Place your bets

[si_uk_lon_ok]

I was having a look at my favorite spread betting sites and was looking up who the market says will win the Republican and Democrat nomination.
It seems that if you don't think Guiliani will win the Republican nomination there is some money is guessing who will. While the money remains on Hillary for the Democrats.
While betting for who will win the election a $10 bet would yield only $6.80 if the Democrats won, but $15 if the Republicans won.
So looking at the odds who would you back or lay?  
Political Gambling

[RecycleMichael]

John Edwards was about 7 to 2 odds.

I would take that.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

John Edwards was about 7 to 2 odds.

I would take that.

Me too. In Oklahoma, he'll win and Obama will finish a close second.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

I'd put some money on Brownback at 31 to 1 and Huckabee and Hagel at 64 to 1. While I don't think they will win, I think there chances are better than that.

I'd also put some money on a lay for Giuliani, I think his chances are over rated thats on 11/5.

The best odds though are a bit obscure. 999/1 for the UK conservatives to be the biggest party in the Scottish elections. Someone will take $39 and give you $38,961 if they are the biggest. Unlikely, but a crazy amount of liability for someone wanting $39.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

John Edwards was about 7 to 2 odds.

I would take that.

Me too. In Oklahoma, he'll win and Obama will finish a close second.

yeah, oklahoma voted for that general guy last time.  OKs track record for picking the dem is pretty bad.

[cannon_fodder]

Inteller, most Oklahoma democrats pick the most republican of the candidates.  That is to say, the most conservative old-school democrats/dixicrat.  While the party, or at least its profile, continues to move left.  Same story in most of the 1960's democratic states.

The rift in the democratic caucus between left wingers and conservatives is as wide as the rift between small-government and right-wing republicans.  I'm waiting for the major parties to fall apart.
--

For the bet.  I'm afraid neither of the democratic front riders (Obama/Hillary) have a broad enough base of support to win.  Obama because he doesnt have enough experience, and I'm not sure if being black will help or hurt him on the borad spectrum (I'd like to think race has no effect, but that is naive).    Hillary because she is perceived as, frankly, a hard nose NY biotch who assumes whatever roll fits her that week.  And she is rumored to have a vagina, which again is either an asset or liability - I cant tell.

Not that cross dressing Guilini or I (heart) Iraq John McCain would have broad support either. Rudy cleaned up NY by nearly turning it into a tourist friendly fascist state but DID manage to do what was needed - but his personal life will be a liability as well as his pro-choice stand.  McCain is an experienced old school conservative, who backs the war unyieldingly.   I guess it can be said both Republican candidates are strong willed.

Even as the political winds blow left, I think the republican candidates stand a better chance at pulling off the White House.  Rudy has aspects that appeal to the left and efficiency that appeals to the right.  If I were forced to chose, he would be my horse atm (on the odds of course).

Someone is gon

[iplaw]

I was actually impressed with Mike Gravel the other night.  He's hopelessly wrong about Iraq, but at least he's taking the other candidates to task for being wimps.

He's for the Fair Tax, which is almost enough to make want to vote for him just because of that.

If you think Obama's a breath of fresh air, check out Gravel.

[Conan71]

Where on earth did they find Gravel?  He's been out of elected office for what, 15 years?  I watched the Winter DNC a few months ago and listened to him speak.  I like some of his ideas, but that guy looks and sounds like he's been taking the eternal dirt nap for five years.

[cannon_fodder]

The Fair Tax is almost enough to make me a single issue voter.  No way people would stand for the kind of spending habits our government has if they REALLY knew how much money Uncle Sam took from us.

[iplaw]

Yeah I get warm fuzzies every time I hear the words.

[Conan71]

You ever notice that most liberals who like to raise taxes either aren't in the tax bracket which gets affected, or have so much money, they could care less?

[RecycleMichael]

This link shows why I believe that Edwards will be the democratic nominee.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

Every poll has him winning the first primary and that becomes momentum for the next few weeks.

[iplaw]

Edwards won't be able to stand up to Hillary's flabby armed spanking machine, and neither can Obama.  Edwards will have a distinct advantage though as George Soros is pulling his strings behind the scenes, all Edwards had to do was sacrifice his soul to Satan in return.

[Conan71]

Well if early popularity has anything to do with a candidate being awarded a Secret Service security detail, Obama wins on that count.  I heard on the radio this morning, he's been awarded one.  I believe Ms. Clinton, being a former first lady already has one.

Edwards really doesn't have any more government experience than Obama, perhaps even less.  Did he ever hold a state office prior to running for the U.S. Senate?

The Dem with the most relevant experience for the W.H. is the least likeable and trust-worthy.

[rwarn17588]

The Iowa caucus doesn't mean much, mostly because that state has a distressing tendency to pick the wrong person, Democrat and Republican.