone who understands anything about Self-Promotion really believe Trump wants to be President of the United States, when he has alienated almost the entire Hispanic population and the GOP rank and file with his immigration policy of deporting 11 million people, a policy which if implemented would cost roughly $100 billion? Or will his remarks about lowering the minimum wage endear him to the entry level workforce? And lately, he has advocated taxing hedge funds - sealing his fate with Wall Street. Maybe he could suggest introducing a 2% stamp tax on every real estate transfer of deed.

And will aligning himself with Ted Cruz - the mouth of the south - possibly give him the southern vote? His strategy it seems is to alienate as many Americans as possible, but only those who can't afford his brand, and thereby become unelectable while maintaining a high poll rating which in turn gives him access to the media by which he can promote the Trump brand.

While Trump wants us to believe that he can get in the White House, I am convinced that in the darkest recesses of his heart Donald Trump not only does he not want to be President of the United States, but loathes the idea of being "handled" in the Oval Office as much as he loathes the incompetent leadership of this country. Even his body language communicates this fact. Being President is a burden far too great for a jet-setting operator. But like the veteran actor that he is, he has done a superb job of convincing the easily entertained masses who believe that building a business empire by inheriting $400 million from daddy is the hallmark of success.

The chink in his armor is the Trump brand.

He can dupe some of the public; he can even dupe the Republican party. Why should the Republican's fear Trump when he cannot possibly win the Primary after alienating such a huge demographic? And yet they do. Even Evangelicals are buying non religious Trump.

Is there not a conflict of interest when a candidate's business empire depends on cheap China labor? How does Trump bring jobs back to America when most of the manufacturing abroad is automated? Does Trump have any idea how low the minimum wage must go in order for American workers to be able to compete? He wants tariffs. Will not a 35% tariff on imported goods make them unaffordable to most US consumers, as the tariff must be passed on to the end buyer?

Many people still say Trump is the real deal. Is he really, now? He was good for TV ratings in 2011 and is even more so in 2015.  Everyone wants a piece of the Donald on their network before his meteoric rise reaches its zenith. This is one confidence artist who knows his part inside out. What we are witnessing is the same old Trump Pump and Dump: Here is the Donald back in 2011 selling us his vision of America with his usual blustering aplomb:

And below, at 36:20 we get to the Truth. Notice the smirk on his face.

How does the MSM weigh in on Trump? 

ABC News: The Summer of Donald Trump. The Biggest Winners and Losers.

They are letting out his hot air, slowly.

FOX News: The Trump Phenomenon: as old as the Republic.

Trump is seizing the moment as the pendulum swings towards Independent Anti-Establishment.

Is being clueless on Foreign Policy detrimental to a presidential candidate? Yes. Yes. Yes.

CNN:  Jeb Bush on Trump: 'You're damn right I'm going to fight back'

It's getting personal for Jeb.

The Telegraph:  Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are riding high on economic populism. They could both hurt America

Economic nationalism and populism are having a moment.

The New York Times: Talk in G.O.P. Turns to a Stop Donald Trump Campaign

The daggers are being honed.

The Wall Street Journal: Donald Trump  on Taxes: Keeping It Flexible

Trump is the Real Deal. 

CNBC: Here’s Why Trump Signed the GOP Loyalty Pledge

Donald Trump has a clear path to the White House and doesn't need the pledge. 

[Anyone who believes this, has bought into the soap opera hook-line-and-sinker. The truth is: He doesn't need to run independent if he loses the Primary anymore. Why? Because the Trump Brand will have won Big Time by then, irrespective of whether he wins or loses the Primary; and he has probably re-calculated that the Brand will win more if he steps down should he lose the Primary, as chances are he will be tapped for VP, which will catapult the Brand even higher, right through the Stratosphere. This way he won't need to be in the Oval Office dealing with the day-to-day minutiae, but will still have a pulse on everything as VP. This is how a marketing guru would think.]

Chicago Tribune: Trump's first foreign policy pop quiz goes badly (as they often do)

The flub is minimized.

FOX Nation: Poll: Trump Beats Hillary Head-To-Head

Fox is not a great Hillary admirer.

USA Today: This time Donald Trump says he is running. 

Recognition that Trump may be in it for Trump only. 

ON THE ROAD TO THE WHITE HOUSE

The White House was painted white after the Brits and Canadians burned it along with other government buildings in the great conflagration of August 24, 1814. This nation was conceived in war, war defined it, and 201 years later, war is its primary export.  

According to SIPRI, total world spending on military expenses in 2009 was $1.531 trillion US dollars, and 46.5% of this total, roughly $712 billion US dollars, was spent by the United States.

After military expenditures here's how USA exports stack up:

1. Machines, engines, pumps: $219,566,232,000 
2. Electronic equipment: $171,966,197,000 
3. Oil: $157,213,437,000 
4. Vehicles: $135,797,903,000 
5. Aircraft, spacecraft: $124,831,567,000 
6. Medical, technical equipment: $84,879,104,000 
7. Gems, precious metals, coins: $65,522,480,000 
8. Plastics: $63,025,216,000 
9. Pharmaceuticals: $43,967,977,000 
10. Organic chemicals: $42,255,264,000 

Does anyone wonder why none of the candidates in this race discuss the military-industrial complex, or the kind of money that feeds this sector, or why polls don't include foreign policy issues in their surveys? The answer should be quite clear: a militant foreign policy fuels the economy. And in order to feed the military industrial machine, money must be printed and the national debt must grow exponentially off the charts. And what candidate wants to discuss this reality? Instead, they'll whitewash foreign policy and focus on safe issues.  Could it possibly be that these politicians are paid and bought for by the military industrial complex?

Foreign policy has become the engine of the USA economy.

After exporting our manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico and outsourcing our service jobs to India, our only export of any significance is war. If armament is not exported to fight real or contrived wars fought by our forces or by proxy forces (such as ISIL), then the economy tanks. 

This is why politicians financed by the military-industrial complex are very careful to not discuss foreign policy.  

Would it maybe be a good idea to openly discuss foreign policy and judge candidates by their commitment to not further enrich the military-industrial complex?  

1991 – First Gulf War

1992 – Conflict in Iraq

1993 – Conflict in Iraq

1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti

1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1996 – Conflict in Iraq

1997 – No major war

1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan

1999 – Kosovo War

2000 – No major war

2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan

2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen

2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq

2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen

2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)

2012 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

2013 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

2014 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine

2015 – War on Terror in Somalia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine, and arming of ISIL by leaving behind arms and equipment in Iraq.

What are your thoughts?