Odds On Our Next President Post-Iowa

Casinos Say Rubio ahead of Trump, Sanders and Cruz

Odds On Our Next President Post-Iowa
February 5, 2016

Jeb Bush the Republican favorite to win the White House? The last time we checked the odds in September, he led the pack, but a lot has changed since then. We wanted to see the odds after the Iowa caucus, where Jeb! placed sixth! You can’t bet on the next President of the United States in Vegas, but foreign gambling locations are quite happy to take your money and test your Presidential prognostication prowess.

Four months ago, we looked over the odds as provided by prominent foreign oddsmakers such as Canada's Bovada and the UK's Ladbrokes. At the time, Jeb Bush was still a 3.75:1 favorite to win the Presidency while Donald Trump had begun his surge to rise to 7:1 odds; Ted Cruz and Ben Carson were in the next tier at 33:1 odds. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton was near even money while Bernie Sanders had dropped to 14:1.

Over the course of one of the strangest primary campaigns in history, the eve of the Iowa caucuses showed significant changes in the odds according to Bovada. Donald Trump managed to break almost every tenet of political campaigning to surge to 1.9:1 odds at Bovada, the best among the Republicans. Ted Cruz was rivaling Donald Trump in national polls but lagging behind at 20:1 with oddsmakers, while Marco Rubio sat at 10:1. Hillary was still an even money favorite, but Bernie Sanders had become a serious challenger at 3.5:1.

As if there weren't enough confusion entering the primary, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg dropped hints that he is considering a Presidential run. Realistically, it will be difficult even for a multi-billionaire such as Bloomberg to mount a successful bid at this late date just from election mechanics, but he has been on the board at foreign books with odds generally in the 30:1 to 40:1 range. That's better than lower tier announced candidates such as Carly Fiorina and John Kasich who register in the 100:1 to 300:1 range.

Now we finally have results to analyze instead of polls, as the Iowa caucuses of both parties have finished. As of this writing, how have oddsmakers changed their view in light of the "Hawkeye Cauci?" The most significant change in the early post-caucus odds follow the most surprising of the caucus results – the strong third-place finish of Marco Rubio in the Republican caucus. In most books, Rubio is now second behind Hillary Clinton, who has nudged above even money to be a 0.8:1 favorite. That means you have to risk $10 to win $8 on the potential first female and second Clinton President.

Donald Trump's second-place finish dropped his odds to the 5:1 to 7:1 range, third among all contenders with the oddsmakers. Bernie Sanders' razor-thin defeat in Iowa keeps his odds in the 6:1 to 8:1 range. Ted Cruz's victory could not boost his odds above 12:1, and the declining Jeb Bush is still hanging in there near 40:1, in the same range as the undeclared Michael Bloomberg. Chris Christie is hovering around 80:1 odds, and all other declared candidates face greater than 100:1 odds.

If you still want to take a flyer on a longshot candidate, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Jim Gilmore (who?), and other lower-tier candidates are available for odds in the 150:1 to 300:1 range. If you placed money on Martin O'Malley, Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, you can throw your bet slips away — they called it quits after the caucus. Check the latest results for most overseas books at Oddschecker.com.

If you like long odds, a few books allow you to place bets on a variety of celebrities and other non-candidates. Surely, a rich celebrity cannot be elected president of the U.S. ... can he?


Photo of Hillary Clinton by ©iStock.com/EdStock, Photo of Marco Rubio by Michael Vadon (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

  Conversation   |   11 Comments

Add a Comment

By submitting you agree to our Terms of Service
Steffanie | 02.05.16 @ 19:01
Not really happy with any of the possible candidates at this point.
Carla Truett | 02.05.16 @ 19:01
I just hope whoever it is can pull us out of this Obamacare mess.
Erin | 02.05.16 @ 19:01
There is still a long way to go with this whole process - much too long in my opinion. I'm sure these numbers will continue to change for everyone involved.
Irene | 02.05.16 @ 19:02
As long as it's not Trump I'm good
Alec | 02.05.16 @ 19:03
I honestly don't care who wins the election at this point. I would prefer it be neither Hilary not Trump though because they're popular only because of scandals surrounding them. I'd prefer the president to be someone more qualified.
trish | 02.05.16 @ 19:03
I feel like this is the very first year, in my voting career, that I am truly speechless over our candidate pool. I am gobsmacked that we are, as a whole, looking at choosing the what we feel is the best of the worst group of candidates, as opposed to choosing who we think will make the best POTUS.
Bobbie | 02.05.16 @ 19:08
Not to thrilled with any of the candidates, but I think both parties keep the public at odds with each other so that they can stay in some office or another and keep making money and passing laws that so not apply to them.
gracie | 02.05.16 @ 19:08
Voting doesn't feel like the privilege I had always looked forward to when there are no candidates that feel like a good fit. I feel like my choices at this point are not so good, bad, or way worse. None of them are great choices.
Jonathan | 02.05.16 @ 19:10
Gary Johnson!
brittany.martinez530 | 02.05.16 @ 19:13
I haven't been very happy with any of our candidates this go around, but I will say... as long as it's not Hillary or trump, I'll be happy.
Stokes | 02.05.16 @ 19:13
I always vote third party. I just assume all Republicans and Democrats are lying.
$commenter.renderDisplayableName() | 12.06.16 @ 22:05
{comment}

  Our Professionals Are Available to Help!

  Can't find What You're Looking For?