The next US President. By the people who know the odds.

[mistermack]

Interesting odds. They don't give Joe Biden much hope. But Ron DeSantis is roughly the same bet as Trump. I've never heard of him ! 

 

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Ron DeSantis is roughly the same bet as Trump. I've never heard of him ! 

 

You may be the only one 

[paulsutton]

So from a UK perspective,  which one of those is better?

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

So from a UK perspective,  which one of those is better?

Neither. One is Trump, the other is Trump but far more capable of competently executing on what they want 

[TheVat]

This kind of odds setting will probably be more informed in 2024.  I couldn't see the source in the OP.  What is it?

Will be interesting to see if smart seasoned politicians who can pull in moderates, like Amy Klobuchar, will have another go at it.   Or maybe a vigorous Progressive with charisma like Cory Booker.  I also wouldn't rule out Gretchen Whitmer - in the current climate, a Midwest governor might get more traction than, say, Gavin Newsom (do Democrats want a former mayor of San Francisco when they try to woo Independents?).  

Biden has eighteen months to awaken to the realities of the aging process that are pretty evident to others.  I don't want him to run because I don't like him, but because I do like him.  He's earned a rest.  I believe that, in his heart, Joe understands how vital younger blood is for the Democratic party, and will eventually throw his support that way.

[mistermack]

45 minutes ago, TheVat said:

This kind of odds setting will probably be more informed in 2024.  I couldn't see the source in the OP.  What is it?

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2024/winner?selectionName=donald-trump 

Generally the odds reflect the money that is being bet, but I'm sure there is some research involved too. Although these are UK betting companies, you would think that they reflect the US odds, because otherwise it's wide open for punters to make a bet here, and cover it there, ensuring a profit either way. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

I'm in for $10 on "none of the above".

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I couldn't see the source in the OP.  What is it?

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2024/winner

 

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

But Ron DeSantis is roughly the same bet as Trump. I've never heard of him ! 

Don't worry. There are even Dwayne Johnson and Bill Gates on the table..

 

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

I've never heard of him ! 

 

You may be the only one 

I think that would probably go for 99% in the UK.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm in for $10 on "none of the above".

Or $7.71, depending.

[paulsutton]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

Neither. One is Trump, the other is Trump but far more capable of competently executing on what they want 

I seems that who ever is in power President / party , it ends up being down to who controls the upper house (senate if I understand things) as to if things get through.

Unless the president signs executive orders (which trump did seem to sign quite a few)

Solving the underlying problems, that are behind many of the larger problems is, as with the UK going to require a long term strategy

Right now in the UK we have a cost of living crisis,  a crime problem and many other issues, our MPs are on summer recess and we are also waiting to find out who windows the Conservative leadership race,  all this while people are struggling to make ends meet.  Until then we seem to be in Limbo as no one wants to make a decision until the new leader is in place.

Both sides have ideas, no one which seem to be long term,   we need common ground, 

Western politics seems to be broken on both sides of the Atlantic,  but America is seen as a country that takes the lead,  and needs to be strong for others to follow and for the west to stand up to aggression..   Granted Donald Trump was also right when he said other NATO countries need to pay their way fully too.  

I don't exactly agree with Donald Trump on many things, but I did like the fact he tried to reach out and talk to North Korea,  regardless,   surely dialogue is better than mistrust  and actions that could risk all out war.   In the absence of other ideas.

Paul

14 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Or $7.71, depending.

I am sure that if that was on the voting form it would win a landslide victory on BOTH sides of the Atlantic,  which may kick modern politics in to changing their course.

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

I am sure that if that was on the voting form it would win a landslide victory on BOTH sides of the Atlantic,

I have no idea what this means on either side of the Atlantic, since my reference was to placing a bet in Canadian currency.

[paulsutton]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I have no idea what this means on either side of the Atlantic, since my reference was to placing a bet in Canadian currency.

What I meant was, if we had 'none of the above' on a voting form,  then it would probably win,  i think people on both sides of the Atlantic are just fed up with the current choices of political party.

I think replied to

 

"I'm in for $10 on "none of the above".

But posts got merged, so something was lost on the way,  sorry.

 

Paul

[swansont]

20 hours ago, mistermack said:

Interesting odds.

Depends on who generated them, which you don’t share. Who are “the people” referenced?

Or what the numbers mean. None of those are odds as I’ve seen them presented.

[Peterkin]

Quote

"I'm in for $10 on "none of the above".

Aha! Except what you actually quoted was my response to that.

 

Soooo - Each voter should just write in their own nominee? Do away with government altogether? Or just the election process?

Because that last is what Trump and the extreme right are trying to achieve.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

I don't exactly agree with Donald Trump on many things, but I did like the fact he tried to reach out and talk to North Korea,  regardless,   surely dialogue is better than mistrust  and actions that could risk all out war.   In the absence of other ideas.

"He tried to reach out and talk to North Korea". Notice how carefully neutral even YOU had put this. His "reaching out", done with no diplomatic training and a fawning gratuitousness that made him look like a child next to the smaller Kim, gave Kim exactly what he needed, which is confirmation that the US fears war more than he does. More than that, TFG legitimized Kim's cruel regime by personally visiting and praising him. TFG did NOTHING to reduce their ability to produce nuclear arms, and eventually backed down from his strongest stances. A few years later we now find ourselves worse off wrt Kim and his unscrupulous plans. In what perspective do you see TFG's visit to North Korea as anything but a colossal mishandling of leadership?

[paulsutton]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"He tried to reach out and talk to North Korea". Notice how carefully neutral even YOU had put this. His "reaching out", done with no diplomatic training and a fawning gratuitousness that made him look like a child next to the smaller Kim, gave Kim exactly what he needed, which is confirmation that the US fears war more than he does. More than that, TFG legitimized Kim's cruel regime by personally visiting and praising him. TFG did NOTHING to reduce their ability to produce nuclear arms, and eventually backed down from his strongest stances. A few years later we now find ourselves worse off wrt Kim and his unscrupulous plans. In what perspective do you see TFG's visit to North Korea as anything but a colossal mishandling of leadership?

I think due to the way the media (or some of it) reports things,  the reality gets rather skewed.  

But when you put it the way you did, I agree with you on this, it was a bad move.    just makes people more worried what will happen if he gets in again.

Didn't trump try the same thing with Putin ? with what seems a similar result.

 

Why I am here rather than on 'social media'  better more constructive discussions.  I don't mnd making errors in how I have interpreted something because the response here is rational and explained.

[iNow]

7 minutes ago, paulsutton said:

Didn't trump try the same thing with Putin ?

I believe he did, yes. Outcome?

 

[paulsutton]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

I believe he did, yes. Outcome?

 

well if we get 4 more years of trump or someone like him,  the west is probably finished,  

[TheVat]

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

I believe he did, yes. Outcome?

 

 

There are people who did not watch Game of Thrones and will not get that meme at all.  

The pop culture here in the USA is so besotted with fantasy these days, that there seems to be a common assumption that GoT is the watercooler show which everyone will get references to.  Anyway, just a heads up:  there are millions of us who aren't into the genre and won't know who Reek is unless we go a-Googling.  Which I did.  (GoT puts me in the same space I was in for years with Lord of the Rings - watching a few video clips, checking a wiki now and then, so that I'm not completely clueless when someone fires off a LotR reference, and of course fending off looks of shock, followed by either disgust or pity, when I mention that I've never read Tolkien or watched Peter Jackson's adaptations) 

(my daughter finds it a source of amusement, on the order of "My dad lives in the deep woods in a shanty, where he speaks in tongues all day and lives on moss and crickets.")

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

22 hours ago, mistermack said:

Interesting odds.

Depends on who generated them, which you don’t share. Who are “the people” referenced?

Or what the numbers mean. None of those are odds as I’ve seen them presented.

I did give the source link earlier. But it's UK format, ie   2 to 1,  11 to 4 etc. There are 25 major betting companies giving their best odds. The bolded boxes are the best odds overall.             https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2024/winner?selectionName=donald-trump  

Here is what I believe is a US style page of odds.           https://bookies.com/news/presidential-election-odds-daily-tracker  

I'm assuming that +275 means you win 275 cents per dollar bet, I don't know if that includes your original stake. In the UK if you win at 2 to 1, you get £3 back for a £1 stake.

I'm guessing that +275 means that you get 375 cents back, for a dollar stake ?? 

In the UK, that would be the equivalent of an 11/4 bet.  

 

42 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The pop culture here in the USA is so besotted with fantasy these days, that there seems to be a common assumption that GoT is the watercooler show which everyone will get references to.

I get nothing out of fantasy these days. When I was a kid, I found The Hobbit a good read, and tried to read The Lord of The Rings, but found those books hard going and a bit repetitive. I read the first, got halfway through The Two Towers, but it was hard work and i abandoned it, in spite of others going on about how great it was. 

Nowadsys, fantasy leaves me stone cold. ( unless it's got some steamy sexy bits in it as below) I think that you get more critical as you get older. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x-ATlpqo1M

 

[swansont]

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

Generally the odds reflect the money that is being bet

Im which case they don’t know what they’re talking about, they’re reacting to money being bet.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Im which case they don’t know what they’re talking about, they’re reacting to money being bet.

That's what all bookmakers do. I said "by the people who know the odds" .  Nobody knows who will win. 

[swansont]

Quote

Although these are UK betting companies, you would think that they reflect the US odds, because otherwise it's wide open for punters to make a bet here, and cover it there, ensuring a profit either way. 

They don’t show the same odds, so there might be a way to do that anyway.

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's what all bookmakers do. I said "by the people who know the odds" .  Nobody knows who will win. 

But they don’t know the odds of who will be president. There’s no inherent knowledge here at all.

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

But they don’t know the odds of who will be president. There’s no inherent knowledge here at all.

They know the betting odds. Bookies don't need to be experts on each market that they create a book for. 

The inherent knowledge, if any, lies with the gamblers. They use whatever knowledge they have to weigh up the odds, and their betting volume decides the bookies' odds.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

They don’t show the same odds, so there might be a way to do that anyway.

I'm no expert, but I believe it can be done, but you need a wide spread to make it pay. The betting tax in this country, and the poor overall odds given by bookies, to ensure a profit, make it difficult but not impossible to cover one bet with another. 

This page takes the mystery out of US/UK differences :

https://www.onlinegambling.com/sports/odds-calculator/