Wagering on the Presidential Election

[LKJ]

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.

[TheVegan]

[ 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!

[disjunction]

[ 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.

[revots33]

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.

[NickMPK]

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.