[lazysunbather]

Was thinking of putting money on Rudolph and Hilary to win their respective party votes.

Any thoughts?

[edtkh]

Originally Posted by lazysunbather

Was thinking of putting money on Rudolph and Hilary to win their respective party votes.

Any thoughts?

Forget about Giuliani - the Republican nomination for 2008 is arguably the most open in years considering the mess the incumbent has created and how the spotlight almost seems to be on the Democrats' campaign. There's no value to be had there IMO - going for an outsider, for the pure sake of value, might be worth a better shot if you're wagering on the GOP nomination.

I'm having a serious look at the Democratic candidates myself, but the odds being touted around for Hillary Clinton doesn't really tempt me. I still worry about Al Gore's entry (he hasn't categorically ruled himself out) and should Gore enter the race, Hillary's campaign will suffer most IMO as the bulk of Hillary's campaign aides - and potentially Gore's - are the same lot who propelled her husband to two terms in the 1990's. Basically, with Gore(assuming he joins the race), Clinton and Obama being the big-name Democratic frontrunners who are serious contenders on virtue of the fact that they could all raise funds at a canter, Gore's entry could really tilt the seemingly two-horse race back in Obama's favour. In essence, I wouldn't touch the Democrats' until at least this fall when, hopefully, a clearer picture emerges...

[trickrick]

Good stuff again Edtkh.. Having someone who is close to the action on the other side of the pond is useful for the american based political bets..

In fact you can be TDP's official North American Political correspondent...

[lazysunbather]

Thanks for the information. It starts in January, only fools rush in.

[all_funkt_up]

Im not sure about Guiliani, he has a big problem with the republican faithful. He is in favour of keeping Roe vs Wade (the Supreme Court Act that made abortion legal) and the vast majority of Republicans (and all the candidates bar him) are in favour of overturning the judgement.

[edtkh]

Let me briefly explain the whole conundrum that is the presidential primaries which may be unfamiliar to folks who are raised in the parliamentary democracy system of government. And also why I'm saying the serious business starts this fall (ie.around September 2007 onwards).

In the US, the Executive and Legislature branches of government are seperate entities with members of each to be elected independently. Unlike what's currently happening with Labour in the way they nominate Brown to succeed Blair, to secure the Democratic party's nomination for the US Presidential elections, the candidate must basically amass enough support in the series of primaries leading up to the Democratic National Convention held in August 2008 where the party officially endorses the winner as its candidate for that particular Presidential elections. In essence, it's a case of each man for himself(from soliciting funds to running their campaigns) for the primaries - the eventual Democratic nominee is the only one who will enjoy the backing of the entire party and have the party raise funds for his eventual election campaign in November. In theory, that's how it works.

Now, on to some practical issues people unfamiliar with American politics may not be aware of. Although the first Democratic primary starts in New Hampshire on 22nd January 2008 (the first caucus is actually held for Iowa on 14th January 2008), traditionally - at least in practice for the last 40 years, anyway - the real contender(s) is/are those who emerge with a strong showing after Super-Tuesday in February. In essence, the caucuses and primaries can be viewed, for ease of understanding, as a "Democratic Presidential elections" in the same electoral college format(ie.number of "votes" for each state is dependent on proportional representation) which will grip the nation when the real elections come in November. Oftentimes, many successful, and usually heavyweight, Democratic nominees (regardless of whether they go on to win the elections in November), are not interested/focused on the first phase of primaries (ie.everything before Super-Tuesday). However, for the small fries, it's this very phase which will break their back if they haven't amassed enough support as many often run into problems with insufficient funding and without having performed well at this phase, chances of them pitting themselves against the heavyweights for Super-Tuesday effectively end. That will hopefully help enlighten some as to how John Kerry was able to outlast some of his more glamorous opponents and how Howard Dean - being widely touted as a Democratic hopeful way before the primaries got underway in the 2004 elections - was nowhere to be seen near the end.

In light of the number of heavyweights (whose reputations and widespread influence will no doubt gain them massive headstarts in terms of campaigning and raising funds to last the distance) who are contesting the Democratic seat this time, unlike 2004, I'd go so far as to say - in all probability - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards (and Al Gore if he runs) will be the only ones emerging after Super Tuesday with a realistic shot of securing the Democratic nomination.

The Republicans, on the other hand, would be subjected to much keener competition (something like the Democrats' primaries in 2004 IMO) and hence, it'd be tougher to call on that as there're no major heavyweights in there - although I'm hardly bothered what goes on in there being a Democrat myself .

In view of the above factors, it is therefore unlikely Al Gore will actually declare his intention to run for the elections any later than fall (truth be told, I'd expect him to do so by July if he's running) IMO given the massive campaign aides and funds he'd need to raise. In truth, I'd venture so far as to place my wager the moment I know - definitively - whether Gore decides to run.

From a betting perspective, the challenge here is finding the opportune moment to place a wager (regardless of who you fancy to win the nomination) whereby the odds are optimized in our favour - saying that, if we were to wait until after Super-Tuesday, we'd probably be looking at odds so dramatically shortened we wouldn't seriously consider any value in this market. As things stand, my personal take would be a toss between Hillary Clinton and Al Gore(assuming he runs) - however, for all the value on Gore, I'd hate to shoot myself in the foot by backing a non-runner (except, in this case, you don't get a refund of your wager) but that's probably the risk that comes with the value.

For those who are looking for a safer bet, I'd personally advise backing the next American President to be a Democrat - that's just me speaking on my convictions though. In truth, I've been following this market for more than a year now and the value on the Democrats has been depreciating by the day - prior to the Congressional elections, the Democrats were trading at evens; shortly after, it was 5/6 (or 1.83) and they're only 8/11(1.72) or 2/3(1.66) at most places now.

[edtkh]

Early indications, based on Gallup Polls (often relied on by Presidential candidates in strategising their campaigns), suggest Al Gore is widely regarded as a much stronger candidate than most people would think.
The results at http://www.galluppoll.com/content/De...7019&VERSION=p would reveal the latest opinion polls as of March 2007, which actually - on the Democratic front - shows Gore leading Clinton despite his not having declared his intention to run in 2008. In fact, for the political stats aficionados, if we were to scrutinise 3 seperate Gallup polls conducted between February and March 2007, Al Gore's popularity has been steadily increasing - probably at the expense of Hilary Clinton's. That opinion is further reinforced at http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1093187 and many other sites.

For those who harbour inhibitions about Al Gore's campaign for 2008 on the back of his failed attempt in 2000, this might be a good site to check out : http://www.perkel.com/politics/gore/index.htm . Personally, I pretty much agree with numerous issues discussed on the site in scrutinising where Gore fell short in 2000 and would, if he decides to run, probably run a stronger race in 2008.

I know much of the above is founded on nothing more than opinions, but at the end of the day politics in any democracy is pretty much governed by opinions as much as anything. If nothing, I hope the above will at least provide you guys with a more in-depth take on Al Gore's credentials for 2008 which really shouldn't be underestimated.

Good luck to anyone betting.

PS : Can the mod delete one of my earlier posts? There's a double-posting and I can't seem to edit/delete the post for some reason...

[trickrick]

Excellent as ever Edtkh...

I was under the impression that Hilary was being groomed for stardom by the Democrats, but it seems to be Al Gore may be the man.. Funnily enough hasnt Al Gore been in the limelight promoting soemthing that has recently been showing him in a positive light. I'm sure it's some kind of environmental type issue...erm...I think...

[lazysunbather]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_e92-1C2K0 - An Inconvenient Truth

[trickrick]

Originally Posted by lazysunbather

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_e92-1C2K0 - An Inconvenient Truth

CHeers LAzy - that was what the Al Gore thing I mentioned earlier..

[stereoman]

OT: 4 years ago-ish, John Kerry was a phenomenal 10/1 to win the Democratic nomination.

It was after a relatively good performance on a CNN debate where he stood out amongst the other Democratic candidates that shrunk his odds almost immediately (much like David Cameron impressing against a rather insipid David Davis in an early Conservative conference where he was also 10/1).

We'll see more conferences, more mud-slinging, more televised debates and more polls but I think most Democratic and Republican voters will be sheep and follow the one most likely to seemingly attract floating voters (well duh) and it will be dirty tricks, perception of public personas and 'personality politics' at play in which Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani hold the lead...for now.

...to think I pooh-poohed Barack Obama's chances a year or so ago! He was 50/1! :wasntme

[edtkh]

Originally Posted by stereoman

OT: 4 years ago-ish, John Kerry was a phenomenal 10/1 to win the Democratic nomination.

It was after a relatively good performance on a CNN debate where he stood out amongst the other Democratic candidates that shrunk his odds almost immediately (much like David Cameron impressing against a rather insipid David Davis in an early Conservative conference where he was also 10/1).

We'll see more conferences, more mud-slinging, more televised debates and more polls but I think most Democratic and Republican voters will be sheep and follow the one most likely to seemingly attract floating voters (well duh) and it will be dirty tricks, perception of public personas and 'personality politics' at play in which Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani hold the lead...for now.

...to think I pooh-poohed Barack Obama's chances a year or so ago! He was 50/1! :wasntme

I'm neither a Republican nor one who thinks they've got a great chance in 2008, so I won't be looking at their primaries too closely. You know they've got a problem when its own party members distanced and dissociated themselves from the President (it's no secret numerous Republican candidates running for Congress in 2006 didn't exactly find the idea of having Bush campaigning for them flattering, eh?).

That said, I think it's worth noting, unlike 2004 where there was a dearth of heavyweights on the Democratic front, the Democratic contest is more keenly contested this time than any point in time since 1968.

Being totally honest, I don't think too many will disagree that had Hillary Clinton or Al Gore run in 2004, there's every chance one of them would have secured the Democratic nomination instead of John Kerry. Given the pedigree and experience of the frontrunners this time, I just don't see any parallel between 2004 and 2008.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton have got proven political track records in their own capacities in the (Bill)Clinton administration and what they've gotten up to since Bill Clinton left office - 8 years on (and especially in light of the mess Bush has created in Iraq and with the American economy), the wounds, divisions and splits arising from the Lewinsky affair should have subsided somewhat and both - unlike Gore's reluctance to have anything to do with Bill in 2000 - should have little trouble identifying themselves with Bill Clinton and capitalise on Clinton's Presidential achievements which, on the economic front at least, remain as the finest of any Presidential term in American history.

Barack Obama, too, has proved his worth over the last year and a half with his voting records reflecting his stance on numerous issues close to the hearts of those marginalised by the Republicans. Throw in his experience as a successful trial lawyer and it's not hard to see why his odds have been cut from 50/1 in barely under a year. John Edwards, while arguably the lightweight amongst the 4 frontrunners, too looks a much more serious contender than he had been 4 years ago when his whole campaign looked nothing more than a hastily arranged affair.

All in all, I realise Al Gore's odds have shortened considerably - on last check, Ladbrokes are offering him at 7/1 for the Presidency and 5/1 to secure the Democratic nomination. Anyone come across better odds on either market, anywhere?

[stereoman]

Hmmm. Clinton and Romney ahead in the polls in Iowa?

Poll - Romney and Clinton Lead - NewsMax - America's News Page

[edtkh]

Just watch Al Gore's odds slide over the next couple of weeks following his clinching the Nobel Peace Prize...

[stereoman]

As the Iowa caucuses are pretty soon let's have some Bettingzone Market News:

1320: The US Presidential Election is beginning to hot up and VC Bet have seen a run of money for Barack Obama to win the first primary in Iowa.

The firm now have Obama as the odds on favourite at 8/11 to beat Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in Iowa and it is also neck and neck in New Hampshire.

"Barack Obama has a head of steam at the moment and he's beginning to cut into the national lead that Hillary Clinton had built up a few months ago," explained VC spokesman Dave Jenkins.

"Iowa will be crucial for him. If he were to win, then he'll have the momentum to really challenge Hillary Clinton. If he were to lose Iowa, then Clinton will wrest the initiative back and she'll then be a formidable opponent to beat."

The race for the Republican nomination has also seen plenty of activity. Mike Huckabee has come from nowhere in the last month and he is now a 4/6 shot to win in Iowa.

His nearest rival is Mitt Romney at 6/4. Jenkins added: "Huckabee has had a dream run of late, and he was a big as 14/1 in mid October. He would seem to be an unstoppable force now in Iowa and Romney could well find his Presidential campaign in tatters if he were to lose here and possibly in New Hampshire as well."