Rasmussen MKTS Update on UNP-D; Some of my Bets

CA still looks like a bargain to bet on Obama, with the current prices at 63-35 HRC vs. 60-40 on the overall nomination. I would want to look more closely at the delegate allotments per district there, but I don't buy the argument that Obama's pattern of likely results (big wins in some African-American districts, narrow losses in the rest) means he will not get his fair share of delegates at the end of the day: so far he's been drawing delegates above his popular vote %. If a district has an even number of delegates, he'd still get half in a close race that he loses.

In terms of states, the new states in the Rasmussen betting pool have mostly sorted themselves out (and they've added NY finally). It looks like this:

2 States Decisive Clinton (80% or more for, with Obama less than 20%): OK, NY
7 Probable Clinton (67% or more for; Obama less than 33%, so 2-1 odds or more): NJ, AZ, AR, MA (borderline, at 67-31), NM (84-29), TN (83-25--has clarified, "like buddah"), UT.
3 Leaning Clinton: MO 67-39, DE 73-35, CA 63-35.
6 More or less even (both 40+): AL, CO, CT, MN, AK, ID (all except MN with 10-25% edges currently to Obama).
1 Probable Obama: KS (25-80)
3 Decisive Obama: GA, IL, and the surprising ND (17-84).

So the CNN bet on which candidate will win the most states--meaningless as it is--looks like a probable win for HRC: 9-4, 12-4, or 13-9, depending on how much precision you assign to these odds.

I've been playing CA successfully (against the Obama nomination odds) and playing around with some of the other bets. The one I like best is on the number of seats the Democrats will hold (I believe that would exclude both Independents--the Democrat Sanders of VT and the future Republican Lieberman of CT). To me, it's a close call whether to go with 51-55 Dems or 56-60. Unlike the other races, which are driven away from the unstable 50-50 position as the day of decision nears, there are many 0-1 "random" variables at play in this one, which makes it likely this could remain a close bet--and thus a little more interesting--all the way to the end.


The new arbitrage play I recommend is on the Pennsylvania primary, which is absurdly late and for some reason has been out there to bet upon for a long time. One has to assume that a primary that late and that major will go for the presumptive nominee if there is one, which means it can be played against the overall nominee odds. The chances of a brokered convention for the Democrats are now pegged at 13%, which seems way too high for a two-way (excuse me, 3-way) Democratic race. You can bet I'm betting against that outcome.