Current Tradesports numbers

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

These are odds. I'm only listing canidates over 0.5%.

Democrats:
Clinton 46.5%
Warner 22.6%
Gore 11.3%
Edwards 5.5%
Kerry 3.4%
Feingold 3.2%
Biden 3.0%
Bayh 1.5%
Clark 1.3%
Richardson 1.1%
Obama 0.9%
Vilsack 0.7%

McCain 46.2%
Allen 15.1%
Romney 13.5%
Giulani 9.2%
Rice 3.5%
Huckabee 2.5%
Frist 2.3%
Bush, Jeb 2.1%
Gingrich 1.2%
Brownback 1.1%
Pataki 1.0%

General election:
Democrat 49.0%
Republican 48.3%
Field 2.7%

[adam]

It's hard to formulate odds when no one of significance has really thrown their hat into the ring. Until most people who were going to have joined the race; I pay little attention to the odds.

[Nym90]

I'm glad to see Warner is doing so well. I guess he must be generating some real buzz. I always thought support for him at this time was limited to political junkies and that he wasn't well known.

[Mr. Morden]

Wow, the gap between McCain and Allen has really exploded just in the last few weeks.  I think 46% is the highest McCain has ever been.  On the flip side, it doesn't seem like that long ago that Allen was sitting at 25%.

For the Democrats, HRC has been hovering around 45% for a long time now.  No change there.  The biggest movement of late has been Gore getting some distance from Edwards, and firmly establishing his lock on 3rd place.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

New rankings

Clinton 45.5%
Warner 22.1%
Gore 14.8%
Edwards 5.1%
Kerry 3.4%
Feingold 2.4%
Biden 2.4%
Bayh 1.4%
Obama 1.3%
Clark 1.1%
Richardson 0.7%

McCain 42.0%
Allen 18.0%
Romney 12.8%
Giulani 9.6%
Rice 4.5%
Frist 2.3%
Gingrich 2.2%
Bush Jeb 2.2%
Huckabee 2.2%
Brownback 1.1%
Hagel 0.7%

General:
Democrat 48.7%
Republican 48.1%
Field 2.5%

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clinton:


Warner:


Gore:

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

New numbers.

Democrats:
Clinton 43.6
Warner 19.9
Gore 17.6
Edwards 5.7
Kerry 3.4
Biden 2.1
Feingold 2.0
Obama 1.8
Bayh 1.5
Clark 0.7
Richardson 0.6
Vilsack 0.5

large gap

Others 0.1


Republicans:
McCain 40.0
Allen 16.1
Romney 13.0
Giulani 9.5
Rice 5.3
Gingrich 3.5
Huckabee 2.7
J. Bush 2.6
Frist 2.3
Pataki 1.9
Hagel 1.7
Brownback 1.6
Cheney 0.6
Powell 0.5
Others 0.3 or lower

[© tweed]

Gore has overtaken Warner for second behind Hillary, 19.1 to 18.2.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gore has overtaken Warner for second behind Hillary, 19.1 to 18.2.

That's because he's running an insurgent campaign, even though he's not running.

Clinton 43.6
Gore 19.1
Warner 18.2
Edwards 6.2
Kerry 3.3
Feingold 2.3
Biden 2.1
Obama 1.8
Clark 1.2
Bayh 1.0
Richardson 0.8
Vilsack 0.4
Bredensen 0.2
Rest 0.1

[© tweed]

Gore has overtaken Warner for second behind Hillary, 19.1 to 18.2.

That's because he's running an insurgent campaign, even though he's not running.

Who the hell knows.  He might be setting himself as the reluctant old warhorse who doesn't want to run but he's pulled back to the race by the grassroots in summer 2007.  I think he's the only candidate who can beat Clinton.

[Lincoln Republican]

I'm not really all that surprised by Romney's good numbers.

I have been saying on this forum for over two years that Romney is a force to be reckoned with in 2008.

He's smart, articulate, savvy, speaks extremely well, looks like a million bucks, and has a Presidential air about him.

[adam]

I think he's the only candidate who can beat Clinton.

I'd have to disagree. I would say that just about anyone sane could beat Hillary in the upcoming Democratic primary. She has what I like to call "Howard Dean" syndrom. Yes she is polling high because she is the only candidate that Democrats believe they have at the moment. The second someone else enters the race (by someone, I mean someone serious, not Mike Gravel) she'll fall off the map and finish third in the primaries.

[jokerman]

I think he's the only candidate who can beat Clinton.

I'd have to disagree. I would say that just about anyone sane could beat Hillary in the upcoming Democratic primary. She has what I like to call "Howard Dean" syndrom. Yes she is polling high because she is the only candidate that Democrats believe they have at the moment. The second someone else enters the race (by someone, I mean someone serious, not Mike Gravel) she'll fall off the map and finish third in the primaries.

No, not quite.

Hillary has more name recognition than Dean did (I'm talking about your average voter, not a few beltway activists) more money than Dean, and the best political machine (and genius, in the person of Bill Clinton) that can be found.

She could be defeated by a united effort by party moderates to unite around one candidate during the early primaries (Warner, Bayh, Richardson..whoever) but she isn't going to simply die away, that's assured.

[adam]

I think he's the only candidate who can beat Clinton.

I'd have to disagree. I would say that just about anyone sane could beat Hillary in the upcoming Democratic primary. She has what I like to call "Howard Dean" syndrom. Yes she is polling high because she is the only candidate that Democrats believe they have at the moment. The second someone else enters the race (by someone, I mean someone serious, not Mike Gravel) she'll fall off the map and finish third in the primaries.

No, not quite.

Hillary has more name recognition than Dean did (I'm talking about your average voter, not a few beltway activists) more money than Dean, and the best political machine (and genius, in the person of Bill Clinton) that can be found.

She could be defeated by a united effort by party moderates to unite around one candidate during the early primaries (Warner, Bayh, Richardson..whoever) but she isn't going to simply die away, that's assured.

Most of what you say is true, but you are not taking into account that people don't like Hillary half as much as they liked Dean. At the time "Crazy Howard" was a very popular figure within the leftist realm of the party. Not one wing of the Democratic party is really enthusiastic about her where as at least Dean had the left.

[Nym90]

I think he's the only candidate who can beat Clinton.

I'd have to disagree. I would say that just about anyone sane could beat Hillary in the upcoming Democratic primary. She has what I like to call "Howard Dean" syndrom. Yes she is polling high because she is the only candidate that Democrats believe they have at the moment. The second someone else enters the race (by someone, I mean someone serious, not Mike Gravel) she'll fall off the map and finish third in the primaries.

No, not quite.

Hillary has more name recognition than Dean did (I'm talking about your average voter, not a few beltway activists) more money than Dean, and the best political machine (and genius, in the person of Bill Clinton) that can be found.

She could be defeated by a united effort by party moderates to unite around one candidate during the early primaries (Warner, Bayh, Richardson..whoever) but she isn't going to simply die away, that's assured.

Most of what you say is true, but you are not taking into account that people don't like Hillary half as much as they liked Dean. At the time "Crazy Howard" was a very popular figure within the leftist realm of the party. Not one wing of the Democratic party is really enthusiastic about her where as at least Dean had the left.

I think you bring up some excellent points. Clinton really only has her name going for her, I haven't found anyone yet who is extremely enthusiastic for her. I think her support is mostly because she's so well-known, so when people are asked they default to the name they know.

She is certainly far from the darling of the left that she is portrayed as by the right.

[© tweed]

Democrats

Clinton 42.4
Warner 19.0
Gore 14.8
Edwards 9.0
Kerry 3.3
Biden 2.5
Feingold 2.3
Obama 2.0
Others under 2.0

Republicans

McCain 38.4
Allen 16.5
Giuliani 14.5
Romney 10.4
Rice 5.0
Gingrich 2.7
Huckabee 2.6
J. Bush 2.3
Frist 2.1
Others under 2.0

[Mr. Morden]

Giuliani is rising, and Romney is backsliding a bit, despite the fact that there seems to be a Romney boomlet in the media.  I've heard some pundits suggest that people close to Giuliani think there's now a good chance that he'll run, so that would probably explain his gains.

Tradesports also now has a new category for "winning individual", which I assume is for the winner of the general election.  In that category, McCain is at 24.0, and HRC is at 15.8.  Strangely, they don't list any other candidates for that.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Feingold will go up significantly even if he doesn't win the primary.  If you want a safe bet there it is.

[AuH2O]

Dang it I need some money, so I can put it on Guiliani. Free moolah.

He doesn't even have to win the primary. People are going to panic when McCain gets no votes in Iowa, even though it's already known that will happen. So I can sell some Rudy, make up my investment, and leave the rest in to make the real profits. That's a 7:1 payoff right there.

[Mr. Morden]

If there's a McCain selloff because of a poor McCain showing in Iowa, I would expect that whoever wins Iowa would reap the benefits, not necessarily Giuliani.  And I don't think Giuliani would do that well in Iowa.  In fact, I still don't think Giuliani will end up running....though it's *possible*.

[AuH2O]

Well as the long shots drop out, the bigger names will go up even before any caucus or primary. Guiliani is going to run. The polls put him in a strong position, even push polls strategic vision played with where they described his social positions before asking voter preference. Assuming Guiliani moves a bit right from his NYC days, which seems to be a safe assumption, he is the favorite.

Unless social issues become much more important than they are now, which is rather doubtful, there is no absolute impediment to Rudy's candidacy. Is he a tough sale to close with GOP primary voters? Heck yeah. But a lot of people dislike McCain personally, whereas disagreements with Rudy are a policy matter and thus can be more easily abridged.

[nini2287]

Gore has said repeatedly that he isn't running-why does he have 7 times the chance of winning the nomination as Feingold?

[Mr. Morden]

And Bill Clinton said in 1988 that he wouldn't run for president in 1992.  People change their mind.  (Though this would be fairly late for him to change his mind, and I agree that he's overrated on Tradesports....though not as much as Condi Rice, who has about a 0% chance of running.)

[Jake]

I'm glad to see Warner is doing so well. I guess he must be generating some real buzz. I always thought support for him at this time was limited to political junkies and that he wasn't well known.

Who else do you think bets on politics?

[© tweed]

About a month since we last posted the numbers, net change from 7/25 in ()

Democrats

Clinton 40.5 (-1.9)
Warner 18.5 (-0.5)
Gore 15.0 (+0.2)
Edwards 9.0 (0)
Feingold 3.6 (+1.3)
Kerry 3.3 (0)
Obama 2.2 (+0.2)
Bayh 2.2 (+ ~0.4)
Others under 2.0

Republicans

McCain 38.0 (-0.4)
Giuliani 16.0 (+1.5)
Romney 13.2 (+2.8 )
Allen 13.0 (-3.5)
Rice 5.9 (+0.9)
Gingrich 3.2 (+0.5)
Huckabee 2.2 (-0.4)
Others under 2.0