Who’s holding the bets?
LOL, Palin is the favorite to get the presidency over Obama? LOLOLOLOL!!!
I think Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich from South Park have a better chance than Palin.
This is a bullshit condition which no one with sense would agree to. You certainly must be aware that this is a flatly unacceptable, even laughable, condition, so I can only assume you’re insisting on it only as a means to insure that no one will take your bet.
Huh? You’re saying if Obama gets into a car accident and doesn’t run for reelection because he’s in a coma, I pay you $300? That doesn’t make sense. If Obama chooses not to run (!) or loses the primary or general, of course I’d pay. But incapacitaion ought to be a push.
Eh, it’s a fine condition (especially to avoid the ambiguity proposed above) if it’s factored into the odds being laid.
Of course we all know the secret motivation is to give Rand Rover the option to win the bet by taking out Obama.
It’s a fraudulent offer. he can’t really think anyone would be stupid enough to accept those terms, so that’s his way of guaranteeing that he will never actually have to risk anything while trying to bluster that no one had enough confidence in Obama to bet on him.
Also, I want your money. No charities. Charities are for the weak, and I’m going to use your $200 to light a big ol’ cigar.
If someone offered 10:1 on the idea that Obama wouldn’t be president in 2013 (ie you put up $100 and win $1000 if he is president in 2013) I’d take that bet instantly. I have to factor in the different ways the situation may not arise - he dies, loses the primary, decides not to run, loses the election, etc. but I could very well decide it’s worth the odds even factoring all of that in.
There’s nothing fraudulent about those conditions, they should just be met with a corresponding sweetening of the odds being laid since there are more ways to lose the bet.
It’s certain a lot better than his silly 15:1 offer.
Edit: Wait, are you talking about the wager of 10% of income, or the stipulation that any failure of Obama to be president in 2013 regardless of the reason is a win?
I’m saying that it’s fraudulent for him to try to give himself an automatic win if Obama dies.
What’s really fraudulent is that Rand wants to bet on the 2012 election. If the Republicans win he wants to collect $15,000. If the Democrats win, he only wants to pay $1,000.
But, in his defense, he has stated he’s not interested in an even bet.
The Republicans don’t even have to win. They just can’t lose to Obama. If the Republicans lose to Biden, RR wins.
Yes, but possibilities like Obama dying or resigning or deciding not to run again or some third party candidate getting elected are remote 1000-1 shots. Realistically, this works out to a bet between Obama vs whoever the Republican candidate is.
Suppose I offer the opposing wager. I’ll bet that Obama wins in 2012. If Obama wins, loser pay me $15,000. If Obama loses I’ll pay $1000.
Not really. The Betfair market for example is purely “who will be sworn in in 2013”. If you want to back Obama the current price is 2.14 (your $100 gets you $114 if Obama wins) Betfair will not cancel the market for any reason that Obama doesn’t stand, and neither should RR necessarily. (Of course offering odds much worse than the bookies is not going to be very productive, although it did entice Ravenman.)
That’s true, but the betting market isn’t making any political points; presumably our bettors are betting that the “better man will win,” which is really all about who will carry the electoral college. If Obama carries 100% of the electoral college but gets hit by a meteor (or alternatively only 1% of the electoral vote but gets sworn in due to military coup or socialist alien invasion), the winning side hasn’t really proven their point about Obama’s electabilty or unelectability in his second term. If unlikely incapacitation is a sticking point, the winning condition could be the declaration of the winners of the election by joint session of Congress following the counting of the electoral votes, or the concession speech of the losing party.
Considering that we’ve had 4 out of 43 presidents get assassinated, I’d hardly call Obama dying a 1000-1 shot.
For what it’s worth, I have made a fair number of bets here over the years. There was only one bettor I asked to place funds in escrow; he refused, and the bet was not made. Every other bet was agreed-to, and paid or otherwise honorably disposed of after the event in question came to pass.
In short: I have never had a problem with welshers here, and I’ve laid more than a few bets.
I paid up on $100 bet to Debaser one time. That sucked. I learned my lesson from that one.
My thought is that the bet should be about whether Obama can beat an unnamed Republican contender.
I think the proposal to collect winnings on an election-year bet if this president (or any other president, Republican or Democrat) were to be struck by violence is outright obscene and completely indecent. We should keep the bounds of this wager to a friendly competition on electability.
I’m still very interested in the wager, and anxiously waiting for RR’s next response.
I take the lesson was “don’t bet,” rather than “refrain from making confident absolute predictions about future events.”
Correct. Obama will be reelected in a walk, but I’m not going to bet a dime on it.