nyuhoosier
nyuhoosier
  • Threads: 31
  • Posts: 248
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
May 29th, 2010 at 11:15:37 AM permalink
If you were an oddsmaker taking action on political races, how would you set the line on Harry Reid's reelection as Senate majority leader? He's been trailing badly in the polls for months to Candidate TBD (no clear frontrunner on the GOP side), but a recent poll discussed on Politico shows him drawing closer.

I think a line reflecting his real chances would be something like Reid minus-120, because of the power of incumbency and his fundraising ability. However, the betting marketplace would probably swing that line to the other side because of his high negatives and the fact that many so-called pundits have written him off.

It's a good thing this kind of action is illegal, but if it were legal, I would've bet big bucks on Reid to win back when he was trailing 20-plus points in the polls.
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
May 29th, 2010 at 11:22:38 AM permalink
Quote: nyuhoosier

If you were an oddsmaker taking action on political races, how would you set the line on Harry Reid's reelection as Senate majority leader? He's been trailing badly in the polls for months to Candidate TBD (no clear frontrunner on the GOP side), but a recent poll discussed on Politico shows him drawing closer.

I think a line reflecting his real chances would be something like Reid minus-120, because of the power of incumbency and his fundraising ability. However, the betting marketplace would probably swing that line to the other side because of his high negatives and the fact that many so-called pundits have written him off.

It's a good thing this kind of action is illegal, but if it were legal, I would've bet big bucks on Reid to win back when he was trailing 20-plus points in the polls.



Incumbency has been a huge LIABILITY this year, more than I've seen since in my lifetime. You are seeing popular incumbents of both parties squeaking through primaries with 55-65% when they normally win them with 90%, and some are losing. But that's a debate for another day. You CAN "bet" on who will win races, go to www.intrade.com They set contracts for who will win all the Senate races (and other political props)...the winner expires at 100 when the race is over, all losers expire at 0. SO you probably could have gotten Reid at around 20 when he was in deep trouble. The nice thing is, you can buy and sell before races are finished. You should definitely check it out. Some blogs think campaigns dump money in the market to make their candidates look stronger, but Intrade prices are not the kind of thing that CNN reports on regularly, so it's not like they are really shaping a narrative...
cclub79
cclub79
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
May 29th, 2010 at 11:27:12 AM permalink
By the way, I think the best bet on there right now is Charlie Crist at around 30(%). He leads most polls and is the sitting Governor. Not saying he's going to win, but my guess is that contract will increase through the summer.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1493
  • Posts: 26503
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
May 29th, 2010 at 12:47:37 PM permalink
According to intrade.com, the probability of Reid winning is about 35%. I think it depends on who wins the Republican primary. I think Reid would win against Angle, and lose against Lowden. Either way it will be close. I wouldn't feel comfortable betting that one either way.

I still say to bet on Obama in 2012.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
ahiromu
ahiromu
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 2107
Joined: Jan 15, 2010
May 29th, 2010 at 2:47:25 PM permalink
Obama in 2012? That would be the epitome of gambling. If the economy doesn't get better OR the Sestak mess comes back to him OR he continues to be a deaf mute with the oil spill... he could have some serious problems. A bet on Obama could probably be solved using a RNG just as well as using logic/smartness right now.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
  • Jump to: