The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2012 => Topic started by: GOP Congress on October 01, 2011, 10:43:26 PM
-
As everyone knows, the mainstream media puts out polls that are not only useless, but actually designed to formulate the outcome in the way they wish their consumers to vote. They spin them is such ways that it is very predictable that the actual strengths of the campaigns of the candidates are not presented in a rationally correct manner.
To that end, I have followed British betting firm Ladbrokes for the past few election cycles, actually since the '98 midterms. In general, Ladbrokes has been spot on, with closing odds that are usually more accurate than the actual results compared to polls (especially the idiotic "exit polls").
DISCLAIMER: I do NOT ADVOCATE GAMBLING, ESPECIALLY OF ELECTION ODDS. I only present the odds to illustrate where the actual money is going in how people will feel the election campaign is advancing, including the real players.
Just to clarify: gambling on elections is illegal in the United States. In addition, gambling on the Internet is illegal. That is a legitimate debating issue, but this thread will not address the ethics and legalities of betting. The ONLY purpose of the thread is to provide everyone with a week-to-week standing of, arguably, the most accurate "poll" that reflects the actual movements of the campaigns. Bottom line: When people put their money where their mouth is, they are generally more accurate than when they just spout off their opinions (hear that, Chris Matthews?).
On to the current odds, extracted 8:40 pm LA time, 10/1/11. I will continue this thread every week through the primary season, then perhaps through the general election.
| Barack Obama | 1/1 |
| Mitt Romney | 3/1 |
| Rick Perry | 9/2 |
| Chris Christie | 12/1 |
| Hillary Clinton | 25/1 |
| Sarah Palin | 25/1 |
| Ron Paul | 25/1 |
| Herman Cain | 40/1 |
| Rudy Giuliani | 50/1 |
| Jon Huntsman | 50/1 |
| Michele Bachmann | 50/1 |
| Newt Gingrich | 100/1 |
| Rick Santorum | 100/1 |
| Gary Johnson | 150/1 |
| Buddy Roemer | 200/1 |
| Thaddeus McCotter | 200/1 |
If you want to discuss the odds and candidates, go for it, but not the ethics of gambling. It is understood that NOBODY here will do anything that is illegal, and that this thread is presented "for entertainment purposes only."
I will post the new odds every Saturday night (or Sunday morning) for a verifiable, historical data chart.
EDIT: Thanks for moving it to the elections thread. I originally had it in Lounge because I wasn't sure it would have been viewed as a legitimate tracking tool, but I appreciate the upgrade... Jonah
-
Interesting odds by people who don't live here.
there is no way Obama rates a 1/1. The Republican state houses with Voter ID eliminated a LOT of voter fraud right there. With a crumbling base, the independents gone, and even yellow dog denocrats thinking twice...NO. Obama is NOT even odds to get the nod.
-
I hope our odds improve as time goes on because it's Barak and the RINOS in the lead.
Cindie
-
Interesting odds by people who don't live here.
there is no way Obama rates a 1/1. The Republican state houses with Voter ID eliminated a LOT of voter fraud right there. With a crumbling base, the independents gone, and even yellow dog denocrats thinking twice...NO. Obama is NOT even odds to get the nod.
I don't even think Obie is a 1/1 to win the nomination of his party (whatever it might be). :naughty:
-
I don't even think Obie is a 1/1 to win the nomination of his party (whatever it might be). :naughty:
Well, I'm not seeing a <sarcasm> smiley, so I guess you're serious, zeit.
So far there ain't nobody else bellying up to the Dem bar to run against Barry. I wish there were because if nothing else, that just MIGHT put the fear of Allah into Barry's young ass, but so far? No takers.
-
Well, I'm not seeing a <sarcasm> smiley, so I guess you're serious, zeit.
So far there ain't nobody else bellying up to the Dem bar to run against Barry. I wish there were because if nothing else, that just MIGHT put the fear of Allah into Barry's young ass, but so far? No takers.
It's entirely too early for any kind of primary challenger to the pResident to emerge. After all, with the media lapdogs running his propaganda campaign for him, any DhimmiRat challenger is going to have a VERY narrow window between the time he/she announces opposition to Teh Won, and the time that the talking heads/empty suits gather round with the long knives and crucify the poor bastard. DhimmiRats may be DUmmies, but they ain't stupid. Uh... yeah. :confused:
-
Well, I'm not seeing a <sarcasm> smiley, so I guess you're serious, zeit.
So far there ain't nobody else bellying up to the Dem bar to run against Barry. I wish there were because if nothing else, that just MIGHT put the fear of Allah into Barry's young ass, but so far? No takers.
Half and half. Actually I have been trying to sponsor an All Green Mountain Ticket â„¢ ~ Sanders / Dean 2012. It should be an instant hit at the DUmp. :rotf:
-
Half and half. Actually I have been trying to sponsor an All Green Mountain Ticket â„¢ ~ Sanders / Dean 2012. It should be an instant hit at the DUmp. :rotf:
Just as long as there are free copies of "Das Kapital" and lots of screaming going on. :-)
-
LATEST ODDS (October 9, 2011)
Substantial movement this week with two candidates, one high-tier potential and one perenniel mid-tier, dropping out of the race. Sarah Palin, my personal favorite, and Rudy Guliani dropped out, so lower tier candidates moved up on attrition alone.
However, with Herman Caine's outstanding performance, he is starting to enter the top tier. Pragmatically, he will not be top tier until the caucuses and primaries from a betting standpoint, but my gut tells me he will hold on. The combination of his move in rank coupled with his significant odds change makes him Candidate of the Week.
Other notes: Ron Paul still appears to be a strange anamoly to this process. He always seems to attract a high ranking even though his performance the past few elections say otherwise. Not sure what the marketing on this betting is going through, but as time progresses expect him to drop down to the lower tiers.
| Rank | Candidate | Odds | Rank change | Odds change |
| 1 | Barack Obama | 1/1 | 1 (No change) | No change |
| 2 | Mitt Romney | 5/2 | 2 (No change) | Up by 17% |
| 3 | Rick Perry | 9/2 | 3 (No change) | No change |
| T4 | Herman Cain | 25/1 | 8 (Up 4) | Up by 62.5% |
| T4 | Ron Paul | 25/1 | T5 (Up 1) | No change |
| 6 | Hillary Clinton | 33/1 | T5 (Down 1) | Down by 33% |
| T7 | Newt Gingrich | 50/1 | T12 (Up 5) | Up by 100% |
| T7 | Jon Huntsman | 50/1 | T9 (Up 2) | No change |
| 9 | Michele Bachmann | 66/1 | T9 (No change) | Down by 33% |
| 10 | Rick Santorum | 100/1 | T12 (Up 2) | No change |
| 11 | Gary Johnson | 150/1 | 14 (Up 3) | No change |
| T12 | Buddy Roemer | 200/1 | 15 (Up 3) | No change |
| T12 | Thaddeus McCotter | 200/1 | 15 (Up 3) | No change |
-
Half and half. Actually I have been trying to sponsor an Al Green Mountain Ticket â„¢ ~ Sanders / Dean 2012. It should be an instant hit at the DUmp. :rotf:
FIFY....two many L's in his first name............... :lmao:
-
LATEST ODDS (October 15, 2011)
Herman Cain makes biggest improvement again, moving from 25/1 to 20/1. Rick Perry drops from 9/2 to 6/1, while Mitt Romney moves from 5/2 to 2/1. My gut tells me that Cain is still moving.
Everyone else stays the same. Ron Paul still inexplicably high, but he will falter.
My take: The next few weeks will show the mainstream media picking up on the Romney campaign. Look for MSNBC, CNN, and the Alphabets to come up with praiseworthy stories on Romney, while upping their attacks on Cain. In addition, the MSM may even come up with puff pieces on Rick Perry if Cain stays close or goes ahead of Romney. This may affect betting values, but in the end, the MSN's Number One Mission In Life is to keep Cain from getting the GOP nomination.
Jim Robinson on Free Republic has the most comprehensive article detailing Romney's politics are closer to Obama than conservatives, titled "Purpose of FR and why we can never support Mitt Romney (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2793300/posts)." If you want the COMPLETE scoop on Romney, I urge you to read and link to this story, crediting Jim for his outstanding research.
See you next week.
| Rank | Candidate | Odds | Previous Week | Odds change |
| 1 | Barack Obama | 1/1 | 1 (No change) | No change |
| 2 | Mitt Romney | 2/1 | 2 (No change) | Up by 20% |
| 3 | Rick Perry | 6/1 | 3 (No change) | Down by 33% |
| 4 | Herman Cain | 20/1 | T4 (No change) | Up by 20% |
| 5 | Ron Paul | 25/1 | T4 (Down 1) | No change |
| 6 | Hillary Clinton | 33/1 | 6 (No change) | No change |
| T7 | Newt Gingrich | 50/1 | T7 (No change) | No change |
| T7 | Jon Huntsman | 50/1 | T7 (No change) | No change |
| 9 | Michele Bachmann | 66/1 | 9 (No change) | No change |
| 10 | Rick Santorum | 100/1 | 10 (No change) | No change |
| 11 | Gary Johnson | 150/1 | 11 (No change) | No change |
| T12 | Buddy Roemer | 200/1 | T12 (No change) | No change |
| T12 | Thaddeus McCotter | 200/1 | T12 (No change) | No change |
-
McCotter bowed out a month ago. Why is he still showing up in your poll?
-
Sorry, I tend not to believe anyone who thinks Paul is as good as a 25/1 shot. Fools, money, soon parted, shit like that.
-
McCotter bowed out a month ago. Why is he still showing up in your poll?
Because Ladbrokes still has him listed. Here is the link: LADBROKES 2012 US PRESIDENT (http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Politics/US-Presidential-ElectionPolitics/US-Presidential-Election-t110000608)
I send Ladbrokes a link with the story. Not sure if they will take him off, as they don't refund political bets. Also, keep in mind they have Hillary because they still think enough people want to bet on her running even though she's not declared.
Starting next week (too late to modify this week), I'll put an asterisk on all candidates not currently declared but still listed on Ladbrokes.
-
Because Ladbrokes still has him listed. Here is the link: LADBROKES 2012 US PRESIDENT (http://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/Politics/US-Presidential-ElectionPolitics/US-Presidential-Election-t110000608)
I send Ladbrokes a link with the story. Not sure if they will take him off, as they don't refund political bets. Also, keep in mind they have Hillary because they still think enough people want to bet on her running even though she's not declared.
Starting next week (too late to modify this week), I'll put an asterisk on all candidates not currently declared but still listed on Ladbrokes.
Meh.....I'm gonna throw a flag on this thread......based on a review of the site and the data behind it, at this point in the US election cycle what results are posted are pretty much worthless......
First, people (particularly Europeans) will bet on anything......most of the time knowing absolutely nothing about the metrics of the event. It appears that the vast bulk of the bets are coming from sources that have little or no knowledge of US politics, and even less of the individual candidates. The fact that odds are posted and bets placed on individuals that are not only not running, but have no possibility of becoming candidates are indicative if the fallacy of the data.
Although the OP makes a reasonable and logical point about media-driven polls and slanted questions, most reputable pollsters will publish the internals behind their surveys, allowing those with enough interest to extrapolate the validity of the conclusions presented. A "betting site" as this one is, has no such background information on its participants.
I'm far more inclined to generate conclusions on the outcome of a future election with the knowledge that the polls participants are at least US citizens, and further are registered and likely voters in said election.
If betting site data is considered in arriving at conclusions/discussions regarding American politics, I'd hazard a guess that one month prior to an actual election would be the time-frame that would result in the most accurate information......
At this point this is essentially bullshit.......statistically and realistically.
doc
-
When I first posted this thread, I actually posted in the "Lounge" thread, as I wanted to signify the entertainment value of the post, though I actually do believe that there is valid, statistical merit in such a process. A moderator moved it to the Election 2012 thread because, I assumed, the mod thought it valid enough to be included in the thread. If you wish to flag the thread because of its perceived lack of integrity, then so be it.
The point is a good one if one is not cognizant of past performance. While the entertainment value of such a thread may be more prolific than the actual performance of the candidates, the closing lines were usually indicative of the actual results of the election, closer than exit polls that are supposedly very accurate. When people put big money on the line, they do their research well. I do sports betting software development, so I have particular insights into not just the technical processes of setting lines, but the marketing involved in promoting those lines.
For instance, the closing line of Obama in 2008 was 1/2, while McCain was 5/3, which was inversely proportional to the election electoral results. and much closer than closing result poll/predictions. In addition, Ron Paul was either 400 or 500 to one at the closing line.
Even though US citizens are exempt from betting, the bottom line is that I DO trust money bettors more. Ladbrokes is considered the most proficient betting service in the world, to boot, which is why I use them and not the other sites. I've found that when Ladbrokes move their lines, other betting sites quickly adjust to Ladbrokes lines, so that is why I use them as the metric.
Anyway, we can argue about the merits of the process because of the inclusion of flake candidates that don't have a chance or aren't running, but that is part of the marketing for the fringe bettors. The meat and potato sharpies, though, have it more correct than the media of all types, in my opinion.
-
Political discussions don't belong in the Lounge. I thought that would be obvious, but some people persist in placing discussion topics where they have no business being.