2004 Election odds - Anyone got any advice?

[Clarkmeister]

The following lines are up and available for wagering at Pinnacle Sports, an online sportsbook. Any of our many wise posters have any thoughts or advice?

2004 Democratic Nominee:

1. John Kerry +270

2 John Edwards +400

3 Howard Dean +2500

4 Al Sharpton +10000

5 Richard Gephardt +180

6 Joe Lieberman +350

Also, the line on the 2004 Presidential Election:

Republican Party -187

Democratic Party +171


Any thoughts?

[Ray Zee]

id pick lieberman at 3.5 and the dems. at the price. bush can fumble real easily and show his true colors here. if iraq goes badly, the economy, or korea. he could be in the shiphouse. he already has made a large pop. of the country mad at him for violating the environmental trust.
if things go well he is a shoe in.

dont be too sure gore wont pop back in for a surprise effect if things look better for the dems. he vowed out because he didnt want to be a two time loser. and he can come back after the next election.

[J-Dog]

I am a liberal Democrat, political junkie, who studies politics for a living so take my opinion for what it is worth.

In response to Mr. Zee, I must respectfully desagree. Lieberman will absolutely not get the nomination. He is basically a Republican who is pro-choice and pro-environment. This is not good enough (nor should it be) for the party base.

If you want my advice, I think Kerry will win the nomination, so that is who I would bet on. He is by far the strongest candidate whether one is talking about domestic or foreign politics, and I think he will show this in the primary process. However, go ahead and stick $10 on Howard Dean. He is a very appealing guy as a McCain-esque "straight-talker."

Hope this helps!

[Ray Zee]

gee j, you are probably right he wont get the nom. but a repub. thats pro life and pro envir. isnt that what the country wants. way out on the liberal side while worthwhile doesnt have any support with politicians and those that give out the money.

[J-Dog]

I actually said pro-choice, not pro-life.

I think what the nation wants is always in the eye of the beholder. I was specifically referencing what Democratic primary voters want. However, it is my opinion that what the Democratic primary voters (myself included) want right now does coincide with what the nation wants. I think the country wants someone who will work multi-laterally in the War on Terror and someone who realizes how a sound economy and a sound environmental policy that work for everyone are wholly integrated with this multilateralism. I think that Kerry accomplishes this and I think my party will realize this and nominate him.

P.S. Ray, I am glad to know someone on this list would find being a liberal "worthwhile." /forums/images/icons/smile.gif I assumed everyone here would be pretty conservative. Take care.

[Dynasty]

As a former Massachusetts resident, I must warn you that John Kerry is a stiff. From a style point of view, the politician he most resembles is Al Gore. Despite looking good "on paper" (handsome, war veteran, etc.), Kerry hasn't got the Reagan/Clinton/Bush ability to connect with people.

That being said, Kerry has a big advantage over the field. Massachusetts democrats do very well in the early New Hampshire primary. Michael Dukakis won in 1988 and used it to build momentum to get the nomination. Paul Tsongas won in 1992 and was the last real challenger to Clinton before Clinton pulled away with his big win in Florida. Kerry will build his campaign around winning in New Hampshire. If he succeeds in winning New Hampshire, which I think he will, he should be one of the last two democrats standing. Kerry is a good bet to win the democratic nomination.

I was rather surprised at an Iowa poll which had Joe Lieberman ahead of the pack and Richard Gephardt doing relatively poorly. Given that Gephardt is from Missouri and won the 1988 Iowa caucus, I though Gephardt would have a big head start there. That may not be true. If Gephardt can't win in Iowa, he can't win any contests in the following weeks. Gephardt looks like a terrible bet. I think his day has passed him. He'll have to go on blaming Gore for losing in 1988.

Joe Lieberman may have a chance. Maybe all the Gore voters who felt they were robbed in 2000 will get behind him. I think he and Kerry will be fighting each other at the end and Lieberman will have the edge. He looks like a good bet.

John Edwards is a joke. Maybe he can get some name recognition in order to build a 2008 campaign the way Gary Hart did in 1984. This guy is just a campaign manager's pretty boy.

I don't know much about Howard Dean but I don't think he's got the resouces to run the campaign necessary to win the nomination.

Al Sharpton? Hahahahahahahahaha

Bet on Kerry, Lieberman, or both.

[J-Dog]

Dynasty--

Good post, but I'll have to respectfully disagree on Kerry's persona. He is definitely no Gore. I have seen him in many, many forums on television and think he is forceful, articulate and engaging. He's no Kennedy, but he does have some of that gravitas about him. He's no Reagan or Clinton, but he does seem a lot less slick than both of them. I think you will see that he will connect with "the people."

Best,
J

[Dynasty]

I've watched Kerry for 18 years- ever since he won his Senate seat. He's a stiff. He's not as stiff as Gore but he comes from the same mold.

[J-Dog]

I disagree, but we'll see come this time next year.

[HDPM]

"No Kennedy but has some of that gravitas?" Huh? No Kennedy could be said to have gravitas. Gravity when their cars or planes or PT boats sink in the ocean and they kill (or nearly kill) innocent people through incompetence maybe. Bobby was a hater and had petulence. But gravitas? Maybe Joe had some, but I don't call the ominousness of mobbed up brutal guys gravitas. I hate that gravitas word anyway. It's a bizarrely applied and used word. OK, after my by rote anti-Kennedy rant, on to the more interesting question of Kerry.

I am not a Kerry follower particularly and am pretty far right on a few issues. I am also not big on the "man of the people B.S. But Kerry comes off very bad to me. The look and hair coupled with his pompous voice is like the furthest thing from "man of the people" I can imagine. And he doesn't strike me as particularly distinguished either. (Although there aren't many senators who do as ide from him, so maybe it's just me.) His latest gaffe where he slams Austin and Dubuque is pretty bad too. He is trying to spin it as a dislike of whoring for money (which it may in fact be) but it didn't look good. I am also wondering how the 60 Minutes war criminal bit is going to play. Particularly to the Democrat base. I have not seen that made an issue yet. Maybe it won't be, I don't know. But it will look bad if we're in bombing the crap out of Iraq and he gets tarred as a deliberate baby killer.

I think Bush could easily stumble and blow the election, but I can't see a democrat that I would pick over him now. As far as the bet goes, I'd take the democrat to be named later and the odds. Kind of like Clinton's out of nowhere win in '92. Lieberman seems OK, except with his big head and Marvin the Martian voice, all I can hear is Marvin the Martian saying "I will tax the Earth to death...." I don't see him getting out of the primary, and I am sorry to say anti-semitism might hurt him in the general. Sad but true I suspect.

The next couple of years are going to be interesting. Not a good thing. Bush could have 25% approval ratings or 85% at the election. Things could be totally in the toilet. I just think the world events make this an impossible election to predict.

[Wildbill]

First of all its rather foolish to bet it now 2 years from election time. Leaving money out there to be collected in Nov 2004 doesn't seem that great an idea.

As for the sides, only thing I see has any value is Republicans at under 2-1. The Dems are a joke and still need a cycle to get where they can fight for an election. Just looking at this field makes it quite clear they are in trouble. None of these guys will get an excitement in the party and most will just elicit another Ralph Nader steals some votes campaign. I think Edwards, for all his lack of respect, is the only guy that could hope to beat Bush barring some very unforseen catastrophe. He strikes me as the type of guy who could, if things fall right, become very Clinton-esque.

For all the party wonks and people that might think this guy or that guy should be President for their own personal views, this is an election and further here we are talking betting. Under these conditions, I think you would be foolish to expect anyone in the Dems camp that has any kind of record to win. Further lets not forget winners of the election in the last half century have been heavily tilted towards governors that didn't have Washington stains on them. That is Edwards' biggest problem to me. People just buy into the inside the beltway arguments against candidates. In fact its the problem of most except for Dean. I won't even consider Sharpton a candidate because that is obviously just for show. Lets face it Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman are all Congressional insiders for a party that has quickly blown away sizable leads in less than a decade. To think they can turn that kind of record around to an advantage is crazy. In the end it makes me think unless someone were to emerge outside of this group laying under 2-1 on Bush should be fairly easy money, if you don't mind leaving up your bet for 2 years.

[John Cole]

Dynasty,

Right now, according to local news (I'm from Mass., too), Kerry is working on his "stiffness" (whatever that is; some think a kind of intellectual disinterest, a good thing although it appears otherwise). His aides do see this as a shortcoming and figure that it may hurt him in places like Iowa.

John

[MMMMMM]

If we are "winning the war on terror" = + Bush (due to doing well vs. terror)

If we suffer another major terror attack = + Bush (due to fear)

If the economy is OK = + Bush (incumbent)

If we are in a war overseas = + Bush (unless this war is going terribly which would be - Bush)

If the economy really sucks = + Dems

Talk radio is also probably generating more Republicans = + Bush

[Ray Zee]

J, i did mean pro choice as well. sorry. and most poker players are conservative anyway at least until they get old and out of the racket.

[J-Dog]

You're thinking of Bob Kerry for the 60 Minutes report.

[Clarkmeister]

I think any war going on, whether it is going well or poorly is a positive for Bush. I just don't see us changing incumbants in the middle of a war.

And since I think Bush will time some sort of conflict to go along with the elections (cynical, I know), I think the Repubs at -181 is a solid bet.

[HDPM]

/forums/images/icons/blush.gif errr... yeah. Didn't see it only heard about it and don't pay a lot of attention to the Kerrys. D'oh. Ya got me. I can still keep the Kennedys straight enough to dislike tho.

[Clarkmeister]

Candidate - Open - Current

1. John Kerry +270 - +245

2 John Edwards +400 - +400

3 Howard Dean +2500 - +2500

4 Al Sharpton +10000 - +15000

5 Richard Gephardt +180 - +215

6 Joe Lieberman +350 - +310

General Election:

Republican Party -187 - -182

Democratic Party +171 - +167

So the forum accurately predicted that Kerry and Lieberman would take the money, as Gephardts odds have risen. However, the price on the Repubs has actually gone down. Ray Zee takes the prize on calling that one.

gl