[cherdano]

MickyB, on Oct 7 2008, 12:17 AM, said:

Cheers Arend. In that case I'm sticking some money on Obama and blaming you if he loses

You should go to Lobowolf though, not the bookies, he is giving much better odds.

[helene_t]

MickyB, on Oct 7 2008, 06:53 AM, said:

Despite a pretty big lead for Obama in the polls, the bookies seem to think he is only about 75% to win.

It is possible that bookies let the gambler's tendencies influence the odds because of their own risk-averseness. If 30% of gamblers go for McCain, the bookies should give him a 30% chance to be sure to win no matter how the election turns out.

It is very difficult to say what the probabilities should be. What is the probability of either candidate being caught in a sex scandal? Or a major terrorist attack like 9/11?

Using historical data seems reasonable. But I suspect the variance was lower some decades ago than it is now due to the increase in information flow.

[kenberg]

MickyB, on Oct 7 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

Despite a pretty big lead for Obama in the polls, the bookies seem to think he is only about 75% to win. Is this because it takes a relatively small percentage of voters to change sides to swing it, or because there's a belief that some people are saying that they will vote for Obama because they think doing otherwise would make them appear racist? Or something else that I've missed?

It may be a little tricky to decide exactly what this 75% figure means. I'm guessing, for starters, that this means something on the order of: If I want to place a bet with the bookies, I can place a bet for $3 on Obama, winning $1 from the bookie if Obama wins, or I can place a $1 bet on McCain, winning $3 from the bookie if McCain wins. Obviously there would have to be some transaction costs but this would be the core. In theory, this would mean that if we ran the probabilistic event a zillion times and McCain won a quarter of the events, the bookies would break even on the bets and pocket the transaction costs. But it really isn't a probabilistic event and we won't be running it a zillion times so I assume the odds really reflect the market. Let's say the transaction cost is ten cents on the dollar. Then the bookies find that they can get people to bet the $3.30 on Obama and others to bet the $1.10 on McCain in roughly the numbers that are needed so that whoever wins they come out fine.

I know virtually zip about how bookies make their living but if anything like the above is true then the bookie odds do not reflect their judgment of who will win but rather the broad market judgment of who will bet what at what odds.

One could try a thought experiment: Suppose I offer a bet (I am not doing so, this is suppose). I'll take McCain. If Obama wins, I'll give you $500. If McCain wins, you give me $1500. Would you take the bet? Suppose it is $500 versus $2000, or $500 versus $2500. Where would you stop taking the bet? Where would you say that while you prefer Obama, at the offered odds you will place your bet on McCain?


The bookies may have it about right. I would consider betting $1500 on Obama, winning $500 if Obama wins, losing my $1500 if Obama loses, but I wouldn't go much higher.

[y66]

Obama to win is now paying $25 per $100 bet at http://www.sportsbook.com/betting/2008+Pre...g-odds-754.html

MickyB's bookie and "The Wolf" are better deals.

[Lobowolf]

awm, on Oct 6 2008, 11:00 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 6 2008, 08:39 PM, said:

OTOH, I'm not sure why it is that people think glorious change is going to come from a guy who's pretty much a lock-step voter with the majority party of one house of an unpopular Congress.

I remain confused by this. First, where does this idea come from that being able to "reach across the aisle" somehow depends on disagreeing with the majority of your own party on major issues? That might make someone a centrist, or a free-thinker, but reaching across the aisle means that you actually do hold your party's position but are able to construct some sort of compromise bill that receives broad bipartisan support, not that you defect from your own party on critical issues.

Second, having a democratic congress and presidency will certainly lead to change. We have not had this combination since early in the Clinton years. In general when the congress is controlled by one party and the presidency by the other, it becomes hard for congress to get things done (too many vetoes). A big part of why the current congress is unpopular is a lack of major accomplishments (in particular an inability to end the Iraq war, the unpopularity of which swept the democrats into power in 2006). Of course, we can argue about whether this change will be for the better.

Third, Barack Obama actually has a pretty interesting resume. He often seems to support more transparency in politics, managing to find bipartisan support for ideas that seem like just common sense. For example, the parties may disagree about the death penalty but no one wants it applied to innocent people, so Obama sponsored and passed (in Illinois) a bill to require that all interrogations of people suspected of death penalty offenses be videotaped (to prevent police forcing a false confession, or appeals lawyers claiming they did). For example, the parties may disagree about exactly which forms of government spending are "pork" and should be slashed from the budget but it seems very fair to make all such spending public knowledge and let the voters decide, so Obama sponsored (with Dick Lugar) his "google for government" allowing us to search through federal spending. Admittedly Obama's track record is short, but there is quite a bit more in this vein and it says a lot about the ability to reach out to the other party with sensible ideas. McCain's record shows that he has been willing to go against his own party on a few major issues (although he seems to have reversed some of the key positions in the last year, including on immigration, oil drilling, and the Bush tax cuts) but while that takes some political courage it is not the same as crafting logical compromise agreements that both parties can support.

Adam -

As usual, you make good points and present them well. A couple of things about the bases for my comment. First, actually, goes to your second point: "having a Democratic congress and president will certainly lead to change." I agree. Having said that, my experience from talking with my friends who are Obama supporters is that they aren't looking at the election as an opportunity to bring about change by having a united Democratic presidency + congress. Your second point suggests that some significant measure of whatever change is forthcoming (given an Obama win) is not "Obama-specific." He's just the last Democrat standing.

However, my experience is that there seems to be an anticipation of a huge amount of "Obama-specific" change on the horizon, and that's the part that I don't see. I certainly agree with you strongly that as an eloquent speaker and charismatic person, he'd do a much better job than many other Democrats would at getting non-Democrats on board with certain proposals, and to the extent that that's a large part of his support, I agree. I see him as someone who delivers the majority Democratic platform in a very marketable way. Which is what launched him in the first place, in the form of his 2004 DNC speech.

The perception I have of a huge portion of his supporters, however, is that their perception of him is different; it is of someone who has and will bring forth revolutionary positions and ideas not found in the rank & file Democratic party. That's the part I don't agree with, and that's what I was commenting on.

[cherdano]

Lobowolf, on Oct 7 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

However, my experience is that there seems to be an anticipation of a huge amount of "Obama-specific" change on the horizon, and that's the part that I don't see. I certainly agree with you strongly that as an eloquent speaker and charismatic person, he'd do a much better job than many other Democrats would at getting non-Democrats on board with certain proposals, and to the extent that that's a large part of his support, I agree. I see him as someone who delivers the majority Democratic platform in a very marketable way. Which is what launched him in the first place, in the form of his 2004 DNC speech.

The perception I have of a huge portion of his supporters, however, is that their perception of him is different; it is of someone who has and will bring forth revolutionary positions and ideas not found in the rank & file Democratic party. That's the part I don't agree with, and that's what I was commenting on.

I expect Obama will be a president
- with a good taste for advisors, opting for competency and constructive discussions over unquestioning loyalty
- who will make careful and deliberate decisions, while being conscious of his own and his administrations decision-making process, trying to improve it whenever possible, and
- a president with good base of common sense.
Unfortunately, this is rather radical change, and by now also seems to be quite a contrast to the alternative...

I also hope he will be able to sell common sense ideas as common sense, rather than them getting lost in ideological debates.. So yes I do think his rhetoric matters.

[Lobowolf]

cherdano, on Oct 7 2008, 12:30 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 7 2008, 10:51 AM, said:

However, my experience is that there seems to be an anticipation of a huge amount of "Obama-specific" change on the horizon, and that's the part that I don't see.  I certainly agree with you strongly that as an eloquent speaker and charismatic person, he'd do a much better job than many other Democrats would at getting non-Democrats on board with certain proposals, and to the extent that that's a large part of his support, I agree.  I see him as someone who delivers the majority Democratic platform in a very marketable way.  Which is what launched him in the first place, in the form of his 2004 DNC speech.

The perception I have of a huge portion of his supporters, however, is that their perception of him is different; it is of someone who has and will bring forth revolutionary positions and ideas not found in the rank & file Democratic party.  That's the part I don't agree with, and that's what I was commenting on.

I expect Obama will be a president
- with a good taste for advisors, opting for competency and constructive discussions over unquestioning loyalty
- who will make careful and deliberate decisions, while being conscious of his own and his administrations decision-making process, trying to improve it whenever possible, and
- a president with good base of common sense.
Unfortunately, this is rather radical change, and by now also seems to be quite a contrast to the alternative...

I also hope he will be able to sell common sense ideas as common sense, rather than them getting lost in ideological debates.. So yes I do think his rhetoric matters.

I find this to be an atypically rational assessment of what he brings to the table.

[Al_U_Card]

I would suggest that his potential and his orientation will depend on how he deals with the first approach by the PTB. Should he cave, he will be like Bill Clinton and be a competent and obedient president. Should he resist, the consequences are less than inspiring....

[mike777]

Add in the likely 60+ Democrats in the Senate meaning they should be able to pass whatever they want.