2
   

If you were a bookie... Polls and bets on the 2004 elections

 
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 08:19 pm
8. ( continued) will not run for office in 2004. This, of course, makes their seats much more vulnerable especially since the seats are in the South. The Republicans own the South. Political lore has it that anyone who wants the White House MUST take at least some states in the South.

9. The population of the United States is moving Westward and Southward. That is the location of most of the Republican strength. On the other hand, many of the Eastern States and Midwestern states are losing seats in the House.

10. The Republican Party defied precedent in Nov. 2002 and actually added seats for their party in the Senate and House.

11. Hillary Rodham Clinton( who is, at this time, not in the running) is by far the most popular of all possible candidates for the Democrats.

12. The entire world is rejecting the old worn out Socialistic Ideology which reflect the root beliefs of the Democratic Party.


Odds? Bush 3-1.

Furthermore, it is at least even money that the Republicans will increase their seats in the Senate by four and will add 20 seats in the House.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 09:04 pm
Your point 12 is questionable, and perhaps you weight the impact of your point 3 a bit prematurely heavily, but on the whole, I'd pretty much say that's accurate as of now. Thingschange, odds change. It ain't over 'till its over, but at this point a bet on a Republican-favoring Presidential outcome would gather far less payback on a win than would a comparable bet on a Democrat-favorable Presidential outcome. Lets say $1 bet on the Republican would return about $1.075 for a Republican win, with nothing for any other outcome, while $1 bet on the Democrat would return about $1.925. Note, those are just arbitrary, illustrative, made-up figures. The way things are right now though, I wouldn't bet against 'em
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 09:08 pm
Quote:
Money is the mother's milk of politics.
No it isn't.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 09:38 pm
Bush 2 to 1

Dean 3 to 1

Clark 4 to 1

Kerry 8 to 1

Gephardt 12 to 1

Edwards 15 to 1

Lieberman 16 to 1

Kucinich 30 to 1

Mosely-Braun 50 to 1

Sharpton 100 to 1

Nader 100 to 1

As-yet-unannounced third party candidate 250 to 1

(general election odds)

nimh, no line on the primaries until they get closer... :wink:
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2003 11:22 pm
OK, here's my estimate of the current odds.

For the Democrat nomination:
Clark .................................. .083/1.00 (12.05:1)
Clinton ............................... .076/1.00 (13.16:1)
Dean .................................. .639/1.00 (01.56:1)
Gephardt ........................... .109/1.00 (09.17:1)
Kerry .................................. .059/1.00 (16.95:1)
Lieberman .......................... .018/1.00 (55.56:1)
Any Other Dem ................... .016/1.00 (63.50:1)

For POTUS:

Bush ........................................ .875/1.00 (1.14:1)
Democrat ................................. .125/1.00 (8.00:1)

For example, a bet of $0.83 on Clark would return $10.00 should he become the nominee, while to obtain a $10 .00 return on Dean would require a bet of $6.39. Likewise, a $8.75 bet on Bush to take the Presidency would return $10.00, while a $1.25 bet on a Democrat win would yield $10.00. Its probably all hooey, but I crunched a buncha numbers through a program designed to forecast year-from now stock or commodities futures index performance relative to a current $1.00 par (which is why the numbers in the first column add up to 1.00), based on past-year performance and trend conformity or divergence (a function of the direction, magnitude and frequency of deviation of individual sample points from a straight-line trend drawn from beginning sample point to end sample point over the sample period). An index above .5 but below .75 is considered an indicator of statistical probability that unit will outperform its peers and the market in general, while indices from .76 up tend to indicate relative conformance with peer performances and less divergence from overall market trend. Dean for nominee would be a good growth bet if he were a traded security or commodity. Bush would be more akin to a solid, dependable, boring Blue Chip. The rest would be at best relatively high-risk speculative investments ... best played only with money you can afford to loose; anyone as an individual might outperform, but the odds are against it, therefore the upside risk is relatively greater. I'd have gone into detail on the rest of the Dem candidates, but it dawned on me the entertainment value did not compensate the data gathering and input effort. This took a coupla hours as it is. Shocked

The Clinton guess is based entirely on extrapolation, and very likely totally unfounded, but it was sorta fun. She is certainly within the definition of "Long Shot", but sometimes they pay.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 12:36 am
Blatham says that Money is not the Mother's Milk of Politics.

Jesse Unruh, Speaker of the California Assembly in the sixties coined the phrase.

Unruh's knowledge of Politics and what is required to win is at least four thousand times greater than Blatham who is, for God's sake, a Canadian.

Blatham knows NOTHING about American Poilitics if he does not realize how important Money is in the process.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 12:40 am
Mr. Diddie places Dean at 3-1. I wonder if he will give the same odds a week before the Nov. 2 election when it will become clear that the McGovern clone, Dean, will be crushed by the Bush juggernaut.

Diddie has apparently forgotten how the Republican machine in his state, Texas, smashed the Democrats in the State House and then remapped the State so that Texas will elect at least four more Republicans to the Federal House in 2004.


Mr. Diddle apparently has a short memory.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 12:47 am
I did not say money was unimportant. I said it was not the mother's milk of politics.

The mother's milk of politics is big hair and makeup that doesn't shine under kleg lights. For civil engineering, the mother's milk is scotch and emolients.

I CAN'T BELIEVE you don't know this.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 12:49 am
Timber:

I read the papers daily. Newsweek, Business Week, Fortune and US News and World Report.

Do you know something that they dont?

I will repeat what all of them have said:

The economy is showing signs of recovery. Unemployment is dropping.

The latest report shows that Unemployment has dropped from 6.4% to 6.0%.

With regard to Socialism----years ago, the scholar Irving Kristol opined( he did not qualify his statement in any way)

quote

"The most important political event of the twentieth century is not the crisis of capitalism but the death of socialism"

I'll stick with Kristol.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 12:52 am
Italgato knows nothing about civil discourse or the forensic structure of debate if he assumes and posits that blatham in any way denied the importance of money to the political process, or that timber is ill-informed or skeptical or dubious re the burgeoning economic recovery. Italgato appears enamored of the practice of misconstruing unambiguous statements in the interest of disrupting ongoing conversations and drawing attention to himself by the use of inuendo and derisive contempt. Italgato appears to have forgotten or to disregard his own prior experience as relates to such practice. I am very much afraid efforts to integrate Italgato into this community will again prove futile, but I'm willing to give it a shot. A warning shot.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 02:15 am
Mr. Timber:

I did not know that this was a humor site.

You really must forgive me but the response given by Mr. Blatham about big hair was not on topic.

I am certain that Mr. Blatham knows that the mother's milk of politics is not big hair.

It is interesting that Mr. Blatham did not attempt to denigrate Jesse Unruh.

All I have to go on with regard to the statement whether politics is the mother's milk of politics is Jesse Unruh's statement as opposed to Mr. Blatham's statement which clearly stated:

Money is the mother's milk of politics

NO IT ISN'T.

I really must be forgiven for taking the word of a known quantity in the political world- Jesse Unruh over the word of an unknown quantity- Mr. Blatham.

But I am willing to learn. However, I have never been persuaded by categorical statements like

NO IT ISN'T.

If Mr. Blatham can show why Unruh was wrong, instead of dismissing his idea with a cavalier- NO IT ISN'T, I would be happy to read it.

I have read Timber's last post. Timber talks of innuendo and dersive contempt.
I will make every effort to see to it that there is no innuendo and dersive contempt, but I am respectfully inquiring of Timber whether or not one is allowed on these posts to RESPECTFULLY POINT OUT EGREGIOUS ERRORS OF FACT.

If not, then I am very much afraid that I cannot participate because I love truth more than participation.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 02:21 am
Do what your heart tells you is right, Italgato.

If you want to do it here, don't start or participate in flame wars, goading, name calling, and general nastiness.

Your call.
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 02:28 am
Mr. Timber is concerned about my "disruption" of ongoing conversations and the use of inuendo and dersive contempt.

I will make every effort to avoid disruption of congoing conversations and the use of inuendo and the use of dersive contempt.

However, I cannot uphold any shred of integrity unless I WITH THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF RESPECT AND DEFERENCE, POINT OUT EGREGIOUS ERRORS IF AND WHEN THEY OCCUR.

I am more enamoured of the truth than of participation.

I will make every effort to utilize the words of experts rather than my words so as to make any possible use of inuendo or derisive contempt impossible.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 03:02 am
Cool. Hope you do. We all hope you do.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 09:31 am
nimh: You are correct regarding the way betting works, but odds are traditionally expressed with the divisor first: i.e. 2:1 rather than 1:2.

timberlandko: I want to know the name of your bookie -- I have a hankerin' to put down an 83 cent bet at 12.05:1 odds.

italgato: OHMIGOD!! IT'S BAAAAAAAACK!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Suzette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 09:47 am
Odds? I don't know nothin' about no stinkin' odds!

However, this is the way it will be:


Bush will win in 2004


(Mrs.) Clinton/Edwards will win in 2008 and 2012


(Gentlemen: please resume betting and arguing now.)
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 04:23 pm
Suzette, I agree about '04, but '12 is a bit too far off for my ability to achieve determination with sufficient probability to justify a wager, Re your '08 conjecture, I'll take that straight up, no odds, for $10 Grand right now, and either your attorney or mine can draw up and execute the escrow, subject, of course, to the other attorney's review and approval. I trust certified funds deposited into an independently controlled and mutually inaccessible-untill-on-or-after-Nov 12 '08-maturity Money Market Fund will be acceptable, but I'm more than willing to discuss alternate accomodations should you prefer. Lemme know.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 04:46 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
nimh: You are correct regarding the way betting works, but odds are traditionally expressed with the divisor first: i.e. 2:1 rather than 1:2.


Ah ... see, I already thought I'd gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick ...

Now I turned all my figures in the post with my original prediction around. I.e., Lieberman at 20/1 for the primary, Clark at 6/1, Gephardt at 5/1, and Dean at 5/2. For the general elections I now got Bush at 5/3 and Dean at 5/2.

Does that work, then?

I got another question on this, tho. Because browsing around to find out how this all works (to little avail), I did find this here Ladbroke's page on the odds for the next UK elections.

Its got the LibDems at 50/1 on getting the most seats, the Tories at 7/2. That all makes sense to me - it means a 2% chance of the LibDems winning and a 29% of the Tories winning, right?

But what, then, do the Labour odds of 1/6 mean? How does 1/6 end up signifying a 69% chance, if I got that right?

Never thought this would end up a thread to teach me about betting ... <grins>
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 05:01 pm
I'll book the bet myself, joe, but against a minimum $1 Grand payout, or a larger full multiple thereoff. And, of course, any mutually agreeable escrow arrangement, involving certified funds, will be fine. Looks to me like a fairly certain 8%+ Annual ROI, plus whatever minimal interest as will accrue from the escrow account. I have a few investments I wished were doing that well.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Nov, 2003 05:48 pm
timberlandko wrote:
OK, here's my estimate of the current odds.

For the Democrat nomination:
Clark .................................. .083/1.00 (12.05:1)
Clinton ............................... .076/1.00 (13.16:1)
Dean .................................. .639/1.00 (01.56:1)
Gephardt ........................... .109/1.00 (09.17:1)
Kerry .................................. .059/1.00 (16.95:1)
Lieberman .......................... .018/1.00 (55.56:1)
Any Other Dem ................... .016/1.00 (63.50:1)

For POTUS:

Bush ........................................ .875/1.00 (1.14:1)
Democrat ................................. .125/1.00 (8.00:1)


See - that system I do know from.

Last Dutch elections, I did take part in a kind of betting system - the "political stock exchange". One of the newspapers here set it up.

You could buy "prime minister" stocks, for example. If the guy you bought stocks for ended up PM, you got one euro for your stock - if not, zero.

If almost everyone thought he was indeed going to be PM, the current rate of the stock would be high, say, 0.95 euro - if almost noone was betting on him, the rate was pretty low. The rates actually reflected the percentage chance people were giving the candidate - thats why the sum total of rates was always 1,00 euro.

I was guessing the same logic would hold up in regular betting, too - thats why my odds up there on the primaries in total add up to 1/1.

The "political stock exchange" also had markets on which coalition government would get into power. I won a bit of money on that: I gambled on a right-wing government. I thought, that way, I never lose: either there'll be a left-wing government and I'll lose my bet, but win politically; or there'll be a right-wing government and life will be hard, but at least I'll have won my bet ;-).

It also had a market on individual party ratings - that was more complicated. Because at the end, your stock wouldnt be worth either one euro or no euro - but instead, it would be worth the percentage the party got in the elections, expressed in eurocents. I.e., the Green Left ended up getting 5,1% of the vote, and thus your GL stock ended up worth 0,051 euro.

They adopted the whole system from an American source (it ran on an American server, too), so there should be something similar going on here for 04.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oz fest 2004 - Question by Love2is0evol
Human Events Names Man of the Year, 2004 - Discussion by gungasnake
Your 2004 mix tape - Discussion by boomerang
BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE... - Discussion by Frank Apisa
Weeping and gnashing of teeth - Discussion by FreeDuck
WOW! Why Andrew Sullivan is supporting John Kerry - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Margarate Hassan - hostage in Iraq - Discussion by msolga
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 09:06:30