Anyone betting on the 2016 election?
December 27th, 2015 at 6:15:22 PM
permalink
Here is Bovada's spread
December 27th, 2015 at 8:01:09 PM
permalink
There's money to be made there, if you can collect it once you won it...
But I don't do horse racing, over my head so to speak....
But I don't do horse racing, over my head so to speak....
Youuuuuu MIGHT be a 'rascal' if.......(nevermind ;-)...2F
December 27th, 2015 at 9:47:08 PM
permalink
Elections used to be free money. I only got in really good one year. 5dimes lines were like -700 or -1000 on people who were really like 98% or better to win and I just did a bunch of parlays.
Best bet on that board, off the top of my head is Rubio +500 for prez. I thought that had been bet down. I don't think it's great, but if you assume the party big wigs will have their way, he should be the nom.
This year, I'm huge on the field vs. Trump for the GOP nomination. Very hard to win when the party doesn't want you. Not even sure he really wants the job. I'm getting nervous now though. I bet it at like -1400 or -1200, thinking there was just no shot at all. Now, -450. I think that's a pretty good bet, but I have too much at risk vs Trump already.
Bet no Ben Carson when it touched -1700.
On Republican to win the presidency at +165. On "next prez is female" +150.
Bet the field vs. Hillary for the nom when it was +500 or so, then bought back out when she was -230. Left some hanging, so I'll make money either way, but more if she falters. Going with my heart there. It kills me to root for her.
One thing I look at is the long term narrative. We need conflict. The media REALLY need it. That's why I didn't think Hillary would be a wire to wire 80% favorite. Even SHE needs more conflict than that. It has to at least feel like a democratic process.
Similarly, I found it hard to believe that the Republicans would be sub 40% for the entire process. You can always buy out if you don't like the long term prospects.
Best bet on that board, off the top of my head is Rubio +500 for prez. I thought that had been bet down. I don't think it's great, but if you assume the party big wigs will have their way, he should be the nom.
This year, I'm huge on the field vs. Trump for the GOP nomination. Very hard to win when the party doesn't want you. Not even sure he really wants the job. I'm getting nervous now though. I bet it at like -1400 or -1200, thinking there was just no shot at all. Now, -450. I think that's a pretty good bet, but I have too much at risk vs Trump already.
Bet no Ben Carson when it touched -1700.
On Republican to win the presidency at +165. On "next prez is female" +150.
Bet the field vs. Hillary for the nom when it was +500 or so, then bought back out when she was -230. Left some hanging, so I'll make money either way, but more if she falters. Going with my heart there. It kills me to root for her.
One thing I look at is the long term narrative. We need conflict. The media REALLY need it. That's why I didn't think Hillary would be a wire to wire 80% favorite. Even SHE needs more conflict than that. It has to at least feel like a democratic process.
Similarly, I found it hard to believe that the Republicans would be sub 40% for the entire process. You can always buy out if you don't like the long term prospects.
December 28th, 2015 at 9:39:18 AM
permalink
For anyone wagering on who will win each parties nomination, I would educate yourself on how the process really works, in particular the role of super delegates.
Super delegates are delegates that aren't necessarily representative of the electorates vote. They are usually elected officials or party officials, so they are weighted very heavily towards the party establishment candidate on each side.
On the Democrats side super delegates make up almost 20% of the total delegates, or nearly 40% of the number needed to win. If you are the establishment candidate, as Hillary is, and get 90% of these super delegate, you are more than a third of the way there before any voters have cast a vote. That is alarming for a supposedly 'democratic' process.
The republican side isn't quite so tilted. There are 153 super delegates and another 73 delegates chosen by party committees (not sure why these are not also called super delegates as it is almost the same thing). This total of 225 is just about 10% of the total delegates (about half the Democrats process). Republicans need 1144 delegates to win the nomination, so these 225 represent just about 20% needed.
So most of these 225 going to one candidate, the establishment backed candidate gives that candidate a good head start. That establishment candidate was supposed to be Jeb Bush, but now looks likely to be Rubio. That is why most of these wagering websites have Rubio as the favorite to win Nomination even though he lags a distant third place in the polls.
Outsiders like Trump, Cruz Carson are not likely to get much super delegate support. 90% will go to the establishment candidate, likely Rubio. That process begins today with Trey Goudy endorsing Rubio and you will see endorsements a few at a time, so every day it seems like someone new is endorsing the "chosen" establishment candidate. It's designed to create a perception.
The danger for the republicans would be if the establishment candidate, likely Rubio, lags far behind in actual voting and regular delegates and these super delegates give him the nomination. That would be seen as going against the voters will.
Super delegates are delegates that aren't necessarily representative of the electorates vote. They are usually elected officials or party officials, so they are weighted very heavily towards the party establishment candidate on each side.
On the Democrats side super delegates make up almost 20% of the total delegates, or nearly 40% of the number needed to win. If you are the establishment candidate, as Hillary is, and get 90% of these super delegate, you are more than a third of the way there before any voters have cast a vote. That is alarming for a supposedly 'democratic' process.
The republican side isn't quite so tilted. There are 153 super delegates and another 73 delegates chosen by party committees (not sure why these are not also called super delegates as it is almost the same thing). This total of 225 is just about 10% of the total delegates (about half the Democrats process). Republicans need 1144 delegates to win the nomination, so these 225 represent just about 20% needed.
So most of these 225 going to one candidate, the establishment backed candidate gives that candidate a good head start. That establishment candidate was supposed to be Jeb Bush, but now looks likely to be Rubio. That is why most of these wagering websites have Rubio as the favorite to win Nomination even though he lags a distant third place in the polls.
Outsiders like Trump, Cruz Carson are not likely to get much super delegate support. 90% will go to the establishment candidate, likely Rubio. That process begins today with Trey Goudy endorsing Rubio and you will see endorsements a few at a time, so every day it seems like someone new is endorsing the "chosen" establishment candidate. It's designed to create a perception.
The danger for the republicans would be if the establishment candidate, likely Rubio, lags far behind in actual voting and regular delegates and these super delegates give him the nomination. That would be seen as going against the voters will.
