Dems in '08

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Lou Grant, Feb 16, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Actually it would be 1-1.75 in laymans terms... You lay 1.75 to win a dollar. The other way you're laying a dollar to win 2.35. At least the way you've explained it. But there is no account for the vig in those numbers. Down the stretch of the last election Kerry went from a slight favorite in the summer (about 1.5 to win 1) down to an underdog by oct/nov when he was more than 2-1 (lay 1 to win about 2.20) while with Bush you were laying about 3 to win 1 by election time.

    I called up my book in costa rica (the boss whom I speak to often) and told him to check out the line on tradesports and that I wanted to bet 20 grand against Hillary being the nominee with those lines... he laughed at me. Told me I'd have to lay a min of 20, maybe 30 to 1 if I wanted to bet against her right now. So it looks like even the Dems know Hillary has no chance and isn't worth the gamble of putting up in the election.

    Anyway this book told me that tradesports relies on people (suckers) betting way in advance on an event and they usually clean up on those suckers willing to lay those kind of odds well in advance.
  2. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    You can. Go to Tradesports.com.

    But just to be clear, the odds are about 2.35 to 1 against Hillary being the nominee. So to get those odds, you need to bet that she will get the nomination. If you're betting she won't get it, the odds are less, about 1.75 to 1.

    At least, that's how I figure it. I'm not really a gambler.
  3. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    You're telling me Hillary is slightly over 2-1 to be the dem nominee and she hasn't even announced her candidacy yet?

    Thats INSANE!



    I want to lay a few thousand against her.
  4. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    You might want to look around the tradesports site a bit to see how it works. The contracts are for sale now, there is money behind them, that's what determines the prices.

    The contracts are exactly the same as bets. Paying $42.50 for a $100 contract on Hillary Clinton being the Democrat nominee is the same as placing a bet with odds of 2.35 to 1.

    This Wikipedia article on the company explains the basics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tradesports

    Another article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3982073.stm

    I don't know how the size of Tradesports compares to other online gambling sites, but I believe it's one of the world's biggest. Their website says they take more than 750,000 orders per day.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2006
  5. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    btw.... places like Tradesports and Betonsports.com are a joke compared to the real sports books. Kinda like comparing on line poker to the real thing.
  6. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    No I'm not wrong... there's no money on those numbers yet... least not with any of the 12 casino's I checked with. ANd in the islands where they routinly put up odds well in advance of LV, they have Hill as a long shot and Gore's not even on the list. I don't know about "contracts" I'm talking about "bets".
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2006
  7. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    I should've said those prices are what the contracts were trading at last night.
  8. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    Actually, that's not correct. Those prices are what the contracts are currently trading at. They rise and fall like a stock price, in response to bettor demand.
  9. Cloud Nine

    Cloud Nine I had to open my big mouth.......

    Messages:
    4,542
    I wouldnt mind seeing Ed Rendell run. Charismatic down to earth guy, has shown to compromise and not nutty liberal, current gov of PA and former mayor of Philly and former Dem committe head. Appeals to working class.
  10. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    damn 3 min edit rule...

    basically what you're looking at above is some odds makers OPINION... he's probably a big Hillary/Gore fan doing some wishful thinking.

    Money talks bullshit and opinions walk.
  11. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    If you want odds on elections don't go by the publically posted shit which isn't based on a single dollar bet.... Speak to an odds maker and ask where the actual money is. Those are comparable to morning line odds at the track which are fixed by guys looking to make a buck for themselves before the first dollar is ever bet. Hillary is a long shot and Rudy is a heavy fav in regards to people who have actually put their money where their mouth is. When the money comes down you won't find Gore anywhere and Hill will be 50-1.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2006
  12. Hyabby

    Hyabby Guest

    Messages:
    323
    I am also amazed that Gore is only 20-to-1. Just once in recent history has a vice-president run for president, lost in a verrry close election, come back to try again 8 years later and won - and we all know how that turned out.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2006
  13. Lou Grant

    Lou Grant

    Messages:
    1,439
    Kerry's 9th down on the list. I figured he'd place higher than Gore.
  14. argleby

    argleby

    Messages:
    688
    Tradesports.com, which has had a good record at predicting elections, currently has it this way.

    Clinton - 42.3
    Warner - 25
    Edwards - 6
    Gore - 4.9
    Feingold - 4.6
    Bayh - 3.9

    The numbers indicate how many dollars it would cost to buy a contract paying $100 if the candidate wins the nomination.

    I know it's off-topic, but in case anyone's interested McCain leads the Republicans with 31.3, Allen is second with 28.1 and Guilliani is third at 10.5.

    They don't seem to have a line yet for specific candidates in the general election, but a generic Democrat ticket is going for 47.5 and a generic Republican ticket is at 50.1.
  15. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Wasn't hijacking anything... But who wants to talk about a bunch of losers who prob won't survive past the first few primaries. There just isn't much to talk about with the dems cause they're too busy hating Bush to ever see the light and clean up their own fucking party that's now lost two elections to a hated man whos father was a one term pres tossed from office. And if they think Hillary is the answer or even stands a chance to win a national election... well I think we should just move on and talk about 2012. Shit... if Hillary runs against whatever piece of shit dog the GOP puts up, she still probably won't win a single state other than NY cause they were dumb enough to vote for her in the senate race when she didn't even live there till a few weeks before the election. And if Rudy runs she don't stand a chance of carrying NY or any other state. Hillary running will be the biggest landslide in both popular and electoral votes this country has ever seen. It might be so bad the whol.e party would collapse into a black hole they'll never recover from.

    Remember when I said Kerry not only wouldn't beat Bush but it wouldn't be nearly as close as past elections unlike what the polls were showing, based on the odds makers and he was only 2-1... Well Hillary isn't even on the boards. I've spoken to odds makers in the islands and LV and they told me she'd be 50-1 at least and 10-1 she wins a single state. No chance in hell.


    I thought the GOP was in the same boat in the mid 90's when they went on the great Clinton witch hunt and started throwing unwinnable candidates like Bob Dole who even though a war hero, a poltician with 30 yrs experience, stood no chance of ever beating Clinton (Hillary has about 4-5 years experience as a politician). They finally ended up having the American voter and allot of their base despising them for all that party bias nonsense. But their base saw the light and ran the trouble makers like Newt and Damato out of the picture... and both btw were fine politicians otherwise, but they just couldn't stifle their extreme biased views and let the government go on and work for the people cause they had a stick up their asses for where the presidents dick was and whether or not Hillary was making shady stock deals or having witnesses knocked off.
  16. Lou Grant

    Lou Grant

    Messages:
    1,439
    Hey, I'm just a newspaper man.
  17. SlickWilly

    SlickWilly

    Messages:
    8,226
    Hey, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? I'm i'm swarmy, all mongers are.
  18. Lou Grant

    Lou Grant

    Messages:
    1,439
    Oz, as I said, we've been thru the GOP mill already. Stay on topic. Why do you have to highjack the thread?
  19. Ozzy

    Ozzy

    Messages:
    15,725
    Thats a sad list... One loser who couldn't beat the most hated man on earth(Kerry), one unwinnable candidate (Hillary).... and two more no one is excited about.

    Too bad for the Dems Barak Obama is still at least 2012 away from being ready and he'll have to overcome the handicap of being the first black candidate from a major party.


    With the GOP McCain is not going to run cept maybe as Rudy's VP if he choses him over Rice. Rudy/Rice in '08...... you heard it here first. Rudy left politics on top the way show biz says... leaving them wanting more. He's smart enough to know he'll need a very experienced person in his corner and w/Rice (a woman) he can kill two birds with one pick.

    Rice won't run herself cause unlike Hillary, she has the common sense to know a woman stands no chance of winning at the national level at this point in time even if she has 10 times the smarts and experience Hillary has.

    Pataki hasn't a chance on a national stage. He's run his last two terms as if he was a lame duck gov. He passed the death penalty which is the single thing that got him elected over Mario-I'm too busy pontificating to hear the people-Cuomo. A death penalty which btw has since been squashed, deemed unconstituional and then....................... nadda from Pataki.

    If Hill is the Dem choice as it seems she will be, then lets end this and talk about 2012 and if the Dems learn a lesson and put someone who has a personality and can actually win.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2006
  20. Lou Grant

    Lou Grant

    Messages:
    1,439
    Don't know if this has been beaten to death here before or not, so if it was, my apaologies. But...

    Who do you think will carry the flag for the Democras in 2008? We've all been thru the GOP Rudy or McCain or Rice or Frist nominations (or my personal favorite, Pataki), but who do you think has the best chance of taking back the White House in 2008? Add your list and why:

    Hillary Clinton - enough said

    Evan Bayh - Senator from Indiana: was watching Bernanke before Congress today and watching Bayh, he has all the charm w/o the swarminess that Bill Clinton had, and used to become president

    Mark R. Warner - former governor of Virginia many consider to be the true front runner for Pres in 08 (sorry Hillary). Also, Presidents tend to be governors and not senators/congressmen before they are elected (keep an eye on that NJ guy in a few years. There's a reason why Corzine gave up his Senate seat, and I think this is why)

    John Kerry - still lurking in the shadows, waiting to pull out his everyman work jacket that he wore exclusively during the campaign but hasn't seen the light of day sin Nov 04

    That's my short list. While I'm not a Democrat, I feel that the more interesting race in 08 will be the left and who they will appoint to try and win back America. And I think Bayh will be the nominee.