(Oddy/Dan: if there's no reaction to this after, say, a couple of days, could you take it down ? It's probably a minority-interest thread, the event's a long way ahead, and I wouldn't want it to die swinging in the wind).
******************************
I've contrived to make money on nearly all the last dozen or so US presidential elections by applying one very simple system. The ways of applying it have varied with circumstances, and have been considerably developed and refined with the advent of the exchanges, which offer both a much wider range of markets and a lot more time and wriggle-room to adjust a position.
The principle's quite simple: at some point after the pool of candidates begins to take shape, you pick the one you think is the most likely popular (and US media) favourite, wait till they're an unbackably short price, and then lay them. You then wait, possibly for a very long time, until the last ten days or so before the vote, at which time the two candidates will get much more closely priced than they have been.
Taking 2012 as an example (and they're not always this clear-cut) Obama was trading at about 1-6 in August, based on a general perception that (1) although he hadn't done particularly well, he hadn't been bad enough to be denied the chance of a second term (2) he was still going to keep the bulk of the non-white/non-male vote (3) Romney was just another wealthy middle-aged Republican, not likely to attract any floating or undecided voters, and a bit of a dickhead anyway.
Three days before the vote in November - admittedly affected by some extraordinary weather conditions along the Eastern seaboard - you could have backed Obama at 4-7 and either taken out the profit or had a bet to nothing. If I remember correctly, on the day itself, media pundits across the globe (including the so-called political editor of the BBC) were describing the contest as 'too close to call'. It wasn't, of course, but that doesn't matter - the only important thing is that the betting-gap narrows.
If this thread generates any interest, we can go into 2016 specifics more closely along the way. For the moment, I'll merely say that it seems unlikely that the Democratic candidate will be anyone other than Hillary Clinton (currently 2.06 to be next President). The Republican choice is probably more open to debate, but the Bush sphere of influence looks so wide (and so well-heeled) that most of the signs are pointing to Jeb (currently 4.6 for next President; 20.0 and upwards any others).
To close, a couple of general observations for debate. First, US popular opinion, like most of the developed world, seems to be moving to the right. Second, a widely held view in 2008 was that America might possibly elect a black president, but it would be a long time before it elected a woman; still applicable, you think ? (And if it's true that the Clintons have between them acquired about 100 million dollars in the last few years, would that endear them to the traditional Democrat voting base ?)
******************************
I've contrived to make money on nearly all the last dozen or so US presidential elections by applying one very simple system. The ways of applying it have varied with circumstances, and have been considerably developed and refined with the advent of the exchanges, which offer both a much wider range of markets and a lot more time and wriggle-room to adjust a position.
The principle's quite simple: at some point after the pool of candidates begins to take shape, you pick the one you think is the most likely popular (and US media) favourite, wait till they're an unbackably short price, and then lay them. You then wait, possibly for a very long time, until the last ten days or so before the vote, at which time the two candidates will get much more closely priced than they have been.
Taking 2012 as an example (and they're not always this clear-cut) Obama was trading at about 1-6 in August, based on a general perception that (1) although he hadn't done particularly well, he hadn't been bad enough to be denied the chance of a second term (2) he was still going to keep the bulk of the non-white/non-male vote (3) Romney was just another wealthy middle-aged Republican, not likely to attract any floating or undecided voters, and a bit of a dickhead anyway.
Three days before the vote in November - admittedly affected by some extraordinary weather conditions along the Eastern seaboard - you could have backed Obama at 4-7 and either taken out the profit or had a bet to nothing. If I remember correctly, on the day itself, media pundits across the globe (including the so-called political editor of the BBC) were describing the contest as 'too close to call'. It wasn't, of course, but that doesn't matter - the only important thing is that the betting-gap narrows.
If this thread generates any interest, we can go into 2016 specifics more closely along the way. For the moment, I'll merely say that it seems unlikely that the Democratic candidate will be anyone other than Hillary Clinton (currently 2.06 to be next President). The Republican choice is probably more open to debate, but the Bush sphere of influence looks so wide (and so well-heeled) that most of the signs are pointing to Jeb (currently 4.6 for next President; 20.0 and upwards any others).
To close, a couple of general observations for debate. First, US popular opinion, like most of the developed world, seems to be moving to the right. Second, a widely held view in 2008 was that America might possibly elect a black president, but it would be a long time before it elected a woman; still applicable, you think ? (And if it's true that the Clintons have between them acquired about 100 million dollars in the last few years, would that endear them to the traditional Democrat voting base ?)
