Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Peter the Punter on the US elections
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Peter the Punter on the US elections
It may seem a little early to focus on the US Elections – the Midterms are still a year away and the Presidentials are not due until November 2016 – but regular political punters will know the importance of reviewing the field early. US Politics have provided us with some of our richest pickings and it has often been the case that great value has been obtained by taking an early position.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Cheers for the article, Mr. Punter.
Tennis: may stop betting on this for a while. Of the last 5 tips I've had 2 losses and 3 withdrawals (meaning null and void). I seem to be cursing the players I back.
I think Elizabeth Warren is a good bet.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/8651771/
I haven't used the wood phrase, or heard it, but there's a fair bit of variety in Yorkshire.
They're easy to despise.
Ive heard the talk about the evangelicals in 2008 running the show, they picked McCain. I heard the talk of the Tea Partiers in 2012, they picked Romney.
Bottom line is the majority of the GOP primary voting base is fairly moderate. What the GOP need is centerism backed with personality and optimism to have a hope in hell of taking on Clinton and a good chance of taking on anyone else.
At this point the only card in that deck is the fat lad.
One note of caution on Clinton. Way back in 2008 Democratic primaries even started I flagged her divisive status and felt she was a very weak favourite, though hilariously in retrospect I thought that the likely answer was some middle of the road bloke called John Edwards.
As Secretary of State Clinton played stateswoman, a primary and presidential campaign is going to be back to the hurly burly again. There is a chance the recently acquired halo may get dented in that kind of melee. It happened before and its a possibility of it happening again.
It woud depend on who the GOP go for. If it's anybody sensible - Christie, Ryan, or Rubio, say - the Dems would be abandoning the centre and energising the GOP base. She'd be sure to lose then, I think, and therefore she would be a high risk choice.
Otoh, if they go for a whackjob - and they came fairly close to doing so last time - she could win. And that would delight the Democrat base.
She'd beat Ted Cruz, that's for sure, but then the office cat would probably also beat him.
It'll be Hillary, I think.
It needs to be remembered that one party winning the presidency three times in a row has become as uncommon as a party losing it after only one term.
Nor is it a coincidence that the only such occurrences since 1945 were connected - the one term Carter presidency being followed by three Republican wins.
So while those who were predicting Obama's defeat in 2012 were going against the historical pattern it will be much harder than is currently assumed for the Democrats to win the White House again in 2016.
Time for a change is a powerful force, in particular in times as difficult as those we are now in.
But altogether a good and thoughtful piece from PtP.
2016 Presidential Nominee Jon Huntsman 1 100
Rand Paul Rep Nominee 10 34
I certainly hope our spooks are following the Frogs, Belgians and Germans closely; it is what we pay them for.
I accept all the points you make but would throw in two pointers the other way - 1) the GOP is a seriously divided Party and 2) Clinton would be an unusually strong candidate.
I think these counterbalance your points, but maybe yours will prevail, and maybe that's why the odds on a third Democrat win appear generous to me.
You might want to check out what France has done in the past.
"The trouble with russellbrandism, in one easy-to-understand afternoon session. The energy company bosses were lined up in front of the tribunes of the people for their ritual, cathartic humiliation, and failed resolutely to be humiliated. If Brand had been there, he would have disappeared into his self-combusting rhetoric, unable to decide whether to condemn the MPs or the fat-cat capitalists in the more colourful language."
"Americans are famously preoccupied by the health of their Presidents and from what I've recently seen of Hillary she's far from well. She looks something like Brian Jones circa 1968."
But can she play the harmonica?
Not sure I agree totally about Hillary. She ran a bad campaign last time. I think she'd be effectively waved through the Nomination this time, and would get strong support in the showdown. I also think she will have learned from her previous defeat.
No,I think it's all about health for Hillary. If she runs, she wins - the nomination, definitely, and the Presidency probably.
Btw, I will be emailing you about Irish Horses soon. You'll be interested in a recent development.
The Hilary question is quite simple: during her last months as Secretary of State she looked worn out and was reported more than once to being ill. I have heard that she is still having bouts of sickness. I don't think she will run. Although perhaps Chelsea might?
Why do we not hear screams of outrage from the lefties? Well, probably because he was a key advisor to Blair and Milburn on how the health service should be reformed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/exblair-adviser-simon-stevens-who-is-linked-to-us-healthcare-giant-is-new-nhs-boss-8899875.html
They really are two cheeks of the same arse, the only difference being that the Tories show more honesty in their intent.
Yes, the Nomination bet looks a fairly safe mid-range investment.
Health is always an imponderable but on recent evidence, she seems OK and has been making all the right noises. I think she's itching to run.
You have, Mike?
Do you have a source, or a link? Either would be invaluable.
Do you think that Warren is actually seen as that outside the main stream?
And the health... Could this be like betting on Big Bucks !?
Almost as funny as Clegg and the lib dems pretending they are pure of heart on the issue.
That was one of the specific questions I put to my friend in California. She was adamant. The Dems would love her, but know she's far too adrift of the Centre to be a winning candidate unless the GOP does something really stupid.
Similarly I asked her specifically about Hillary's health and she wasn't able to add to anything we do not all know from watching and listening to her on the News. Since my friend works at a fairly senior level for the Party, I think she would know more than most, and I trust her judgement. Of course she could be wrong, or even misleading me deliberately, but I'm inclined to take her words at face value. She's not let me down before.
Of course if anybody here knows better AND can quote a reliable source, I will extremely interested. Meanwhile, I'll run with what I have and say that I think Warren is too far off the map, and Hillary will run, and win, anyway.
28 Oct
Hillary Clinton will be featured in a Q&A session at a Goldman Sachs conference tomorrow, via @maggiepolitico: http://politi.co/HcjEDJ
You may judge how she looks if you tune in over the net. That is if she turns up.
That made me laugh out loud. If only she were as reliable as Big Bucks!
You need only glance at the polls on Realclearpolitics to see how highly she is now rated. She beats all the GOP possibles in straight match-ups, mostly by large margins.
Of course that doesn't make her a shoo-in, but it's a better start than Big Bucks ever got!
More off the map than Obama was in 2006?
To my mind the outstanding bet here is the 3.5 (5/2 if you must) from William Hills about a female winner. (I'm on at 4.0, from a while back). To put that in perspective, that matches or beats the odds you can get on Hillary from any bookie other than Betway's 3.75.
The reason I think this is such an outstanding bet is this: either Hillary runs, in which case it looks jolly good value, or she decides she's too old or that her health isn't up to the strain of running. In the latter case, what happens to her very well-oiled machine and her enormous following amongst the 'monstrous regiment of [rich] women' which is so powerful in the Democratic Party?
I'll tell you what happens - it moves to supporting another female candidate, with Hillary's blessing. I'm sure she wants to be the first ever female president, but, failing that, she'll surely want to be the enabler of the first female president.
And who knows, the GOP might also provide some value to this bet.
- Mike Smithson, "The Political Punter", Harriman House (2007).
Bush 2: No
Clinton: No but basically a tie.
Reagan: Yes
Eisenhower: No
Roosevelt: Yes
Coolidge: Yes
Wilson: No
I think the obvious conclusion is no particular conclusion.
What we can robustly say from the historical record is that either a Republican man or a Democratic man will win. But not a Green, or a Pirate, or a woman.
"You saw the GOP circus the last time. Well that might just look like as the serious sober discourse of intellectual heavyweights compared to what's coming if the GOP civil war hots up. "
Funnily enough, that echoes a remark my mole made during our hour long discussion. I edited it out, as she is a Democrat and I have to make some allowance for her talking her side up, but she's smart, very smart, and if it is right, we can all make a packet on this electin.
Thanks for this.
I haven't been following US politics recently so I didn't realise there were concerns about Hillary's health. Given these concerns I wouldn't be rushing to put money on her at this stage.
Nice to hear from you again, StJohn.
The health concerns go back a few years, but appear to have subsided more recently.
She is certainly looking fine, and her public appearances have increased sharply of late. Make of it what you will.
BBC Newsnight@BBCNewsnight25m
Labour's Graham Stringer: Ed Balls & Labour leadership misjudged party mood - should be campaigning for not undermining HS2 #newsnight
BBC Newsnight@BBCNewsnight26m
40 Labour backbenchers tonight told leadership that position on HS2 was untenable, @BBCAllegra has learned #newsnight
Yes, I particularly like that bet, for all the reasons you state, and one more.
Susana Martinez is a very interesting candidate on the GOP side.
Point being the establishment got their man in Romney the last time (as they did with McCain) yet that hardly stopped the GOP and indeed Romney looking far from moderate even though they did. So even if the GOP establishment do somehow get someone they are comfortable with in place then just how much pandering will they have to do in the process to make the GOP grass roots vote for them?
They either fight this out with the tea party to a definitive conclusion or they'll end up having to try to placate them yet again.
In fairness to many others, I should add that I think we are fortunate to have a lot of excellent US posters on here, yourself included, obviously.
I agree with you except as regards Ted Cruz. You can back him with me if you like!
[No, on reflection I do think he's a good trading bet at 16/1, but a future President?!......Shudders.]
Bush 2 - No
Clinton - No
Reagan - Yes, the exception that followed Carter's one term disasterous presidency
Nixon/Ford - No
Kennedy/LBJ - No
Eisenhower - No
Trueman - No
Do we see a pattern here ?
I think the obvious conclusion is that you don't like my obvious conclusion.
Sure, statistical patterns aren't laws of physics and sooner or later they break down.
But the 'time for a change' factor will be there and in 2016 the USA will increasingly feel that the tides of history are flowing away from it, continuing stagnation of the incomes of middle America and very possibly another recession.
This widespread idea that all the Democrats have to do in 2016 is 'turn up and win' is as crass and misplaced as the widespread idea that Obama was ever under any real threat of defeat in 2012.
Rob Wilson @RobWilson_RDG 27m
Balls & Miliband have handed HS2 and doing what's economically right for our great northern cities to the Conservatives? Thank you.
John Hickenlooper doesn't seem to want to run but may be just avoiding the Hilary behemoth (he's being talked up as a VP pick I believe) and seems to have a lot of other things going for him.
1.) He's a personable governor who's worked with Republicans in his state (Colorado) and so could probably run a decent 'I'm the man to sort out Washington' campaign.
2.) Until recently he had brilliant approval ratings in a not necessarily true blue state.
3.) Those approval ratings have dropped partly because he's put through a more liberal agenda on issues the Democratic base care about, such as gay marriage and gun control, but is still popular with business and is seen as a relative moderate.
He might be the man to be Hilary's VP pick, or if she can't/won't enter the race, a decent match for a non-whackjob GOP candidate if party moderates think that Warren or G'brand will lose by being to LW, Biden is too old and O'Malley is too much of a risk (he's from Baltimore gentlemen...).
Currently way out in the pack but seems a better bet than some of the other long shots trailing in Hilary's wake. May be worth a look if you think Hilary's not going to jump in.
I would suggest thought that the GOP have a habit of picking the establishment candidate so we're likely to see another politcal moderate.
And is Hilary really that strong a candidate ? She was defeated by Obama despite all the advantages she had then and she is now clearly someone on the downward slope.
Remember in 2012 a candidate as weak, uninspiring, gaffe prone and drawback filled as Mitt Romney got close to winning against Obama. By rights he should have been smashed as Mondale, McGovern or Goldwater had been.
In 2016 we're likely to see a superior GOP candidate, a weaker Dem candidate and a 'time for a change' background.
Of course the elections is over 3 years away and much will change in the meantime.
But if I might be so bold as to suggest to such a veteran political punter as yourself, the smart betting might be to bet on a GOP win now at odds against and then on a Dem win at odds against when events cause the odds to shift.
The really smart betting will be to lay every 'flavor of the fortnight' potential GOP candidate.
But I don't think this is likely. I am very much of the Yokel school of thought. The GOP invariably picks the person most likely to win, however much its supporters may flirt with exotica.
I think they'll go with Christie, but Ryan or Bush would be sound alternatives.
Daily Mail - Bitcoin investor who forgot he bought £17 of the currency checks four years later to find it is worth £551,000
"I would suggest thought that the GOP have a habit of picking the establishment candidate so we're likely to see another politcal moderate."
I call this The Yokel Line, and I'm a fully paid up subscriber.
I appreciate also the notion of backing the outsider and letting the usual fluctuations green your book. Not sure though that the GOP odds have peaked yet. The Party seems at sixes and sevens.
We'll know a lot more after the next round of the debt crisis in January. It could be that will be the start of the big GOP comeback.
Baltimore, eh....? Tell me, does that count as 'East Coast Establishment', (a minus point in the eyes of many voters)?
Lest we forget Obama didn't just squeak it in 2012 against Romney. He won with the same kind of figures the GOP establishment were touting as a landslide win for Romney if he had received them. Of course that was while they were still in full denial of the polling.
Not that 'our great northern cities' have any electoral relevance to the Conservative party.
Whoever Rob Wilson is, he evidently doesn't know that Stalybridge and Stocksbridge are where the Conservatives need to get votes, not Manchester and Liverpool.
For Rob Wilson's information Stalybridge and Stocksbridge are grim factory towns on opposite sides of the northern Peak district.
They have neither football teams politicians pretend to support nor restaurants politicians would like to eat at.
But they do have the votes the Conservatives need to win an election.
Lest we forget Obama didn't just squeak it in 2012 against Romney. He won with the same kind of figures the GOP establishment were touting as a landslide win for Romney if he had received them. Of course that was while they were still in full denial of the polling.
Thanks Mick. That's a very helpful article.
My criticism would be that half those names would be anathema even to moderate Republicans, so would be very risky choices against a normal GOP Nominee.
My bookmaker prays that it is not Gillibrand. I don't think it will be, but it's nice to see him sweat!
Portman? Walker? Martinez?
Not sure.
In 1980 Reagan was 'next in line' and because of his family background so was GWB in 2000. As was Romney in 2012.
Following this logic Ryan might be more likely than Christie.
But there wont be an 'extremist' GOP candidate - all the potentials (plus their supporters) would prefer to bicker among themselves than unite behind one man.
I think it has fragmented, and some fragments are extremely vocal. The core GOP is though more or less where it has always been, which is why I think it will pick a strong candidate again.
But then again it might not.
O'Malley is already practically starting a campaign, even setting off for New Hampshire already, but is unlikely to go the distance I think precisely because he's a former Baltimore mayor.
Not wishing to cast aspersions on Mr O'Malley, but rather like with someone such as Rahm Emanuel in Chicago at the very least it would give the Republicans and Dem opponents plenty of opportunity to attack him (even unfairly) should he look good and there will obviously be a major incentive to dig into things during his time as Mayor no matter how spurious.
IMHO it makes him even more of a long-shot than he already is, with better outside bets for a Hilaryless primary being those who can run relatively anti-politics campaigns as Christie is seemingly sure to do. The problem for the Dems is that there aren't many governors of reddish states with great approval who can do so, and given Congress' approval ratings perhaps this is why O'Malley even thinks he has a hope.
If anybody wants to email me direct, I'm at arklebar@gmail.com
Cheers, and sleep well.
Aside from being beaten by Obama in 2008 despite all the advantages she had her Senatorial record is far from impressive as well.
In 2000 she won in New York by 55% to 43% - sounds good until you discover that on the same day Al Gore won in New York by 60% to 35%.
In 2006 Hilary was reelected emphatically by 67% to 31% - sound good until you discover that in 2004 (a much worse year for the Democrats nationally) Chuck Schumer won by 71% to 24% and that in 2010 (a very bad year for the Democrats nationally) Schumer won by 66% to 33%.
Effectively Hilary needed a landslide Dem year to get the same result as Schumer got in a landslide GOP year.
Doesn't suggest Hilary is this electoral powerhouse does it.
The site seems to be calmer when the discussion turns to American politics!
Where you'd have a point would be that if Obama gets shot or quits in a scandal, the historical precedents don't look great for President Biden's reelection.
Santorum's a joke who hasn't been elected to anything since 2000, its yet another example of how weak a candidate Romney was that he took so long to beat the rabble in the primaries.
The GOP – the struggle between the tea party wing and the mainstream party goes on, and until it’s resolved things don’t bode well for them. I don’t think it really matters who they nominate – the internecine civil war over the shutdown shows the wounds are still deep.
Obamacare.
It’s difficult to predict this one, although the effects are subtle and just beginning to affect most folks overtly. The Affordable Care Act has always been unpopular and remains so.
The healthcare.gov website issues, although embarrassing for the Obama administration, may yet turn out to be short lived.
Letters – literally, well over a million at this point – went out on October 1 from insurers to insured informing them that as of Jan 1 their policies have been cancelled due to the policies not meeting Obamacare coverage requirements. More will follow soon.
Also, the great retraction has begun – more and more companies and small businesses have made the choice not to go above 49 employees, to limit employees working hours per week to less than 30, and also to cease to offer health coverage to their employees. This is particularly the case in businesses such as restaurants. The advice to young people is to pay the fine and don’t worry about coverage other than catastrophic. Get real – if you were 25 would you buy health insurance or a nice new iPhone? My former business partner is a CPA and sees companies doing this first hand.
By 5pm on October 31st, members of Congress and Senators have to designate members of their staffs as either official or unofficial. Staffers designated as unofficial will remain in the existing federal health care plan they have now, whereas those designated as official will be enrolled in the DC Health Exchange – Obamacare. Staffers of both parties are loudly voicing their desire to be unofficial.
They have good reason for wanting to keep their existing plan. One of the oddities of healthcare.gov is that nowhere does it tell you what the actual cost of your plan is – all you get to see is what you will be paying.
The bad news (well, latest bad news) is that under Obamacare most can expect to be pay more for their insurance than before, with copays and deductibles way up. The lowest paid will not, however.
I don't think there's any doubt at all that she's electorally stronger than in 2000/2006, or that she'll blow away any Democratic contender. I agree that the general election is much less of a sure thing, though she'd probably start as favourite.
The USA's world role, economic prosperity etc were totally different after that point to what had come before.
There are different patterns for earlier eras of American history and will doubtless be different patterns for future eras.
But it requires a major shock to the political system for these patterns to change - a civil war or a depression followed by a world war.
Certainly the loss of US hegemoney with the rise of China etc is likely to have electoral reprecussions in the USA.
But the electoral consequence of these effects in 2016 will make it more difficult for the Democrats to be reelected.
Obama of course at the time was saying repeatedly to all and sundry that if you like your health plan you can keep it.
Even the liberal media is now anti-Obamacare.
I have no idea what the effect of all this will be, but I doubt it's positive.
And the Dems aren't going to win Arkansas in 2016 whoever their candidate is and they are going to win in Illinois and New York whoever their candidate is.
Anyway time for bed - try to keep an open mind folks and not call the 2016 presidential election while I'm asleep.
With both Obama and Hilary vying for the nomination last time, they gave the whole Democratic movement a huge double boost with such a positive history making win win outcome for the party and the country. Every move Hilary made after Bill leaving Office until she throw her hat in the ring in the last contest screamed a very ambitious and focussed politician with real discipline who was running to a very strategically targeted political grid in the run up to the nomination race. Her big chance to become the first female Presidential candidate was 2008, she was just extremely unlucky to be up against the election machine that was Obama.
After two terms out of Office in the White House, and having failed to capitalise on their momentum following the last midterms elections with that very scrappy and disastrous Republic Presidential nomination race. Is the Republican party showing any signs yet of being in the mood to bury their divisions to get behind a more moderate and inclusive vote winning candidate? Or is the party's internal divisions and expectations still just too great for them to rally around a one size fits all candidate who might stand a real chance? Do they really want to run the risk of a replay of the last GOP nomination race, thus preventing the party from gaining any real positive momentum and therefore generating the kind of media excitement going into the Presidential race which could carry then all the way to the White House? Their behaviour in the lead up to, and during the subsequent Government shut down suggests a no.