Current Veep odds

[MallRat]

Just wanted to repost this under a separate thread. Here are the current odds for picking Kerry's running mate at intrade.com. Intrade lists them as futures contracts with $ amounts from 0-100, so I've taken the liberty of converting them to fixed odds numbers, a la horse racing.

Edwards: 5-to-7
Gephardt: 6-to-1
Richardson: 16-to-1
H. Clinton: 33-to-1
Clark: 50-to-1
Gore: 50-to-1
Bayh: 50-to-1
B. Graham: 50-to-1
Rockefeller: 500-to-1
B. Nelson: 500-to-1
Breaux: 500-to-1
Biden: 1000-to-1
Feinstein: 1000-to-1
Dean: 1000-to-1
The Field (which includes anyone not listed above): 13-to-2

If I had to place bets, I like Richardson and the Field. I am stunned at how much of a longshot the "market" perceives Clark to be.

And from a purely gambling perspective (not a political one), Edwards is a sucker bet... those are terrible odds.

-MR

[mstrsplinter326]

1. Does anyone want gephart as VP?

Who's excited about that. I thought he was less liberal than Bayh... Just what we need, another 'moderate'-swingvote-clutcher... I'd much rather see Edwards to gain votes in the south.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. No.

Gephardt doesn't deserve the VP slot.

[Zynx]

3. That would be a waste. It might sink the campaign if we picked him.

We should get an e-mail drive together begging Kerry NOT to pick Gephardt.

[Lindsey]

4. What does "sucker bet" mean?

n/t

[RubyDuby in GA]

5. Sucker bet

In any bet, it literally means you'd be a sucker to take that bet.

[spooky3]

9. welcome to DU, RubyDuby!

[MallRat]

8. It means really bad odds relative to chances of winning.

For instance, early this spring, before the baseball season began, Cubs fans were so crazy about their team's chances of winning the World Series that they placed bets in Las Vegas in record numbers.

The result? On opening day, the odds for the Cubs WINNING THE 2004 WORLD SERIES were a ridiculous 3-to-1.

So even though the Cubs haven't won a World Series in 95 years, if you bet $100, you will win a measly $300 if they finally do it.

That's a sucker bet.

Same with Edwards here. You have to risk $70 to win $50. Given the fact that the running mate is almost always someone who's not the front-runner in the public eye, this is a bad bet to make.

At 3-to-1 or even 2-to-1, Edwards would be a good bet. But at 5-to-7? The reward doesn't warrant the risk.

Again, this has NOTHING TO DO with whether Edwards would be a good VICE-PRESIDENT, which I think he really would be!

[JohnKleeb]

21. I would like it but would prefer Edwards

Gephardt and I are soulmates on economic issues, and Gephardt is right on the economic issues where Kerry is wrong, trade, etc.

[sniffa]

6. weLL i don't know where the

odds are coming from, but i do know that in gambLing the odds are just a baLance sheet. it has nothing to do with probabiLities.

cLark is such a Long shot here because no one is pLacing money on him.

this is aLso infLuenced by peopLe who don't vote here (foreigners, feLons, Lazy peopLe) but Like to make wagers.

[MallRat]

10. You're absolutely right.

I think Intrade is HQ'd out of Ireland. I think they have a pretty significant non-American following.

-MR

[sandnsea]

7. I've been thinking Richardson too

My thinking is probably a little wacked, but here goes.

Gephardt, no, he's a tax and spender and was against welfare reform.

Vilsack is unknown and was born in NY so he really doesn't bring any rural help to the ticket.

Graham, great guy but a little hokey and not quite polished in his delivery. no

Warner & Nelson, unknowns and not very appealing.

Edwards, why, when you've got Richardson. And I don't think Dems usually choose two senators.

Clark, maybe, but having a reminder of war every day might not be the best idea for a message of changing the direction of the country.

Which leaves Richardson. Has a close to the people feel, executive and foreign policy experience, energy experience, governor, and can court that hispanic vote.

Definitely thinking Richardson. Although I don't really care.

[FrenchieCat]

22. In reference to Clark...

You say....Clark would remind us that we are at war....

You want to forget that we are fighting two wars that have emptied our coffers of 200 billion??????

Gee, I guess putting one's head in the sand works for some...but not for me.

John Kerry is still polling low in National Security....which includes Iraq and the War on Terra

Let's forget about 9/11....shall we? Try telling that to New Yorkers.....

[sandnsea]

23. Just thinking like an American

They want somebody who can handle national security, they just don't want it in their face every single solitary day. military, war, military, war, military, war... I think people are ready to turn over a new page. And the most recent polls have Kerry and Bush even on terror. As soon as we're a few weeks out on the "handover", Kerry can go back to hammering on Iraq and he'll even that out too. Nobody is going to accept the VP as the national security expert, not post 9/11. I'm not remotely worried that Kerry will turn on that aspect of his credentials and campaign when the time is right.

I like Clark really well and if he's the VP, it'll be great. I just don't think that the ticket absolutely must have more military experience on it.

[FrenchieCat]

24. National security and Military experience....

are not the same thing. Kerry's military background does not National Security credentials make. Clark's led a war.....not Kerry. Clark planned a war...not Kerry. Clark won a war....not Kerry. Clark negotiated peace (Dayton Peace Accords)...not Kerry. Clark held a coalition of 19 countries together during war....not Kerry. Kerry voted for the War....not Clark. Clark was Nato Supreme Commander...not Kerry.

The experience that John Kerry has would be expanded 10 fold with Clark on Board. Their experience is not the same experience.

Face it....we are in two wars. Those who want to forget that are delussional. The repubs sure aren't going to let us forget...why should the Democrats?

[FrenchieCat]

25. Sorry that I am French....

Maybe if more Americans thought like the French....there wouldn't be a War in Iraq.

[Lefta Dissenter]

26. Not only that,

but we'd have great wine and much better food! :D

[sandnsea]

28. Kind of my point

I don't think Americans are going to be wanting a war ticket after Iraq. I think they'll want a new foreign policy and I think somebody like Richardson brings that to the ticket.

[TexasSissy]

11. I don't understand. Which # reflects odds to be picked? The 1st or 2d #?

[sniffa]

12. i couLd probabLy answer

but i'm not sure what you're asking?

500-1 means you're risking $1 to win $500.
5-7 means you're risking $7 to win $5

is that what you were asking?

[TexasSissy]

19. Yeah. except are they odds he WILL be picked, or WON'T be picked?

500 to 1 odds means he WON'T be picked, probably?

6 to 1 odds means you're MORE LIKELY to be picked than someone with 500 to 1 odds?

[sniffa]

30. yes, that's correct

but remember, these numbers are onLy a baLance sheet based on monetary bets

[MallRat]

13. 6-to-1 means you have to bet $1 to win $6.

13-to-2: you win $13 for every $2 you bet.
5-to-7: you win $5 for every $7 you bet.

etc...

-MR

[x_y_no]

14. Edwards may be the favorite ...

but sure as hell not by that much.

I'd lay some money on Gep and Clark at these odds.

[dolstein]

15. Where's Vilack?

Unlike most of the people on your list, the Kerry campaign has actually been running a background check on Vilsack.

[MallRat]

16. Good point. There's no action on Vilsack.

He's part of the "Field," along with Mark Warner, Max Cleland, and umm... well.. John McCain.

:-)

-MR

[AP]

17. I want Edwards, but I'd bet Gep and the field at those odds.

[West Coast Democrat]

18. From the "Political Oddsmaker"

http://www.campaignline.com/oddsmaker/index.cfm?navid=12

DEMOCRATIC VICE PRESIDENTIAL SELECTION 2004

TOP TIER CHOICES:
Sen. John Edwards (NC), 4 to 1 (20% chance)
Gov. Bill Richardson (NM), 8 to 1 (11.1% chance)
Sen. Evan Bayh (IN), 8 to 1 (11.1% chance)
Sen. Bill Nelson (FL), 9 to 1 (10% chance)
Gov. Ed Rendell (PA), 10 to 1 (9.1% chance)
Sen. Bob Graham (FL), 10 to 1 (9.1% chance)
Gov. Tom Vilsack (IA), 10 to 1 (9.1% chance)
U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt (MO), 12 to 1 (7.7% chance)
Gen. Wesley Clark, 15 to 1 (6.3% chance)

(I don't know how reliable this guy is, and I would at least put Clark in the top 5.)

[genxpundit]

20. I'm a gambling man

I'll put $1 on Hillary.

[ButterflyBlood]

27. there is NO way Clark is equal to Gore and lower than Hillary

there is also no way Hillary is the 4th most likely choice. There's a better chance of Kerry winning Wyoming than him picking Hillary as VP. total bullshit.

[TSIAS]

29. I wouldn't take Edwards

At these odds, I'd lie down some money on Graham and Richardson. I'd probably take my chances with Clark as well.