Off Topic 2016 US Presidential Election

(Oddy/Dan: if there's no reaction to this after, say, a couple of days, could you take it down ? It's probably a minority-interest thread, the event's a long way ahead, and I wouldn't want it to die swinging in the wind).

******************************

I've contrived to make money on nearly all the last dozen or so US presidential elections by applying one very simple system. The ways of applying it have varied with circumstances, and have been considerably developed and refined with the advent of the exchanges, which offer both a much wider range of markets and a lot more time and wriggle-room to adjust a position.

The principle's quite simple: at some point after the pool of candidates begins to take shape, you pick the one you think is the most likely popular (and US media) favourite, wait till they're an unbackably short price, and then lay them. You then wait, possibly for a very long time, until the last ten days or so before the vote, at which time the two candidates will get much more closely priced than they have been.

Taking 2012 as an example (and they're not always this clear-cut) Obama was trading at about 1-6 in August, based on a general perception that (1) although he hadn't done particularly well, he hadn't been bad enough to be denied the chance of a second term (2) he was still going to keep the bulk of the non-white/non-male vote (3) Romney was just another wealthy middle-aged Republican, not likely to attract any floating or undecided voters, and a bit of a dickhead anyway.

Three days before the vote in November - admittedly affected by some extraordinary weather conditions along the Eastern seaboard - you could have backed Obama at 4-7 and either taken out the profit or had a bet to nothing. If I remember correctly, on the day itself, media pundits across the globe (including the so-called political editor of the BBC) were describing the contest as 'too close to call'. It wasn't, of course, but that doesn't matter - the only important thing is that the betting-gap narrows.

If this thread generates any interest, we can go into 2016 specifics more closely along the way. For the moment, I'll merely say that it seems unlikely that the Democratic candidate will be anyone other than Hillary Clinton (currently 2.06 to be next President). The Republican choice is probably more open to debate, but the Bush sphere of influence looks so wide (and so well-heeled) that most of the signs are pointing to Jeb (currently 4.6 for next President; 20.0 and upwards any others).

To close, a couple of general observations for debate. First, US popular opinion, like most of the developed world, seems to be moving to the right. Second, a widely held view in 2008 was that America might possibly elect a black president, but it would be a long time before it elected a woman; still applicable, you think ? (And if it's true that the Clintons have between them acquired about 100 million dollars in the last few years, would that endear them to the traditional Democrat voting base ?)

 

The true test of media influence will come with the regular appearances of the man who wears his hair woven around his bonce like a sikh's turban.

 

News only; 'The Donald' made a short visit to his venture at the Turnberry Hotel in Scotland earlier this week. His TV interviews are a hoot. Asked if he supported Jeremy Corbyn for leader of the British Labour Party he replied in the positive!!!! Trying to think of a historic similiarity but having difficulty. Herr Schicklgruber supporting Mr Scargill comes to mind!!!!

Cannot wait to see the Republican Party debates!!!

 

How sharp a political operator is Donald Trump? I think his image is probably a fair reflection of the man, so it is hard to see the Republicans actually giving him the nomination. You could argue that, as a right-wing politician, he would be as delighted as the Conservatives to see the left-wing chose an unelectable candidate. If Corbyn wins the vote, there will be a Labour Putsch before Christmas.

Jeb Bush is bound to have the support of his brother Dubya for the Republican nomination because when he was governor of Florida the abuse of the electoral process orchestrated in that state got Dubya in the White House.

The Democrat nomination does look Hillary’s to lose. I am not that sure that having a big bank balance is too much of a problem in aspirational America. Whilst the Democrats are seen as the working man’s party, they are not seen as on the left politically like Labour is in the UK.

Looking at the betting strategy, there may be some mileage in it at this election if it does wind up as Clinton v Bush. The problem for the rest of us may be the possibility, as you say, that they will not vote for a woman to be Commander In Chief, which would mean a continuation of the disastrous Bush dynasty.

 

Trump at 16s is a bad bet. For a start I can't see him winning as he is an absolute cock end, just ask the Balmedie residents near his golf course in Aberdeenshire. But most importantly, if the ridiculous happened and he did win, you'd have very little time to spend your winnings. Imagine him with the authentication codes to America's nuclear option. Crikey.

 

We should be on Betfair laying Trump at 20/1. He is getting lots of publicity because he is almost as gaff-prone as Boris Johnson and he can splash plenty of money to make sure he gets attention.

There is no way that he is going to get the traditional conservative Republican vote at the primaries and the T-Party vote will already have gone south because they will not like what he has been saying about their house cleaners and gardeners.

Bush on the other hand ticks all the boxes because as Florida governor he was perceived as conservative, he is a family man and his policies in office were very Republican. Bush needs to keep his mouth shut about climate change.

I do not think that Bush is a certainty for the nomination but he would definitely beat Trump in a head-to-head.

 

How could you ever contemplate gambling real money on an election in a country that voted in Reagan & Carter & Bush FFS

 

Jimmy Carter? Apart from being 'in charge' during the 1979 US Embassy siege in Tehran had a soft spot for my fellow 'socialist'. Has completed better and more productive 'work' since he was kicked out!

 

After leading then going head to head with Barack, Hilary fell over big time when she last went to the track. She started favourite but was swamped in the run to the post. Is her best campaign behind her now? From what I gather, the lady wants to paint herself as the people's champion, but image problems seem to be getting in her way. Is she a shot duck?

 

Maybe he knows people that are doing the count

 

Remember Florida!

 

Stick/Cyc/Dan/Kenny: yes, you're all right in your various responses. But that's (more or less) the point - I don't care who wins, or how, or even why. I just think that there's a built-in predictability in the market that can be exploited to advantage. In fact, it's fundamentally no different from any other market-punting: the trick is to buy near the bottom and sell near the top. The apparent edge in this particular market is that in the 72 hours or so before kick-off, the price-gap between the two candidates always narrows.

On the wider issue, I'm with all of you. How anyone can sing the praises of a 'democracy' that consists of an AvB choice between two heavily-buffed, massively sponsored, independently wealthy candidates will be something for future historians to ponder. Meantime, I just fancy a bet.

 

The whole thing is an object lesson in mass buffoonery. If it wasn't so bloody serious it would be funny.

 

What thread is this?

 

Look at the title................

 

What title?

 

Having great difficulty in associating a thread about John F Kennedy, George Washington, Franklin D Roosevelt et al with a stoopid c..t with an Arthur Scargill 'hairdo'.

 

.

 

God help me. This title, "The 2016 US Presidential Election". The lead-up to it is an object lesson in mass buffoonery. Just my opinion. If people find it entertaining, that's their business. I don't give a ****.

Bye for now, enough is really enough!

 

Sorry, Swan. If it's something I've said, done, suggested or implied that's upset you, then it was unintentional and I withdraw it.

But you must find something funny in two hundred and fifty million people all paying homage to the same sub-mythic nonsense. I'll accept that the process itself may not be an appropriate sphere for betting and, if the thread's got irrecoverably up your nose, I'll bin it (or ask Dan to).

On roughly the same theme, has anyone noticed how US golf commentators (step forward, Jim Nantz) when a PGA tournament is taking place in or around DC, can't bring themselves to use the word 'Washington' ? It's always 'Our Nation's Capital', dropping the voice a reverential octave to point up the implied upper-case initials.