2016 presidential election odds

[lamboguy]

Democrat - $180 to win $100

Republican +$100 to win $135


price down from -$400 a year ago

[zico20]

Democrat - $180 to win $100

Republican +$100 to win $135


price down from -$400 a year ago

Betting the presidential election this far out is as bad as betting the Kentucky Derby futures in November. However, I would have been all over a Republican win at those previous odds.

[reckless]

If liberals such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney are nominated, the GOP will lose, at any price.

If a conservative is nominated, such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and even John Kasich, then it's odds-on that the GOP will win.

[classhandicapper]

IMO, the country is looking for a fiscal conservative that will run on low taxes, controlled spending, a small government, and a balanced budget.

On the social side, he can be conservative, but has to be perceived as very tolerant and not driven (or painted) as a religious zealot.

On national security, I think people want a strong military, but they don't want us getting involved overseas in the way we have been in recent years.

Who fits that bill?

[TJDave]

Republicans cannot win a national election with a conservative candidate. The numbers are not there. They can either nominate a moderate or fall on their sword.

[fast4522]

If liberals such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney are nominated, the GOP will lose, at any price.

If a conservative is nominated, such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and even John Kasich, then it's odds-on that the GOP will win.

Somehow I don't think it is all that clear cut as that, the base of the republican party is more tolerant than you depict. After this one the whole country is crying out for the middle class fair shake. Some would have you believe the abortion issue is real big on the right, but reality is the majority just find the late term abortions with the baby half out and the scissors to the head really horrific wrong. Other than that the issue is more between the woman and doctor. All the other issues have the same extremes that no one wants to think about, if the issue is not at the extreme end it is not much to digest. Consider each contender from where they come from, how they were raised to be good people. Both President's Bush's came from family's that were more than decent who did not associate with weather underground or racist religious types. Paint the picture that you like but be aware that your town may be the only one that likes it. This was not intended for the user I quoted from, but all.

[FantasticDan]

If Jeb Bush runs, he will win the republican nom. If Hillary runs, she wins for the dems. The general election would be close, with Bush winning.

[zico20]

If Jeb Bush runs, he will win the republican nom. If Hillary runs, she wins for the dems. The general election would be close, with Bush winning.

I disagree with Bush. I don't think he has a chance at the nomination. I truly believe Rubio will be the nominee. Hillary will win though if she runs. Rubio is the next president, IMO.

[Clocker]

Rubio is the next president, IMO.

That would be a big change from what we have. A smooth talking first term Senator, a lawyer with no private sector, managerial, or administrative experience. What could go wrong?

[jballscalls]

If a conservative is nominated, such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and even John Kasich, then it's odds-on that the GOP will win.

It's so interesting because having lived in a liberal city, I've never heard anyone say a positive word about any of those guys. So to know they're odds on seems strange, but forget there's a whole big country out there.

[Tom]

Hillary can't win - there just can't be that many stupid people.

[barn32]

The most important question to ask yourselves is this:

Can a republican win California and New York?

If the answer is yes, say goodnight. (In fact, if a republican can win only one of these two states it's probably say goodnight.)

If the answer is no, it will be a long, long uphill road. Possible, but very difficult.

[fast4522]

Hillary can't win - there just can't be that many stupid people.

Well Tom, one would not have to think about it that long to conclude that there was enough bone heads who vote to elect this guy.

[zico20]

The most important question to ask yourselves is this:

Can a republican win California and New York?

If the answer is yes, say goodnight. (In fact, if a republican can win only one of these two states it's probably say goodnight.)

If the answer is no, it will be a long, long uphill road. Possible, but very difficult.

Not so! All a Republican has to do is win Ohio and Florida and the election is essentially over. There are always enough red states to get to 270 IF they can win those two states.

[zico20]

Hillary can't win - there just can't be that many stupid people.

It could be a lot worse. This country could elect Elizabeth Warren, which would be just as bad as Obama. No, I do not like Hillary, but I told everyone years ago you better pray she gets the nomination over Obama. She is much more moderate than the Marxist leaning Obama.

[_______]

The most important question to ask yourselves is this:

Can a republican win California and New York?

If the answer is yes, say goodnight. (In fact, if a republican can win only one of these two states it's probably say goodnight.)

If the answer is no, it will be a long, long uphill road. Possible, but very difficult.


I don't know about New York but the Republican presidential candidate hasn't won California in the last 6 elections and hasn't hit 40% of the vote in the last two.

The trend isn't positive for a win anytime soon.

[hcap]

My suggestion is PA off topic cons tune into FAUX NOOS election night of 2016 and wait for the latest poll numbers from Karl Rove and UNSKEWED POLLS. Then bend over with your heads between your legs and kiss your collective asses bye bye.

[Robert Goren]

If liberals such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney are nominated, the GOP will lose, at any price.

If a conservative is nominated, such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and even John Kasich, then it's odds-on that the GOP will win.Sarcasm will get you no where!

[Robert Goren]

I disagree with Bush. I don't think he has a chance at the nomination. I truly believe Rubio will be the nominee. Hillary will win though if she runs. Rubio is the next president, IMO.You have been spending too much time in Colorado.

[reckless]

Sarcasm will get you no where!

hi Robert:

Sarcastic or not I feel it is my patriotic duty -- ;) -- to remind the good people of PA that the War of 2016 will be liberals against conservatives.

If the patriots on the right in the Republican Party are required to win a civil war over the left wing RINO losers then so be it; I'm wishing for that fight too.

[reckless]

My suggestion is PA off topic cons tune into FAUX NOOS election night of 2016 and wait for the latest poll numbers from Karl Rove and UNSKEWED POLLS. Then bend over with your heads between your legs and kiss your collective asses bye bye.

I just love it when vulgar, left wing dweebs continue to bash Fox News.

There is a reason that for over a decade Fox News viewer ratings from sunrise to sunset dwarf those of the silly, liberal, partisan and irresponsible 'news' outlets such as MSNBC, CNN, and their local national network counterparts.

And, yet these ratings challenged and basically ignored liberal cable outlets do indeed have some audience -- who else would feed lies to the left wing world of sycophants, nitwits and know-nothings, if not for Ronan, Ed, Rachel, and tingle Chris??

Let's not forget to mention the main stream print media of which the aforementioned loser networks take their talking points from.

The last four editions of the New York Times in 2014 resulted in a total of 38 corrections! Some of those corrections wouldn't have happened in a high school newspaper, but these type of errors appear regularly in the Times, the newspaper of record.

Other examples of lying, left wing driven 'journalism':

Rolling Stone Magazine rape story which got a lot of air time but never happened.

New Yorker Magazine story of a 17-year-old high schooler who traded stocks during his lunch hour and made $72 million! That one was hilarious. CNBC even scheduled an interview with the young lad.

George Zimmerman being referred to as a 'white' hispanic, which tells the free world that the left aren't only irresponsible and regularly incorrect, but they are racists as well. Pictures of Trayvon Martin as a 8 or 9 or 11 years old boy was the norm and not the current photo of a hulking adult criminal aggressor.

But that's old news, so to speak.

How about: 'Hands up, don't shoot'; or, 'Don't choke, can't breathe.'

All irresponsible lies by left wing outlets bought hook, line and sinker by their dum dum audience.

I could on and on and on, too, but it's time for coffee.

[horses4courses]

I could on and on and on, too, but it's time for coffee.

Here's hoping, for everyone's sake, that it's decaf

[hcap]

I just love it when vulgar, left wing dweebs continue to bash Fox NewsKarl Rove, Unskewed Polls and reckless are the true dweebs

Correction, F_A_U_X is the proper spelling and vulgar is reckless feckless' style. What a guy! Forgot just how loonie righties can be :lol: :lol:

[reckless]

Here's hoping, for everyone's sake, that it's decaf

No, it's an extra strong blend of Italian Roast and Caribe espresso.

Why don't you and hcap come on over for a cup or two -- I've never seen two dweebs before, I only read them on PA.

[reckless]

Karl Rove, Unskewed Polls and reckless are the true dweebs

Correction, F_A_U_X is the proper spelling and vulgar is reckless feckless' style. What a guy! Forgot just how loonie righties can be :lol: :lol:

Since you're a self described know-it-all, in addition to being PA's resident nitwit, maybe you can explain the continued irresponsibility of left wing rags such as the old gray skank, The New York Times, the Washington Post, Boston Globe, New Yorker Magazine, and let's not leave out the imbeciles that report from MSNBC, CNN, all things NBC, NPR, CBS and ABC ... etc., etc., etc.

[zico20]

You have been spending too much time in Colorado.

I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Is it

1) Rubio can't win the Republican nomination
2) Hillary can't win the Democratic nomination
3) Rubio can't beat Hillary in the general election
4) Rubio can't win the general election against any Democrat

Could you please explain then I can offer a rebuttal. Thank you

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6jW2dZCIAEQ1x6.jpg

[Tom]

I thing they call that a conscience.....something dems are not familiar with.
At least he has brain activity......something else dems are not familiar with.

[Robert Goren]

I am sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Is it

1) Rubio can't win the Republican nomination
2) Hillary can't win the Democratic nomination
3) Rubio can't beat Hillary in the general election
4) Rubio can't win the general election against any Democrat

Could you please explain then I can offer a rebuttal. Thank youNumber 2 is the only false statement. Hillary is not a lock to get the democratic nod, but she is a heavy favorite.

[Robert Goren]

hi Robert:

Sarcastic or not I feel it is my patriotic duty -- ;) -- to remind the good people of PA that the War of 2016 will be liberals against conservatives.

If the patriots on the right in the Republican Party are required to win a civil war over the left wing RINO losers then so be it; I'm wishing for that fight too.No it won't be. It never is. The liberal and conservative voters cancel each other out. It is always decided by the people who think they are voting the guy who can do the best job. His or her ideology is almost irrelevant unless they are so far out there. Even then, "the best man" often wins, but it is an up hill fight. Obama won twice not because the American people are so liberal (I was that was the case) but because the GOP candidates were not viewed as the man likely to do the best job. Keep nominating those "losers" no matter whether they are conservative or not and you will keep losing. For the record, both Romney and McCain were further to right of center than Obama was to the left. Not that it mattered one iota. You can't tell me that there was any conservatives that voted for Obama or even stayed home because Romney or McCain was not conservative enough. Every Conservative I know voted and none of them ever said they voted Obama in 2008 and 2012.

[TJDave]

I thing they call that a conscience.....something dems are not familiar with.
At least he has brain activity......something else dems are not familiar with.

Funny.

The religious have no clue. They don't know when they're being suckered.

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B68YZk6CcAAA7gD.jpg:medium

[horses4courses]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B678PQvCAAAwTzW.jpg:medium

[lamboguy]

democrats -185

republicans +140

[lamboguy]

election odds are now off the board

[horses4courses]

election odds are now off the board

Not sure why that would be.

Three of the main UK books (Ladbroke, Coral, William Hill)
list the winning party as:

Dem -125
Rep Even

[davew]

mine has Dems -155 Repubs +140 other +5000

[lamboguy]

i have been quoting TheGreek.com because you can bet up to $50,000 on one number in these elections.

[Robert Goren]

mine has Dems -155 Repubs +140 other +5000 The GOP at +140 might worth a wager. I am thinking at some point it will drop and you might find a place you can insure a profit. Even if you can't, +140 is an overlay. I am thinking +115 is probably where it should be.

[lamboguy]

back up on the board and no change

Republicans +140

Democrats -185

[lamboguy]

democrats - 165

republicans + 125

[Stillriledup]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-begins-the-2016-campaign-and-its-a-toss-up/

[Inner Dirt]

Hillary can't win - there just can't be that many stupid people.

There are plenty of stupid people Obama was re-elected in a landslide.

[johnhannibalsmith]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/11/ab/55/11ab55005315a7cf1525ba9f36394e79.jpg

Read that again.

In a world were image is everything and "messaging" is the fifth Clinton sense in lieu of smell, that is way too convenient a backhanded slap at the guy still there.

[GameTheory]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ready-hillary-no-longer-ready-hillary

I still don't know what it means. If I take it at face value, then I'm supposed to think what?

Is it:

NOW I'm ready for Hillary. (And I wasn't before, realizing my mistake?)

I know I'm going to get [obscene phrase] by Hillary, but at least I'm mentally prepared.

I'm ready to SETTLE for Hillary because that's all we've got. (Alternatively, "I give up, I'm ready for Hillary.")

Well, *I'm* [smugly] ready for Hillary, what has taken the rest of you idiots so long?


Trying to figure out what the actual positive message of the slogan is supposed to be.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I guess that shows how much I'm paying attention - I saw it for the first time yesterday when I grudgingly read an article about her announcement.

[Tom]

100% that whoever wins, WE lose.

[highnote]

330 million democrats and the best they've got is Hillary?

Same with Jeb -- that's the best they've got?

This is the trouble with oligarchies -- lack of candidates with a strong chance of winning.

If the election was tomorrow I'd probably vote for Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. Not because she has a chance, but because I can't stand the thought of voting for either of Hillary or Jeb. In fact, I don't even like writing their names or the fact that they're such a part of the establishment that they are called by their first names.

From here on out I am only going to refer to them as the leading democratic candidate and the leading republican candidate. :)

[lamboguy]

republicans +135

democrats -180

[highnote]

republicans +135

democrats -180


I refuse to mention them by name, but the leading Democratic candidate (H) is even money and leading Republican candidate (J) is 4/1 in the betting markets.

[Robert Goren]

So far the only thing, the GOP candidates have been trying to separate themselves from the rest of field is trying to project the image that he or she can say bad things about Hillary better than the rest of the field. Rand Paul is the only GOP candidate that has actually tried to put forth a vision of what he would like to do. The rest are just mouthing a few policy words that they think will appeal to the right base of the party that they know has little or no chance of happening under their or anybody else's presidency. Their speeches are interchangeable. A Rubio speech could be give by Cruz or Carly or Jeb or Huckabee and nobody would notice.

[dogkatcher]

Number 2 is the only false statement. Hillary is not a lock to get the democratic nod, but she is a heavy favorite.

Verified by
BoDog's strange line, as Hillary is the Favorite over all candidates yet:

2016 US Presidential Election - Gender of Winner

Male
-150

Female
+120

[Tom]

Bobby, at least the repubs are talking.
Hillary, after a month, has answered 8 questions.:lol::lol::lol:

[ReplayRandall]

I guess I look at everything through the lens of skepticism, as something just doesn't look right concerning the odds for Republicans to win at +135, and a Female to win at +120.
At first glance, this looks like sure money, but I hesitate to push in a large bet on both props weighted to profit +13.75%, with a bonus of an extreme longshot of a Female Republican winner to capture both sides.
Conversely, I instantly notice that there is substantial money bet on a Male Democrat winner to emerge. My question is this: Who is this possible person other than Joe Biden, or is this still a mystery person who hasn't stepped forward yet?

[Robert Goren]

Bobby, at least the repubs are talking.
Hillary, after a month, has answered 8 questions.:lol::lol::lol:CNBC reported the number to be 12 this morning. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

OK - 1 a day this week.

[fast4522]

Hey, are you guys related?

Your talking about the next Mondale.

[Robert Goren]

Hey, are you guys related?

Your talking about the next Mondale.There are several guys who are competing to become the right wing Mondale. A guy who every conservative agrees with on most every issue, but is too far away from the center to get elected and comes off as a phony and an elitist as well. Thank God, we democrats have got that out of our system, at least for a while.

[davew]

330 million democrats and the best they've got is Hillary?



wow, are you counting the dead ones who somehow vote and the people who get bused around to vote multiple times?

[Robert Goren]

wow, are you counting the dead ones who somehow vote and the people who get bused around to vote multiple times? That would be the people who vote republican. A friend of mine change his party registration to vote in the GOP primary for his brother-in-law( lost in the primary). He had not gotten around to switching by the general. He says he got 8 calls offering him a ride. That is in Nebraska where just having republican after your name gets you elect 90% of the time. I have been a registered democrat since 1974 and I have never gotten an offer of a ride to the polls, not here in Lincoln nor during the time I lived Hebron. Nor do I know of any democrat who did.

[fast4522]

Meaning: The next Mondale

Former US VP projected to become the next United States President by virtually every news media in the country and then losing in every state in the country except Massachusetts.

There is only one man has made more mistakes and brought this country down worse than this guy.

[Tom]

He had not gotten around to switching by the general. He says he got 8 calls offering him a ride.

And of course that meant he was going to be driven around to vote multiple times, right?

[lamboguy]

no change

republicans +135

democrats-180

[lamboguy]

the greek.com still has this election off the board, i am seeing a number elsewhere that is booking $5000 per number that has Hillary Clinton at -$110-$100.

not that i trust this line, but to me that doesn't look so great for her.


this might be saying that the republican's might be nominating someone that can attract Democrat votes the way i read it.

[Clocker]

the greek.com still has this election off the board, i am seeing a number elsewhere that is booking $5000 per number that has Hillary Clinton at -$110-$100.

not that i trust this line, but to me that doesn't look so great for her.


this might be saying that the republican's might be nominating someone that can attract Democrat votes the way i read it.

Hillary is going to have trouble getting the nomination, let alone win the general. In a recent poll, she is losing her voter base, white women.

In June, 44% of white women had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, compared to 43% who didn’t. In July, those numbers moved in the wrong direction for Mrs. Clinton: Only 34% of white women saw her in a positive light, compared to 53% who had a negative impression of her, the poll found.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/04/wsjnbc-poll-shows-hillary-favorability-shrinking-across-the-board/

Hillary is essentially on hold until Biden announces. If Joe runs, she is in deep yogurt. There is not a lot of difference between them politically, but Joe is likeable and appears to be honest.

[barn32]

back up on the board and no change

Republicans +140

Democrats -185Three of the main UK books (Ladbroke, Coral, William Hill)
list the winning party as:

Dem -125
Rep Even

Take the Pubs +140 and the Dems -$125 for a riskless bet. $100 on the Pubs to win $140 and -$125 on the Dems to win $100.

If the Dems win you break even, and if the Pubs win you win $15.

That's a 6.6% return on your money and will take over a year to realize, which might not be cost effective, but it's a sure thing.

[Robert Goren]

Biden running in the general election would be a GOP dream come true. He would be a lot easier to beat than Hillary. I don't think he will run against Hillary though I have learned not to underestimate the ego of a politician. If I bet elections, I bet Hillary at this point, because I think the GOP will piss off Trump enough that he will run as a third party candidate thus assuring a Hillary victory.

[Tom]

I think Biden would be the best hope for the dems.
I really thing he can beat all but Walker.

Honestly, depending on the repub candidate, I could vote for Joe in good conscience. I think he is a basically honest man who is a real American deep down. He would not the the country's worst choice, or even in the top 10.

[Clocker]

I think Biden would be the best hope for the dems.
I really thing he can beat all but Walker.

Honestly, depending on the repub candidate, I could vote for Joe in good conscience. I think he is a basically honest man who is a real American deep down. He would not the the country's worst choice, or even in the top 10.

I agree. Despite being goofy and creepy from time to time, Biden is head and shoulders above any other Dem running.

I remember when he was a Senator after Saddam was taken down. Biden's position on Iraq was that the sectarian differences would make a unified democracy difficult if not impossible. His plan was that the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds should each be given very strong autonomy over their own regions, with a very limited national government to deal with foreign affairs, defense, and such.

I also think that Biden has been playing the good little soldier as VP, and parroting Obama's policies whether he agreed or not. And it is clear that Biden is one of the very few in the Senate that didn't get mysteriously rich while in office.

[classhandicapper]

I remember when he was a Senator after Saddam was taken down. Biden's position on Iraq was that the sectarian differences would make a unified democracy difficult if not impossible. His plan was that the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds should each be given very strong autonomy over their own regions, with a very limited national government to deal with foreign affairs, defense, and such.


He stole that idea from me. ;)

[Dave Schwartz]

These guys do not miss.

Last election, like 3 days before when the media was screaming, "Toss up!" these guys had it 85-15, Dems.

Only wildcard could possibly be Trump because, well... he's different. Unlikely, though.


Iowa Prediction Markets: President, Winner Take All (https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/pricehistory/PriceHistory_GetData.cfm)

Has been 60/40 Dems since it opened (July 1)


Iowa Prediction Markets: Congressional Dominance (https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/pricehistory/PriceHistory_GetData.cfm)

52% Rep H + Rep S
41% Rep H + Dem S
8% "Other"
2% Dem H + Dem S
0% Dem H + Rep S

[Clocker]

Only wildcard could possibly be Trump because, well... he's different. Unlikely, though.




Peggy Noonan did a column about this recently. She said that Trump's strong showing right now is not about Trump.

It is a gesture of contempt for government, for the men and women in Congress, the White House, the agencies.

I think that the first real candidate that can appreciate that and focus the contempt is the winner.

[Dave Schwartz]

This is not the first time I have cited these guys:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/search.php?searchid=5158060


Peggy Noonan did a column about this recently. She said that Trump's strong showing right now is not about Trump.

I completely agree.


I think that the first real candidate that can appreciate that and focus the contempt is the winner.

When all is said and done, it will be a Democrat.

They just have too many legions of poor voters that will listen to their promises.

IMHO, the only way to overcome that Dem advantage is for the Republicans to tell the SAME lies as the Democrats. (Please note: Both sides lie, but the focus from the Dem side is to say whatever the poor need to hear. The Republicans just cannot compete with that. Unless, of course, they improve their lying.)

[barn32]

These guys do not miss.

The guy I follow doesn't miss either, but the election is over a year away, and what these sites say now aren't really relevant.

However, once you get it down to two candidates and it's close to election time, I agree. They don't miss.

[highnote]

When all is said and done, it will be a Democrat.

They just have too many legions of poor voters that will listen to their promises.

IMHO, the only way to overcome that Dem advantage is for the Republicans to tell the SAME lies as the Democrats. (Please note: Both sides lie, but the focus from the Dem side is to say whatever the poor need to hear. The Republicans just cannot compete with that. Unless, of course, they improve their lying.)


you mean like "read my lips no new taxes" or "I did not have sex with that woman"?

[TJDave]

When all is said and done, it will be a Democrat.

They just have too many legions of poor voters that will listen to their promises.


Which begs the question:

Why, in the wealthiest nation on earth, are there so many poor voters?

[Robert Goren]

I think Biden would be the best hope for the dems.
I really thing he can beat all but Walker.

Honestly, depending on the repub candidate, I could vote for Joe in good conscience. I think he is a basically honest man who is a real American deep down. He would not the the country's worst choice, or even in the top 10. While Walker isn't the easiest republican to beat, he is a lot closer to the easiest than he is to the toughest. The man took money from an avowed White separatist, for Christ's sake. That might not be an issue for republicans, but it will be for the voters in general. Walker is a real scum bag and most Americans will see him for what he is.

[Dave Schwartz]

you mean like "read my lips no new taxes" or "I did not have sex with that woman"?

No. More like, inferring that your poor life will end as soon as I am in office.


Which begs the question:
Why, in the wealthiest nation on earth, are there so many poor voters?

I can help with that. Because politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) serve those that provide the money to get elected, as opposed to serving those who do the electing.

They only have to promise to have the needs of the many as their highest priority.


Anything else I can help you with today? ;)


Dave

[ReplayRandall]

Walker is a real scum bag and most Americans will see him for what he is.

RG, I have to admit that no matter what you've posted in the past, there's still some decency about you. You're actually a very likeable person. That being said, what you've just posted about Scott Walker has me thinking you've sunk to a new low, as now you're just talking out your ass..... :)

[classhandicapper]

Which begs the question:

Why, in the wealthiest nation on earth, are there so many poor voters?


Because extremely bright people on Wall St use the Fed, IMF, and federal government to make sure they enrich themselves.

Because the democrats are incompetent at creating policies that might actually help the poor climb out of their own predicament also. However, the democrats apparently are very good at one thing. They are very good at importing more under educated and under skilled poor people that will vote for them and the policies that will keep that that way.

[Clocker]

Poor is relative. Would you rather be poor in the US or middle class in some place like Venezuela?

Lots of people here are poor because they are high school dropouts or can't hold a job or don't want to work or whatever. Should we just pay those people a "living wage" and just leave them alone? Lots of people are poor because they just got out of school and are starting a career, or are getting job experience at an entry level job. Those people will not be poor in 5 years.

The big difference between the US and most other places is economic mobility. That's why poor people from other countries aspire to be poor people here.

[horses4courses]

Poor is relative. Would you rather be poor in the US or middle class in some place like Venezuela?

Lots of people here are poor because they are high school dropouts or can't hold a job or don't want to work or whatever. Should we just pay those people a "living wage" and just leave them alone? Lots of people are poor because they just got out of school and are starting a career, or are getting job experience at an entry level job. Those people will not be poor in 5 years.

The big difference between the US and most other places is economic mobility. That's why poor people from other countries aspire to be poor people here.

Typical US conservative attitude.
Always coming from those who have no idea what it is to be poor.

Being middle class in just about any country on earth
beats being poor anywhere, and that includes the US.

Better standard of living is a given.
It's just a question of what they have to put up with to sustain it.

[Clocker]

Typical US conservative attitude.
Always coming from those who have no idea what it is to be poor.


It is amazing to me how much the moonbats here know about the lives and experiences of those whose opinions they don't agree with.

And think that that personal innuendo rebuts the opinions.

[horses4courses]

It is amazing to me how much the moonbats here know about the lives and experiences of those whose opinions they don't agree with.

And think that that personal innuendo rebuts the opinions.

You were the one starting off with inaccurate personal innuendo.
Call it your opinion, if you like.
However you dress it up, it's wrong.

[Clocker]

You were the one starting off with inaccurate personal innuendo.

Where did I say anything about anyone here?

[horses4courses]

Where did I say anything about anyone here?

Ref: "moonbats"

Fair enough, your slight was more general than personal.
The implication was that in most countries, being middle class
would be undesirable for Americans. The fact is, standards of living
in many countries surpass those we have here.
I would suggest that only in third world countries would being poor
in the US be an attractive proposition.

I just don't agree that anyone with a comfortable lifestyle anywhere,
would ever aspire to being poor and living in the United States.
The only exception would be those who are being persecuted,
need to leave that country, and see the US as their best opportunity.

The economic mobility example of young people in the workplace
is correct and relevant. However, it is not unique to the US.

Most poor people want a better life for themselves and their families.
Proximity to a more prosperous country is a factor.
Eastern Europeans and Africans have flocked to EU countries.
It's not just the US that has immigrant issues.

[lamboguy]

as of 8-30-2015 thegreek.com still has this election odds off the boards.

[highnote]

Hillary is now 3/2 and Jeb is 9/2. Both have drifted up in recent weeks.

Not surprising is that Trump is now in third place at 13.5-1 down from 30-1 just a few weeks ago.

Surprisingly, Biden is 15-1.

Sanders is 17.5-1 and Rubio is 18-1.

[davew]

Poor is relative. Would you rather be poor in the US or middle class in some place like Venezuela?

Lots of people here are poor because they are high school dropouts or can't hold a job or don't want to work or whatever. Should we just pay those people a "living wage" and just leave them alone? Lots of people are poor because they just got out of school and are starting a career, or are getting job experience at an entry level job. Those people will not be poor in 5 years.

The big difference between the US and most other places is economic mobility. That's why poor people from other countries aspire to be poor people here.


no, we should give them free housing, food, health insurance, and cell phone

[dave richman]

The odds of Hilary getting the Democratic nomination have worsened to a point that seemed unimagineable at the beginning of the year. Yet today the party leadership is faced with the disaster looming in the general election, if she is their candidate. IMO they will welcome anyone who seems more likely to win in the general. Biden, if he decides to seek their nomination, will easily best Hilary in the primaries, not on merit or leadership or record, but simply on like-ability. If Biden stays out, the Democrats will be behind the campaign curve with no big champion to rally behind. Only at this point will Sanders be looked on seriously. What a pickle they are in. :cool:

[zico20]

The odds of Hilary getting the Democratic nomination have worsened to a point that seemed unimagineable at the beginning of the year. Yet today the party leadership is faced with the disaster looming in the general election, if she is their candidate. IMO they will welcome anyone who seems more likely to win in the general. Biden, if he decides to seek their nomination, will easily best Hilary in the primaries, not on merit or leadership or record, but simply on like-ability. If Biden stays out, the Democrats will be behind the campaign curve with no big champion to rally behind. Only at this point will Sanders be looked on seriously. What a pickle they are in. :cool:

I will agree with you that Biden is clearly the most likeable of the bunch. But remember that he has run twice for president with dismal results. In 2008 Biden polled at 1-2% before dropping out. He isn't even a candidate yet and is polling in the mid teens now. The only thing that has changed from 2008 is people recognize him now. And the people like him.

Hillary actually got both lucky and unlucky in this presidential run. Her being a woman and her lifelong supporters will vote for her no matter what. If there were 15 men running for the presidency she would be a shoe in for the nominee. Why is that? Because she will get 33% just being Hillary and a woman. The rest of the 15 men would divide up the rest of the votes, ensuring Hillary of the nomination. Now if another woman would have entered the race (Warren) she would have very little chance at being the nominee. But the current scenario could be troublesome for her. If one candidate catches fire, she will lose just like she did to Obama, a 1v1 battle.

[dave richman]

I will agree with you that Biden is clearly the most likeable of the bunch. But remember that he has run twice for president with dismal results. In 2008 Biden polled at 1-2% before dropping out. He isn't even a candidate yet and is polling in the mid teens now. The only thing that has changed from 2008 is people recognize him now. And the people like him.

Hillary actually got both lucky and unlucky in this presidential run. Her being a woman and her lifelong supporters will vote for her no matter what. If there were 15 men running for the presidency she would be a shoe in for the nominee. Why is that? Because she will get 33% just being Hillary and a woman. The rest of the 15 men would divide up the rest of the votes, ensuring Hillary of the nomination. Now if another woman would have entered the race (Warren) she would have very little chance at being the nominee. But the current scenario could be troublesome for her. If one candidate catches fire, she will lose just like she did to Obama, a 1v1 battle.
People who know a lot about presidential politics say that Hilary's dominant position in the party is eroding. Clearly she is falling in the polls. IMO the leadership of both parties find a way to put forth their strongest candidate regardless of actual primary voting.
I agree that a core of unthinking supporters will gave her their vote under almost any circumstance, IMO it will not be enough. Guess we'll see in a few more months.

[NJ Stinks]

The odds of Hilary getting the Democratic nomination have worsened to a point that seemed unimagineable at the beginning of the year. Yet today the party leadership is faced with the disaster looming in the general election, if she is their candidate. IMO they will welcome anyone who seems more likely to win in the general. Biden, if he decides to seek their nomination, will easily best Hilary in the primaries, not on merit or leadership or record, but simply on like-ability. If Biden stays out, the Democrats will be behind the campaign curve with no big champion to rally behind. Only at this point will Sanders be looked on seriously. What a pickle they are in. :cool:

That's rich, Dave.

Hillary is currently 11-10 to win the Presidency in 2016 at Paddy Power. Those are not really "unimagineable" odds, are they Dave?

[Clocker]

That's rich, Dave.

Hillary is currently 11-10 to win the Presidency in 2016 at Paddy Power. Those are not really "unimagineable" odds, are they Dave?

In November of 2007, Hillary's odds for winning the Democratic primary were 1.17 to 1. Obama was 3.4 to 1. It's like deja vu all over again. :p

http://wizardofodds.com/newsletter/2007/11/25/

[Robert Goren]

Clearly Hillary is slipping a bit thanks to emails. Although I think a lot of voters will hold their nose and vote her any way because is better in their opinion than the Guy(s). She certainly in much better shape than any republican currently. As long as Warren stays out of the race, she is pretty good shape. If Warren were to get in, it would mean there is real blood in the water, not just ketchup and all bets are off.

[Tom]

I am confident anyone who supports Hillary is far too stupid be able to find the polling place, let alone handle a ballot.

It is not alleged that she has lied through her teeth.
National security and the lives of our diplomats mean nothing to some people.

[dave richman]

I am confident anyone who supports Hillary is far too stupid be able to find the polling place, let alone handle a ballot.

It is not alleged that she has lied through her teeth.
National security and the lives of our diplomats mean nothing to some people.

Naw see what them Democrats do is bus in voters and pay them to vote. It's the old MDV trick, misinformed democrats voting. Turns out, the founders had it right by limiting who could vote. 😏

[Dave Schwartz]

Dems are still 59-41 at Iowa Electronic Markets (https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres16_quotes.html).

Down only 1 point and has been stable at 60-40 since it opened July 1st.

They don't miss.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dems are still 59-41 at Iowa Electronic Markets (https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres16_quotes.html).

Down only 1 point and has been stable at 60-40 since it opened July 1st.

They don't miss.Just like AP don't lose the Travers...lol...one day, it will happen.

[lamboguy]

Democrats - $145- $100

Republicans +$125


was off the board, before was Democrats - $185- $100

[Robert Goren]

Naw see what them Democrats do is bus in voters and pay them to vote. It's the old MDV trick, misinformed democrats voting. Turns out, the founders had it right by limiting who could vote. 😏 If they had to pass an IQ test to vote, most republicans would not be voting. Of course they could always have separate test like they use to in the South pre voting rights bill of 1964. One test for Whites, another for "Coloreds" . Although a lot of todays republicans would have trouble passing even the "White's test" .

[classhandicapper]

The only way the odds could still favor the democrats is that people think the demographics are so heavily stacked in favor of them almost nothing can get them beat.

I know there are a lot of idealistic and mis-educated people out there that don't understand how the economy and real world actually work, but I can't believe there are that many people crazy enough to think Sanders has a clue or that Hillary is a good candidate.

[fast4522]

The only way the odds could still favor the democrats is that people think the demographics are so heavily stacked in favor of them almost nothing can get them beat.

I know there are a lot of idealistic and mis-educated people out there that don't understand how the economy and real world actually work, but I can't believe there are that many people crazy enough to think Sanders has a clue or that Hillary is a good candidate.

The real deal is the media has lost control, with the majority of Americans facing sticker shock from the ACA and someone says elect me and I will send them back. Do not expect trust to fall with those intending to do more of the same, Bush, Sanders, and Clinton will all be toast because of it.

[davew]

If they had to pass an IQ test to vote, most republicans would not be voting. Of course they could always have separate test like they use to in the South pre voting rights bill of 1964. One test for Whites, another for "Coloreds" . Although a lot of todays republicans would have trouble passing even the "White's test" .

I can't understand why the Democrats always imply the Republicans have a war on blacks. Is it because they started the civil war to free blacks from slavery? Is it because they started the KKK to intimidate/murder the blacks?

Or is it because they discovered if they lie enough, people will start to believe....


There does need to be a better method to catch and punish the people who vote more than once and/or are not eligible to vote. Hopefully there will be an instantaneous recognition test before I die, and law breakers punished enough so they do not do it again. I am not sure whether it will be an eye scan, facial recognition, genomic testing - technology is advancing far faster than most of the government can figure out how to implement it.

[Tom]

I can't understand why the Democrats always imply the Republicans have a war on blacks. Is it because they started the civil war to free blacks from slavery? Is it because they started the KKK to intimidate/murder the blacks?

That's because democrats are liars first and liars last.
Everything the party is built on is a lie.
No one benefits under democrats, so they have to blame someone else.

They are the party of feeble minds.
And it shows.

Just look at their two candidates! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
You can't make this crap up.

[Robert Goren]

I can't understand why the Democrats always imply the Republicans have a war on blacks. Is it because they started the civil war to free blacks from slavery? Is it because they started the KKK to intimidate/murder the blacks?

Or is it because they discovered if they lie enough, people will start to believe....
It started because almost all of the racist Dixiecrats changed parties when Nixon developed the Southern strategy of attracting White southern voters. When current republicans talk about state's rights, Blacks fear a return to the days of not that long ago when certain states wrote racism into their laws.

[zico20]

I can't understand why the Democrats always imply the Republicans have a war on blacks. Is it because they started the civil war to free blacks from slavery? Is it because they started the KKK to intimidate/murder the blacks?

Or is it because they discovered if they lie enough, people will start to believe....


There does need to be a better method to catch and punish the people who vote more than once and/or are not eligible to vote. Hopefully there will be an instantaneous recognition test before I die, and law breakers punished enough so they do not do it again. I am not sure whether it will be an eye scan, facial recognition, genomic testing - technology is advancing far faster than most of the government can figure out how to implement it.

There is a better way to stop people from voting twice right now. It is called photo identification, something Democrats vehemently oppose. Democrats also are against purging dead people from the records.

Also, Democrats need to keep the illusion that blacks are worthless without Democratic support. The Democrats can't afford for blacks to realize they can be self reliant without their help. They have to keep this race war going to keep their votes.

[lamboguy]

this election is now off the boards.

was Democrats - $145- $100

[Saratoga_Mike]

this election is now off the boards.

was Democrats - $145- $100

..meaning no odds avail?

Go to paddypower.com


Winning Party
Tuesday 1st November 2016, 22:00


Winning Party
Hide




Singles Only. Applies to the (college electoral vote) winning party of the US 2016 Presidential Election.




Democrat

4/6


Republican

6/5


Independent

50/1



Top

[lamboguy]

i am quoting THEGREEK.COM because they take $50,000 per number on these bets.

these other guys are nowhere near that.

the reason why i believe knowing the odds is important is because polls are very inaccurate these days due to people not having regular landlines for the pollsters to call.

i have no problem seeing the other guys lines, i just don't respect them that much.

in the last election i was able to catch a few guys sleeping and got down on the winner at even money.

[Saratoga_Mike]

i am quoting THEGREEK.COM because they take $50,000 per number on these bets.

these other guys are nowhere near that.

.

Often wondered about dollar volume - I will start to track thegreek.com, too. Thx

[horses4courses]

i am quoting THEGREEK.COM because they take $50,000 per number on these bets. these other guys are nowhere near that.

Higher limits doesn't make their number sharper.
It's simple supply and demand.

How do you know any other outfit wouldn't take $50k anyway?
I bet they would - especially with a year to go.

[lamboguy]

before there was a GREEK.com i bet the guy Reagan vs. Carter for the limit in that election. when he became an offshore joint i bet him Kennedy vs. Romney for the senate election at - $140. i believe he put out a bad line that day. the Reagan election was -$200.

my old buddy Jimmy The Greek went to London and bet on Truman vs. Dewey and got 8-1. he told me that was the largest score of his life and he was a republican all the way.

[lamboguy]

democrats - $150- $100

was off the boards, prior was -$145

[lamboguy]

democrats now -$155

was - $150

[burnsy]

Odds that we are hurting no matter who wins........................1/9

[classhandicapper]

Odds that we are hurting no matter who wins........................1/9

That's an overlay. More like 1/20.

[lamboguy]

this line is now off the board

was Democrats -$155

[highnote]

Iowa Caucus odds:

Carson 1-1
Rubio 2-1
Kasich 2-1
Huckabee 2-1
Cruz 2-1
Trump 5/2
Bush 5-1
Fiorina 5-1

Not much money being bet, so the odds are probably not too accurate, but Bush at 5-1 has to be cause for concern for his campaign.

[_______]

Iowa Caucus odds:

Carson 1-1
Rubio 2-1
Kasich 2-1
Huckabee 2-1
Cruz 2-1
Trump 5/2
Bush 5-1
Fiorina 5-1

Not much money being bet, so the odds are probably not too accurate, but Bush at 5-1 has to be cause for concern for his campaign.

Bush's campaign may be going through a rough patch. But winning Iowa was never on his agenda. Iowa may actually be a contra-indicator for winning the nomination at this point. Most major candidates will talk down their chances and look to declare a 3rd place finish as a win.

He appears to be in trouble in New Hampshire where he would be the first Bush to lose. That, if it happens, would be more telling.

[highnote]

Bush's campaign may be going through a rough patch. But winning Iowa was never on his agenda. Iowa may actually be a contra-indicator for winning the nomination at this point. Most major candidates will talk down their chances and look to declare a 3rd place finish as a win.

He appears to be in trouble in New Hampshire where he would be the first Bush to lose. That, if it happens, would be more telling.


Good point.

The odds on the winning republican nomination are quite different from the odds on winning the Iowa Caucus:

Rubio 5/2
Trump 5-1
Bush 5.2-1
Carson 11-1
Cruz 15-1
Fiorina 19-1
Kasich 30-1

Surprised to see Rubio as the favorite. Can he maintain the lead? Trump's odds have fallen a lot, so he is definitely a threat if he can maintain his momentum.

He's a smart guy who didn't become a billionaire by accident.

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $125/$100 was off the board, was - $155

[lamboguy]

democrats now -$140/$100 was - $125/$100

[highnote]

Clinton is still the favorite at 4/5 odds.

Rubio is at 9/2.

Bush has fallen to 21-1. He might be worth a bet at those odds. Hard to believe he has fallen. What message does this send? That people are tired of the Bush dynasty? That people think Bush just isn't very exciting?

[PaceAdvantage]

It says that Bush is more of the same ol same ol, and that isn't working (in the polls at least) this time around (Republicans).

[Saratoga_Mike]

It says that Bush is more of the same ol same ol, and that isn't working (in the polls at least) this time around (Republicans).

He really has turned out to be a total dud.

[Clocker]

He really has turned out to be a total dud.

There is no "there" there. I don't get any sense of solid position or conviction. He is the GOP version of Hillary. Both are legacy candidates. Neither would be where they are were it not for their last names.

The difference is that being a Clinton and a woman are enough to be Queen of the Hill in the Democratic Party, especially in a year when the hill is very small. And Hillary has a prepackaged platform from the DNC talking points, so she doesn't have to do any hard work, like actually thinking about issues.

[zico20]

Clinton is still the favorite at 4/5 odds.

Rubio is at 9/2.

Bush has fallen to 21-1. He might be worth a bet at those odds. Hard to believe he has fallen. What message does this send? That people are tired of the Bush dynasty? That people think Bush just isn't very exciting?

Please allow me to book that bet on Bush. In fact, I will give you 26-1 if you so desire. Bush is toast. Rubio is the establishment candidate they will all flock to.

[Robert Goren]

There is no "there" there. I don't get any sense of solid position or conviction. He is the GOP version of Hillary. Both are legacy candidates. Neither would be where they are were it not for their last names.

The difference is that being a Clinton and a woman are enough to be Queen of the Hill in the Democratic Party, especially in a year when the hill is very small. And Hillary has a prepackaged platform from the DNC talking points, so she doesn't have to do any hard work, like actually thinking about issues.The difference is that most voters consider Bill Clinton a successful president and GWB a failure as president. They will prefer the Clinton legacy over the Bush legacy if voting comes down to legacy, which I doubt it will.

[ArlJim78]

things are looking up for Bush, today he secured the Bob Dole endorsement. that should re-energize his campaign.

[davew]

The difference is that most democrat voters consider Bill Clinton a successful president and GWB a failure as president. They will prefer the Clinton legacy over the Bush legacy if voting comes down to legacy, which I doubt it will.


I am not sure what the dead voters who the dems get out to vote think.

[lamboguy]

now of the boards

was democrats - $140

[lamboguy]

back on the board

Democrat's - $140

[lamboguy]

Democrats now - $130

was -$140

[lamboguy]

democrats - $135

was -$130

[highnote]

The betting exchanges have the followings posted for the Republican Nominee:

Rubio leads at 3 to 2

Trump second at 7 to 2

Cruz third at 11 to 2

Bush is at 7 to 1

Carson has fallen to 40 to 1

Clinton has a huge lead in the Democratic Nomination at 11 to 100 (that's 0.11 to 1).

Clinton is also the favorite to win the Presidency with odds of just under even money, 85 to 100 (0.85 to 1).

Rubio is second choice at 9/2

Trump is 10 to 1

Bush and Cruz are about 16 to 1

Carson is 100 to 1

[lamboguy]

Democrats now -$155

was -$135

[_______]

I already have Female +115 and just need to decide if the high water mark for unelectable is Iowa caucus or South Carolina primary. My original intent was to hedge this after Iowa but given the mood I'll have a decision to make.

[lamboguy]

democrats now -$150

was -$155

[lamboguy]

this election is now off the board

was democrat's - $150

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $160

was - $150

[classhandicapper]

democrats now - $160

was - $150

Are there any head to head odds between the various republican candidates and Clinton?

That -160 reflects the possibility of several different potential republican candidates all of which might have different chances against Hillary.

[davew]

Are there any head to head odds between the various republican candidates and Clinton?

That -160 reflects the possibility of several different potential republican candidates all of which might have different chances against Hillary.

or Bernie if Hilary gets jailed

[lamboguy]

i guess that Betfair now has their own bookmaking section. i have no idea how much they are taking on any one particular number.

they have Hillary as - 1200 to win the nomination and an 11/8 favorite to win the general election

they have both Rubio and Trump as +400 for the nomination and +500 for the general election.

Cruz is +1000 for the general election while Sanders is + 1800

[Inner Dirt]

i guess that Betfair now has their own bookmaking section. i have no idea how much they are taking on any one particular number.

they have Hillary as - 1200 to win the nomination and an 11/8 favorite to win the general election

they have both Rubio and Trump as +400 for the nomination and +500 for the general election.

Cruz is +1000 for the general election while Sanders is + 1800

She was favored 6/4 and 13/8 at most places last week, I wonder why her odds went up?

[lamboguy]

She was favored 6/4 and 13/8 at most places last week, I wonder why her odds went up?gamblers can and often are just as wrong as the polls.

my question right now would be if she was so far ahead in the polls for the nomination, why does she have her husband working for her in the freezing cold nights in New Hampshire? wouldn't she save him for the general election if she was such a cinch?

[Inner Dirt]

gamblers can and often are just as wrong as the polls.

my question right now would be if she was so far ahead in the polls for the nomination, why does she have her husband working for her in the freezing cold nights in New Hampshire? wouldn't she save him for the general election if she was such a cinch?

I had went to an odds checker and noticed Hillary pretty much the same for at least the last month, so I figure a move at most all the offshores meant something happened. I was hoping she let her inner bitch come out and said something wrong. I am watching closely as I covered 4-5 on Hillary for a friend a month or so ago. Just rolling over what he owed me from NFL.

[ReplayRandall]

I am watching closely as I covered 4-5 on Hillary for a friend a month or so ago. Just rolling over what he owed me from NFL.

Yep, that's what friends are for.... :cool:

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $150

was - $160

[lamboguy]

off the boards now

didn't have the chance to post prior to take down a further update


was democrats - $140
prior was -$150

[lamboguy]

back on the board

democrats - $150

was -$140

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $145

was - $150

[RunForTheRoses]

I don't know how this will effect the odds but Monica Lewinsky has announced she will vote Republican in 2016. Seems the Democrats left a bad taste in her mouth.

[barahona44]

I don't know how this will effect the odds but Monica Lewinsky has announced she will vote Republican in 2016. Seems the Democrats left a bad taste in her mouth.
Or as Hillary calls her "The Devil With the Blue Dress On" :)

[lamboguy]

now off the board

was democrats - $145

[highnote]

Clinton's odds to win the U.S. Presidential election have drifted slightly higher to even money.

Trump's have fallen to their lowest level at 5-1.

Clinton is 1/5 to win the dem nomination.

Trump is at even money -- the lowest he has been.

If the general election was tomorrow it looks like it would be bettwen Clinton and Trump.


Can Trump maintain his momentum through November?

Can Clinton hang on to the lead?

[Inner Dirt]

I just check here every couple days, Hillary has been drifting up, just a couple weeks ago she was 4/6 (-150) or lower everywhere.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

[lamboguy]

democrats now back up on the board - $130

was off the board

was - $145 prior to that

money coming back on the underdog republicans is drying up quickly these days

[Dave Schwartz]

Iowa Prediction Markets:

Democratic Pres was 65% as of yesterday.

Rep House has dropped from 96% to 84% in the last 2-3 weeks.

[lamboguy]

now off the board

was democrats -$130

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $125

was -$130


i warned you guys that the easy money was going to evaporate

[highnote]

According to the betting markets, the winner of last night's GOP debate was Trump.

[ebcorde]

are off the wall. watch as we get to September, October WOMEN will be very excited about a female President. just like Obama, Kennedy.

and as for this E-mail nonsense, the focus should be on the intelligence community not the Granny. no one expects Granny to be a E-mail guru, analyzing each e-mail to see If it's TS worthy.

rather than why the F is the hallowed intelligence community relying on people's judgement? I'll tell you why, because they don't want to be responsible.
They should know what IP addresses are TS worthy same way a bank handles it's mainframe.

so yeah "it's granny fault"

[OntheRail]

are off the wall. watch as we get to September, October WOMEN will be very excited about a female President. just like Obama, Kennedy.

and as for this E-mail nonsense, the focus should be on the intelligence community not the Granny. no one expects Granny to be a E-mail guru, analyzing each e-mail to see If it's TS worthy.

rather than why the F is the hallowed intelligence community relying on people's judgement? I'll tell you why, because they don't want to be responsible.
They should know what IP addresses are TS worthy same way a bank handles it's mainframe.

so yeah "it's granny fault"
I give women far more credit then that... Hillary won't pull the skirt over their eye's... plus Slick Willie's part of the deal... ;)

What the F*ck... have you forgot or just another that has their head stuck in the Dem-sand hole. She The Granny B*tch Hillary had and instructed others to remove the CLASSIFICATION off documents to send to her Private e-mail. She's a guru alright... of lies and sleazy cover-ups.

[ebcorde]

I give women far more credit then that... Hillary won't pull the skirt over their eye's... plus Slick Willie's part of the deal... ;)

What the F*ck... have you forgot or just another that has their head stuck in the Dem-sand hole. She The Granny B*tch Hillary had and instructed others to remove the CLASSIFICATION off documents to send to her Private e-mail. She's a guru alright... of lies and sleazy cover-ups.


first ever since Rush Limbaugh accused Hillary of murder in 1992 and 2005 ,I don't give a sh$t what anyone claims Hillary did.
you don't like her don't vote for her. could not care less :bang:

Mostly likely Putin had memos forwarded to him by spies since the clueless intelligence had no clue Hillary's unsecured server was receiving e-mails the idiots!

oh my bad you're so right we have to vote for the usual angry white man the republicans throw at us every election or you'll really really get mad :lol:

almost 1 trillion spent yearly on the military and republicans say our military is weak :lol:

[OntheRail]

first ever since Rush Limbaugh accused Hillary of murder in 1992 and 2005 ,I don't give a sh$t what anyone claims Hillary did.
you don't like her don't vote for her. could not care less :bang:

I get it... the Clinton's can do no wrong in your eye's.

Mostly likely Putin had memos forwarded to him by spies since the clueless intelligence had no clue Hillary's unsecured server was receiving e-mails the idiots!

oh my bad you're so right we have to vote for the usual angry white man the republicans throw at us every election or you'll really really get mad :lol:

almost 1 trillion spent yearly on the military and republicans say our military is weak :lol: It's the Current Commander & Chief that's weak

As for the rest of it... when a rodent guards the cheddar expect the rats to smell of cheese.

[davew]

are off the wall. watch as we get to September, October WOMEN will be very excited about a female President. just like Obama, Kennedy.

and as for this E-mail nonsense, the focus should be on the intelligence community not the Granny. no one expects Granny to be a E-mail guru, analyzing each e-mail to see If it's TS worthy.

rather than why the F is the hallowed intelligence community relying on people's judgement? I'll tell you why, because they don't want to be responsible.
They should know what IP addresses are TS worthy same way a bank handles it's mainframe.

so yeah "it's granny fault"

Are you saying granny was not capable of the job Secretary of State?

[lamboguy]

election odds are now off the board

was democrats - $125

[PaceAdvantage]

are off the wall. watch as we get to September, October WOMEN will be very excited about a female President. just like Obama, Kennedy.

and as for this E-mail nonsense, the focus should be on the intelligence community not the Granny. no one expects Granny to be a E-mail guru, analyzing each e-mail to see If it's TS worthy.

rather than why the F is the hallowed intelligence community relying on people's judgement? I'll tell you why, because they don't want to be responsible.
They should know what IP addresses are TS worthy same way a bank handles it's mainframe.

so yeah "it's granny fault"Trust me...nobody wants a sweet little ol' "Granny" for president, so you ought rethink that line of propaganda.... :lol:

[Saratoga_Mike]

election odds are now off the board

was democrats - $125

Rubio goes to even money for the GOP nomination. He was 2-1 at 6 pm eastern. Bad night for Trump. Given I've been so wrong about Trump, I have no idea how it impacts him on a go-forward basis. But tonight has to help Rubio.

Dem still roughly 4/5 on Paddypower for the general.

[highnote]

Rubio goes to even money for the GOP nomination. He was 2-1 at 6 pm eastern. Bad night for Trump. Given I've been so wrong about Trump, I have no idea how it impacts him on a go-forward basis. But tonight has to help Rubio.

Dem still roughly 4/5 on Paddypower for the general.


Trump was even money just a couple of hours ago to win the repub nomination. Now he is at around 7/4.

Rubio is now at even money.

Based on my informal political conversations at work, the feeling that I came away with is that the people who like Trump are not necessarily the type of people that are motivated to make a trip to the polls to cast a vote. Plus the GOP establishment never warmed up to him.

Rubio seems like a sensible choice made by the sensible Iowa voters.

It will be interesting to see how the Iowa caucus shakes out and how the NH primary shapes up.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

IMHO, if Trump's loss in Iowa is followed up by a crushing win in New Hampshire next week, it tells me that a caucus is easier to fix.

In an up-and-up process, I cannot believe that Trump does NOT become the Republican nominee.

[fast4522]

IMHO, if Trump's loss in Iowa is followed up by a crushing win in New Hampshire next week, it tells me that a caucus is easier to fix.

In an up-and-up process, I cannot believe that Trump does NOT become the Republican nominee.

Perhaps the landscape might change by Valentines day, just look at the same time periods in past elections.

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $120

was off the board prior to that was -$125

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $130

was - $120

[Rookies]

IMHO, if Trump's loss in Iowa is followed up by a crushing win in New Hampshire next week, it tells me that a caucus is easier to fix.

In an up-and-up process, I cannot believe that Trump does NOT become the Republican nominee.

There are ups and downs in every Marathon like this one. But, Trump is on a downswing. He had a huge double digit lead in NH just days ago. People have finally started looking closely and they don't like what they saw in Iowa.

Could he even lose in New Hampshire now? Stay tuned! If so, his campaign will be in total free fall.

[lamboguy]

election odds now off the board

was democrats - $130

[PaceAdvantage]

There are ups and downs in every Marathon like this one. But, Trump is on a downswing. He had a huge double digit lead in NH just days ago. People have finally started looking closely and they don't like what they saw in Iowa.

Could he even lose in New Hampshire now? Stay tuned! If so, his campaign will be in total free fall.You really need to preface most of these statements with I HOPE. :lol:

"Started looking closely" :lol:

Seriously? The guy has been on TV NONSTOP since he entered the race...you act as if he has been FLYING UNDER THE RADAR all these months.

If anything, people know exactly what they are getting in Trump and have known this for the better part of a few decades. So these "Started looking closely and didn't like what they saw in Iowa" comment makes little sense when examined objectively.

[classhandicapper]

election odds now off the board

was democrats - $130

I still find these odds somewhat surprising.

I understand the "demographics" argument, but it's pretty tough to put up a more flawed candidate than Hillary. She's given no real indication of high level competence in any role she's been given and she's unquestionably as corrupt and untruthful as any major politician you are ever going to find. Within her own party many don't like her

The choices among the republicans are not especially appealing to me personally, I have to think the odds are closer than that.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think the Bush years and the Obama election cycles have clouded otherwise sound judgement from many folks on both sides of the political spectrum.

Democrats feel they are invincible against any and all GOP candidates. Republicans feel like it's David vs. Goliath any time a presidential election rolls around.

The truth, again, as it so often does, likely exists somewhere between those two extremes.

Democrats are not as invincible as they and the media likes to portray them to be...and Republicans aren't as helpless and unelectable as, again, they and the media likes to portray them to be...

Hillary is indeed a very flawed candidate with very high unlikable ratings. Which is why I predict a Hillary vs. Trump election would be very, very close.

Then again, just the other day I said Hillary would crush Rubio in the general, and despite what I just wrote above, I still feel this way. Rubio just doesn't seem to evoke REAL PASSION in anyone. He reminds me a lot of Romney but without the Mormon baggage. Attractive candidates who seemed to posses all the right skills when it came to being candidates, but lacking, for want of a better term, souls.

Rubio is kind of like something we'd get if Google decided to build a fully automated political candidate, akin to their driverless car.

[azeri98]

I think the Bush years and the Obama election cycles have clouded otherwise sound judgement from many folks on both sides of the political spectrum.

Democrats feel they are invincible against any and all GOP candidates. Republicans feel like it's David vs. Goliath any time a presidential election rolls around.

The truth, again, as it so often does, likely exists somewhere between those two extremes.

Democrats are not as invincible as they and the media likes to portray them to be...and Republicans aren't as helpless and unelectable as, again, they and the media likes to portray them to be...

Hillary is indeed a very flawed candidate with very high unlikable ratings. Which is why I predict a Hillary vs. Trump election would be very, very close.

Then again, just the other day I said Hillary would crush Rubio in the general, and despite what I just wrote above, I still feel this way. Rubio just doesn't seem to evoke REAL PASSION in anyone. He reminds me a lot of Romney but without the Mormon baggage. Attractive candidates who seemed to posses all the right skills when it came to being candidates, but lacking, for want of a better term, souls.

Rubio is kind of like something we'd get if Google decided to build a fully automated political candidate, akin to their driverless car.
Agree, I think he is still wet behind the ears to be POTUS, I think he would have other people telling him what to do like Dubya did. Billary is just a B**ch, you can see when she is in a debate and gets mad she shows off those qualities, plus she iss a liar just Like Cruz, I don't envy your choices, then again we have Howdy Doody as PM.

[Tom]

It's not so much who wins....dems are not invincible and repubs certainly can win.

It's just when they do, we still get nothing out of them. So why bother?
GOP is nothing but talk.

Whoever does the most damage to either party is who I support. Both parties are our enemies.

[highnote]

Here are some excerpts from an interesting blog piece about the election and the Federal Reserve from Bill Bonner:

http://bonnerandpartners.com/the-federal-reserve-the-deep-states-central-bank/

An election has been described as two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Actually, there was never any doubt about what was on the menu. An election is really when the wolves scrap over who gets the choicest pieces.

It doesn’t matter who won in Iowa. Major policies are not determined by the voters but by the more or less permanent elite who run the government, aka the “Deep State.”

The Fed is an instrument of the Deep State, not of the people.

This sounds conspiratorial. But it doesn’t require any hidden agenda or secret handshakes.

Most people want power, money, and status. If you can get control over the government – the only institution that can steal and kill, legally – you’ve got it made. That’s why so much money is spent trying to get elected or to influence public policy.

The U.S. presidential campaign has seen surprisingly strong showings from two “outsiders”: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Why?

As former Congressional staffer turned Deep State whistleblower Mike Lofgren recently told Bonner & Partners editor Chris Lowe, it’s because each in his own way warns voters about the wolves.

The insiders, according to Trump and Sanders, are predatory and incompetent. But the Deep State is more predatory and less incompetent than it appears.

It fights wars, for example, not to win them… but to lose them. The War on Poverty has been going on for more than 50 years. Still no sign of victory. But it has financed countless careers and retirements of government operatives.

The War on Drugs has raised profit margins for the drug dealers… and for the drug fighters too. But the public has suffered higher levels of violence and billions of dollars in prisons and crime-fighting costs.

Likewise, there are more terrorists now than when the War on Terror was announced – after trillions of dollars were spent and millions of people were killed. The more the U.S. bombs, drones, and bullies… the more people join the fight against it.

Why fight wars you intend to lose?

Because it suits the Deep State.

The wars are just a way of marshalling support for a transfer of wealth and power from fly-over states to the suburbs of Washington, D.C. and New York. That is to say from the public… to the elite.

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $150

was off the board, prior to that it was - $130

[lamboguy]

now off the board

was democrats - $150

[horses4courses]

There's a lot of -2.00 on the Dems with the Euro books.
They never went below -1.50.

Imagine that free money @ +1.625 on the GOP :eek:

[davew]

Jaime Gold says bet both Clinton and Trump for the sweet spot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXg18tP9R_E

but what if they break through the gate and get scratched?

[horses4courses]

Imagine that free money @ +1.625 on the GOP :eek:

Oops...........make that +1.75 :)

[lamboguy]

still off the board with thegreek.com

[Redboard]

Paddy Power- Thursday, March 03, 2016

Hillary Clinton 1/2
Donald Trump 9/4
Joe Biden 14/1
Marco Rubio 16/1
Bernie Sanders 25/1
Ted Cruz 33/1
Michael Bloomberg 40/1
John Kasich 80/1
Paul Ryan 80/1
Mitt Romney 200/1
Ben Carson 325/1

I’m starting to think that Bernie Sanders might be the overlay here. Say Hilary does get tagged for her email security issue and has too step down, and the republicans are still tearing at each other’s throats. The only problem with this thinking is that Bernie won't have enough delegates to put him over the threshold and the might get bypassed.

[ReplayRandall]

Paddy Power- Thursday, March 03, 2016

Hillary Clinton 1/2
Donald Trump 9/4
Joe Biden 14/1
Marco Rubio 16/1
Bernie Sanders 25/1
Ted Cruz 33/1
Michael Bloomberg 40/1
John Kasich 80/1
Paul Ryan 80/1
Mitt Romney 200/1
Ben Carson 325/1

I’m starting to think that Bernie Sanders might be the overlay here. Say Hilary does get tagged for her email security issue and has too step down, and the republicans are still tearing at each other’s throats. The only problem with this thinking is that Bernie won't have enough delegates to put him over the threshold and the might get bypassed.

The Joe Biden number really caught my eye.....HMMM, wonder what's brewing??

[barahona44]

The Joe Biden number really caught my eye.....HMMM, wonder what's brewing??
Same as before,Plan B if the Hil gets indicted.I think the Democratic brain trust wants Sanders less than the GOP wants Trump as nominee, but they'll never say so.Uncle Joe is a good soldier and would be the only 'name brand' Dem available if it comes to that.

[ReplayRandall]

Same as before,Plan B if the Hil gets indicted.I think the Democratic brain trust wants Sanders less than the GOP wants Trump as nominee, but they'll never say so.Uncle Joe is a good soldier and would be the only 'name brand' Dem available if it comes to that.

Seems like there's more to it, meaning it looks like some "bettors" might have info about the legal problems of Hillary, that is not privy to others.....I smell smoke.

[horses4courses]

That free GOP money gets even cheaper.

Euro books generally going +2.00 on a Republican president,
with +2.25 starting to appear - ooooohh bowyaah :eek:

You Trump fans better get ready to send it in.
Free money.....free money!!!!!

Oh, and by the way, the dollar hasn't been this strong in years.
(No thanks to our current administration, of course)

:lol:

[Redboard]

That free GOP money gets even cheaper.

Euro books generally going +2.00 on a Republican president,
with +2.25 starting to appear - ooooohh bowyaah :eek:

You Trump fans better get ready to send it in.
Free money.....free money!!!!!

Oh, and by the way, the dollar hasn't been this strong in years.
(No thanks to our current administration, of course)

:lol:
What do you like about the democratic party platform? Please explain.

[horses4courses]

What do you like about the democratic party platform? Please explain.

I'm merely the messenger here - quoting current odds.
There are many around here who regard those odds as a steal.
The proverbial "taking candy from a baby". ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, with the way the conventional wisdom has been dead wrong so far this year, perhaps this is the year where the bookies get it wrong as well.

[Rookies]

"Trump was asked whom he is talking to on foreign policy. His reply — I kid you not — was: “I’m speaking with myself … I have a very good brain.” :lol:

Well, that explains a lot — and confirms that he consistently lies to the voters and treats endorsers like dirt. On a more fundamental level, this is frightful. “Actually I think entrusting the nuclear ‘football’ to someone who admits to talking to himself for guidance on foreign policy ought to give every sentient voter pause,” observes former ambassador and well-regarded foreign policy expert Eric Edelman. “Whatever else one might say about Sen. (Ted) Cruz, he has gladly received and listens carefully and respectfully to foreign policy advice from actual subject matter experts.”
Washington Post

A buffoon madman auditioning for his own Late Night Klown caricature!

You simply can't make this sheeite up! :bang:

Drink up. It's St. Paddy's Day.
Time to get my action down at Paddy Power, before Hillary is 2-5. 🍻🍀🇮🇪

[PaceAdvantage]

Better get this out now while you can I guess.

They only announced the Jeff Sessions thing last night.

[thaskalos]

I'm merely the messenger here - quoting current odds.
There are many around here who regard those odds as a steal.
The proverbial "taking candy from a baby". ;)

As you well know...it's the bookmakers who drive the nice cars...while the bettors are lucky to scrape up bus-fare. :)

[lamboguy]

thegreek.com still has this election off the board while other outfits have a line of Democrats - $220. but those other outfits are only taking limited wagers or matches, something like $300. the greek will book heavy money from larger customer's up to $50,000 per bet. that is why they don't have this up right now. and also why i don't put to much stock into the other places that have the line up.

[horses4courses]

Well, with the way the conventional wisdom has been dead wrong so far this year, perhaps this is the year where the bookies get it wrong as well.

You could be right about that.

They were not very accurate on the last UK general election.
That's because they base their line on polling experts,
and then alter the odds as money dictates.
They were way off on that one regarding the margin of victory
for the UK Conservative Party. Not even close.

I'm suspecting they rely heavily on Nate Silver's outfit.
They were involved with the UK polling, and they messed up.
In 2012 in the US, though, their predictions were scary good.

There is no guarantee that Nate Silver will be spot on in November.
If he happens to get it very wrong, the UK books may take a big hit.

[barn32]

In Las Vegas anyway, when there is a big fight, the bookies make more money when the underdog wins. When the favorite wins they break about even or win a little or lose a little.

When Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson Jimmy Vaccaro cleaned up big time, because you had quite a few people betting huge money to win a little money thinking it was a sure thing.

So if Trump wins as a big underdog (at least he was) the bookies will probably clean up.

VACCARO: "I was the only one who posted odds on that fight. Everybody who booked the Tyson fights at that time would just have a round proposition, over or under a certain amount of rounds. And I thought that was phony, because you can make the odds high enough to get two-way action. That's what line-making and bookmaking is all about."

GOM: "Right."

VACCARO: "I figured if there's a fight there has to be a number on it. I opened the Buster Douglas/Tyson fight at 27-to-1 and people jumped on Tyson. The first bet I took was for $81,000 to win $3,000. I moved it to 32-to-1 and the next guy bet something like $93,000 to win $3,000. And since we were the only place offering odds, everybody had to come to the Mirage if they wanted to bet."

GOM: "So you're not only getting action, but great publicity."

VACCARO: "That's right. So, eventually it got up to 42-to-1 and by adjusting numbers to get two-way action, we were in a spot where if Tyson lost we could win $104,000 and if Tyson won we would gain $3,000. So we had no risk in the outcome and great publicity with every news outlet in the world coming to the Mirage. And after Tyson lost, we were the only place that could talk about it because we were the only ones who had odds on the fight."

In the world of Las Vegas sports wagering, there's no such thing as a "sure thing." Never was that old adage truer than on that February night when the 42-to-1 long shot shocked the world by knocking out Tyson in the tenth round to become the new heavyweight champion. One bettor had placed $1,500 on Douglas at 38-to-1 for a $57,000 payday.


Link (http://www.gamblingonlinemagazine.com/general-interest.php?articleID=323)

[horses4courses]

In Las Vegas anyway, when there is a big fight, the bookies make more money when the underdog wins.

That is completely untrue.

Tyson/Douglas was just one fight.
It was very unique with regard to wagering.
Lines that are that high and lopsided are seldom put on the board.

I booked fights for legal bookmakers for over 20 years.
Generally, the book was a loser on the underdog.
Not always, and never for very much,
but we usually needed the favorite to win.

Why?
Because when the public bets a fight, they are attracted by a bigger payoff.
Serious bettors aren't afraid to bet a heavy favorite in a fight if the line is good for them.
The public? No way. They love getting higher odds.
Very often, they would rather root for the underdog, anyway.

Like Jimmy Vaccaro says, it's good to get two way action.
Best to have a win on either fighter.
Unless you have high volume, though, that is seldom the reality.

[lamboguy]

democrats - $210

republicans +$170


was off the board, prior to that it was democrats - $150

[horses4courses]

democrats - $210

republicans +$170


was off the board, prior to that it was democrats - $150

Think they got bet up to there?
Or, are they following Europe?

[horses4courses]

Anyone upside down on their GOP futures?

Don't be afraid to PM.....everything is negotiable. :lol:

[lamboguy]

my guess would be that since Hillary is a cinch to be the democratic nominee, there is no cinch yet on the republican side. the chances of Cruz or Romney winning the presidency is probably more than 200-1. those options still exist within the republican party now.

i am sure you will see the line tighten up this summer after the republican nominee is picked.

[barn32]

At -210, I think the line is about right, for now. If you look at my Presidential map thread, making the democrats a 2-1 favorite appears to be somewhat off. Maybe 6-5 would be more accurate--at this point in time.

However, as someone above said, once a republican nominee is chosen and the race becomes one on one, things will change. It will definitely tighten.

The state by state polls will be democrat vs republican and then you will get a much better picture of the true odds.

I also find it interesting that very few (if any?) democrats have posted an opinion in that thread. I mean it is pretty much a fact that there are certain states that neither party can win. And then there are the battle ground states which either party could win.

Remember you can lose the general election vote and still win in the electoral college. Those polls showing Hillary way ahead of Trump are not taking into account the electoral college--just the popular vote.

[Does anybody here have access to William Hill presidential odds? I tried googling them, but if you are from the US you can't get access.]

[lamboguy]

they have polls today saying that in the hypothetical match up of Trump and Clinton, Trump only gets 38% of the likely voters. the poll is probably spot on right now, but how come the line in not 5-1 like one would think?

i called my friend that has access to his very own democratic internal poll in massachusetts and he is telling me that this election has a phenomenon that has never happened before. there are people that fall under the category of unlikely voters that have either never voted or have not voted in the last 30 years that are going to be coming out to vote in this election. my friend is telling me there might be something like 400,000 people that fall into that category in massachusetts alone. he says that something like 80% of those will vote for Trump. i am not so sure that this category will come out to vote for Cruz or Romney or whomever the republicans try to put up instead of Trump.

[zico20]

they have polls today saying that in the hypothetical match up of Trump and Clinton, Trump only gets 38% of the likely voters. the poll is probably spot on right now, but how come the line in not 5-1 like one would think?

i called my friend that has access to his very own democratic internal poll in massachusetts and he is telling me that this election has a phenomenon that has never happened before. there are people that fall under the category of unlikely voters that have either never voted or have not voted in the last 30 years that are going to be coming out to vote in this election. my friend is telling me there might be something like 400,000 people that fall into that category in massachusetts alone. he says that something like 80% of those will vote for Trump. i am not so sure that this category will come out to vote for Cruz or Romney or whomever the republicans try to put up instead of Trump.

The Fox News poll just released has Hillary beating Trump 49-38, however, Cruz beats her 47-44 and Kasich beats her by 11 points. Are you sure you didn't miss type and say Hillary will get 80% of those new voters. :bang:

[lamboguy]

The Fox News poll just released has Hillary beating Trump 49-38, however, Cruz beats her 47-44 and Kasich beats her by 11 points. Are you sure you didn't miss type and say Hillary will get 80% of those new voters. :bang:nope, i am getting my info from a guy that is a top gun in her nationwide campaign. he thinks she is big trouble against Trump.

[horses4courses]

Ladbrokes currently list Trump @ 5-1 to be the next president.

[davew]

nope, i am getting my info from a guy that is a top gun in her nationwide campaign. he thinks she is big trouble against Trump.

I think she is in big trouble against the FBI as well.

[betovernetcapper]

Hillary Clinton
4/9
Donald Trump
5/1
Bernie Sanders
10/1
Ted Cruz
16/1
John Kasich
16/1

I'd say the top two are non starters. Given that my bet would be

$44 on Sanders & $28 each on Cruz & Kasich which would be a net $344 if correct. :)

[Rookies]

Hillary Clinton
4/9
Donald Trump
5/1
Bernie Sanders
10/1
Ted Cruz
16/1
John Kasich
16/1

I'd say the top two are non starters. Given that my bet would be

$44 on Sanders & $28 each on Cruz & Kasich which would be a net $344 if correct. :)

Will Hill has:
Raphael @ 20-1
Kasich @ 22-1
Sanders ... same

For the Republican nomination, only:
Cruz @2.75-1
Kasich @5-1
Ryan @20-1
Mittens @ 66-1

Hmmmm... I like the Pugs nomination better.

[Valuist]

That is completely untrue.

Tyson/Douglas was just one fight.
It was very unique with regard to wagering.
Lines that are that high and lopsided are seldom put on the board.

I booked fights for legal bookmakers for over 20 years.
Generally, the book was a loser on the underdog.
Not always, and never for very much,
but we usually needed the favorite to win.

Why?
Because when the public bets a fight, they are attracted by a bigger payoff.
Serious bettors aren't afraid to bet a heavy favorite in a fight if the line is good for them.
The public? No way. They love getting higher odds.
Very often, they would rather root for the underdog, anyway.

Like Jimmy Vaccaro says, it's good to get two way action.
Best to have a win on either fighter.
Unless you have high volume, though, that is seldom the reality.

You are exactly right re: boxing. I've heard several sportsbook directors saw that the public doesn't want to lay 400 to win 100. Its one sport where the public loves to play the underdog.

[betovernetcapper]

Unfortunately Will Hill won't take US bets, but if looks like a gift.

[Redboard]

Paddy Power- Thursday, March 03, 2016

Hillary Clinton 1/2
Donald Trump 9/4
Joe Biden 14/1
Marco Rubio 16/1
Bernie Sanders 25/1
Ted Cruz 33/1
Michael Bloomberg 40/1
John Kasich 80/1
Paul Ryan 80/1
Mitt Romney 200/1
Ben Carson 325/1

I’m starting to think that Bernie Sanders might be the overlay here. Say Hilary does get tagged for her email security issue and has too step down, and the republicans are still tearing at each other’s throats. The only problem with this thinking is that Bernie won't have enough delegates to put him over the threshold and the might get bypassed.

Paddy Power- Friday April 08, 2016

Hillary Clinton 4/9
Donald Trump 7/1
Bernie Sanders 8/1
Ted Cruz 10/1
John Kasich 20/1
Paul Ryan 33/1
Joe Biden 66/1
Mitt Romney 200/1


Hillary is still odds on. Bernie has almost caught Trump.

[lamboguy]

democrats - $400

republican's +$300


was - $210

[lamboguy]

Democrats - $360

was - $400

[lamboguy]

democrats - $ 300


was -$360

[lamboguy]

no change from the last time i posted this line.

still

Democrats - $300

i thought that with the public polls going in Trumps direction the line would have dropped to under 2-1. i suspect there are other variables in this election that we don't know about yet or maybe the betting public has got this whole thing opposite and has this thing wrong.

[Saratoga_Mike]

no change from the last time i posted this line.

still

Democrats - $300

i thought that with the public polls going in Trumps direction the line would have dropped to under 2-1. i suspect there are other variables in this election that we don't know about yet or maybe the betting public has got this whole thing opposite and has this thing wrong.

I track the odds at Paddypower and the GOP candidate has stayed at 9/4 over the past few weeks, too, even with the more encouraging polling data for Trump. Of course the overseas odds markers got Trump as wrong as I did in the primaries, so who knows.

[davew]

I track the odds at Paddypower and the GOP candidate has stayed at 9/4 over the past few weeks, too, even with the more encouraging polling data for Trump. Of course the overseas odds markers got Trump as wrong as I did in the primaries, so who knows.

Don't they move the line to balance action?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Don't they move the line to balance action?

I assume so, but not sure.

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $280

was - $300

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $200

was -$280 (yesterday)

[Inner Dirt]

democrats now - $200

was -$280 (yesterday)

Are the odds listed where you go in money line format or are you just seeing 1/2 (-200) and doing the math? I just go to oddschecker that shows about two dozen or so books and all of the odds are in tote board format or whatever you want to call that.

[lamboguy]

Are the odds listed where you go in money line format or are you just seeing 1/2 (-200) and doing the math? I just go to oddschecker that shows about two dozen or so books and all of the odds are in tote board format or whatever you want to call that.

its 2-1 for the favorite +170 for the puppy

i highly suggest that you pay close attention to the lines that i post here, they are 100% accurate. during the last election cycle i posted the correct prices as well, there were a few that ignored those lines and they are no longer posting on this board.

[garyscpa]

its 2-1 for the favorite +170 for the puppy

i highly suggest that you pay close attention to the lines that i post here, they are 100% accurate. during the last election cycle i posted the correct prices as well, there were a few that ignored those lines and they are no longer posting on this board.

Can they still lurk?

[lamboguy]

Can they still lurk?
i guarantee you that one of them got their eyes glued to these lines 24 hours a day. he learned his lesson last time, he trusted Fox News over thegreek.com!

big mistake

[Inner Dirt]

i guarantee you that one of them got their eyes glued to these lines 24 hours a day. he learned his lesson last time, he trusted Fox News over thegreek.com!

big mistake

Tough to admit but I made a bunch of over and under bets AGAINST Obama on electoral votes in 2012 with a friend who I had murdered on the previous NBA and NFL seasons. I had my foot on his throat to the point of thinking I would cut him a deal and let him pay me 25 cents on the dollar if he paid all at once in cash on what he owed. I TRUSTED Rasmussen Reports and they ended up the worst of the predictors. Needless to say Greg squared his tab. For the record I gave him Hillary at 4-5 before the primaries started this time. GO TRUMP!!!!!!!!! I haven't made many of them, but I think I have never won an election bet. My first loss was $50 to my step dad when Carter beat Ford.

[Dave Schwartz]

https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Pres16_quotes.html (http://)

Current: 59%-41%, Dem Pres.

Down from high of 76%-24% over the last 3-4 weeks!

[lamboguy]

Tough to admit but I made a bunch of over and under bets AGAINST Obama on electoral votes in 2012 with a friend who I had murdered on the previous NBA and NFL seasons. I had my foot on his throat to the point of thinking I would cut him a deal and let him pay me 25 cents on the dollar if he paid all at once in cash on what he owed. I TRUSTED Rasmussen Reports and they ended up the worst of the predictors. Needless to say Greg squared his tab. For the record I gave him Hillary at 4-5 before the primaries started this time. GO TRUMP!!!!!!!!! I haven't made many of them, but I think I have never won an election bet. My first loss was $50 to my step dad when Carter beat Ford.don't feel bad, i bet on Gore for Florida + 400 and lost a tough one.

[barahona44]

Tough to admit but I made a bunch of over and under bets AGAINST Obama on electoral votes in 2012 with a friend who I had murdered on the previous NBA and NFL seasons. I had my foot on his throat to the point of thinking I would cut him a deal and let him pay me 25 cents on the dollar if he paid all at once in cash on what he owed. I TRUSTED Rasmussen Reports and they ended up the worst of the predictors. Needless to say Greg squared his tab. For the record I gave him Hillary at 4-5 before the primaries started this time. GO TRUMP!!!!!!!!! I haven't made many of them, but I think I have never won an election bet. My first loss was $50 to my step dad when Carter beat Ford.
Betting with the heart and not the head rarely works out. :)

[Inner Dirt]

Betting with the heart and not the head rarely works out. :)

Isn't that the truth. Odd that I only do that with politics. I can easily bet against my favorite football team and basketball team if the time is right. On politics it is my hatred of a candidate that costs me betting against them. In my defense Obama even won the county I live in last time. I did not run into one person in the whole county saying they were going to vote for him a second time. Also driving around in this county there were 10 Romney posters on properties for every 1 Obama. It seemed all the Obama voters were hiding and afraid to admit who they supported.

[davew]

I found interesting ->


Hillary Clinton - Will a Federal Criminal Charge be Filed against her in 2016

Yes +270 No - 400

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $235

was - $200

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $290


was - $235

[horses4courses]

Dems are continuing to shorten to retain the WH.
Sharp bettors wager with their heads, not their hearts.

[lamboguy]

Dems are continuing to shorten to retain the WH.
Sharp bettors wager with their heads, not their hearts.
sharp bettors and dumb ones are usually wrong. i see it all the time in horse racing. betting the right price is the key to any type of betting including horses, sports, elections and equity markets. you bet bad numbers consistently you go clean.

[lamboguy]

democrats now -$250

was = $290

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $280

was - $250

[lamboguy]

these election lines are still very thinly traded. i had expected the democrats to go back to 4-1 favorites after the endorsements of Elizabeth Warren, and a popular sitting president. not that much of a bump in price considering the news, also the republican has been pretty quiet so far except for knocking a judge.

my prediction is there will be plenty of fireworks going forward and lots of volatility in the line. i highly suggest you do your own research before you place your bets on this thing and never pay to much attention to what the media and political experts are yapping out of their mouths, they are hardly ever on the right side of things.

[barahona44]

To quote Captain Obvious the debates will be when people make up their minds about Trump or Clinton.67 million people watched the first Obama Romney debate in 2012;I'm willing to bet at least twice that number watch the first Trump Clinton debate.

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $300


was - $280

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $360

was - $300

[lamboguy]

democrats now - $450

was - $360

[ebcorde]

democrats now - $450

was - $360

i THINK THERE'S A LACK OF REALITY AROUND HERE. BET THE LONGSHOT.