Always Follow The Money

Hoping that Obama's win in South Carolina and the Kennedy endorsement would put some air between him and the Dynamic Duo I took the risk of checking the online bookie sites for a reality check. These are gentlemen who not unlike the pollsters make a living from being right at least more than half the time about all manner of things from politics to athletes to horses. What I found there confirmed the fears in my liberal beating heart.

According to bestbetting.com Hillary is still twice as likely to become the Democratic candidate as Barack Obama by a factor of over two to one. Has the news of the Kennedy endorsement not caught up with the English, the headquarters of worldwide internet gambling, or have they already factored it into their calculations? Or do endorsements not amount to more than a tiny shift in the needle.

The interesting news according to the bookmakers is that if Hillary is still two times as likely as Obama to win the Democratic nomination she is equally as likely to beat John McCain in the general election and become the next President of the United States. In other words, Barack Obama and John McCain have the same chance of beating her. Not sure what this means but sure it is significant.

If you are a betting man I think the 7 to 4 odds on Obama ($7 profit on a $4 bet) are a much better deal than a 1 to 2 odds on Hillary ($1 profit on a $2 bet). Or at least a lot more inspiring and fun

Note to HuffPo editors - could you keep an eye on this?

Follow Jane Wells on Twitter: www.twitter.com/3Generations

Comments

[altohone]

All the complaints about pundits treating the campaign like a horse race, and you take it to the next level.


But then, I'm not complaining and find it interesting... I personally think betting against Obama would be foolish.

I felt a shift a few days ago when the Clinton's lying became well known. They underestimated our disgust with it, and hurt themselves beyond repair.

[SamEllison]

The bookies are using the polls, we all know how that has worked out.....

[Desiderata]

In my hand I have three clubs: A King (Bush), a Queen (Clinton) a Jack (Obama) and a Ten of Hearts (Edwards) and a Two of Spades (Wild Card)

The fact is that I can see two aces (McCain/club and Romney/diamond), two eights (Guliani and Ron Paul) and a Joker (Hucklebee) in the eyeglasses of the dealer.

Knowing most of the facecards in the deck are gone, I've decided the toss the King and Queen, hold the Jack, Ten and Wild Card, and draw another Jack and Ten for a winning hand.

The dealer tosses the Joker and draws one, but leaves it facedown. He bets the nation and I can only call him with my life.

[OSUMercutio]

Ahhh, if only betting on elections wasn't illegal in the US...

[Raven]

Interesting odds, that's for sure.

At this point, I'd have to put my money on Obama.

I think it's difficult if not impossible for the bookies to factor in the extent to which Bill is likely to shoot himself in the foot.

Because if you took everything at face value, I'd think the bookies were right on target here.

But with the Clintons, face value just doesn't mean all that much.

So for my money, I'd take those odds.

The Clinton machine just ain't working like it used to.

And as to whether or not they'll self-destruct - my money's on saying they will.

[OtayPanky]

The bookies are always right...except when they're wrong.

Like the Jets vs the Colts in Super Bowl III...

Or Clay vs Liston.

Obama may still be the long(er) shot - upsets really do happen.