Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

Has anyone put some $$ up yet?
I was checking the markets on WSEX and felt so out of the loop when I saw that at the moment, MITT ROMNEY is tied as favorite with RUDY G....and I have no idea who he is!!

A democratic winner is the fav, but is there enough value to purchase at present price? I just see a huge backlash against Republicans because of Iraq...but I have to admit that politics is not one of my strong points.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

Mitt is a co-favorite because Guiliani is pro-choice and because McCain once compared Pat Robertson to Louis Farrakan. Fred Thompson will be a big favorite if he decides to run, since he's got a lot of personality and he's pro-life for real. If there's good value in the Republican field, I think it's Chuck Hagel at .8-1. He's articulate, telegenic, and very conservative on social issues. Even before Bush was elected, he was considered a potential successor, even though he was a bit of a "Maverick." The only reason he's priced so low is because a lot of republicans are mad at him for being so sharply critical of Bush over Iraq. But if the republicans get their act together, they may realize that his opposition to this super-unpopular war could be a huge asset.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

you can get a decent discussion going in the sports betting forum on these sorts of topics

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

I'm pretty sure there's value in shorting Romney. Dude is pretty and he talks good, but he's Mormon. That dog just won't hunt.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

If you don't know who Mitt Romney is, how can you possibly have enough knowledge of American politics to beat the market?

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

I've never bet on these sort of markets, so maybe I don't quite understand how it works, but I see value in shorting Al Gore at 20 (I think there definitely is less than a 50% chance he even runs), and maybe buying Edwards at 9 (he is winning in Iowa, and Obama seems to have been slowed).

Chuck Hagel is not a good bet for GOP nominee because if he gets in the race, he will probably run as an Independent.

I think the chance of a Dem nominee winning is right around 60%, so I don't see any profitable buys there.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you don't know who Mitt Romney is, how can you possibly have enough knowledge of American politics to beat the market?

[/ QUOTE ]

She didn't say she is expecting to beat the market. She was just starting a discussion about the betting opportunities. And actually if she learns enough in this forum maybe she could beat the market. Personally I think the dem's are a lock. The guy I wish would win is Dennis Kucinich. Of course that is the longshot of all time. I like this topic Shrug. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

I like Romney/Giuliani on the republican side. Romney could get a boost if he wins the early primaries, which he's leading in the polls. I don't think Mormonism is as big a hurdle as people think. Sure it's a goofy religion, but aren't they all? Giuliani is strong on the fighting terrorism platform, which I think will be a deciding factor for many voters.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

The guy I wish would win is Dennis Kucinich. Of course that is the longshot of all time. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

agree but sadly, it just aint gonna happen.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

The only money worth wagering on Kucinich would be an over/under on when he drops out.

Giuliani has decent value if you think he can survive the GOP primary. He would fare well as a general election nominee I think, I just think his social liberalism is going to do him in among Republican voters come February.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only money worth wagering on Kucinich would be an over/under on when he drops out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have met and talked with him twice. He is in it until the end. He firmly believes he can win. He is the best candidate that I have ever known of.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

I wish Ron Paul would do better, even though he's wrong on a ton of issues, he's right about the war and he's right about inflation. He has no chance whatsoever.

These markets are tough to beat. I think Romney will be the GOP candidate, and he will lose the generalnot for his religion but for the fact that he's a flipflopper. He is the conservative Kerry.

It is too late for McCain, he's the Bob Dole of the race and he's lost favor even with the economic conservative base (that no longer controls the party). Evangelicals won't put up with Giuliani's cross dressing, pro life, pro gay positions and while I think he has the best chance of winning the presidency he can not win the nomination without Bush's (albeit shrinking) base. I would say the rest of the field besides Giuliani/Romney/McCain has a combined 1-100 chance of winning the nomination.

On the Dem side I think it's a tougher call. Edwards may have been sunk by the $400 haircut comment. It sounds shallow but it's exactly the sort of scandal that can shortcircuit a campaign in the early going. I think the GOP wants Hilary as the nominee, because she probably has the least likely chance of the major candidates to win the general. Obama seems like the favorite because it would seem black is not as unelectable as female, or something. I think Obama will be preclusive favorite at some point. Gore is a red herring.

This is the Dems election to lose. But if anyone can blow it it's them.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would say the rest of the field besides Giuliani/Romney/McCain has a combined 1-100 chance of winning the nomination.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will take this bet for any amount of money.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only money worth wagering on Kucinich would be an over/under on when he drops out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have met and talked with him twice. He is in it until the end. He firmly believes he can win. He is the best candidate that I have ever known of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you and I are clearly politically opposite, I won't bother engaging on his relative qualities...

But he truly won't drop out when it's clear that he's done? When he gets hammered in every early primary? Somewhat like Alan Keyes on the GOP side in 2000? I ask out of genuine curiosity.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only money worth wagering on Kucinich would be an over/under on when he drops out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have met and talked with him twice. He is in it until the end. He firmly believes he can win. He is the best candidate that I have ever known of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you and I are clearly politically opposite, I won't bother engaging on his relative qualities...

But he truly won't drop out when it's clear that he's done? When he gets hammered in every early primary? Somewhat like Alan Keyes on the GOP side in 2000? I ask out of genuine curiosity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kucinich never dropped out in 2004 either. He was the only candidate campaigning against Kerry to the end.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

Ugh, it was so obvious to me that Romney would go up in value, and I missed out. When I visited a friend of mine in Iowa a year ago I told him that exact thing. Romney was elected as a Republican in Massachusetts. The guy just has a knack for appearing more harmless than the other guy. I lived in MA during his governership, and I can't think of a single Romney quote. I just remember what he looks like in a suit. That's why he wins.

I think Giuliani has no chance. Too New York. I think McCain has no chance. Pissed too many people off, and is starting to age. I don't know enough about Thompson but I suspect he has no chance as well. I think if I were betting from here on I'd short all three, on the premise that either Romney or some dark horse wins.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only money worth wagering on Kucinich would be an over/under on when he drops out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have met and talked with him twice. He is in it until the end. He firmly believes he can win. He is the best candidate that I have ever known of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you and I are clearly politically opposite, I won't bother engaging on his relative qualities...

But he truly won't drop out when it's clear that he's done? When he gets hammered in every early primary? Somewhat like Alan Keyes on the GOP side in 2000? I ask out of genuine curiosity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he is definitely in it until the end. This time he is even more determined because he believes the American people want what he has wanted since the beginning: No war. I understand you and I are on opposite sides politically but let me tell you why you might actually be able to respect Kucinich while still disagreeing with him. In the beginning the no backbone Democrats voted for authorization and funding of the war. All the major candidates did. Since the beginning Kucinich has voted against the war and the funding for it.
He has never waivered. He is also the only candidate who will not accept funds from corporations. He does this because he wants no strings attached to him. So he can do what he feels is right without compromise. This is the reason why he has only a miracle's chance of winning. All the Democrats are on the universal healthcare bandwagon right now. Kucinich is also for universal healthcare but he is for "not for profit" universal healthcare. This takes out the insurance and drug companies and has it run by Medicare which saves about 30 -40 percent. The other candidates all take huge contributions from the drug and insurance companies so they would never get behind this. Kucinich is the last almost mainstream candidate standing that has intregrity without being in anyone's pocket. I mean he has the true Democratic agenda unlike the rest of the Democrats who are still voting for funding the war and have from day one. Again I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with my thoughts. I am just putting them out there. Meanwhile I wouldn't bet on Dennis even if there were a place I could. But I can dream........

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

I agree, I do respect the rare politician who appears to stand on true principle, even in a losing battle. Even as a hard right conservative, there's definitely the occasional Dem who I respect.

Meanwhile, if I could hand-select the next president, it would be Newt Gingrich...though I'm willing to settle on Romney. Just figured I'd accentuate how far apart we are. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, I do respect the rare politician who appears to stand on true principle, even in a losing battle. Even as a hard right conservative, there's definitely the occasional Dem who I respect.

Meanwhile, if I could hand-select the next president, it would be Newt Gingrich...though I'm willing to settle on Romney. Just figured I'd accentuate how far apart we are. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG, it's funny how far apart we are, but I always appreciate objective, open minded people. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

This is the one thread where Hellmouth could come in and say the whole thing is rigged, and I would actually believe him.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

Sure seems to me like Edwards is undervalued on the Democrat side. Isn't he a lot easier to sell to the moderate independent voters? He's a white male who can carry southern states a lot easier than Hillary or Obama can, and is more moderate than both.

At one time I thought Gore could be a pretty strong candidate, but now I'm skeptical that he'll run at all....buying Edwards at 8 seems like a good value, probably the only good value I can see at this time.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure seems to me like Edwards is undervalued on the Democrat side. Isn't he a lot easier to sell to the moderate independent voters? He's a white male who can carry southern states a lot easier than Hillary or Obama can, and is more moderate than both.

At one time I thought Gore could be a pretty strong candidate, but now I'm skeptical that he'll run at all....buying Edwards at 8 seems like a good value, probably the only good value I can see at this time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Edwards is the only real value. I just noticed that Kucinich is on their list. They didn't have him before.
He is at 3. You've got to be kidding me. Unfortunately it's 0/3 so no short is available. How can they not put him up at 0/1? They could leave him there forever and give all the 99-1 they could with no chance of paying out. Meanwhile I am still dreaming the dream. Go Dennis!

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sure seems to me like Edwards is undervalued on the Democrat side. Isn't he a lot easier to sell to the moderate independent voters? He's a white male who can carry southern states a lot easier than Hillary or Obama can, and is more moderate than both.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I liked Edwards at 8. Although my Idol experience this year makes me think it's really hard to evaluate how you are doing when you pick longshots. He has the whole South to himself now, doesn't he? The three negatives I can think of on Edwards's price are:

(1) The one Southerner I talk politics with, who was really into Edwards in 2004, is lukewarm on Edwards now
(2) He's tainted by 2004
(3) Not sure what the situation with his wife is. There probably needs to be a discount for the chance he withdraws.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

I just don't think I'd give Edwards a 13% chance of winning the nomination right now, which is what he'd need to beat the WSEX spread. More like 5% IMO. Hillary has the name recognition and the Dem political machinery behind her, Obama is more popular and charismatic, and Edwards comes off a little used-car-salesmanish IMO.

Re: Wagering on the Presidential Election
 

John Edwards' chances to get the nomination are firmly pegged to Iowa, where he has spent way more time than any of the other candidates, and where he is leading in the polls.

Jimmy Carter was polling 1% nationally in June 1975. Then he improbably won Iowa in Feb. 1976, and it propelled him to the nomination. John Kerry was polling single digits all thruogh 2003, but he won Iowa and never looked back. This is not to say that Iowa is a cinch for Edwards; Howard Dean was leading in the polls there until a couple days before the election. But he has a clear strategy that is working well so far, and it is not a "Southern strategy".

Edwards may be the only Dem candidate from the South, but that doesn't really give him an advantage in the Southern Dem primaries. In many of these primaries, almost 50% of the vote is African-American. Clinton and Obama both poll better among African-Americans than Edwards, so these primaries should actually be a close 3-way race. In most South Carolina polling (1st Southern primary), Clinton seems to have a slight lead.

If Edwards wins Iowa, he will be able to compete on equal footing with whichever of Clinton and Obama emerges stronger. If he loses Iowa, he will go nowhere. I think he has about a 40% chance of winning Iowa, and a 15% chance to win the nomination.