I was having a look at my favorite spread betting sites and was looking up who the market says will win the Republican and Democrat nomination.
It seems that if you don't think Guiliani will win the Republican nomination there is some money is guessing who will. While the money remains on Hillary for the Democrats.
While betting for who will win the election a $10 bet would yield only $6.80 if the Democrats won, but $15 if the Republicans won.
So looking at the odds who would you back or lay?
Political Gambling (//%22http://sports.betfair.com/?mi=2725554&ex=1%22)
John Edwards was about 7 to 2 odds.
I would take that.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
John Edwards was about 7 to 2 odds.
I would take that.
Me too. In Oklahoma, he'll win and Obama will finish a close second.
I'd put some money on Brownback at 31 to 1 and Huckabee and Hagel at 64 to 1. While I don't think they will win, I think there chances are better than that.
I'd also put some money on a lay for Giuliani, I think his chances are over rated thats on 11/5.
The best odds though are a bit obscure. 999/1 for the UK conservatives to be the biggest party in the Scottish elections. Someone will take $39 and give you $38,961 if they are the biggest. Unlikely, but a crazy amount of liability for someone wanting $39.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
John Edwards was about 7 to 2 odds.
I would take that.
Me too. In Oklahoma, he'll win and Obama will finish a close second.
yeah, oklahoma voted for that general guy last time. OKs track record for picking the dem is pretty bad.
Inteller, most Oklahoma democrats pick the most republican of the candidates. That is to say, the most conservative old-school democrats/dixicrat. While the party, or at least its profile, continues to move left. Same story in most of the 1960's democratic states.
The rift in the democratic caucus between left wingers and conservatives is as wide as the rift between small-government and right-wing republicans. I'm waiting for the major parties to fall apart.
--
For the bet. I'm afraid neither of the democratic front riders (Obama/Hillary) have a broad enough base of support to win. Obama because he doesnt have enough experience, and I'm not sure if being black will help or hurt him on the borad spectrum (I'd like to think race has no effect, but that is naive). Hillary because she is perceived as, frankly, a hard nose NY biotch who assumes whatever roll fits her that week. And she is rumored to have a vagina, which again is either an asset or liability - I cant tell.
Not that cross dressing Guilini or I (heart) Iraq John McCain would have broad support either. Rudy cleaned up NY by nearly turning it into a tourist friendly fascist state but DID manage to do what was needed - but his personal life will be a liability as well as his pro-choice stand. McCain is an experienced old school conservative, who backs the war unyieldingly. I guess it can be said both Republican candidates are strong willed.
Even as the political winds blow left, I think the republican candidates stand a better chance at pulling off the White House. Rudy has aspects that appeal to the left and efficiency that appeals to the right. If I were forced to chose, he would be my horse atm (on the odds of course).
Someone is gon
I was actually impressed with Mike Gravel the other night. He's hopelessly wrong about Iraq, but at least he's taking the other candidates to task for being wimps.
He's for the Fair Tax, which is almost enough to make want to vote for him just because of that.
If you think Obama's a breath of fresh air, check out Gravel.
Where on earth did they find Gravel? He's been out of elected office for what, 15 years? I watched the Winter DNC a few months ago and listened to him speak. I like some of his ideas, but that guy looks and sounds like he's been taking the eternal dirt nap for five years.
The Fair Tax is almost enough to make me a single issue voter. No way people would stand for the kind of spending habits our government has if they REALLY knew how much money Uncle Sam took from us.
Yeah I get warm fuzzies every time I hear the words.
You ever notice that most liberals who like to raise taxes either aren't in the tax bracket which gets affected, or have so much money, they could care less?
This link shows why I believe that Edwards will be the democratic nominee.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
Every poll has him winning the first primary and that becomes momentum for the next few weeks.
Edwards won't be able to stand up to Hillary's flabby armed spanking machine, and neither can Obama. Edwards will have a distinct advantage though as George Soros is pulling his strings behind the scenes, all Edwards had to do was sacrifice his soul to Satan in return.
Well if early popularity has anything to do with a candidate being awarded a Secret Service security detail, Obama wins on that count. I heard on the radio this morning, he's been awarded one. I believe Ms. Clinton, being a former first lady already has one.
Edwards really doesn't have any more government experience than Obama, perhaps even less. Did he ever hold a state office prior to running for the U.S. Senate?
The Dem with the most relevant experience for the W.H. is the least likeable and trust-worthy.
The Iowa caucus doesn't mean much, mostly because that state has a distressing tendency to pick the wrong person, Democrat and Republican.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
The Iowa caucus doesn't mean much, mostly because that state has a distressing tendency to pick the wrong person, Democrat and Republican.
In what context to you mean "wrong person"?
They had Kerry at 37% and Edwards at 31% in '04.
They missed in '92 with Tom Harkin (76%, Clinton had 3% Harkin was a homeboy so it's no mystery there), '88 w/ Gephardt, but chose Mondale in '84, Gore in '00.
They've had spottier results in picking the GOP nominee in the past, though they picked Bush in '00 and Dole in '96.
Iowa has a pretty good track record because it is really a middle of the road state. There are 2 uban areas over 500K (Quad cities area being the other), several mid sized cities of 100+K, and many middle American cities of 20K or so. Add in a truck load of farmers and its a decent demographic of voting America.
On top of the demographics, they are mostly moderates. Iowa serves as a filter for the extreme candidates on either side. They dont do well there.
That early California Primary is going to knock a whole bunch of people out.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That early California Primary is going to knock a whole bunch of people out.
How many delegates are up for grabs in Cali?
3 delegates for each of the 53 Congressional Districts. But it's not "winner takes all"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003691003_calif03.html
I say Oklahoma move its primary to the day after the presidential election, so that we can be guaranteed to be first in the nation.
The constant moving up of the date is retarded. After we chose a candidate it is entirely possible that MOST of the details will come out or the position will change.
Not to mention a large state like California moving up their date (along with Florida) nullifies the primary in most other states.
Here is the list as of now for the presidential primaries. It is also changing as states play off each other for attention and the two parties don't always agree as well. This is the genral schedule as of now and the number of delegates they send to the convention.
January 14, 2008 - Iowa (41)
January 19, 2008 - Nevada (34)
January 22, 2008 - New Hampshire[1] (24), Wyoming (12 of 28)[2]
January 29, 2008 - Florida[3] (114)
February 2, 2008 - South Carolina (47)
"Mega-Tuesday" or "National Primary Day"
February 5, 2008 - Alabama (48), Arizona (53), Arkansas (34), California (173), Delaware (18), Georgia (72), Michigan (61), Missouri (58), New Jersey (52), New Mexico (32), New York (101), North Dakota (26), Oklahoma (42), Utah (36), West Virginia (18 of 30)[4]
February 9, 2008 - Louisiana (46)
February 10, 2008 - Maine (21)
February 12, 2008 - Maryland (37), Tennessee (55), Virginia (63)
February 19, 2008 - Minnesota (41), Wisconsin (40)
March 4, 2008 - Connecticut^ (30), Massachusetts^ (43), Ohio(88), Texas^ (140), Vermont (17)
March 11, 2008 - Mississippi (38), Washington (40)
March 18, 2008 - Illinois^ (70), Rhode Island^ (20)
April 1, 2008 - Kansas^ (39)
April 15, 2008 - Colorado (46)
April 22, 2008 - Pennsylvania^ (74)
May 6, 2008 - Indiana (57), North Carolina^ (69)
May 10, 2008 - Wyoming (16 of 28)
May 13, 2008 - Nebraska^ (33), West Virginia (12 of 30)
May 17, 2008 - Alaska (29)
May 20, 2008 - Kentucky (45), Oregon^ (30)
May 27, 2008 - Idaho (32)
June 3, 2008 - Montana (25), South Dakota (27)
June 6, 2008 - Hawaii (20)
It will all be over by Mega Tueday.
I think you got it nailed RM.
Maybe they ought to bring in Brian France as a consultant and do something like the Nextel Cup chase for the championship in NASCAR.
Start everyone over after Super Tuesday, and re-apportion the delegates for the top five. [}:)]