Home› A Moving Train

Vegas Odds for 2008 Presidential Election

Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
edited May 2007 in A Moving Train
I love to gamble. I'll be the first to admit it. When Curlin started on the stretch Saturday in The Preakness Stakes it made for one of the most excited 30 seconds or so of my life. When my team (Utah Jazz) lost last night by 8 instead of 6 (the spread was 7) because the last shot barely didn't get off in time I was quite disappointed. I often find my way to casinos and often play cards with friends whenever the opportuniy presents itself. I love to gamble. I really do.

One thing I've found, especially with sports gambling is that oddsmakers are ridiculously accurate. Just like the Spurs/Jazz game last night. Spread was 7, Spurs win by 8. Within one point of the spread. This is not at all uncommon.

So while some of these are pretty funny, it scares me when I see the Vegas odds for the 2008 Presidential Election. I think the majority of folks on the board are pulling for Obama. I'm undecided but I doubt I'll be able to support any of the current front-runners. Maybe that's because I like to gamble. After all, Street Sense had 6-1 odds in the Kentucky Derby. Maybe Al Gore can come through for me at those same odds.

Anyway, here are the election odds according to sports.com.


Hillary Clinton 2-1


Rudy Giuliani 3-1


Barack Obama 7-2


John McCain 5-1


Al Gore 6-1


John Edwards 7-1


Mitt Romney 8-1


Newt Gingrich 20-1


Wesley Clark 20-1


Sam Brownback 25-1


Mark Warner 30-1


Condoleezza Rice 30-1


John Kerry 40-1


Evan Bayh 40-1


Bill Richardson 50-1


Joe Biden 50-1


Tom Vilsack 50-1


George Allen Jr 50-1


George Pataki 50-1


Colin Powell 50-1


Bill Frist 50-1


Chuck Hagel 50-1


Russ Feingold 50-1


Mike Huckabee 50-1


Doug Stanhope 50-1


Tom Ridge 60-1


Tom Daschle 60-1


Dick Cheney 75-1


Rick Santorum 80-1


Howard Dean 100-1


Chris Dodd 100-1


Ron Paul 100-1


Mike Gravel 100-1


Tom Tancredo 100-1


Alberto Gonzales 100-1


Bob Ehrlich 100-1


Charles Schumer 100-1


Harold Ford Jr 100-1


Ralph Nader 100-1


Gary Locke 100-1


Jack Kemp 100-1


Bill Owens 100-1


Jeb Bush 100-1


Jay Rockefeller 100-1


Bob Kerrey 100-1


Dick Gephardt 100-1


Paul Bremmer 150-1


Bob Graham 150-1


Joe Lieberman 150-1


Michael Bloomberg 150-1


George W Bush 200-1


Jesse Jackson 200-1


Tommy Franks 200-1


Dennis Kucinich 200-1


Arnold Schwarzenegger 250-1


Bill Clinton 300-1


Al Sharpton 500-1


Donald Rumsfeld 500-1


Laura Bush 500-1


Bill OReilly 750-1


Elizabeth Dole 750-1


Paul Wolfowitz 750-1


Ted Kennedy 750-1


Alan Keyes 750-1


Clint Eastwood 750-1


James Carville 1000-1


Donald Trump 1000-1


Wayne Root 1000-1


Michael Moore 1000-1


Jesse Ventura 1000-1


John Ashcroft 1500-1


Pat Robertson 2000-1


Bill Maher 2500-1
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Ron Paul 100-1

    So what you're saying is that we have a chance! :D
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    don't gimme no wrote:
    George W Bush 200-1


    I will pay 100X the odds if anyone wants to bet on this.
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    blackredyellow wrote:
    So what you're saying is that we have a chance! :D
    I don't know much about Paul. I know a little. I do know that I'd have a hard time voting for anyone with a (Rep) next to his or her name. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't. Just seems so wrong to me.

    But doesn't it hurt a little to see that there are several people who aren't even running for president who have better odds than your choice? That's gotta hurt, right?
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    zstillings wrote:
    I will pay 100X the odds if anyone wants to bet on this.
    Well, he's still got plenty of time to continue to completely disregard the constitution.....no one seems to give a flying fuck.

    edit: btw, that was a funny post.
  • RushlimboRushlimbo Posts: 832
    Actually Vegas determines the lines for sporting events to get 50% of the money (or as close to 50% as possible) on each team and then they rake in the 10% vig as profit. They really dont care who wins as long as that 10% keeps coming in and that really adds up. As far as betting on politicians I have no idea how they figure that one out.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    I would think of betting on Newt at 20-1 and Jeb Bush at 100-1. Those are both steals.

    Hilary's odds are going to have to drop. They really think she is the favorite? I don't think anyone likes her. She would win fewer than five states.

    The top five on the list should all be GOP.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • JOEJOEJOEJOEJOEJOE Posts: 10,612
    zstillings wrote:
    I will pay 100X the odds if anyone wants to bet on this.

    careful....I wouldn't put it past him to change the constitution and put himself in office again!
  • AbookamongstthemanyAbookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    Uncle Leo wrote:
    I would think of betting on Newt at 20-1 and Jeb Bush at 100-1. Those are both steals.

    Hilary's odds are going to have to drop. They really think she is the favorite? I don't think anyone likes her. She would win fewer than five states.

    The top five on the list should all be GOP.


    It seems here everyone hates her but I guess we're not the average crowd because I've noticed a lot of people love her around where I live and I'm from the south. I guess they associate her with Bill and better times.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    Actually Vegas determines the lines for sporting events to get 50% of the money (or as close to 50% as possible) on each team and then they rake in the 10% vig as profit. They really dont care who wins as long as that 10% keeps coming in and that really adds up. As far as betting on politicians I have no idea how they figure that one out.

    Should be pretty similar. If people start betting on, for example, Newt, they'll change the odds to, say 10-1 to avoid paying out too much. If nobody is betting on Hilary, they'll reduce her odds. Fairly similar to the odds they probably have now on who'll win the Super Bowl.

    And you are right. What they want is to essentially break even and make their 10%.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    Actually Vegas determines the lines for sporting events to get 50% of the money (or as close to 50% as possible) on each team and then they rake in the 10% vig as profit. They really dont care who wins as long as that 10% keeps coming in and that really adds up. As far as betting on politicians I have no idea how they figure that one out.
    Exactly...that's why they're nearly always accurate odds. That was my point.
Sign In or Register to comment.