politicalbetting.com

  
Picture of Obama rally in Portland by Photoscott 
 

She has the potential to rally her flagging campaign with solid wins in West Virginia (13th May), Kentucky (20th May), and Puerto Rico (1st June). South Dakota and Montana (both 3rd June) herald the end of the primary campaign on June 3rd, and whilst both are winnable for either candidate, her focus must be on building momentum during the month of May if she is to stand a chance of the nomination.

The state most likely to deny her between now and the end of the contest is the west-coast state of Oregon. Considered a Democrat-leaning swing-state in General Elections, Oregon is split East-West with the rural Republican-held 2nd District covering two-thirds of the area, but the four Congressional districts on West Coast and surrounding the city of Portland trending strongly-Democratic.

One of the most liberal and least Christian states in the USA, Oregon has been at the forefront of controversial legislation, including medicinal marijuana, same-sex unions, and voluntary euthanasia. Although chiefly known as a ‘young’ city (which would seemingly favour Obama), Portland also has a large gay population, one of the demographics said to be most loyal to Clinton. The largest non-white demographic are Hispanics, and its African-American population is below 2.5% - significantly less than Asian-Americans or even Native-Americans & Pacific Islanders. In short, there is little to suggest that demographics hand Obama an obvious victory - indeed, had he not proven himself strong by winning Washington state and northern California, Oregon would have been a state that many would have assumed would trend towards Clinton.

There has been a dearth of information coming from the state for much of the contest. In one of only two recent Democratic statewide polls, SurveyUSA had Obama on 52%, Clinton on 42%, with 3% declaring themselves Undecided 3% (as of April 8th, 2008). Previous polls of all voters have shown that Oregon would favour Obama over McCain, but McCain over Clinton in the presidential head-to-heads. However, these are a poor guide for the Democratic primary, given that a different constituency of voters has been polled - the margins in head-to-heads being provided by Independents and others not able to vote in the closed (Democrat only) primary election. Previous polls all showed Clinton leading, though since the Iowa caucus, only one such poll has been published (Clinton 36%, Obama 28%, Edwards 14% in late January 2008).

Governor Ted Kulongoski has endorsed Hillary Clinton, along with retiring Congresswoman Darlene Hooley (Dem, OR-5 - as an open seat, the only Democratic district in Oregon at risk in November). Earl Blumenhauer (Dem, OR-3) has endorsed Barack Obama, but the remaining 3 Oregon Congressmen and Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wydon have chosen not to endorse either candidate at the time of writing. Joining the fence-sitters, former Governors Barbara Roberts and John Kitzhaber, and the non-partisan Mayor of Portland, Tom Potter. Obama has, however, received the backing of both the full Democratic delegations to the Oregon State Senate and State House of Representatives.

Politically, the only other race of any interest in the state is choosing a Democrat to face (and possibly beat) incumbent Republican Gordon Smith as US Senator in November. With Kitzhaber and the entire Democratic US House delegation ruling themselves out, Speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives Jeff Merkley (an Obama supporter) is facing disabled Environmental campaigner Steve Novick for the Democratic nomination, and a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, John Frohnmayer, is likely to run in November as an Independent. Merkley’s campaign is doing well in fundraising, and the presence of committed activists working the streets for an Obama supporter could make all the difference in a tight race.

What seems apparent is that Oregon could trend either way - both Clinton and Obama enjoy institutional support, and both can see demographics that typically support them. Little polling of Democrats has taken place, and neither lead enjoyed by either candidate in January and April respectively could reasonably be described as insurmountable. I believe that this state is still very much in play, and Obama would be foolish to assume that he could rely on its support.

If we accept that Obama has won the season on both Pledged delegates and the Popular Vote, the only reason that Superdelegates would be waiting before supporting him (assuming they are not all closet Clintonistas) is that they do not want to disenfranchise the few remaining states who have yet to vote.

Clinton’s major challenge will be to stop them from going wholesale to Obama on 4th June, preventing her from being viable until the Convention in late August, or even until the Credentials Committee meets on Florida and Michigan at the end of June. The question is whether (excepting North Carolina) Clinton can put in the necessary effort in Oregon to chance a near-clean sweep from her victories in Rhode Island and Ohio on March 4th through to the South Dakota and Montana challenges on 3rd June.

If so, the momentum could be sufficient to persuade Superdelegates to further delay open judgment, and thus keep her alive beyond the 4th June, thereby giving her the opportunity to ‘steal’ the ticket at the Convention in Denver. Should she lose Oregon, which seems quite possible, even she may be forced to accept that it is all over.

UPDATE: In the most recent poll on May 1st reported that Obama enjoyed a 51% - 39% lead over Hillary Clinton.

         Will this be over before the Convention in Denver?

If the Superdelegates are reluctant to  finish this race before the final states, Montana and South Dakota, have their say on June 3rd, then it seems likely that Clinton has almost another month in this race. She will almost certainly lose on pledged delegates and is unlikely to win the popular vote either, but is refusing to step aside.

Many have speculated that the Superdelegates are disinclined to side with one party or the other, for fear of angering a potentially very powerful Senator or even the next President of the United States. Many are junior Congressmen, not inclined to raise their heads above the parapet at present, but who may feel more comfortable choosing under the crazed camouflage of Convention shennanigans.

 With Indiana still very close, Clinton clearly feels she is still in this race. With only a couple of hundred delegate-votes between the pair, it seems almost certain that decisions concerning the Michigan and Florida delegations will be decisive in some way or another. The meetings that could end this before the Convention are scheduled for the end of May and mid June. To allow the various DNC Committees to pass judgement on the delegations without prejudicing either candidate, I’m sure Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi will be encouraging Superdelegates to announce their preferences in the first week of June.

 Barack Obama is within spitting distance of his party’s nomination, but I would expect that he still has at least another month before he can be sure that his name will be on the ballot in November.

 Morus

Could the GOP be repeating the mistake of 1996?

Anybody thinking of betting on John McCain for the White House should take a look at one or two articles recently that have started to draw parallels between his presidential bid and the last time the Republicans chose a candidate in his early 70s - Bob Dole.

Like McCain Bob Dole is a war hero having won two purple hearts and one bronze star. Only a few weeks before the German surrender in 1945 was seriously injured while engaged in combat in Northern Italy. When he won the nomination in 1996 he was even older than McCain - 73. Bill Clinton went on to win his second term by a massive margin.

The latest edition of New York magazine (hat tip Taegan Goddard PoliticalWire) carries a long critique by John Heilemann on the McCain campaign which is best summed up in the following extract.

“….Yet for all the hosannas being sung to him these days, and for all the waves of fear and trembling rippling through the Democratic masses, the truth is that McCain is a candidate of pronounced and glaring weaknesses. A candidate whose capacity to raise enough money to beat back the tidal wave of Democratic moola is seriously in doubt. A candidate unwilling or unable to animate the GOP base. A candidate whose operation has never recovered from the turmoil of last summer, still skeletal and ragtag and technologically antediluvian. (“Fund-raising on the Web? You don’t say. You can raise money through those tubes?”) Whose cadre of confidantes contains so many lobbyists that the Straight Talk Express often has the vibe of a rolling K Street clubhouse. Whose awkward positioning issues-wise was captured brilliantly by Pat Buchanan: “The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we’re going to have a lot more wars.” A candidate one senior moment—or one balky teleprompter—away from being transformed from a grizzled warrior into Grandpa Simpson. A candidate, that is, who poses an existential question for Democrats: If you can’t beat a guy like this in a year like this, with a vastly unpopular Republican war still ongoing and a Republican recession looming, what precisely is the point of you?..”

Latest betting on who will be next President is here. My view is that until now there has been almost no examination of McCain’s weaknesses and whoever comes out top in the Obama-Hillary contest will end up as President.

Mike Smithson

Morus looks ahead to the Hoosier state as the Democrat endgame approaches

Whilst all eyes are on Pennsylvania on the 22nd April, there are a number of primaries being held within a couple of weeks of that contest which could still yet have an impact on Clinton’s pending decision to fight or concede. Although Obama has recently drawn very close in the PA polls, it would be a massive surprise for Clinton to lose this primary, although the odds suggest that he is likely to come within 10% of her vote share. This is now less about the number of pledged delegates won in each state, and rather about the strength in these latter contests affecting the decision of seemingly the only 351 people in American not to have already made up their mind: the currently uncommitted Superdelegates.

After Pennsylvania, most states look reasonably safe for one candidate or another: few people can imagine Obama making much ground in West Virginia or Kentucky (Appalachia as a cross-state region has been solidly impregnable to his charm), whereas Clinton would have to seriously exceed expectations to win in North Carolina, and Oregon appears to be leaning well away from her as well (Obama would beat McCain there, but Clinton would lose to McCain if she won the nomination, according to Rassmussen).

Between now and the 3rd of June (when South Dakota and Montana go to the polls) there is only one post-Pennsylvania contest that looks like being remotely competitive: the Indiana primary which takes place on 6th May. Only a couple of polls have been posted on Real Clear Politics, with Clinton said to be leading by 9 and 3 points on April 2nd and 4th respectively. The commonality of these polls suggest that whilst Indianapolis and suburbs lean heavily towards Obama, the rest of the state favours Clinton, even those parts that border Illinois. The only other notable aspect of the polls is that whereas in previous contests, Obama has won close to 90% of the African-American vote, Clinton is said to be attracting between 16% and 21% of that demographic in Indiana. Although Survey USA suggested that 2% of Clinton’s 9 point lead in their survey was due to Republican voters, claims that this is part of a deliberate strategy by the GOP remain unsupported.

Institutionally, Clinton enjoys the vocal support of 5 of Indiana’s 12 Superdelegates (versus Obama’s 2), most notably Senator (and former two-term Governor) Evan Bayh - one of the few nationally-prominent Democrats from the state. Former Governor Joe Kernan has also endorsed her, but none of the current Indiana Democratic Congressmen have made an endorsement.

Other political activity in the state surrounds GOP Governor Mitch Daniels attempt at re-election in November, where there is a strong chance that his 53% share of the vote may not survive to give him a second term, especially given his close ties to President GW Bush. Democrats are energised in trying to retake the Governor’s mansion, with Jill Long Thompson (former Congresswoman, and a Dept of Agriculture Under-Secretary in the Clinton Administration) leading in the Democratic primary thanks to union endorsements and support from Emily’s List. If nominated, she would stand a good chance of being Indiana’s 50th Governor, and the first woman to hold that post. Might this type of candidate mean that the active Democratic grassroots currently working in the state are those more likely to be inclined towards Clinton?

The impact on the momentum of the race is key here - how would the different scenarios in Indiana affect the perceived momentum, and therefore impact the uncommitted Superdelegates (including 5 Indiana Democratic Congressmen)? A strong Clinton win might counteract Obama’s expected victory in North Carolina the same day. A narrow Clinton win might give her just enough hope to hold on for West Virginia a week later. A loss might make her look bad holding on, and could lead to a small leakage of Superdelegates (including the Hoosier Congressional Dems) to Obama, but would probably not finish her off. A heavy loss to Obama, coming on the same day as North Carolina, could be the blow that unleashes a Superdelegate flood that brings this spectacle to a close.

It may be that Indiana has very little impact on the race, if Clinton is already fixed on a Convention-based victory, and the Superdelegates are not prepared to announce in a timely fashion, then it could be little more than a side show. However, a strong win or loss (with the momentum that would be claimed) could be the catalyst for some of the 351 to join the rest of America, and make up their minds.

Links to recent polls:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=35417ff6-4985-47ce-8e1b-3fbe566d108d

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/In408rel.html

Morus is a regular contributor to pb.com and is one of the leading American experts on the site.

Guest Editor’s Note

Just to let you all know that Mike should be back running the site from tomorrow morning, so “thanks for having me” during a busy week at home and abroad. The Italy article should be out around tea-time tomorrow, and I hope to be writing a regular Sunday evening column (probably monthly to start with) concentrating on politics in the “rest of the world” - ie outside the US and UK.

Cheers & all the best

Double Carpet

Help keep Politicalbetting going by using the link for Grand National bets.

The Irish bookie relents and the winners get paid out

On Tuesday Peter the Punter (Peter Smith) reported on a battle that he had had with the Irish bookmaker, PaddyPower, over a bet on Mike Huckabee in the GOP caucus in Kansas on February 9th when Mitt Romney was priced as the hot favourite to take the state.

It will be recalled that the first indication here of a possible upset came at 8.11pm (GMT) with Jfsl posting - “Fox predicting Huckabee will win Kansas.” At 8.22pm, Caveman posted that Paddy Power were still offering 6/1 Huckabee. At 8.28pm, Peter took £20 of that 6/1 and had a further £20 at 3/1 with the same firm at 8.35. quite a number of site visitors also got money on.

Paddy Power took the market down around about 8.40pm, which was the time the result, proclaiming Huckabee the winner, was given on the official Republican website. Unfortunately the bookie decided that those who had got money on had made what is termed “late bets” and these were voided.

Peter Smith took this to the Independent Betting Adjudication Service (IBAS) which “acts as an impartial adjudicator on disputes that arise between betting/gambling operators and their customers.” Alas this proved fruitless with the panel adjudicating “in favour of the company who were within their rights to stand or declare the bets void.”

On Tuesday Peter reported here on what had gone on. The result has been a quick change of mind by the bookmaker.

This is the message that Peter was sent: “Having recently reviewed past customer queries/trading decisions we have come to the conclusion that a decision to void your bet placed on Mike Huckabee in the Kansas Caucus was incorrect…I can confirm that your bet (placed on the 9th February 2008) has now been settled as a winner and not a void selection…On behalf of Paddy Power please accept our apology for the initial decision to void this bet and for any inconvenience the delay in rectifying this matter has caused you..On top of this I have credited your account with a free bet of £50 as a token of good will..We hope this matter has not deterred you from continuing to bet with us as a valued customer and hopefully you’ll back a few more winners!” - Neil Macdonald, Customer Support Deputy Supervisor

Well done to Peter for all his did pursuing the case. Well done to Paddy Power for seeing sense. A black mark to IBAS for the decision it took.

Mike Smithson

A cautionary tale from Peter the Punter

Take care, political punters. The bets you think you may have struck with bookmakers may not be as watertight as you think.

In the Republican Caucus for Kansas held on Feb 9th 2008, Mitt Romney was hot favorite to win ahead of his main rival, Mike Huckabee. The first indication on this Site of a possible upset came at 8.11pm (GMT) with Jfsl posting at 165 - “Fox predicting Huckabee will win Kansas.” At 8.22pm, Caveman posted that Paddy Power were still offering 6/1 Huckabee. At 8.28pm, I took £20 of that 6/1 and had a further £20 at 3/1 with the same firm at 8.35. A number of other PBers did something similar.

I believe Paddy Power took the market down around about 8.40pm, which was the time the result, proclaiming Huckabee the winner, was given on the official Republican website. Around 11pm I noticed my bet had been voided and when I spoke to PP about this they referred me to a Reuters report timed at 8.27pm stating that Huckabee had won.

In the debate with PP that continued the next day, they referred me to their rules concerning late bets and commented as follows:

Late Bets: Bets are accepted up to the off-time of the event or a pre-determined time whichever the earlier. Paddy Power reserves the right to void or stand any bet inadvertently accepted after the betting has closed or where the event was resolved or at a stage where the customer could have any indication of the outcome. Should there be a dispute over the off time of an event/market where an official starting time is not given by that sports governing body, then the time that Paddy Power determines the event to have started will govern settlement of all bets.

The customer most definitely could have had an indication of the outcome at 8.27 as that is the first report of when Huckabee was declared the winner.

Naturally I pointed out that my bet was not late. The result was not declared until 8.40pm and the Reuters report was no more that a reiteration of other reports in the media that Huckabee was the probable winner. PP were unmoved and I referred the matter to IBAS, the arbitration panel for disputes of this kind. Here is the IBAS response, verbatim.

“The Panel acknowledges the point made by Mr Smith that the official result was not given at 8.27 but much later. However, the information provided by Reuters and US Media were projected results and that in most cases would be an highly accurate prediction based, probably on exit polls.

“Hence, it would mean that the customer would have been given a significant pointer from authoritative sources as to the likely outcome, making any bet placed after that information was posted liable to being declared void under rule.

“The wording in the rules says: ‘Paddy Power reserves the right to void or stand any bet inadvertently accepted after the betting has closed or where the event was resolved or at a stage where the customer could have any indication of the outcome.

“On that basis, the Panel adjudicate in favour of the company who were within their rights to stand or declare the bets void.”

This answers a question which was not put. Of course Paddy Power were within their rights. The punter has few rights and even fewer practical resources if a bookmaker chooses not to pay, other than to avoid that bookmaker in future. The much more relevant questions are whether Paddy Power acted in a fair and reasonable manner and on what basis will they or other bookmakers settle bets of this kind in future.

The implications of the latter will be immediately obvious, especially to political punters. The bookmaker is the sole judge of when ‘…the customer could have any indication of the outcome’ and can judge retrospectively. Punters must be aware that bets they have placed in good faith on events where information is trickling out constantly may be voided at some later date. This is particularly relevant if they are laying off such bets. The lay part is unlikely to be voided, and the punter who thought he was hedging, may be left with an unexpected liability.

Political betting is relatively new. It therefore does not have the benefit of the same amount of precedent as more mature betting markets, such as horse racing or soccer. In addition, there are likely to be ambiguities and definitional problems which create a greater degree of uncertainty than is usual in more traditional sports betting. It is in the interests of punter and bookmaker alike that such uncertainty is reduced to a minimum. In this respect, Paddy Power’s decision and the IBAS ruling are extremely unhelpful.

Relevant Links:
PB thread covering the Kansas caucus

Reuters announcement timed at 8.27pm UK time.

Official announcement from KRP timed at 8.40pm. The site also explains arrangements for the announcement of the result – see Media and Press section.

Peter Smith