Charlie Cook pegs them at 70 percent. He focuses on the age factor:
The choice to run for president is effectively a nine-year commitment: one year to run, another four years if she wins a first term—finishing up that term at age 73—and then, assuming she runs for reelection and wins, serving four more years to end a second term at 77 years of age. None of this is to say that the age issue could successfully be used against her. After all, Reagan won the presidency at the same age. But how many 67-year-olds make nine-year commitments, and what concerns have to be addressed if they do?
Update from a reader:
Timing is everything, as Obama showed by seizing the moment in 2008. Clinton’s time has passed. It has been over a quarter-century since America elected a president over age 60 (George H. W. Bush in 1988). The zeitgeist as I read it is suggesting Clinton will not run, because of a health problem or some other unexpected turn of events.
There is only one woman who perfectly suits the emerging spirit of the age:
Kirsten Gillibrand. She’s smart, tough, politically savvy, and willing to challenge entrenched patriarchal power structures. And she is a babe. Why shouldn’t the first female president have iconic female characteristics, in the same way that male presidents have had iconic male characteristics (tall, virile, heroic)? It may not be politically correct to say so, but women who are as gorgeous as Palin and Gillibrand have a better chance of getting elected president than their less attractive peers. It is simple human psychology to want the leader to look the part of the alpha female or male.
So, you heard it here first. Kirsten Gillibrand will be the next president of the United States.