From the guy who gave you the 2008 exacta cold...

[TGJB]

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.

[dodie]

Where does one bet on the election, Jerry?

[richiebee]

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?

[phil23]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[Deadrockstar]

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....

[TGJB]

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.

[SoCalMan2]

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.

[sighthound]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[mbeychok]

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

[TGJB]

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.

[Topcat]

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.

[Topcat]

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.

[Topcat]

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.