^ that’s my point. it’s Condi or Die in 2016.
Even if some women will be more likely to vote for a woman candidate, more men will be less likely to vote for the same woman candidate. Women want to be led, but men are sexist and feel threatened by powerful women. So, a woman candidate will likely produce a net loss. The better option would probably be to choose a male candidate and have him say the right things that appeal to women (something that Romney failed at…).
One general theme in the Republican party, post Romney, was that the Tea Party went too far and cost them not only the Presidential election, but seats in Congress. You can see how the mid term elections favored young and more centrist Republicans, like that hot chick. The 2016 election will likely be more friendly to moderate Republican candidates than was 2012. Hopefully, this will motivate more moderate Republicans to commit capital to seriously running for office in 2016, rather than just toe the water, like they did in 2012.
I wonder how this logic would apply to markets. “Oil prices are 100% going to recover” “I don’t know” “Well do you think gold will recover?” “No…” So oil will recover"
^ solidify = make stronger; reinforce.
if nobody is willing to take the other side of your bet, the odds are clearly in your favour. jeez, bet on sports sometime.
You’re suggesting you would take a money line of at least -1000. I’ll definitely take the rebublicans at +1000 or even +900 if I have to give somebody vig. That would be the other side. Bet on sports much?
It appears that the incumbent party is aware of this:
“The final two years of any presidential administration have also proven positive for equity markets. Since 1833, the final two years have produced a total return of 731%, according to the Stock Trader’s almanac, significantly outperforming the first two years which have generated a total return of 273.1%”
I’d be interested to see how many recessions have occured in the final two years of a presidency. Obviously this just occured in the Bush term so it’s by no means impossible.
I think the recession in the final two years of a presidency only happens when a President named Bush is in office. Or maybe a president named Hoover. Or perhaps a president named Carter. Or Ford.
Hmmm… lots of Republicans on that list…
Stock market returns do not happen on the same cycle as recession and expansions (stocks are a leading indicator). Plus, as we know from recent polls, most Americans do not think they are better off economically over the past two years, despite strong stock market returns.
the bet as proposed is technically someone willing to say “Hillary 100% win” versus “Repubs 100% win” with nobody winning in the middle, which is a standard type of bet, just as similar as the Y/N bet you’re proposing. obviously my statements are full of exxageration but i would comfortably give someone 4:1 or 5:1 odds on a Hillary win if 1) she is the Democratic candidate and 2) the Repubs don’t put up Condi or a woman in general. the fact that nobody is even insinuating that the Repubs would not struggle against Hillary is enough to warrant at least 4:1 or 5:1 odds, not too far off of your 10:1 but no sane person should ever take a 10:1 bet unless its Team Canada versus Team Vanuatu in hockey. count my words, when bets can be made come 2016 and i can still get 0.9:1 odds on my Hillary bet, i’ll be laughing all the way to the bank. obviously i’m not going to actually give someone 4:1 odds when there are enough numbskull repubs willing to bet me at 1.1:1 and i’ll take that bet all day.
Good points, though my remarks were to this point:
imo you’re missing the forest for the trees. The point is that politicians know that poor equity market returns hurt their party’s chances at reelection.
@MattLikesAnalysis We had political betting until they shut down intrade. If intrade were still around there might be a Hillary 2016 contract that you could bet on.
I’ll put some numbers on things. I’d give Hillary a 75% chance of winning the Democratic nomination and a 50% chance of winning the Presidency if she gets the nomination. This gives a 37.5% unconditional chance of winning the Presidency . This would mean if intrade were still around I’d be willing to buy contracts if Hillary’s odds were less than 37.5%. At this point, she probably has the highest unconditional chance of winning because the Republican field is split.
i know partybets often makes a market for these but you Yanks can’t open an account. i can’t access at work but i’ll look into it. i doubt they already have betting open on this tough. i’m sure when the party nominations are about to get rolling, they’ll open the betting.
my odds would be 95% Hillary being the Democratic rep (only things preventing this being death, severe injury or complete destruction of the modern world) and an 80%-90% chance (pretty tough to subjectively pick a number) of taking home the main prize.
Wasn’t hillary the clear favorite at this point 8 years ago? I’m not expecting another candidate to come through and beat her out for the nomination like Obama did, but I’d certainly enjoy seeing it since I’m not her biggest fan.
@MattLikesAnalysis I’m willing to concede that there’s a high chance of her winning the nomination. Perhaps I underestimate that. But there’s just so much time between now and then that I would want a buffer if I were betting on it. However, I think you greatly overestimate the chance of her winning the general.
^ that opinion is acceptable. it’d be interesting to get the opinion of female AFers and how they feel about Hillary, though i think most female AFers are non-american, or maybe that’s just Nana. idk.
I’d probably say something like 33% chance of her being the Democrat nominee and 25% chance of winning after that. In this thread, I think people are mixing up the definitions. I do think that Hillary is the current Democrat frontrunner (highest individual chance). However, I also think that it is more likely that one of the many other Democrats will be chosen instead. Who heard of this Barry guy in 2006?
^A 25% chance of winning given she’s the nominee? That’s a pretty strong view.
For the chance of her being the nominee, I disagree. I knew about Obama as early as 2004 from the convention. I wouldn’t have put her as a shoe-in during the 2007-8 period. She didn’t have much experience beyond the Senate and First Lady. Also, she also has a bit of a reputation among Republicans and was still completely hated for when her husband was in office. It has diminished since then and I think people look more favorably at the Clinton white house than they did even in 2007. She’ll be a better candidate in 2016 than she was in 2008. I don’t know what Democrat has a chance against her this go around (assuming she runs). Biden? He sucks.
I like Biden - he’s pretty much the only Democrat who has been willing to stand up and fight for stuff when he was in Congress. Unfortunately he’s been mostly muzzled while VP, and that’s been 6 years.
But I agree that almost no one else seems to like him, so he’s not likely to be a major contender in 2016.
i would vote for merkel if she ran for president. strong powerful commanding woman