Saturday, February 08, 2014

2016 Presidential Odds

I really, really miss InTrade. Looks like they are going to start up again, but after the last debacle, I don’t see how they can ever establish a level of trust that will get them really going again. I think that eventually internet gambling and the sure flow of revenue will get the best of all of the states (except perhaps Utah and maybe one or two others) and we will be able to place wagers from the comfort of our offices and homes. But that is certainly grist for another post.

For now, we only have the British bookies to lean on, and we don’t have futures markets; instead, we have straight up odds. Here is a look a the odds as of today for the next President:

Hillary Clinton – 7-4
Marco Rubio – 9-1
Chris Christie – 10-1
Jeb Bush – 14-1
Paul Ryan – 16-1
Andrew Cuomo – 20-1
Elizabeth Warren – 20-1
Rand Paul – 20-1
Martin O’Malley – 25-1
Rob Portman – 25-1
Bob McDonnell – 33-1
Condoleeza Rice – 33-1
Deval Patrick – 33-1
Joe Biden – 33-1
Mark Warner – 33-1
Rahm Emmanuel – 33-1
Susana Martinez – 33-1
Bobby Jindal – 40-1
Michael Bloomberg – 40-1
Scott Walker – 40-1
Amy Klobuchar – 50-1
Cory Booker – 50-1
David Petraeus – 50-1
Jon Huntsman – 50-1
Mike Huckabee – 50-1
Mitt Romney – 50-1
Rick Santorum – 50-1
Sam Graves – 50-1
Sarah Palin – 50-1
Tim Kaine – 50-1
Eric Cantor – 66-1
Evan Bayh – 66-1
Mike Pence – 66-1
Dennis Kucinich – 100-1
Herman Cain – 100-1
John Kasich – 100-1
John Thune – 100-1
Julian Castro – 100-1
Kathleen Sebelius – 100-1
Kay Hagan – 100-1
Mia Love – 100-1
Michelle Obama – 100-1
Newt Gingrich – 100-1
Rick Perry – 100-1

So, a few thoughts. I don’t live in a cave, but I am not a political junkie either. I listen to probably 45 minutes or so of financial news on Bloomberg every day on my drive to and from work, and they sprinkle in a news cast twice an hour. I also quickly scan a news website or two per day. So I don’t know if I am above or below average as far as my media/news consumption goes. With that disclosure, I have never heard of:

Martin O Malley
Deval Patrick
Susanna Martinez
Amy Klobuchar
Sam Graves
Tim Kaine
Mike Pence
Julian Castro
Kay Hagan
Mia Love (sounds like a prON actress)

Your mileage will vary depending on where you live, but I would guess that most folks in the US have never even heard of at least a third of these candidates.

Rahm Emmanuel is on there? Michelle Obama? No way.

The Hillary! odds are daunting. She is the obvious front runner, but it is a LONG time from November 2016 and she can for sure do very poorly in any debate. Looking forward to the Benghazi hazing when the time comes.

I know who I would vote for in a heartbeat and most regular readers of this blog can probably make an educated guess as to who that would be, but I don’t want to taint the conversation with my pick. Lets hear your thoughts on this list of odds.

Cross posted at ChicagoBoyz.

7 comments:

Gerry from Valpo said...

It is way to early to pay attention to this. As always I will support whoever comes closest to being a true constitutional conservative.

BTW, Mike Pence is the Indiana Governor. He meets the above description. No way he will be in the mix.

The media will try to destroy anyone opposing the Hildebeast in the next election so it will be interesting to watch.

Dan from Madison said...

The media trying to tear down whoever challenges the Donk is already baked into the pie at this point. I think that most straight thinkers know this. The question is how many straight thinkers are left.

Carl from Chicago said...

This is interesting. Kind of like looking at sports bets.

Conceptually - are you looking at this from the perspective of "do these odds reflect the actual odds of winning for candidates" or "does this seem like a crazy bunch of people?"

On odds, I guess you have to think about the recent presidents and what the odds would have been against them.

- Bill Clinton - was an unknown. The Dems didn't run because they thought elder Bush was not going to lose after first Iraq war. He would have been 100-1 or not on the list

- Obama - another way out on the fringe candidate looking a few years back. He was a senator who barely got in through fluke circumstances with no experience

Thus I would say that given that there are so few elections and many of the ones elected were extreme outliers (Jimmy Carter would rank here, too) it makes sense to give heft to the back candidates and no front candidates should be anything like 4-1.

As to WHO these fringe candidates are, well that is a different story. I can't tell the nuts from the chaff. Palin was way out there and came from nowhere. The entire Repub circus last year was populated by unelectable nuts.

I do think that "real" politicians like your man could come in late and try to keep it simple and win. The problem is that the party primaries are a bizarre circus.

With both sides running circular firing squad party primaries, this year will be even more insane than usual. Remember, half the dems are mad at our current POTUS because he isn't nuts enough.

I would say that based on this preliminary analysis, no way should anyone be anything like 4-1 because the outliers tend to win A LOT.

But god knows who the right outliers are.

creakypavillion said...

First you have to explain what those numbers mean!
7 - for to 4-against? Or v/v? Then what 100/1 means - a $100 "for" for every $1 "con"?

They all sound unlikely. Besides, what Brits base their projections for Hillary, on Dem's media? Heh.

Carl from Chicago said...

These are the odds you get if you put down dollars in Vegas.

For instance I put $20 on Clemson to win the national championship in football at 50-1. If they win it, I get $1000 (less the house cut, so maybe I walk away with $950).

creakypavillion said...

So, that means the less number, the more probable? Because more people agree with this projection? Still, my objection to their prognosis for Hillary stands.

Thanks for you explanation I now feel myself equipped for a trip to Vegas!

Dan from Madison said...

The more the number, the less probable. They are saying that Walker at 40-1 is less likely to win than Hillary (pays 7 for 4 wagered).

"Conceptually - are you looking at this from the perspective of "do these odds reflect the actual odds of winning for candidates" or "does this seem like a crazy bunch of people?"" - I guess the answer to this is "yes".

I agree that an outsider could win still, but the guys at William Hill can't quite figure out who that is yet or they would probably have a number on that person.