US Presidential election 2016

Sunday nights opinion polls continue to show the effects of the Trump assault on Cruz in Iowa with anything between 5 and 11pt leads opening up on what admittedly are poor sample sized surveys

So I thought I'd start having a go at the Trump v's Hillary state by state using 270towin. This is what I got


Florida = Trump
Ohio = Trump
New Hampshire = Clinton
North Carolina = Trump
Minnesota = Clinton
New Mexico = Clinton
Wisconsin = Clinton

That leaves 231 Dem 253 Rep, but I'm startring to run into the ones I'm nervous about now.

Clinton struggles in Iowa, and the neo-Trump core is supposedly over represented there, so I'll back the hypothesis blind an go Trump. Colorado still tends to trend towards Democrat (despite John Elway). Nevada has been picking up some of California's richer population in recent years. Trump has a presence in Vegas, but it has a lot of low paid migrant workers and has been suffering water shortages due to climate change. Perhaps it's not ready for Trump yet

Iowa = Trump
Colorado = Clinton
Nevada = Clinton

So I've got it down to Virgina and Pennsylvania

If the DC sphere of influence keeps Virginia Democrat it's a 259 tie

To create some value in the punt though we need to call Pennsylvania for Trump, which would be enough for 279 college votes and the White House. If we say Pennsylvania goes Clinton though, we end up with a Democrat win and odds on. You have to put your faith in something to create the price, albeit it might be worth taking a saver on the state in conjunction with a more ambitious Trump spread. What might be tempting is if I've got Colorado and Nevada wrong though. If they break the otherway, Trump would get 294 votes and win by 50, which I suspect will be over the odds. It's more likely though that Virginia is the vulnerable one, and of the two out west, perhaps its Nevada that might swing Trumps way

That gives Clinton 253 and Trump 285

Basically, political markets should probably be treated as futures speculation. Bookies always price them up according to the situation now, so we're kind of looking for trends and issues we expect to frame the argument, and from this, try and extrapolate who will be favoured by the territory it'll be fought on. The spectre of ISIL won't go away. This, and the wider Muslim issue will feed Trump. He can promise all sorts of aggressive interventions, Hillary has to defend a record which history isn't being kind to.

We can also spot a trend that when Trump personalises his attacks he's seemingly blessed with the ability to damage opponents. OK, he's never been tested on a Democrat yet, but he's going to have fun taunting her about his previous donations to her campaigns, and how she comes scuttling along to his wedding with the begging bowl out

It's the economy stupid - we're seeing mixed messages here. There might be grounds for thinking things could look worse in 12 months time than they do today. There's a few pessimistic forecasts starting to rear their heads.

My suspicion is that things could well trend Trump, and we might see Hillary having to spend a little bit more time winning the nomination and fighting primaries than she expected to. Trump might have a clear field by Florida

OK we need to see evidence that Trump's vote is actually there, and he does have the capacity to blow out still and the whole thing could be one big spectacular joke that the American people were having on tthe establishment and the media, then again, he could be for real?

Incidentally, the BBC recently described the moderate Republicans of having formed a circular firing squad, i did read another account Stateside though that compared them to a 'demolition derby'. I quite liked the picture that painted of battered old bangers tearing round and round in circles crashing into each other and leaving nothing but scattered debris - it sounds about right

 
Last edited:
For anybody (like me) who still has a few nagging doubts about whether the Trump vote is soft, the man himself has answered them! If anybody is unfamiliar with Trump's M.O. incidentally, this obsessive rattling out of approval ratings (sales figures) is typical of the man. All to often he confuses opinion with fact. I'm still non-plused by his assertion that he has a 93% approval rating in Aberdeen (someone omitted the decimal point surely?)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...t_somebody_and_i_wouldnt_lose_any_voters.html

I suspect Trump is actually wrong though when he says he could shoot someone in New York and his vote wouldn't be affected. It would probably go up!

I've also been playing about with the four early states this evening for half an hour, and it's apparent since about October that there's a clear relationship between the 3 extreme right wing candidates and the rest of the field.

Cruz's vote rose as Carsons fell. Trump showed a small increase at the same time but his profile was generally speaking flatter. Now that Cruz's vote is coming under a bit pressure (it hasn't dropped on the same scale that Carsons did) Trumps is rising again.

Why is this significant? Well if you take the three candidates from about October onwards and add their totals up across the four states, they're nearly always hitting about 60% between them. The only thing that's changing is the distribution. Basically, the voters are changing horses, but critically, they aren't migrating to the moderates. The core vote for the rightists is always about 60%. Even if a moderate did come to the fore as an establishment candidate, and everyone got behind them, they could only muster 40% at the moment. They need to persuade those currently risiding in the Trump, Cruz, Carson, cadre to migrate, to win. This isn't happening yet though.

Basically as Carson supporters lost faith in their man, they continued to travel to the further reaches of the solar system and landed on the planet Cruz. As planet Cruz started to become less inhabitable they've boldly gone further out to the Kuiper belt and found that the planet Trump can support life forms. Planet Earth is through, and there's nothing I can do

This hasn't always been the case though. A check of the national polling suggests that in the summer of 2015 the moderates had the collective 60/40 advantage, so it would indicate that there's been a 10% swing to the extreme right. The three horsemen of the apocalypse have probably been cross pollenating each other, as until recently they were more reluctant to scrap amongst themselves. The moderates by contrast played silly buggers and addressed themselves rather than the perceived needs (fears) of the voters with the combined effect of mutually assured destruction

We might conclude that there is a soft underbelly to the GOP vote, but its narrowing and needs just about all of it to shift back on an eliptical orbit like a comet to affect the outcome. At the moment it looks like the horse has bolted and one of the right wingers will win the game of musical chairs.

Cruz has been able to attract Carson voters, and now Trump is seemingly proving he can attract Cruz voters, albeit not quite to the same degree. The moderates just don't seem to be capable of bringing the right wingers back. It's as if once they've ridden the storm front onto the extreme, they've completed the journey and undergone some kind of evangelical conversion to the dark side. Once there, they aren't returning. So the pool continues to expand with the variable factor being which camp they head to
 
Last edited:
I'd like to know if Warbler has ever been right about anything, despite his ability to write huge amounts of shite. I can't think of an occasion, but it doesn't come as a surprise to learn that he is advising local councils.
 
Allow me to help you then. I called the precise conservative majority wrong by just 2 seats (better than John Cuttice who the BBC were wetting themselves over) and everyone else who was saying it would be a hung parliament. You by contrast failed to get just a couple of hand picked Scottish constituencies correct, and said they'd all stay Labour IIRC?

for Simmo's benefit (posted on April 3rd)

"Personally I tend to think that Conseravtives will sneak a small overall majority, with many of the undecideds breaking their way on the day."

(posted on May 5th)

"My own suspicion is that the undecideds will break for the Tories in the last 24 hrs and they'll just sneak a small majority"

and on Election day itself (May 7th)

"So I think the Tories get a small majority of 10ish"

I'll let you do the maths but here's the result

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015

I'm also reminded looking back at the thread that I've backed George Osborne at 20/1 to be the next PM, which although not a won bet clearly, considering that he's currently top priced 15/8 most people would consider it decent judgement. Another thing on the election thread that I just noted too was that you didn't know how to even calculate swing and had to have that explained when you suggest that 45% to 52% in a yes/ no referendum was a 7% swing! -

Personally, I'd prefer to write a lot of shite and be right, it's a better feeling -
 
Last edited:
Ignore him, mate, he's just a bitter little man full of resentment and nihilism.
One day he might just make a remotely constructive post .................. but I won't be holding my breath.
 
I'm starting to believe that Sanders might conceivably pip Hilary in Ohio. He's drawing bigger crowds to his hustings than Hillary. Even more than Obama was when Obama swung through the state last time.
Yeah, I think he could just have a squeak, but not convinced enough yet to bet him at the current 2.7
 
Hillary's supposed to have said whilst awaiting the 2008 result "they just don't like me in Iowa". She was beaten into third by John Edwards. Think of it like this, 71% of those who caucused in 2008 failed to support her. Now there are examples of beaten candidates going onto to decisive victories second time round, but they were incumbent Presidents (you might however be able argue that she represents the administration still and should get some rub off?).

The only candidate in the sample who stood twice as a candidate (not an incumbent) is John Edwards, who pretty well replicated his 2004 result in 2008 (32% down to 30%). Its probably misleading though as the dynamics in the field size then and now are very different

Bill Clinton basically sat out in 1992. It isn't necessarily natural territory for her.

Bernie hasn't got anything like the depth of funding she's got. He relies on 'Labor Unions' and she draws from the likes of Citycorp (about 10 times the war chest). Bernie has sunk a lot into the early states

I believe I'm correct in saying however, that Hillary's vote in 2008 would have been enough to win previous caucuses, but she lost because Obama was able to reach out and energise a whole new bloc. The story in 2008 was that of participation. If Bernie is eclipsing Obama then it's a proxy indicator of something. America hasn't really had a candidate like Bernie for .... well, I don't know, Hubert Humphrey?. He has a novelty value, but are his 'supporters' curious attendees wishing to learn more, or are they genuine American Corbynites?

I just sense there is a mood in America not to award Hillary the White House. She's perhaps craved it a little bit too much for to long. You stay in politics for so long and you inevitably end up alienating and upsetting people. You almost have to. It's unavoidable. She's been centre stage for nearly quarter of a century. I suspect there is an optimum time where by you are considered to have enough experience and a track record, before you become encumbered by baggage.
 
Last edited:
It's a pillar of betting that in order to be successful you need to find a way of going against the crowd, albeit 90% of the time that probably means 'no bet' in these markets. My own suspicion is that you need to look for societal nuance and issues that you think are likely frame campaigns and then try and forecast from this. I also think it helps if you're able to plug into human nature.

The other thing that effects a price is group conformity. Commentators report the snap shot on any given day, and pundits are reluctant to isolate themselves by making outlying predictions for fear of losing their credibility, or jobs! The consequence is that the herd also form prices based on opinion polls

To make money therefore you have to have the balls to go against the flow and risk ridicule in pursuit of a price (unless you're prepared to indulge huge stakes on short prices). Lets not forget though that we've seen both Corbyn and Trump make mockeries of opening shows of 100/1 in the last 6 months. Opportunities exist because 'favourites' are nearly always put up as unaminous opinion. Very little dissenting comment appears and therefore impacts on the other runners

Clearly one of the best weapons the punter has are back and lay arbs. I think that at the moment there is an opportunity for a Republican moderate to emerge from Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Christie

Rubio is the bookies favourite of this gaggle, but I'm not completely convinced. I suspect that campaign funds might be decisive here. I'd be inclined to try an investigate how much money Rubio has compared to Jeb (I don't know?).

Candidates withdraw when they decide that their objectives have been met and that they can no longer continue productively. They don't always withdraw the moment they realise they can't win. Some will stay in to try and gain leverage. To understand how the price might move therefore it can be very informative to work out the sequence in which they'll pull out, and equally importantly, how their displaced support will then migrate. There is a relationship between the two dynamics of course. Migrating support from X to Y can alter the sequence in which Z withdraws.

Long term does Rubio want to risk a series of public defeats? There's also the spectre of Florida looming. Will Rubio want to risk being defeated in his home state? I don't know. You could say the same about Jeb, but he's probably committed to this cycle. Rubio is young enough to draw stumps and have another go in 2020

There's a bit of me that wouldn't rule out Kasich shortening yet. So far as I can work out he has the best track record, and ticks both Ohio and Pennsylvania which the Republicans will need to carry. If the more thoughtful primary voters start to examine this kind of thing strategically, rather than those who are charged with emotion and personality influences, he could spring from the moderate camp yet. There's little reason to think he's going to be able to win the nomination, but he might have the capacity to match Jeb's price which is currently about 10/1 whereas kasich is 40's. I'm not sure he has the resources to stay in the race though? Having noted this, he becomes a potential asset to any ticket bringing currency from both these two swing states. Another reason why he might try and stay in the race. I'd be curious to know if he has any sort of relationship with Trump? On paper he'd be a strong running mate (8/1)

I expect Fiorina and Christie to be among the early casualties

I'm also wondering how much longer Carson can continue? He's very much a third player behind Trump and Cruz on the right wing. The polling evidence to date seems to suggest that Carson support switches to Cruz more than Trump on a ratio of 2:1
 
Last edited:
OK - I'm struggling to break the sod of a new project, so thought I'd have a quick look at the candidates finance instead, according to what they've filed with the FEC as of 30/10/2015 (the last accounting period). There's clearly some ambiguity here, as the official figures are occasionally at odds with those put up in the media, particularly with regards to Hillary and Bernie, who some commentators are crediting her with having 10 times his war chest. There's also the issue of personal finance rather than donated money a candidate can bring to the table, which significantly conceals Trump's spending capacity.

The first figure is what they've declared they've raised. The bracketted figure is what they have left by way of cash to spend ($ in millions)

Clinton $76.1 ($32.9)
Sanders $41.2 ($27.1)

Sanders is clearly richer than I'd realised

Carson $31.3 ($11.2) - hadn't realised how cash rich he was, albeit his finance director left 2 weeks ago
Cruz $26.4 ($13.7) - massive reliance on TX. Has "transferred in" $250,000 (I assume this is a personal donation from his own funds)
Bush $24.8 ($10.2) - has a strong following right along the east coast and raised twice what Rubio has
Rubio $13.6 ($10.9) - has a strong following in CA for some reason. Only other candidate showing a 'transfer in' of $175,000. Rubio's figures don't add up either, but I'm quite sure there's a perfectly good reason for this as I somehow doubt I've discovered a terminal case of malpractise!
Fiorina $8.4 ($5.5) -
Trump $5.7 ($0.25) - has a very solid state by state profile, but can supplement anytime he chooses
Kasich $4.4 ($2.6) - has a reliance on OH
Christie $4.2 ($1.3) - massive reliance on NJ

You would have think that Christie could drop out if he doesn't do well in New Hampshire. He's already had a quite public falling out with Trump over New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attacks and wouldn't be interested in serving him you'd think. I also doubt that Trump (a New Yorker) would put someone from New jersey on the ticket anyway

Fiorina could hang around a bit longer yet, as she might have aspirations to be someones running mate ticking the female and the west coast boxes. I think there was an assumption that she'd be angling for a trade brief, which means she'll withdraw and endorse when she thinks she's got that pledge from a credible candidate. The question they must be asking themselves though is are their prospects of a future run damaged by an association with Trump?

Bush has spent alot on TV without making much headway. I can see why the establishment are giving up on him. You suspect Jeb can go back to the well yet. His state by state profile is much more diverse than many

Carson's the one who surprised me. It's remarkable really that a retired neuro surgeon can raise more money in 6 months towards winning a nomination that the British conservatives spent on their entire campaign in 2015. He can stick around a lot longer yet on this figures from the end of September. Since then though his supporthas fallen away. We might see a different picture when they next have to file their returns
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I see he's caused a few stirs again. He's basically a tea party candidate, but the more and more he starts to fall out with the Republican party managers the more likely he'll be to run independently when he fails to get the nomination. Ross Perot all over again.

The bottom line is Trump's support has probably got a ceiling of 20-25% on it, and that's it. It means he can show up well for such time as there's a dozen or so candidates in the field, but as they drop out, their support will go elsewhere, not to the Donald
Click to expand...

Make up your mind. Two days ago you were calling him the winner. You can't have both ways.
 
Last edited:
Good try, but sadly not that good ... what i said 2 days ago was

"I always felt that Trump would do better than just about all the analysts who get paid good money to know these things were saying. I never considered his candidacy a 'joke' or 'side show' but I didn't really see how he was going to advance much beyond 25% which was my guess as to how much latent nastiness lay in the GOP. It was in early December that I began to realise he might be going to win the nomination, and its only in the last 10 days (subject to the vote being proven) that I'm coming round to the idea that he's going to win the whole shooting match"

I don't see any inconsistency. I've pretty well repeated the same figure and acknowledged that's what I thought.

I've gone on to lay out a time line for you as to how my view has altered. It's not difficult to understand. In fact I don't think I could have made it much clearer.

What I also said in early July was;

"I suspect he could do quite well, as he's going to plug into that aggressive conservative streak that a significant minority of American's have."

(a full month before this 'make up your mind' quote from early August 2015 that you've rather desperately had to dredge for)

But "do quite well" is a world away from winning, which is why I've never claimed to have been calling him the winner back in the summer. To be perfectly honest, I don't recall anyone predicting anything other than a farce back in the summer (he was 50/1 then). My "do quite well" was probably 'nearest the flag' if you want to play silly point scoring. The right wing candidates accounted for about 40% of the GOP at the time. My estimate 20-25% is an acknowledgement that I thought Trump would win the race within a race, but that was as far as he could go. Think of it as a victory for the latent nasties over the evangelical barmies

So to repeat it again, it was only in early December that I started to realise he was heading for the nomination, and only in the last 10 days that I've started to think he could go all the way, with the rider of course that we need to see some evidence that the vote is genuine and not just protesters (I stress the rider for now)

What I think has happened, (and I haven't really seen anything in the mainstream political commentaries that have picked up on this) is that in the space of 6 months he's actually made all the other Republican candidates unelectable by virute of insulting all their target demographics from a GOP platform. Sure the party have tried to distance themselves from him (even banning him from one debate that only saw his popularity rise for doing so). The problem the party have though is that they've been unable to divorce themselves from their association with Trump, and so the sense that his attitudes are embedded within the GOP has lodged. So all those strategies that the likes of Bush, Rubio, Christie et al have been cultivating for 4 years have been wiped out by Trump's bullying bombast. I think this is probably the result of the laws of unforeseen consequence however rather than any smart strategic move on Trump's part.

Its a double whammy though

The second hit comes from the fact that he's bringing marginalised Democrats, non-aligned, and apathetic can't be arsed's, into the Republican camp. These are the lower income, poorly educated, white, males, amongst whom his message is resonating. You might like to think of them as the 'taken for granted Democrats' - think Scotland and Labour combined with the phenomenon we know as the working class Tory if you want a loose paralell.

This has two devastaing impacts. Non of the Republicans had really planned to address this group, non are geared up for doing so, and non are on message. Trump gets first mover advantage on them. The ship has sailed. It has another consequence. Hillary Clinton has always been a bit flakey with this group herself. He's potentially taking votes off her, from a quarter that only he amongst Republicans can reach.

If he secured the nomination, then I've always said "all bets are off" because I'm particularly sensitive to the unpredictability that a major world event could throw into the mix should we encounter one between then and November. As I came to realise he could win the nomination, I started to to realise he could win the White House, but would need to rely this sort of thing happening to do so. I'm less sure he does now. I think he might win it through an attritional campaign of bullying, bragging, and belittliing. As I also noted, he appears to possess that most deadly of weapons, the ability to land blows on opponents once he starts to personalise a campaign. So far everyone he's targetted has ended up diminished. I wouldn't under estimate the importance of this, nor would I under estimate the probability that a lot of American's would like to see Hillary Clinton subjected to this type of attack and suffer under it

As ever with Trump though, there is the capacity for a spectacular piece of stupidity, or a fatal skeleton to come rattling out of the closet. We just don't know. Doubters will then be able to say "told you so" but right now they can't be confident that it'll happen. Even it did though, today he stands at even money for the nomination, and 7/2 for the Presidency. You could probably argue that he's already surpassed expectations and made a mockery of all those who confidentally predicted that America would universally reject him. Every time he does something that would sink a normal campaign, he seems to get a poll bounce. The normal rules just don't seem to apply to him

 
Last edited:
I think Alex Salmond summed it up best with his two tickets to Antarctica comment.

The fact that there's been so many Republican candidates has played into his hands really. It allows him enough cover in the debates to hide the lack of real depth in his policies whilst also being able to get in his mudslinging 10 second sound bites which all the news networks replay for the next 48hrs. At his fan rallies he can pretty much say what he likes, normally hollow promises to please the masses, knowing that he won't be questioned on it.

Obviously this guy has quite a few skeletons in his closet, you don't become so successful in business without it. I'm wondering if all shots have been fired at him from his past or have they fallen on deaf ears? Surely as the field narrows it will be more difficult for him to maintain the momentum he currently has. The spotlight will start falling on his policies and America will begin their due diligence to determine if this man is really suitable to run the country. The media are probably poised to run all sorts of stories on him but are waiting for public opinion to start turning. They're much better placed to do a hatchet job on him than any Republican candidate is.
 
Last edited:
The 2016 US Presidential Election has a chance to be one of the more interesting cycles of my lifetime from various unique fronts, but in particular the betting markets, who are dealing with significant amounts of uncertainty, largely because traditional polling models do not bring the trust they once did.

This uncertainty has led to some wild fluctuations, and the first test out of the gate, the Iowa Caucus, is quite an example. Less than two weeks ago Ted Cruz was trading as high as 1/3 off of some major media stories, now he can be found for as high as 7/4. Can you imagine that kind of swing ever taking place in the Sports Betting marketplace? This is going to leave some opportunities out there, and I believe there is one we can put into the pocket for small now – Ted Cruz at 6/4 or better to win Iowa. In what may turn out to be a coin flip, I believe this is more than fair value.

Why have the odds shifted in Donald Trump’s favor in the state? Largely because of his showing in the national polls, and also when those national pollsters have isolated Iowa, which has made headlines. But what happens when the polling comes from inside the state? Try this (http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2016/01/26/caucuspoll). Or if the polling is from a source that does not need to generate ratings, like here (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...rsity-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2318). But those polls won’t make headlines, though they may be closer to the reality, something not reflected in the current pricing.

I also believe this commentary from pundit Steve Deace may be on point. (http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-caucus-math-for-grown-ups/) Deace certainly has his biases, so like many members of the Mediaverse his views get taken with a grain of salt, but he also happens to be on the scene in Iowa, and there is substance to the way he breaks down the particulars. An earlier column by Deace also brought some logical food for thought – http://stevedeace.com/news/pollsters-and-their-fools-paradise/

“So now we have FOX as well as CNN producing polls this week that show 300,000 Iowans are voting in the Iowa Caucuses, and therefore Trump with a double-digit lead. Allow me to put those projected turnout numbers in perspective:

–That’s about a 200% voter increase from the highest Iowa Caucus turnout ever back in 2008.

–The most voters we’ve had in a primary (which always has higher turnout) in Iowa this century is only 230,000. And our last U.S. Senate primary had only roughly 150,000 voters in 2014.

–There are actually 11,000 fewer registered Republicans in Iowa this January than in January 2015.

Given those facts, I simply do not believe the projected turnout models in these polls. I have no idea why these polls have suddenly produced these massive turnout models in their weighting in the last week. Perhaps it’s as simple as Trump has consistently polled lower in Iowa than everywhere else, and they’re concerned with getting caught with their pants down come caucus night. I don’t know. But there is absolutely zero evidence on the ground you’re going to see a turnout that massive.”

That was written before yet another plot twist took place, Trump announcing (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/26/media/donald-trump-poll-debate-fox/) that he will not participate in Thursday’s debate on Fox, coming from Des Moines. This has a chance to make his backers in the state just a touch skittish, and based upon the closeness of the polls that I trust the most, and the fact that in their breakdowns they were showing much of Trump’s support coming from folks that have not taken part in the Caucus process in the past, it makes Cruz a value in this price range.
 
Last edited:
Trumps decision to continue his feud with Megan Kelly, and to frame his impact through "ratings" just encapsulates so much about the thin skinned, vindicative, bullying, grudge bearing, ego driven maniac. Having said that, he's launching his own alternative event (the success of which will doubtless be ratings driven or something other half baked approval proxy). He's also turning this event into a fundraiser for veterans (that could be a smart move). I think we can also assume that this event will turn into something of a 'rally' (and Americans love a rally to whoop and holler at). If he brings along his wailing banshee (and she only needs a 5 figure wardrobe budget and suite in a 5-star in Des Moines) there has to be a chance they can drum up a better media spectacle than some staid old debate where he'd be just 1 of 8 on a stage going through the same questions all over again. The last time he didn't make a debate he was banned of course and this played into his narrative. This time he looks churlish. There was nothing wrong with what Megan Kelly asked him, but he launched into charcater assassination of her (mind you, she did name one of her children 'Thatcher' - I mean, she should be done for cruelty!)

I think there's another angle to work from a betting perspective too, and that concerns the influence exerted by professional opinion formers and media comment. Remember these guys (and gals) reputations hang on being correct. This means they're predisposed towards strike rates rather than value. They'd rather get 9 out of 10 odds on shots right, then land the occasional 20/1 shot from the blue. For this reason contrarian opinion tends to only be served up for academic purposes and balance. Very few dissenting voices will risk identifying themselves against a concensus. Far better to be one amongst a group of people who called it wrong, than be isolated for sticking youir neck out. But in a lot of cases these 'pundits' are jumped poll junkies. Their guess isn't that much more informed than Joe Soaps

I think Cruz 6/4 is probably is a bit over the odds. I'm still not convinced Trumps vote in Iowa is as strong as Trump thinks it is. I think it might be worth following that through a bit though and trying to work out what the market reaction would be and how prices will subsequently respond. This might be an occasion where you could place inter-related bets without falling foul of related contingency?

One almost unique thing to consider with Iowa is that this is a caucus, it's not a secret ballot primary. You have to spend about 2 hours huddled in some freezing church hall listening to speeches from the local looney pastor and party apparatchiks, with contributions from the caucus goers. When this 'debate' is over you all can stand in a part of the room assigned to the person who you support. In other words, its open to intimidation and bullying, whether that's Chuck Chainsaw or the Reverand Vengeful
 
Last edited:
It's all a bit of an education for me this, but I find American politics fascinating so it's great to read your analysis.

What would concern me if I was backing Cruz is that the 2nd poll from the unpronounceable university has been done more recently and is from a larger sample size. If the difference in results is due to chronology then that's a massive swing towards Trump.
 
Couple of other thoughts

The key to the Republican Iowa caucus is Ben Carson. If his vote stays where it is now, it's to close to call, but that would make Cruz 'value' (which is of course different to the winner). If his vote rebounds, Trump wins. If he vote continues to fall, Cruz probably knicks it. Where is bottom Carson?

Ever since the end of November there has been a very strong correlation between Cruz and Carson

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

The same pattern appears across the other states being polled too (you can select these from the drop down). We have a bit of insight on the right wing here. These two candidates are seemingly strongly correlating, whereas Trump tends to be much of an architect of his own ratings. It suggests that there is a body of opinion on the Cruz/ Carson axis which amounts to anyone but Trump and that support will transfer between the two, and ultimately to one of them (probably Cruz) when the other is knocked out

Another thing that might worth noting (I think I'm correct) in saying that registered Democrats can caucus for a Republican?
 
SlimChance said:
I would presume all primaries are singles only.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they would be if you tried putting them in an acc

What I was angling more it is an arb.

Say Cruz wins, how does his price in future contests react (almost immediately?) Can you back him for the nomination and lay him back within a few days? Is there a particular state where he might be particularly receptive?. The FEC data breaks down by state where candidates are raising their money from (Cruz not surprisingly is heavily dependent on Texas) but someone like Rubio has surprising traction in California
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see a few under/ over markets too (if they exist?)

For instance, if we're armed with the Cruz/ Carson correlation, there has to be a possibility that Carson is close to his base at the moment? How much lower could he go? If you back Carson over, you've got grounds to be quite confident he takes votes of Cruz, potentially allowing you to back Trump, or hedge

Or if you want to back Cruz to win, should you take a price on Carson being under as well

I don't know if these markets are offered, or whether they'll allow you to run them as acc? I suspect they won't, but I'd have thought the Vegas books did under overs
 
Actually .... just to throw another spanner in the works in a campaign that's already had its fair share of twists, we have the stalking spectre of Michael Bloomberg to consider

If he enters as an independent his price will halve on the spot

He's weighing up whether there is a gap in the market. At the moment he can probably be confident that the Republicans are putting up a dangerous and divisive hawk who is going to be completely unacceptable to a whole swathe of America. On the other hand he has to consider whether he could beat Hillary who might look a bit wounded by March when he's promised to make a decision.

Despite having been a Republican Mayor of New York, there is a fair chance he'll pick up Democrat votes too, and could easily do them more damage in California and the North East seaboard.

Gatecrashers and New York Mayors have a lousy record. He couldn't win based on history, but there is a fair chance that in a campaign that has been dominated by a sense of crisis amongst the political establishment America might suddenly look at a shootout of Trump/ Cruz versus Clinton and be crying out for a middle ground alternative to save them from themselves. At the very least he'd alter the dynamics of the race, perhaps decisively

Will he run? My best guess is he wont, but money is no object, and there's plenty of plausible scenarios that might encourage him to. The obvious one would be a polarising Trump v's Sanders race which leaves a big middle ground he could conceivably take. I think he would be tempted if that starts to unfold. He'll know that America's natural heartbeat probably doesn't lie comfortably with either.

Bloomberg might be a Republican on paper but his policies are nearer to Hillary's than anything coming out of the GOP. If she begins a recovery after the two early rounds he'll probbaly keep out, but if he sees Sanders gaining ground I think he'll be persuaded. Will Bernie get momentum that he carries through into South Carolina and Nevada? or will New Hampshire represent peak Sanders? Hillary could trade Iowa for New Hampshire, but losing both would at least draw Bloomberg a step closer. As a well resourced independent of means remember, he doesn't need to appease a primary season seeking a nomination and could cut straight to the campaign

If Hillary loses Iowa, the smart bet might be anm immediate stake on Bloomberg before the market reacts
 
Last edited:
IF Michael Bloomberg were to enter the race in early March -- and the signals have been strong that he might -- then the big beneficiary would be Bernie Sanders (if he were to win the Democratic nomination). A three-cornered fight for the Presidency involving two multi-Billionaires and a "man-of-the-people" socialist. A very large rump of the American liberal/leftist/anti-capitalist working class would swing towards Bernie. The current 11/1 might begin to look very attractive if such a scenario were to develop.

Incidentally, there is a current arb on Trump which is a no-lose.
The U.S. facing exchange MATCHBOOK (which is really only an exchange in name as it is operated by American market-makers/betting-pro's) is low on Trump in the Next President market as compared to Betfair -- 5.2 as against 6.4. Lay £1237 and Back £1,000 for a £200 return after commission.
I shan't be availing -- don't want to tie up a tidy sum until November. :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top