Posted on 06/01/2007 7:21:46 PM PDT by George W. Bush
Ron Paul Odds Slashed Dramatically: 15 to 1 from 200 to 1
Carrie Stroup here with some startling news concerning Ron Paul. Sportsbook.com (see website here) had experienced such a dramatically insurgence of betting action on Mr. Paul over the past two weeks they were forced to slash odds from 200 to 1 to the current 15 to 1 odds.
"Ron Paul is a serious contender whose grass roots campaign is growing dramatically," explains Payton O'Brien, Senior Editor of Gambling911.com, one of the world's leading political betting news sources. "No other single candidate for US President has received the type of interest generated here at Gambling911.com."
Case in point, articles on Ron Paul in some cases generated four times the amount of interest than both Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani articles combined.
Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estés in her piece for The Moderate Voice questions whether Paul will jump to the third party, something the folks at Sportsbook.com are watching closely as well since 15 to 1 odds still offer a tremendous payout for gamblers ($1500 for every $100 bet should he win)
"Could Ron Paul’s freshest strategy be to keep showing up for all his party’s nominee debates, bringing his message out over and over again… and then, near the midnight hour, maybe suddenly say, You know what guys? I’m booking. I’m going to run Third Party.
Stroup continues to monitor Ron Paul betting odds along with
all other US Presidential candidates.
"A lot of people right now, seem to be thinking it might make stark sense to vote third party. All across the blogplanet one can read post after post from writers on the left, right and middle, fed up with two parties who’re coughing a 2 cylinder engine up the mountain of US woes, while loudly proclaiming they’re running a finned Hemi. Many people think they look and act the same. Only different colored socks. Maybe."
Representatives from Sportsbook.com agree that the backing of Paul is has been significant enough to shorten odds to what might very well amount to the biggest slashing in online gambling history.
"Read all the blogs, the Ron Paul news forums, and you'll see people saying they have either placed bets or considered placing bets on their favorite candidate at those high odds," a Sportsbook.com representative told Gambling911.com late Wednesday. "We will likely be slashing odds further in the coming weeks and quite possibly days since Ron Paul's momentum is really building."
For online gamblers a win would mean more than just money in one's own pocket. Ron Paul is the only candidate with 20 to 1 or better odds of becoming the next US President who supports legalized online gambling. A handful of his colleagues, including Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, attached an measure to curb some forms of online gambling to an unrelated port security act.
Paul considered the act "underhanded" and a perfect example of what is wrong with today's political system. Paul was also one of the few who had no other choice but to vote against the port security act due to the slimy tactics used during the waning days of Congressional session last October in getting the measure passed into law.
----
Related Articles:
Ron Paul Presidential Odds Slashed in Half
Online Gambling Community: Don't Underestimate Ron Paul Popularity
Online Gambling: Don't Underestimate Ron
Paul
Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Wants Internet Gambling Legalized
Where did you ever get the hair-brained idea that Paul wants the U.S. to cower and hide under a blanket?
Paul would've struck hard at the Islamofascists immediately after 9/11, instead of waiting for UN resolutions and the "international community."
He voted in favor of the WOT in Afghanistan.
Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind Act, Transportation and Farm Bills have nothing to do with military operations.
Thanks for playing.
Sad how many “conservatives” would disagree with that.
Paul is in every way a cut-and-runner. He has said on the floor of Congress that the troops will one day be defunded, so why not now? Of course, he doesn’t give a rip about the Iraqi citizens who will be butchered by warring Islamic factions (as the Iraqi army is not yet prepared to deal with the situation fully).
That line of thinking is wholly unethical and indefensible.
Troublemaker!
“Sargeant, get the sappers up here! There’s a minefield afoot.”
“except for some whose arguments tend to look much like they were lifted verbatum from DU.”
Have you been on DU lately? They are in love with Ron Paul.
Like white on rice.
LOL!
He specifically asked Bush to declare a formal war and he didn't. Tell me, how long do you think we'll be in Iraq to kill an inexhaustible supply of terrorists? Wouldn't it make more sense to secure America first and threaten to turn any terrorist state to smoking rubble if they dare attack us again?
He opposes the Patriot Act, which gives our government the power to prevent terrorists attacks.
Face it, the Patriot Act contained a lot of harmful provisions to law-abiding Americans. It was too broad.
He regularly votes against spending on the military
He votes against the pork but not against necessary military spending.
“Hell, I would trust McCain and Rudy with my kid’s security before Paul..”
Sorry Charlie, but I wouldn’t trust any of them. My kid’s security is my job. You can farm the job out if you want.
Very true, but the problem is he thinks that should be where we are still fighting the WOT, even though the General in charge said, and I quote.. "We ran out of targets and most of the islamists aren't willing to fight for Afghanistan.." (Tommy Franks)
If we moved all our troops to Afghanistan, where do you think the islamists would go? Do you think that is a battlefield worth fighting for or would they look for richer pastures to fight us on?
One of them. The guy doing the rolling is off camera. :O)
I think RuPaul would be better than Ron Paul, but I like Rudy, so what do I know?
Now we know where the campaign money is going.
I believe Ron Paul wants Congress to declare a war, then wage a war.
And I do not think that there is a potential running mate who could ameliorate this concern (alive today at least - Patton as Veep would satisfy me). I for one cannot support Ron Paul for president...and it isn't Iraq that is the deal breaker. It is the concern that he is incapable of unleashing hellfire if and when the hour for it arrives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.