a solid ML bet on the election

[The Seer]

I posted this before at +165 and it went down to +150. Since then is has been rising. At +210 it is almost another bet. This is too rich not to take some on what is more like a 47-43 event. This is not meant to be a discussion of who is the better man for the USA. It is only a bet. The last thread has been polluted with ad hominem attacks which I asked to leave out. Bush was 7/5 four years ago and moved to 5/7 by November. I called the 1984 election almost perfect. I called it 47-3 with Mondale taking also Mass because it is so very liberal. I do not remember if any Territories got a vote or not then. These numbers are moved a great deal by the English and other nearby Countries' peoples.


If anyone would like to comment to the value of this wager, please do so. If you want to make name calling your fort? or write any other thing about this wager, please use this thread:

http://forums.eog.com/politics-and-government/american-election-bet-140679.html



Money where my mouth is:
Straight Wager
<TABLE class=legendBox cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD class="removeBox evenCell">Ticket </TD><TD class=teamsBox></TD><TD class="buypointsBox evenCell">Odds </TD><TD class=amountBox>Risking</TD><TD class="riskwinBox evenCell">To Win</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE class=matchupBox cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR class=evenRow><TD class=removeBox>XXXX787</TD><TD class=teamsBox><SMALL></SMALL>PARTY TO WIN THE PRESIDENCY
[1001] REPUBLICAN PARTY


</TD><TD class=buypointsBox>+210</TD><TD class=amountBox>$476.19 </TD><TD class=riskwinBox>to win $1000.00</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

If anyone thinks that the Rep candidate has no chance, then he must think The Dem candidate, or another (+4500) will win. Please post your putting out the -260 as a good bet and support your logic. I stopped slurring men's last names when I was 9.

 

[LinesMover]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Keeping politics out of it as you suggested.91023i2ndw;l

The odds should rise with the price of oil this Summer. And then drop if and when oil does.

 

[WVU]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Aren't the Dems 17 points ahead in the polls right now? That will be very hard to overcome. I would say a fair price for the dog right now would be +350

 

[munson15]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

If, for example, bin Laden is captured or killed before the election this will change dramatically. Unforeseen major world events make a long-range projection like this risky. If oil/gas maintain record levels, it would be difficult for me to predict McCain winning.

 

[Ego74]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Aren't the Dems 17 points ahead in the polls right now? That will be very hard to overcome. I would say a fair price for the dog right now would be +350

Back in '88, Dukakis was way ahead of Bush Sr in the middle of summer that year.

Four years later, Bush Sr was supposed to EASILY defeat the Democratic nominee Bill Clinton in the general election, coming off the heels of a successful Operation Desert Storm a year earlier

12io4j2w90

 

[WVU]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I don't think anyone was ever 17 points ahead this late in the game and lost the election.

 

[The Seer]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Aren't the Dems 17 points ahead in the polls right now?

I have not seen that poll. Nixon thought he was so close to losing, he sent in the plumbers. Many of my friends also thought President Reagan was close in 1984. If Polls of who would have won the Super Bowl determined the winner, here in eog NFL Country would have had it wrong.

The odds should rise with the price of oil this Summer. And then drop if and when oil does.

Hhmm, I had not thought that betters would make that correlation. Here is the oil price:
Date:06/18/2008 O=133.40 H=137.17 L=132.45 C=137.17 V=215757 OI:300349
Since 06/18/2008, the odds went down to +150. so it seems that the oil/odds do not correlate, so far.

If, for example, bin Laden is captured or killed before the election this will change dramatically. Unforeseen major world events make a long-range projection like this risky.

Almost all military victories will be in the Rep.'s favor. To the Dem. followers this is Bush's war. A bin Laden capture will not help the Dem. It should be seen as a Rep. victory.

 

[WVU]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Bin laden getting captured before November elections?

-20000

 

[betit]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

17 point lead is just by party ID...when you name the candidates it's much closer...polls are all over the place but i think the average poll is about Obama + 3/4

+210 is definetly value (if you must know i'm a democrat)

 

[munson15]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I don't think anyone was ever 17 points ahead this late in the game and lost the election.

see Dukakis, M. (1988)

 

[WVU]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Taking election dogs historically is not a good bet. The Republicans are going to need a miracle to pull this one out. Our economy is shit, gas prices are shit, and the stock market is shit. Coupled with extremely high inflation and high unemployment I just do not see how they can climb back in this race.

I stick to my +350 line. It will hit that by the end of August for sure.

 

[Jeff Jones]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I don't think anyone was ever 17 points ahead this late in the game and lost the election.

Poll forecasting is pop science.

Bud, things happen.

From CNN:

?Historically speaking, when June polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.

"Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by eight. Michael Dukakis had a 14-point lead over George Bush the elder in June, 1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an even smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June," Holland noted.

They don't even mention Kerry.

The entire article:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Poll shows Obama with a double-digit lead ? - Blogs from CNN.com

 

[WVU]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Poll forecasting is pop science.

Bud, things happen.

From CNN:

?Historically speaking, when June polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead has often melted," Holland said.

"Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by eight. Michael Dukakis had a 14-point lead over George Bush the elder in June, 1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an even smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June," Holland noted.

They don't even mention Kerry.

The entire article:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Poll shows Obama with a double-digit lead ? - Blogs from CNN.com

good info JJ. But in those cases alone the leader still won 3 out of 4 times. Hence my +350 line. Anything can happen is right, but anything usually doesn't

 

[munson15]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

good info JJ. But in those cases alone the leader still won 3 out of 4 times. Hence my +350 line. Anything can happen is right, but anything usually doesn't

Not arguing with your projected line, but I'm pretty sure Dukakis came out of the Democratic convention with a larger lead than 14 points. And, he was beaten soundly. :cheers

 

[The Seer]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Taking election dogs historically is not a good bet.

I only got online in 1997. I know the Bush July odds were 7/5 both times. I would have to guess the 1996 election of the Incumbent vs Anyone would have to have been in the +1000 range for me to look at seriously. In races like that a book like Bodog will take $50 bets. You would be laying at least $400 to get it, I am guessing.

Can you tell us what the historical odds have been?

Poll forecasting is pop science.

The way is has been done for at least 60 years, yes.

If there is one "hymietown" or "Whitie" out there on tape, it will change things.

 

[Seymour]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I have 1000/1400 on McCain - it's for sale - discounted obviously - make and offer - well, not you WVU

 

[The Seer]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Taking election dogs historically is not a good bet. The Republicans are going to need a miracle to pull this one out. Our economy is shit, gas prices are shit, and the stock market is shit. Coupled with extremely high inflation and high unemployment I just do not see how they can climb back in this race.

This would have made more sense if your arguments supported your premise that

Taking election dogs historically is not a good bet.

None of your statements say a word about election dogs. If anyone has data, please step in.

As to the statement about the economy, it has not had one quarter of negative growth. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth are required for it to be a recession.

As to the statement about

high unemployment

, it is not true. Unemployment is at 5.5% Bureau of Labor Statistics Home Page

As to your statement about

extremely high inflation

compared to what? The 3.3% Nixon froze prices at? (bad idea) or the 13.% Carter gave us? (Taxed oil profits so oil Companies drilled overseas. We are only now seeing just how bad an idea that one was)
As to the statement about the stock market. It is where it was two years ago. and again in 1999. Anyone who sold last year at the all time high would tell you he sold because of a currently overbought position. He will be back at a time when he sees value again. We cannot know when that will be.

I only know for sure that that last two UD bets at 7/5 were winners. Any UD bet in 1996 would been a bet on a once beaten Rep vs an Incumbent Dem. Yes that would have been a bad bet but it may have been so high you could not have gotten a book to take it as it must have -2000 on the Incumbent.
If you cannot provide the historical odds, I will assume this was just a rant that belongs in the above rant thread.

I will try to look up historical odds vs who won, if you cannot provide them.

 

[trytrytry]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

i rate fair odds at -500 +400 now...for the Dems... really a long shot to play REP at that low of a take back.

 

[BCTTWR]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Presidential historians have put this election at 1-5 for the Democratic party. They base it on which party is in the white house at the time of the election with the economy in the toilet and a very unpopular war.

McCain at +210 is a bad bet.

To the poster who said Bush Sr was suppose to "EASILY" defeat Clinton. After Bush Sr. broke his no new taxes pledge, and raised taxes, he was finished. Bush Sr. was polling behind Ross Perot. When Perot imploded, Clinton cruised to victory.

 

[TheGuesser]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I'm pretty sure you'll be able to get better than +210 right after the Dem Convention.

 

[munson15]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I'm pretty sure you'll be able to get better than +210 right after the Dem Convention.

I agree with that, if you like McCain, that would be the time to make a move.

 

[Thor4140]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I wouldn't put ten cents on a Democrat no matter what the odds are. The only thing neocons do well is steal, smear,slime, opps i mean campaign. Dirtiest campaigners in the country. Why they win.

 

[NowshesmyRuca]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I agree with most here I believe after the convention in August it will be near +300!

 

[BCTTWR]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Yep, Its a no brainer to wait until after the Dems convention.

 

[HinesWard86]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Most gamblers have never read Anthony Downs or any of the other great early American political scientists.

Barring ridiculous VP nominations, McCain has superb value.

The talking heads have been littering the airwaves saying America is a nation that votes for change. This has historically been proven false as we are one of the few developed nations that have never had a minority or female head of government.

Another reason the change argument is totally false is that one of the early political scientists (for the life of me can't remember his name) noted that in between elections Americans stray from their political ideologies, but almost always come back to their previous ideologies which they held the previous election. People are saying they will vote for Obama now because it is chic, because it is trendy, as a damning vote of the current administration, and a variety of other reasons, but as the election draws near McCain will "suddenly" make a resurgence as people look at the issues and their beliefs and switch their alignment to the candidate that matches their policy preferences more.

Now, as for the VP nominations. There are great choices and poison pill choices on both sides. For Obama, teaming up with Hillary would KILL his campaign. Barring McCain being dumb as hell he would win by about 30-40 electoral votes. However, nominating Edwards would be very good for Obama and would make him very difficult to beat.

For McCain, he has a difficult decision. There are major drawbacks to most of the VP nominees. Jindal is no good because that would piss off the Hispanic voters the Republicans have tried so desperately hard to court. Huckabee would be a disaster, as would Guiliani. Romney makes sense but that would be a flammable situation. I think McCain should nominate someone like Thune. Young, charismatic guy that ousted a fucking Democratic leader in an election (very difficult to do).

Definite value on McCain though, barring major shit or a bad VP decision, the line will close at Obama -140ish. And if anyone wants to give me +400 I will happily take it.

 

[WildBill]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

The GOP is trying everything already to paint on Obama and shit ain't sticking. No one is buying into the flip flop accusations, reminds me a lot of how they called Clinton the waffler and he just kept going on.

The facts and politics aren't important here, just the personalities. McCain isn't scoring with his personality while Obama has long ago stolen that angle. People just want a positive guy and the more McCain and his team try to fall back on accusations of the "9/10 mentality" the more they will lose support. McCain's only hope is to get serious about pandering to the business sector, but few people in the business sector really trust him because he has tried to paint himself as something of an environment protector and of course the campaign limits efforts will always haunt him.

Only chance GOP had to win this was with Romney and I don't think he will do much as a VP candidate. Without a strong and definitive edge in support from the business world the GOP is dead in this election. They are better off circling the wagons and awaiting the inevitable opportunity at the mid-term elections when a Democratic everything screws stuff up.

 

[Whoson1st]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Most gamblers have never read Anthony Downs or any of the other great early American political scientists.

Barring ridiculous VP nominations, McCain has superb value.

The talking heads have been littering the airwaves saying America is a nation that votes for change. This has historically been proven false as we are one of the few developed nations that have never had a minority or female head of government.

Another reason the change argument is totally false is that one of the early political scientists (for the life of me can't remember his name) noted that in between elections Americans stray from their political ideologies, but almost always come back to their previous ideologies which they held the previous election. People are saying they will vote for Obama now because it is chic, because it is trendy, as a damning vote of the current administration, and a variety of other reasons, but as the election draws near McCain will "suddenly" make a resurgence as people look at the issues and their beliefs and switch their alignment to the candidate that matches their policy preferences more.

Now, as for the VP nominations. There are great choices and poison pill choices on both sides. For Obama, teaming up with Hillary would KILL his campaign. Barring McCain being dumb as hell he would win by about 30-40 electoral votes. However, nominating Edwards would be very good for Obama and would make him very difficult to beat.

For McCain, he has a difficult decision. There are major drawbacks to most of the VP nominees. Jindal is no good because that would piss off the Hispanic voters the Republicans have tried so desperately hard to court. Huckabee would be a disaster, as would Guiliani. Romney makes sense but that would be a flammable situation. I think McCain should nominate someone like Thune. Young, charismatic guy that ousted a fucking Democratic leader in an election (very difficult to do).

Definite value on McCain though, barring major shit or a bad VP decision, the line will close at Obama -140ish. And if anyone wants to give me +400 I will happily take it.

I agree about taking Clinton as Obama's running mate would hurt him big time; possibly making it a pick-em. But taking John Edwards is political suicide too! Obama's running mate is more critical to his win than is McCain's.
He won't take Clinton or Edwards; if he has ANY sense and he Does.

 

[mofome]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

:nono

 

[durito]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

You can get Rep. at +254 at matchbook

this is scalpable a few places

 

[munson15]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

thanks i'll look for that

 

[The Seer]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Bookmaker is now +220

 

[5teamparlay]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

SEER you have a good value at this point.

 

[biggamer3]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

:nono

Admit you were wrong

 

[trytrytry]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

nice call SEER buy back and lock in a nice profit...good call

 

[The Seer]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

nice call SEER buy back and lock in a nice profit...good call

If I wanted to do this, how is it done? I know what a ATS middle is but if I take the current line of ~ -150 for "Any Dem", all I see is a loser.

 

[HinesWard86]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

If I wanted to do this, how is it done? I know what a ATS middle is but if I take the current line of ~ -150 for "Any Dem", all I see is a loser.

Matchbook has Obama at -124 if you want to hedge.

Personally I have McCain at +180 and +200 and am going to hedge at this point. Do I think the line gets lower? Yes, but not by much. It's a lot better to just take the free money now and run.

Speaking of free money did anyone see that you could've gotten the Dems to win California at -900? I laughed my ass off when I saw that. Free fucking 10%

 

[The Seer]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Matchbook has Obama at -124 if you want to hedge.

I still do not understand. I have about $800 to win $2000 and pay $2800.

Please explain how this is done. If I put up enough on the other side, it will be more than $800. How does this win? I must be thick on this point but I have taken over 41 -110 after I had under 46 -110 which I understand.

 

[Matt Rain]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

I still do not understand. I have about $800 to win $2000 and pay $2800.

Please explain how this is done. If I put up enough on the other side, it will be more than $800. How does this win? I must be thick on this point but I have taken over 41 -110 after I had under 46 -110 which I understand.

800 on McCain to win 2000 (+250)
1550 on Obama to win 1250 (-124)

McCain wins : 2000 - 1550 = $450 net
Obama wins : 1250 - 800 = $450 net

 

[The Seer]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Thank you. I just failed to do the math. I did not know where to start.

 

[BCTTWR]

Re: a solid ML bet on the election

Great hedge The Seer. :cheers
Quinnipiac poll just released a poll that has Obama up 5% in Ohio. How accurate is Quinnipiac? If it is accurate, then McCain is in big trouble. He is not going to have a better two weeks then he is having now. McCain has to win Ohio or he will lose the election, no ifs, ands or buts. Obama could still lose Fla and Ohio and still win if he can hold on to leads in NM, & Colorado.