Quote:
Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy
If this election has shown us one thing, it's that politics in the US can be, at times, completely unpredicable.
Im curious to what the "betting exchanges" would have had for:
McCain being the nominee several months ago when McCain failed to raise a fraction of the financial support that Romney, Giuliani or Thompson did and when McCain had to completely reshuffle his campaign, asking many to work for free because the budget was tighter than anticipated.
Obama having any chance in the primaries after Hillary was holding a solid, double digit lead in the polls entering the primary season.
Obama reeling off 12 straight primary wins.
Hillary winning both Texas and Ohio to stop Obama's streak.
Saying the Dems are still favorites to win the White House because of "betting exchanges" is hilarious. A month of finger pointing and one-upping each other until Pennsylvania is going to create deeper cracks in the energized and passionate Dem base. Something they dont want/need. Meanwhile, McCain is the man for the GOP, he can start rallying his supporters and can fire shots at the Dems early instead of beating fellow party members up for the next 5 months.
It's a crap shoot now and judging by the previous 9 months (when Hillary was a shoe-in and Giuliani was setting fundraising records), a lot can change in the next 9.
|
I'd familiarize myself with betting exchanges such as betfair and wsex before I'd go knocking their reliability. The odds on all that you list were, in fact, very short altogether. The Republicans have been underdogs for at least three years - currently listed at +154. Having a 72 year old warmonger as their nominee doesn't help things.