Only bet I made so far is Huntsman at 25-1 to win the nom, if NH goes the way I think it might (Romney winning but not looking strong) I might take some Newt. Obama\'s a solid favorite against anyone but Huntsman.
Where does one bet on the election, Jerry?
Fidel Castro is quoted as saying that US would be better off with a \"robot\" in the
White House than with President Obama.
Which Republican candidate is he talking about?
Lots offshore places to get down on the election.
Jerry - what is your idea for Huntsman\'s path to the nomination? He seems to be too moderate (perception only of course...he\'s actually the most consistent conservative in the group based on his record) to become the Anti Mitt. Do you think his dad finally steps up with big cash for his Super Pac if he finishes 2nd tonight? I have him to finish exactly 2nd at 6:1 tonight, so certainly hoping he does, but it\'s just hard to imagine a path for him beyond this, especially heading to a much more conservative state like South Carolina.
Now that I think about it though, perhaps the best way to bet him is not just the 25:1 for the nomination, but, as you say, since he would be quite completive with independents in the general, to just bet him for the general at 50:1.
I just finally pulled the trigger for Newt for the nomination yesterday at 16:1, basically just covering my investment at this point. There\'s still a tiny (emphasis on tiny) part of me that thinks that if Perry could pull out a 2nd, or even a great 3rd in South Carolina, that he would immediately return to being the anti Mitt, and his odds are certainly there (100:1).
Having said all of the above, it\'s probably 80% at this point that Mittens already has this thing wrapped.
England. Go to Oddschecker.com, go to specials, go to elections and politics, and you\'ll see the prices at the various legal books. You can bet on pretty much anything over there, but as I learned recently they don\'t always take a lot (tried to get down on the Ravens and Giants before the weekend for the SB, had to do it a different way).
They\'ve got the spread in NH as Romney -18 the field, I didn\'t bet but I think there\'s almost no shot he covers.
The NY Post says that Las Vagas stands to get slaughtered if the G-Men win. Evidently when their record was at 6-6 some books took a lot of action at 100-1.
As far as Huntsman goes, I think you have a little too much faith in the GOP to act rationally....
The field will still be spread out in SC with so many still in it. Romney may be going the wrong way, and if Huntsman starts to look viable he\'ll pick up some of his votes. I think Gingrich may win SC now that he has money (and he is going to hurt Romney badly with the Bain ads), but the vote will be all over the place. That thinking is why I may take some Newt depending on how NH goes.
I bet Huntsman for the same reason I bet McCain-- all the others have huge holes in them. If he gets any traction the establishment will get behind him and throw money at him-- everyone hates Romney, the others have baggage, and they know Huntsman can win independents.
I think he\'s about even money to finish second in NH, you have a great bet.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The field will still be spread out in SC with so
> many still in it. Romney may be going the wrong
> way, and if Huntsman starts to look viable he\'ll
> pick up some of his votes. I think Gingrich may
> win SC now that he has money (and he is going to
> hurt Romney badly with the Bain ads), but the vote
> will be all over the place. That thinking is why I
> may take some Newt depending on how NH goes.
>
> I bet Huntsman for the same reason I bet McCain--
> all the others have huge holes in them. If he gets
> any traction the establishment will get behind him
> and throw money at him-- everyone hates Romney,
> the others have baggage, and they know Huntsman
> can win independents.
>
> I think he\'s about even money to finish second in
> NH, you have a great bet.
Nate Silver at the five thirty eight blog put out a scenario where Huntsman can get the nomination....he is a long shot for sure, but Silver was pointing out something like he should be 20-1 and you can bet him at 100-1 and that the 100-1 price is just wrong even though you still have a 95% chance of losing. Going by rough recollection...the idea is that if Romney fails (either has a scandal or just crashes and burns) then Huntsman is a huge beneficiary of Romney leaving the race...then the idea is that all the other candidates are so flawed that Huntsman wins by being the least freakazoidal. However, Silver supports his whole analysis with math and other quant backing.
Good bet. Nobody wants Mitt any more than they didn\'t 4 years ago. Huntsman could indeed get it.
I wouldn\'t waste any money on a Newt cover. Can\'t happen.
Gingrich is very good on the debate stage, and as the field gets smaller each will get more time to speak. But my thinking is if Romney falls down, somebody will emerge on the right. Santorum doesn\'t have the money or infrastructure for Florida, and Perry has stepped on his, err, foot, too many times (and pulled half a Palin with that I\'m-out-I\'m-not--out business). I think this could be a three man race soon,and if Huntsman is perceived as a moderate and Paul stays in for a while, that helps whoever is left on the right (so to speak). Which should end up being Gingrich.
Basically my thinking is that Huntsman and Gingrich are overlays, not that either has to win.
I\'ve got a scenario that is likely and could be profitable if there is a number out there. Over/Under on % vote for Obama/Republican in the General. The likelihood of a credible 3rd party candidate is extremely high. Be it Trump/Bloomberg/Paul/Palin or some other ultra conservative. In that scenario, the under would have to be looked at as a nice bet.
I think the wildcard is Palin. She\'s not getting a lot of hype but she sent a strong, strong message yesterday questioning Mittens finances and basically calling him out for not responding to the Bain stuff. Very curious she would do that right before South Carolina where the conservatives will rule the day. Might she want to extend the primary season where there is no candidate before the convention so that she could step in or weaken the Mittens enough to where she runs as a third party?
A beaten up Romney encourages a 3rd party candidate and I can\'t begin to explain the disdain for Romney among conservatives in the Republican party. Just to be clear, I\'m not in that party - some would even call me a Democratic operative and it is my business but the establishment cannot stand Romney and they usually do something about it.
The point is - if there is a number out there on over/under General election percentage I would like to hear about it.
michael
There is no chance Bloomberg or Trump will run-- they couldn\'t win, and have no interest in making a statement (or spending the time, money and energy on a losing cause, and in the case of Trump he would have to give up his TV gig). Paul does want to make a statement, but his son may run in 4 or 8 years and he doesn\'t want to mess it up for him by getting blamed for handing Obama the election. No idea what Palin\'s thought process is, if there is such a thing.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The field will still be spread out in SC with so
> many still in it. Romney may be going the wrong
> way, and if Huntsman starts to look viable he\'ll
> pick up some of his votes. I think Gingrich may
> win SC now that he has money (and he is going to
> hurt Romney badly with the Bain ads), but the vote
> will be all over the place. That thinking is why I
> may take some Newt depending on how NH goes.
>
> I bet Huntsman for the same reason I bet McCain--
> all the others have huge holes in them. If he gets
> any traction the establishment will get behind him
> and throw money at him-- everyone hates Romney,
> the others have baggage, and they know Huntsman
> can win independents.
>
> I think he\'s about even money to finish second in
> NH, you have a great bet.
Love this stuff, too . . . they\'ll be no Bain SuperPAC ads from the Newtster, after certain GOP heavyheads -- and Rushbo -- told him in so many words to lay off that tack, and he\'s being obedient about it.
Vegas has NEVER taken over the counter action on anything involving voting. They\'ve talked about taking Oscar action recently, but haven\'t heard of anyone doing anything about it, as I type this. Election betting was once BEYOND huge in the USA . . . now? Not so much. You can speculate on parallel products in the stock or commodity markets, providing you much the same ride.
SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The field will still be spread out in SC with
> so
> > many still in it. Romney may be going the wrong
> > way, and if Huntsman starts to look viable
> he\'ll
> > pick up some of his votes. I think Gingrich may
> > win SC now that he has money (and he is going to
>
> > hurt Romney badly with the Bain ads), but the
> vote
> > will be all over the place. That thinking is why
> I
> > may take some Newt depending on how NH goes.
> >
> > I bet Huntsman for the same reason I bet
> McCain--
> > all the others have huge holes in them. If he
> gets
> > any traction the establishment will get behind
> him
> > and throw money at him-- everyone hates Romney,
> > the others have baggage, and they know Huntsman
> > can win independents.
> >
> > I think he\'s about even money to finish second
> in
> > NH, you have a great bet.
>
> Nate Silver at the five thirty eight blog put out
> a scenario where Huntsman can get the
> nomination....he is a long shot for sure, but
> Silver was pointing out something like he should
> be 20-1 and you can bet him at 100-1 and that the
> 100-1 price is just wrong even though you still
> have a 95% chance of losing. Going by rough
> recollection...the idea is that if Romney fails
> (either has a scandal or just crashes and burns)
> then Huntsman is a huge beneficiary of Romney
> leaving the race...then the idea is that all the
> other candidates are so flawed that Huntsman wins
> by being the least freakazoidal. However, Silver
> supports his whole analysis with math and other
> quant backing.
Don\'t disagree with that . . . but it appears to me that Hunstman is laying the groundwork for 2016, when, frankly, the GOP nom may be worth a good deal more than it is this time around.
Newt was 6:1 in SC two days ago, now down to 3.5, latest polls showing super tight race with Mitt, Paul distant 3rd. Think it\'s the right time to lay Newt though as he no longer will go balls to the wall on the Bain stuff. Paul can\'t win in SC (at least that is hard to imagine) but at 25:1 he\'s probably value of what\'s left.
completely concur Topcat. Have always felt that way about Huntsman. Although Rubio will be a very very tough out for him to get by. And what about on the Dem side? Any ideas there at all? Hardly an obvious front runner with Biden being old.
Hillary or Cuomo.
Palin is just trying to make noise and get her name on the blogs again.
The conservatives are meeting in Texas this week. They have a choice of rallying around Perry, Santorum or Gingrich. I\'ll guess Perry, as they can continue owning him. Gingrich has his rich billionaire to keep him in the race and destroy the establishment pick, Mittens. Evangelicals will not vote Romney, period.
Gingrich wants to get to Florida, where those that know him form the 1990\'s will vote for him. Believe it or not, he may end up being the one that holds the GOP convention hostage against a third-party candidacy threat.
Santorum is trying to be Mittens \"conservative values\" VP. I think the friendliness with Gingrich is due to fear of Gingrich destroying him. That\'s all on Gingrich\'s side.
Ron Paul may or may not go third party - he\'s running to make Rand more acceptable in the future.
Gingrich released the 28 minute trash movie yesterday on the internet, and is playing 2 minute ads in Carolina about it, with the web address. He\'s making the verbal noises of obedience, but frankly he can\'t stand the party that sanctioned him and kicked him out and ended his House career, and I really don\'t think he cares what Rush says. he\'s trying to have it both ways: talk nice, let the SuperPac destroy.
Just a note: Rush is owned by Clear Channel, which is owned by Bain Capital.
If the far right would smarten up and pick a guy, they could yet make a dent. Perry certainly looked like a shoe-in 5 months ago. At one point he was almost odds on for the nomination. But then he opened his mouth...
Plus the Texas redistricting court case is just killing him with the move back of the Texas primary from Super Tuesday (sooner better for him to capture momentum from all those delegates, 2nd most, in TX) to April and now rumours of an even later move or split primary.
Interestingly, for a guy polling a miserably low as he is, his odds just will not budge beyond 100:1 for the nom. Given his numbers, he ought to be more like 200 or 300:1, at least.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary or Cuomo.
HRC will be too old. Cuomo\'s been maneuvering for that spot for 6+ years, but memories of the old, snotty, superior, arrogant (sound familiar?) Cuomo are strong among the insiders and wise guys. It\'ll be a question of electibility.
They can\'t go to Perry and be regarded as sane. He\'s strictly a rgional flavor who\'s simply not all that swift, can\'t think on his feet a little bit, and has been wholly exposed as the ultimate \"for-sale\" politician.
Agree Gingrich is an overlay. If he wins SC, I think he\'s even money to win it. I would put him in the category of being able to beat Obama in November. I don\'t think Romney can. Drawing a stark contrast with an incumbent is vital, I don\'t think Romney can do that. However, I\'m seeing reports that gasoline is looking to spike again this spring/summer ($4+/gallon). That will be used as a very effective weapon against Obama and his energy policy.
Disagree on Huntsman. His positions aren\'t a problem (pretty much in line with Romney), but he\'s got the personality of a rock. He moved all-in on NH and came up short. Don\'t think he has the money to go toe for toe for the middle ground. I think he would have caught some mo by now if he was going anywhere.
It\'s Romney or Gingrich, and South Carolina will probably be the death blow to the field if Romney takes it.
Note: I did get McCain at +400 at Matchbook after Iowa
sekrah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agree Gingrich is an overlay. If he wins SC, I
> think he\'s even money to win it. I would put him
> in the category of being able to beat Obama in
> November. I don\'t think Romney can. Drawing a
> stark contrast with an incumbent is vital, I don\'t
> think Romney can do that. However, I\'m seeing
> reports that gasoline is looking to spike again
> this spring/summer ($4+/gallon). That will be
> used as a very effective weapon against Obama and
> his energy policy.
>
> Disagree on Huntsman. His positions aren\'t a
> problem (pretty much in line with Romney), but
> he\'s got the personality of a rock. He moved
> all-in on NH and came up short. Don\'t think he
> has the money to go toe for toe for the middle
> ground. I think he would have caught some mo by
> now if he was going anywhere.
>
> It\'s Romney or Gingrich, and South Carolina will
> probably be the death blow to the field if Romney
> takes it.
>
>
> Note: I did get McCain at +400 at Matchbook after
> Iowa
Like Iowa was Santorum\'s dream GOP audience, South Carolina is Newt\'s. If it was only Mitt and Newt in the field in SC, Newt would keelhaul him. But it\'s not, for which Romney thanks his God each and every day. Newt can nip at Mitt\'s heels so long as Mr. Sands Convention Center\'s money holds out (i. e., as long as he\'s willing), but given this field, the banker suits want Mitt, and Mitt is what they\'re likely to get. Newt\'s got \'way too much baggage, as limited an attention span as Palin, and is all to inclined to make outrageous comments off the cuff. GOP suits shudder at such personality types.
Santorum just got lucky - today the 150 Evangelicals meeting in Texas voted to back Santorum against Mittens, not Perry! I\'m shocked - thought it would be the other way around.
Yeah-- but a) unless Perry drops out before the SC primary it will have a limited effect, and b) Santorum still need infrastructure, and a LOT of money to compete in Florida. Given they could have gone for Perry or Gingrich, this could even be a plus for Romney.
\"150 Evangelicals meeting in Texas voted to back Santorum against Mittens, not Perry!\"
Sight, is it possible they are more open to Sanitorium now that they know how he really feels about \"blah\" people?
Believe it or not, I don\'t think he said what people think he did. Try saying \"lives\", and in the middle of it change it to \"people\'s lives\", and see what it sounds like.
Maybe that\'s not what he was saying, but it\'s questionable (\"apologizing for America\"; \"if we talk about the economy, we lose!\"; and \"I like firing people\") as to whether that\'s a crucial factor this year.
True that.
Topcat,
I\'ve not been here much and just read your post. YES !!! Election betting was one huge in the US. Jimmy the Greek often said one of his toughest beats was Dewey losing to Truman. Supposedly he had a bundle on Tommy boy.
On a personal note in a different life when I was a taker of bets? I had a 70 something year old customer who owned several Ford dealerships from the 50\'s through his death in the mid 90\'s. He would drop thousands at the black jack tables in Atlantic City and Vegas, blow 5k on a weekend in football.
BUT:
He bragged until the day he died about beating me for $ 100.00 on the Ross Perot over/under in the 92 election. He asked me to put out an over under on the Perot % of the popular vote. I put out 15.5 % and he pulled 17 something. God bless Jack he bragged about that win to anyone who would listen for 3-4 years before he died.
FD
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Santorum just got lucky - today the 150
> Evangelicals meeting in Texas voted to back
> Santorum against Mittens, not Perry! I\'m
> shocked - thought it would be the other way
> around.
Perry\'s had his shot, and won\'t get another chance . . . and looking at Newt\'s history, Santorum clearly hews closer to the evangelicals\' social line than Newt ever will. But since Newt\'s not looking to drop out other than at gunpoint, what\'s the diff? . . .
Palin on Hannity yesterday. This is her thought process. Palin-Gingrich.
\"I\'d vote for Newt and I would want this to continue. More debates. More vetting of candidates. Because we know the mistake made in our country four years ago was having a candidate that was not vetted to the degree that he should have been,\" she said.
***\"I would want this to continue\"***
That\'s her plan. Extend the primaries. No one with enough votes to get nomination.
She steps in. Scoops Newt and his votes. There\'s your nominee. Tell me I\'m crazy.
michael
You\'re crazy...! I\'m 99%
Mike
I watched the same interview. The woman has not moved forward in four years.
She might have enough grasp of substantive issues to be elected to
office in her home state, but she was not ready for prime time in 08 and not
ready now.
What has she accomplished in the last 4 years? Quit as governor? Made an awful
reality show?
She is in an all out drive to keep herself relevant now.
Who\'s the turkey now Mr. Perry? (seriously...one of the most idiotic, dangerous comments I\'ve ever heard...the one Muslim country that is committed to some amount of secularism and modernity...and he bashes them...to quote miff...CLUELESS CLOWN)
Certainly helps Newt and there\'s 25\'s out there. God, I do not want to bet more on this prop as I think Romney still is the winner but...value. Arggg.
Is it asking too much for it to come out that Romney has more than one wife squirrelled away somewhere in Utah?
Then again, maybe those 25\'s are not value...
Marianne Gingrich to ABC: \"He wanted an open marriage and I refused.\"
If you look up NEMESIS in the dictionary, is there now a picture of Marianne?
\"the spirit of divine retribution against those who succumb to hubris\"
She also said that Obama hadn\'t been vetted enough. Given that she had undergone zero public scrutiny and McCain hadn\'t even met her when he put her up to be the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency (with an old guy with a history of cancer) that was pretty funny.
Amazing isn\'t it what these goofs can get away with when they are talking heads.
To be clear, I wouldn\'t vote for any of the Republican candidates. I just think that chaos will prevail in the end and Palin is best situated to take advantage of the chaos in the end. I also want to see them keep going deeper and deeper in the opposition research book on each other as well. Keeps it entertaining.
michael
Starting to look like Gingrich...
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Starting to look like Gingrich...
Perry stepping down today was huge for him ahead of this final debate tonight. Should earn him about 5-10 minutes of speaking time, and he has a decisive edge over Romney and Santorum. Especially if CNN lets them go at it like they promised. Santorum is a snoozefest, and Romney usually gets bailed out by a moderator whenever someone has him rocking a little.
Gingrich-Obama will be a very entertaining General Election (and the only candidate up there who has a chance against Obama IMHO). If it\'s Romney-Obama, this will be the first time in my life I\'ve never participated in a Presidential election.
Interesting side bar conversation, but I would keep my day job, TGJB. (despite your 2008 cold exacta, as I often say when I cash my rare tickets these days, \"even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn\".
Romney is 90%+ to get the nomination. Gingrich isn\'t winning anything.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting side bar conversation, but I would
> keep my day job, TGJB. (despite your 2008 cold
> exacta, as I often say when I cash my rare tickets
> these days, \"even a blind squirrel occasionally
> finds an acorn\".
>
> Romney is 90%+ to get the nomination. Gingrich
> isn\'t winning anything.
Romney 90% if he wins SC.
Romney down to 60% if Gingrich wins SC (who is currently trading at 57 on intrade).
Still a favorite, but you are underestimating the anti-Romney sentiment in the GOP. Romney has had the wind at his back and is struggling to get past 35% anywhere.
\"Gingrich isn\'t winning anything\"
Jim,
Why not? The guy asked his wife at the time for an \"open marriage\" so he could bang other women. Whats not to vote for?
Mike
Sekrah-- Agree with that last sentence completely-- Chris Mathews described the R reaction to Romney as \"tissue rejection\", and that\'s about right. It\'s 35 Romney vs. 65 not Romney, and as people drop out the 65 gets attched to fewer people, raising their numbers.
Miff-- the thing is, as they say, the Gingrich back story is \"baked in the cake\". I don\'t think anything involving sex or infidelity from his personal life 10+ years ago can hurt him now-- everybody has heard him say he did wrong, and got religion (in his case literally). People know who he is, and he\'s being judged by the debates and how he\'s handling the campaign-- which, despite him being a truly annoying egomaniac, has been brilliant. I don\'t think anyone else could have pulled this off with the resources he had, let alone the baggage. The problems for him will be if he blows up in a debate or something not sex-related shows up (corruption, explicit evidence he pushed Fannie towards disaster, like that).
On the other hand-- if there\'s anything in Romney\'s tax returns that even smells like he\'s playing games he\'s toast.
JB,
Isn\'t it amazing how many politicians, preachers find religion after getting caught with their pants down.Guys a slimy slug,reminds of someone who I\'d need to take shower after shaking his hand.
Sad, a country of 300 million has nothing better to offer it\'s people than these clowns/clown-ettes.
Mike
Hey most guys don\'t even ask!
\"everybody has heard him say he did wrong, and got religion (in his case literally)\"
I don\'t think \"literally\" is the right word here. If he\'s a Catholic, I\'m Marie of Romania.
Well, yeah. But this string is not about the merits, it\'s about the horse race aspect-- otherwise I wouldn\'t have started it or let it go on this long.
Think of it like a race with Allday runners in it... somebody\'s still gonna win, whether you or I like it or not. And you have to bet accordingly.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Gingrich isn\'t winning anything\"
>
> Jim,
>
> Why not? The guy asked his wife at the time for an
> \"open marriage\" so he could bang other women.
> Whats not to vote for?
>
>
> Mike
RICH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey most guys don\'t even ask!
I love this board.
I went to a fundraiser as a favor in summer of 2010 for a guy named John Gomez who was running against Steve Israel out on Long Island. Gingrich was the \"main attraction\". The fundraiser was at Bernadette Castro\'s house on the Gold Coast (although I hesitate to call it a house as it makes Stately Wayne Manor look like the Shake Shack) and it was fairly intimate - dinner was served in the dining room buffet style.
I did not have a lot of warm and fuzzies for the former Speaker prior to the evening. I have to say however, he was incredibly personable and friendly. I spoke to him briefly about non-political stuff and he was knowledgeable and engaged. At the end of the evening, he gave one of the best speeches I think I\'ve ever heard in that sort of setting (and it wasn\'t a red meat sort of speech). I\'m not sure I would be quick to dismiss him - particularly if Santorum doesn\'t \"show\" in SC. It\'s not inconceivable that Gingrich cuts a deal with Santorum for VP slot if he gets the nod (gives him a pretty good shot to win PA in the general election) in exchange for his support. I think Gingrich sets a new top and wins SC going away. In any event, I think an Obama v. Gingrich debate would be a great deal more entertaining than Obama v. Romney. What will really add some fun is if Biden and Hillary switch seats...
I have fond memories of Bernadette Castro as the long time \"straight man\" for Don Imus...
mbeychok Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amazing isn\'t it what these goofs can get away
> with when they are talking heads.
>
> To be clear, I wouldn\'t vote for any of the
> Republican candidates. I just think that chaos
> will prevail in the end and Palin is best situated
> to take advantage of the chaos in the end. I also
> want to see them keep going deeper and deeper in
> the opposition research book on each other as
> well. Keeps it entertaining.
>
> michael
Given the money she\'s raking in for speaking engagements and other appearances, she doesn\'t need the job. It would be a burden, weighing down her glorious self. And since she\'s at least as big a social-issues reactionary as Santorum, her chances of winning a general against BO are <0%.