US Presidential Election 2024 Winner: Betting Odds

Trump is the betting favorite.

More interesting to me is the way they rank the also-rans. Per the oddsmakers, Michelle Obama is more likely to become President than either Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris, so they’d kinda-sorta consider her the front-runner in case Biden were to disappear from the picture. That’s amazing because, as far as I know, Michelle Obama is not running for the job and has never expressed an interest in it. Her candidacy appears to be entirely a delusion of the right-wing rumor mill.

The oddsmakers also consider Michelle far more likely to be elected President in 2024 than Ron DeSantis. Now that one doesn’t surprise me, considering that I am probably more likely to be elected than Ron DeSantis. In fact, the only person in America less likely to be inaugurated in 2025 is the “rent is too damn high” guy.

SIDEBAR: Nikki Haley says she will not accept a vice-presidential nomination. “I’m not running for vice-president.” I don’t know why not. Trump will be 78 if he begins a new term. It seems to me that running to be the vice-president beneath a 78-year-old fat guy is approximately the same as running to be the president, except with a longer waiting period between election day and inauguration day.

Joking aside, Trump is unlikely to give her the chance to decline that nomination. He needs an absolute loyalist in that position because, thanks to a quirky element of our system, the vice-president is the only person in the executive branch that the President can’t fire. Trump must therefore seek a blind loyalist who will simply echo every Trump pronouncement. In other words, he needs a total buffoon who will be nothing more than his loyal, unprincipled, unquestioning flunky – a younger version of Rudy Giuliani.

From Politico: The GOP Is Already Clashing Over Trump’s VP Pick

31 thoughts on “US Presidential Election 2024 Winner: Betting Odds

  1. When you’re in the military, you declare a home of record for tax purposes, and the requirements vary from state to state. Texas’ requirement is something along the lines of “you intend to live there when you leave the military”, which makes it a popular choice because there is no state income tax.

  2. Why wish for a younger and smarter version of Rudy when the real thing is available? Well, unless they lock him up.

  3. A fool and their $$$ is soon parted. A day is a lifetime in politics notwithstanding. Yielding back the balance of my time …

  4. Michelle isn’t running. Her husband managed to make millions of dollars by manipulating and exploiting his own people. They are living the good life. They have no interest in returning to politics.

    1. To give credit where due, I think almost everyone would agree with almost all of that. That is, zero credit is due for any of those flat statements that are too obvious to draw significant dispute.

      Leaving only one bit about “manipulating & exploiting.” That bit is pure spin. IMO, it’s false. But factually, it’s true that Obama found ways to capitalize his fame. To be fair, we can just read “by manipulating…” as deleted.

    2. More likely that she’s simply not fucking nuts. And someone would need to be fucking nuts to want to run for president. Occam’s Razor and all that

  5. Odds are determined by popularity about as much as probability so it’s more likely someone placed a big bet on Michelle rather than bookies liking her chances. If a high enough amount of money is bet on Michelle Obama (or Trump or Biden), odds makers would start to shift the odds. Same reason teams like the Cowboys and Yankees always have lower odds than better teams people.

  6. In fairness, Haley is a warmongering neo-con who (like many others like her, including liberal counterparts) should be in prison, not running for presidency, but that’s American politics for you.

  7. Nikki Haley served in the Trump Administration, obtained foreign policy experience, and escaped with her reputation mostly intact. While it is unlikely she will be able to win the 2024 nomination, she is young enough to run in 2028. But if she were to accept an offer to be his running mate, she would have to spend the entire campaign defending Trump. She would have to balance having to do that with the chances of succeeding Trump (through his death, resignation, or impeachment and conviction). Assuming Trump served all 4 years, would being his VP make her more or less likely to win in her own right? Granted, I am clearly not representative of the GOP base anymore, but I doubt it would make me more likely to support her in 2028.

    There is one other consideration that might make Trump’s VP pick more important than is normally true. It is entirely possible that Trump could win the Electoral College, even as the GOP loses the House. What happens if a united Democratic majority refuses to certify Trump’s victory because they believe he is ineligible because of the 14th Amendment? If that happens, according to the 20th Amendment, ” if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.” I just hope Vivek Ramaslimey isn’t Trump’s running mate. I despise him almost as much as I despise Trump.

    It would just be so much better for the country if Nikki Haley were the GOP nominee so that the American people can retire Joe Biden. She is by far the most electable candidate, but Trump supporters are unable to see reality where Trump is concerned.

    1. The Republican Party has more “negatives” associated with it than Hilary Clinton did in 2016. And, unlikes hers, most of theirs are actual and factual.

      In other words, the Republican brand is now a hindrance in nationwide races, and many statewide ones, IMO. Getting rid of Trump will help somewhat, but it won’t make it a majority party again in a lot of places. If you want to be to the right of the Democratic Party, you need a new party without all that baggage.

      What you really need to do is hope the GOP dies and the Democrats split into centrist and progressive wings. Being a centrist on those terms is about the best you can hope for, because what does whatever “conservatism” is now have to offer a majority of the American people?

      Sure, it’s a great thing if you are a billionaire, or dream of becoming one, or just plain think you are John Galt in the flesh (compared to most people anyway). But really, when you get away from single issue voters (pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant), what do they offer that’s GOOD for most people? That is, what do they have to be FOR, rather than against, that is really to the general public’s advantage?

      PS – How would the GOP die? Their large-scale donors would see it can’t win many races any more and switch to buying Democrats, starving the Republicans further into irrelevance. (Or farther.) That would power the split in the Democratic Party. Pure speculation on my part, of course.

      1. The United States, because of the structures of government established by the Constitution, has never had more than 2 major parties at the same time, except perhaps for brief periods when one of the major parties was dying and in the process of being replaced. But we haven’t had a major party die since the Republican Party replaced the Whigs more than 160 years ago. I don’t see either the Democratic or Republican Parties being replaced, certainly not in my lifetime.

        I know that Democrats like to complain about all the power big-money donors have to control Republican politicians, but regardless of whether it was ever true they had that power, it is certainly not true today. Honestly, I wish that rich donors had that kind of power, because if they did, do you think Trump would be about to become the GOP nominee for the third straight presidential election? People who have that kind of money tend to be realistic about the electoral chances of a candidate. But while billionaires clearly have more individual power than any single small-dollar donor, as a group, it is the small-dollar donors upon whom campaigns rely. The problem is that rather than being motivated by a rational assessment of electability as much as ideology, small-dollar donors are largely motivated by emotion.

        There was a time when big-money donors could make or break a presidential campaign, with the “money primary” preceding the actual primaries. To the best of my knowledge, few, if any, big-money donors supported Trump in 2016, at least prior to his winning the nomination. Trump was able to survive scandals and mistakes that would have sunk other campaigns because Trump wasn’t relying on those donors. Trump relied primarily on self-financing and “free media.” But he also got lots of small-dollar donations. The great thing about small-dollar donors is that they rarely max out on legal donations, so campaigns can return to them again and again and again.

        ” what does whatever “conservatism” is now have to offer a majority of the American people?”

        Conservatism is not the problem with the GOP. I am a “conservative” in the American sense of that word. American conservatives are what were once known as liberals in the Old World. Ideological conservatism is about conserving liberty. Donald Trump is not a conservative, he is a populist. All Trump really cares about is regaining power, and he will seemingly say and do whatever he thinks will put him back in power. What is truly disgusting is the way supposedly ideological conservatives who are supposed to care about liberty and the Constitution are afraid to cross Trump.

        Rand Paul is supposedly the most libertarian Senator. In 2013, he filibustered an Obama nomination because Rand couldn’t get the administration to promise never to use drones to kill Americans on American soil. Yet, when asked about Trump’s claim that the president has blanket immunity for any crimes committed while in office, he answered, “It’s a very specific legal argument, and I’m afraid I’m just not up on it enough to be able to comment.” Actual conservatism is not the problem with the GOP. Cowardice is.

        Of course, small-dollar donors aren’t just a problem for the GOP. The incentives for individual politicians are no longer necessarily aligned with those of their party. Being ideologically pure and indignant is more important for most members of Congress than actually accomplishing anything. In the past, reform movements and reform parties, if successful would be absorbed by a major party. Lose enough elections in a row (e.g., Reagan and Bush winning in 1980, 1984, and 1988), and a movement will spring up to try to push the party in a direction that will help them become more electable (e.g., The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Bill Clinton). But I am not sure what form a successful movement to reform the GOP could or should take.

        At the very least that will require moving past Trump. Beyond that, certain structural reforms might help. First, I think we should remove the limits on the amount of money individuals can give to candidates and the limits on what political parties are allowed to spend. But while I think those limits should be removed, the names of donors and the amount they give above a certain amount would have to be released before the checks are cashed. That won’t necessarily make small-dollar donations unimportant, but it might at least allow one of those billionaires to fund a primary opponent for human filth like Matt Gaetz.

        1. I actually agree with most of what Michael McC says. Though I’m not overly enthusiastic towards guesses of or preferences involving “electability.”

          As I’ve said before, where we part company is that Michael still doesn’t understand that his idea of what “actual conservatism” really is, is precisely dead center of what Roger’s criticism of the GOP is all about. I mean, you think that the problem with Rand Paul is that he doesn’t stick to his guns.

          It’s that. Sticking to libertarian ideals. That’s what’s wrong with “actual conservatism.” You can call it some other label like “traditional liberalism” all you want. But as Lincoln said of a horse’s tail, it doesn’t matter what we call it, it’s not a leg.

          The wrong idea of the scope of freedom—that is, too narrowly defined—is the move that leads to the effective reduction of conservatism to the freedom to be a billionaire. That’s all that you truly stand for. Unfortunately, you will probably never be able to absorb that fact.

          The reason I believe Trump will win in the general is that too many Americans who believe in “the American way” correctly understand that what that really means is preserving their way of making a living… namely, taking advantage of people who should know better, but don’t.

          They vote “conservative” because “liberals” tend to favor broadly extending the medical idea that “consent” must be predicated on “informed.” If the result might be that The Haves lose some of their stranglehold on the lion’s share of GDP, then sorry, Losers, that’s a bridge too far.

          1. My point about Rand Paul wasn’t to complain that he doesn’t stick to his guns. That they stick to their guns IS the problem with the Freedom Caucus, at least when the GOP only controls 1/2 of one branch of government and that by only 2 seats! No, my complaint about Paul is that despite his repeated stands for liberty, he wasn’t willing to say the president is not above the law. That was pure cowardice.

        2. Michael, thanks for your civil reply.

          My first point was not that the Republican Party is dying, or should die. I said that to me, it seemed like it would be a good thing for conservatives like you if it did die, because right now it is not remotely conservative, and has a lot of ugly baggage.

          (That baggage is not only Trump and his deplorable supporters, but also its long record of doing a lot for the wealthy and little for anyone else.)

          Right now, the GOP is a radical right party, but with a lot of politicians who have faithfully advanced the interests of the wealthiest individuals, corporations, and industries of America. They have done this since the Reagan years. That has been the real guiding philosophy of the Republican party for 40+ years.

          (I think it would have been more accurate to call it an oligarchical party than a conservative one before Trump, but maybe those two things are the same now. Conservatism seems to be a whole lot of different things.)

          Trump made it a radical right party by energizing the people the GOP had attracted with hate and fear. That process started with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and talk about law and order. It was later expanded to demonizing gun control and abortion, and a vast array of nine-day wonders, like gays in the military, Terry Schiavo, gay marriage, and trannies in the bathroom.

          Bascially, for people who believed everything Rush Limbaugh said, Trump was their man. Unlike Romney or Jeb Bush, he actually proposed to take action based on all those lies, and suddenly the right wing tail began wagging the oligarchical dog. It has ever since.

          That is the Republican Party as it currently exists, IMO. If you want it, you can have it. I just don’t understand why you would.

          My second point was to ask what conservatives, in whatever way you, personally, define them, want do with the laws and government of the United States? What policies do they have that will benefit the American people? I read your post, but I failed to see anything about that. That’s probably my fault. Could you point it out? Thanks!

          PS – I really ought to have ended every sentence above with “IMO”, because it’s not like I’m Mr. Know-It-all, or even possess a Kurwood Derby. But I generally have reasons for those opinions, so I did not bother.

          1. PPS – Michael McC, I need to apologize. I re-read your post and saw your closing point about campaign finance reform. That would be a good thing, and truly beneficial to the American people, IMO.

            Of course, it is also anathema to the Republican Party as it is currently constituted. I would consider that another reason to abandon them, but it is more important to note that you really did answer my question. Thank you.

          2. I didn’t want to get into a discussion of why I believe more conservative/classically liberal policies would be better for the country. Books have literally been written on that subject. My complaint about the MAGA Right is that they seem to be much more about wielding power, even illegitimate power, than about advancing conservative policies. As a conservative, I don’t like that.

            But on the subject of what’s best for billionaires and what’s best for the rest of us, I believe that policies that are targeted primarily at reducing income equality, also tend to reduce economic growth, which is bad for everyone. I care far more about increasing my own purchasing power than I care if Elon Musk or Bill Gates is getting richer faster than I am.

            Conservatives are also far more likely to be more supportive of First Amendment rights, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. For instance, I think it is wrong for the federal government to insist that The Little Sisters of the Poor provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans even though they have a sincere belief doing so violates their religious beliefs. Giving an exemption to a religious order of nuns is not likely to prevent any woman from accessing contraceptives.

          3. 1 – Conservatives don’t believe in Freedom of Speech. See Florida for examples of that.
            2 – The nuns should not be exempt. To make them exempt would mean they would be forcing their religion onto their employees. Would you want your boss to force they’re religion onto you?

          4. “I believe that policies that are targeted primarily at reducing income equality, also tend to reduce economic growth, which is bad for everyone. I care far more about increasing my own purchasing power than I care if Elon Musk or Bill Gates is getting richer faster than I am.”

            So you belong to the Face-Eating Leopard Party. Because if you live long enough, unfettered economic inequity will eventually come for you, too.

    2. I think they see the reality of Trump’s maliciousness (except for a few gullible true believers), but they also see the reality of his power over his flock, and they all fear the primaries. Their problem is not lack of intellgence, but lack of honor. (With apologies to Liz Cheney and a few others willing to place principles above their own need to get re-elected.)

  8. Any other version of Rudy by definition would have to be younger and smarter.

    Actually, there are plenty of non-Rudy buffoons out there who fit the bill. A few of them are women (Stefanik, Noem), and I’m not sure Trump would be on board with that.

    Politico just did a story on it.

    1. One other thing has a candidate ever admitted they would accept the VP slot while their campaign was still active? I can’t recall one. So I would take Haley’s statement with a Costco-sized shaker of salt.

    2. “Any other version of Rudy by definition would have to be younger and smarter.”


      Before you commented, I had already deleted “smarter” from my remarks, but not for the reason you cited. I realized that anyone smarter than Rudy would not be likely to be an absolute toady. Trump needs somebody younger than Rudy, but just as unprincipled and gullible. He would require an election-denier, as well as somebody who cheers on his actions on January 6th, and praises the insurrectionists. He would also be choosing his successor as the standard bearer for Trumpism.

      Would he consider picking Don Junior? I don’t think anything in the Constitution prevents it, and Trump is never one to abide by tradition.

      1. I think picking Don Jr might finally be the Bridge Too Far for his non-hardcore supporters, but we’ve said that before.

      2. The Constitution prohibits the president and vice president from being residents of the same state. Trump is now a Florida resident, but I don’t know where Don Jr. lives these days.

        1. That is not accurate. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a President and VP from the same state. What the 12th Amendment does prohibit is an elector voting for both a Pres and the VP who are from the same home state as the elector. That elector can vote for one of them, but not both. This would not apply to electors from any other state. So theoretically it could make a ticket a little less likely to garner 270 electoral votes, but under the Constitution there is nothing prohibiting such an occurrence.

          1. I’ll take obscure Constitutional facts for $1000, Alex. 😂
            You are correct. And it appears the only time in modern presidential elections it would have mattered is 2000 when GWB won by 5 electoral votes. Cheney couldn’t have been vice-president without Texas’ electoral votes.
            But this discussion brings up that we should probably have an amendment preventing people that are related (father/son, father/daughter, husband/wife, etc.) on the same ticket. We are not a monarchy nor a dictatorship, even if that’s what TFG wants.

        2. Iggy and Sjsixer are correct, but it doesn’t matter

          Even if they both live in Florida, a critical state, there is still a way around it, The Florida electors could cast their votes for Senior as President, but could get around the constitutional problem by becoming faithless electors for vice-president and voting for any Consiitutionally eligible person not living in Florida. If this would happen to prevent Junior from a majority, the vice-presidential contingent election would be decided by a vote of the United States Senate. (That would therefore be decided by whichever party controlled the Senate at the time.) This has actually happened in the past. In 1836, Martin van Buren was elected by the electoral college, but faithless electors in Virginia refused to vote for Van Buren’s vice-presidential nominee, Richard Mentor Johnson, denying him a majority of the electoral vote and thus forcing a contingent election in the Senate for vice-president.

          (Johnson did win.)

          1. I vaguely rembere that i wanted to say something, but knowing a guy was called Dick Mentor Johnson made me forget what we’re even talking about.
            Any two of his names would be great together, but all three and you just have to sit back for a moment to appreciate it.

          2. That wouldn’t be necessary. If Trump picked a fellow resident of Florida, that person would merely have to re-register to vote in another state. That’s what Cheney did in 2000, he was living in Texas but re-registered to vote in his native Wyoming.

          3. Cheney did re-register at the last minute, but his legitimacy was based on more than that. Cheney’s candidacy was challenged in court, and the federal appeals court ruled that he was legally a Wyoming resident under the definition in Wyoming law.

            Under Wyoming regulations posted on the secretary of state’s Web site, “Residence is the place where a person has a current habitation and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning.”

            Cheney met both qualifications. I don’t remember the details of the court’s ruling, but Darth Cheney must have had homes in both places, as well as his lavish quarters on the Death Star. Given that, changing his voter registration was basically a cosmetic move.

            I suppose that if one shops around, there may be other states where the residency laws are less strict and do not require a current habitation. In Louisiana or Illinois, you can probably bribe a judge to declare you a resident even if you have never been there.

Comments are closed.