Does Hillary’s Health Matter?

By , in Current Events Politics on .

197133_5_

Like many Americans, I was out all day on Sunday watching football.  Slowly but surely, I started getting lots of emails about Hillary’s health.  Figuring something was up, I finished watching the first set of games, and then went home and checked out what happened.  Once I read the news and found out what occurred, like those who had contacted me, I wondered what the effect the presidential election would be.

So where did I look?  If you’ve read my previous content on where to find the real odds, you already know: I went straight to Betfair, and checked out the US election odds.  As the news got digested by the oddsmakers, and real money was moved around and the odds repriced, the odds for Sanders, Biden, and Kaine began increasing.  The odds for Trump moved up just a touch, but not nearly as much as many who contacted me thought they would.

As of 9/12/2016 at 11:20AM EST, the odds were as seen below:

hillary-odds

I’ll put the numbers in percentage terms of chance to win the election, to simplify.  All percentages are approximates:

  • Hillary Clinton:  61%  (prior: 68%)
  • Donald Trump:  30.5%  (prior: 28%)
  • Joe Biden:  3.7%
  • Bernie Sanders:  3.1%
  • Tim Kaine:  1.1%
  • Gary Johnson:  0.25%

After looking at the new odds, I asked myself the question again: does Hillary’s health matter?  Below are my observations:

Of all the possible candidates to potentially replace Hillary, Biden and Sanders are in a virtual tie, with a slight edge going to Biden.  While Tim Kaine could replace Hillary, he would likely remain as the VP on a new ticket.  The DNC has no official procedure to replace a nominated candidate who drops out, so no one really has a clue what would happen if Hillary left the race.  The presumption is that the DNC would think Biden is a stronger replacement than Sanders, who was not liked by the DNC during the nomination process.  Sanders of course would have a lot of existing support of many who voted for him in the primary, just not the backing of the DNC.  Biden, who was likely already kicking himself for not running, has to really be regretting that decision now… unless he somehow bucks the odds and ends up replacing Hillary.  If Biden does replace her, he would get all the benefits of being the candidate, without having any of the drawbacks of having ample time to attack his platform leading into the election, leaving him far better off than if he ran from the beginning. 

Only a small amount of the “benefits” of Hillary’s health episode have accrued to Trump… so far.  His odds for victory have only increased ~2% from a prior 28% this past week.  I think this is because any of the proposed replacements are far stronger candidates than Hillary is.  Hillary is easily the weakest, most flawed, and easily exposed presidential candidate the party has put forward in the last 7-8 election cycles, if not more.  She lost to Obama in 2008, and while Obama is an excellent speaker and campaigner, he was Illinois’ junior senator at the time who hadn’t even finished serving his first term.  Obama and Sanders both should have been patsy opponents for her, and she still lost to Obama and had to have heavy DNC support to defeat Sanders, who has plenty of his own weaknesses, including his own age and mental health.

If Hillary isn’t replaced, I think only some of the benefits of her health episode will accrue to Trump.  The “Never Trump” crowd will still come out for her, but will obviously be less likely to show up and vote for someone they think may not be healthy enough to hold office, not including all her other misgivings.

If Hillary is replaced, I would expect Trump’s odds to get way worse.  I think if Biden/Sanders/Kaine replaced Hillary, people would flock to the new candidate.  Trump is hated by people from both parties, notably the elites/establishment, constantly puts his foot in his mouth, and I believe it would be easy to garner support for whoever should have been running against him instead of Hillary.  And as I stated above, all of the potential replacements are far stronger candidates than Hillary.

Gary Johnson is still not a factor.  Unfortunately, the Libertarian candidate hasn’t seen any benefit at all from this.

So, while Hillary’s health COULD be a factor, right now, it is more than likely not a big enough issue to get her replaced.  The market is pricing the likelihood of Hillary replacements at a total of ~8% chance of winning it all.  As a percentage of Hillary’s odds to win, that puts her odds of being replaced at ~13%.  Her health is most likely either A) not an issue, or B) is an issue, and the DNC/Mainstream Media will prop her up Weekend at Bernie’s style.  No matter what the pundits are saying to get their name in the news, with an 87% chance that she stays in the race, odds are very strong that Hillary’s presidential race isn’t ending until after the election is over. 

hillary_sick_ben_garrison

  • kgbgb

    I wouldn’t use bookies’ odds as a guide to what will actually happen in elections, especially when the mainstream media are all piling in on one side and unjustly denigrating the supporters of the other side as ignorant uneducated racists.

    In the British referendum this summer, opinion polls indicated a fairly easy win for BREMAIN, and BREMAIN’s advantage looked absolutely overwhelming as judged by the bookies’ odds. But BREXIT ended up with a clear win. A lot of discussion ensued about how the pollsters got it so wrong, but they did brilliantly compared to the bookies.

    • Duane Norman

      You make a good point, that it is often easier to predict where the money is going to go, than who is actually going to win.

      However, bookie and live exchange odds are probably the best indicator out there for any event. The book has a vested interest in balancing both sides, and the more the line moves, the more they lose value. A live exchange effectively minimizes the book’s risk by having gamblers compete against each other and just taking fees, similar to a poker rake. This is why the odds are so much narrower on Betfair than they are at the big casinos.

      I commented on the Brexit example in my first article on Betfair. The odds were initially against Brexit, but not by much. As the date moved closer and it became more apparent it would be a toss-up, the odds flip-flopped back and forth on both outcomes, and all through the night of the vote. The pollsters actually fared worse, because they stayed in the Bremain camp, while the bookies adjusted. It is also reasonable to assume that bookies that got too much action on Brexit laid off their risk on the Betfair exchange, with its much tighter odds, pocketing the wide spread they gave to gamblers.

      If you watch the bookie odds, you’ll notice results tend to converge on their expected outcomes. Sports are the best example; while you might pick a few games right, in the long run, unless you know something everyone else doesn’t, you are likely to lose against the bookie spread.

    • Duane Norman

      You make a good point, that it is often easier to predict where the money is going to go, than who is actually going to win.

      However, bookie and live exchange odds are probably the best indicator out there for any event. The book has a vested interest in balancing both sides, and the more the line moves, the more they lose value. A live exchange effectively minimizes the book’s risk by having gamblers compete against each other and just taking fees, similar to a poker rake. This is why the odds are so much narrower on Betfair than they are at the big casinos.

      I commented on the Brexit example in my first article on Betfair. The odds were initially against Brexit, but not by much. As the date moved closer and it became more apparent it would be a toss-up, the odds flip-flopped back and forth on both outcomes, and all through the night of the vote. The pollsters actually fared worse, because they stayed in the Bremain camp, while the bookies adjusted. It is also reasonable to assume that bookies that got too much action on Brexit laid off their risk on the Betfair exchange, with its much tighter odds, pocketing the wide spread they gave to gamblers.

      If you watch the bookie odds, you’ll notice results tend to converge on their expected outcomes. Sports are the best example; while you might pick a few games right, in the long run, unless you know something everyone else doesn’t, you are likely to lose against the bookie spread.

  • Doszap

    The DNC has no official procedure to replace a nominated candidate who drops out, so no one really has a clue what would happen if Hillary left the race.

    Sure it does, it does DIRECTLY back to the DNC delegates, and they would make the choice.

    • Duane Norman

      I’m pretty sure you’re right. Whatever the procedure is, it sure as hell isn’t official. They could nominate Robert Byrd for all we know. Here’s a bit from the cited article in that sentence:

      “According to the DNC’s bylaws and charter, the DNC would have the responsibility of picking a replacement. Exactly how this would be done is not spelled out, except that the members of the national committee would choose who fills the vacancy. The
      rules do not require that any kind of special consideration be given to
      Tim Kaine or Bernie Sanders. However, if someone besides Kaine were
      picked to replace Clinton, Kaine would remain in the VP spot.
      If you want to study the rules more closely, Ballotpedia addresses them in an article about the Rules and Bylaws of the Democratic Party.
      (The article also discusses RNC rules too.) In Article 3 Section 1, the
      rules state that the Democratic National Committee has the authority of
      “filling vacancies in the nominations of the President and Vice
      President.” This continues in Article 3, which states that a special
      meeting of the Democratic National Committee can be held to fill a
      vacancy on the national ticket. The meeting has to be called by the
      chair, in accordance with procedural rules, and determined by the
      majority vote of those present and voting by proxy.”

    • Duane Norman

      I’m pretty sure you’re right. Whatever the procedure is, it sure as hell isn’t official. They could nominate Robert Byrd for all we know. Here’s a bit from the cited article in that sentence:

      “According to the DNC’s bylaws and charter, the DNC would have the responsibility of picking a replacement. Exactly how this would be done is not spelled out, except that the members of the national committee would choose who fills the vacancy. The
      rules do not require that any kind of special consideration be given to
      Tim Kaine or Bernie Sanders. However, if someone besides Kaine were
      picked to replace Clinton, Kaine would remain in the VP spot.
      If you want to study the rules more closely, Ballotpedia addresses them in an article about the Rules and Bylaws of the Democratic Party.
      (The article also discusses RNC rules too.) In Article 3 Section 1, the
      rules state that the Democratic National Committee has the authority of
      “filling vacancies in the nominations of the President and Vice
      President.” This continues in Article 3, which states that a special
      meeting of the Democratic National Committee can be held to fill a
      vacancy on the national ticket. The meeting has to be called by the
      chair, in accordance with procedural rules, and determined by the
      majority vote of those present and voting by proxy.”

  • Doszap

    The DNC has no official procedure to replace a nominated candidate who drops out, so no one really has a clue what would happen if Hillary left the race.

    Sure it does, it does DIRECTLY back to the DNC delegates, and they would make the choice.

  • Furious Storm M.B.A.

    The 25th Amendment is the only guide we have to outline any procedural process to manage the loss, removal, or declination of a Presidential candidate.

  • Mike Mulcahey

    I for one do not believe one word of this article. It’s over after the first debate. Mr. Trump will sublimely cause her head to explode.

  • Hunsaker5225

    Another stupid set of claims that Trump is hated. Been to a Trump gathering? Or, do you just get your mind up by watching and reading all the MSM crap. Hillary is losing democrats, not a lot but enough to lose. She is surly not up to the real world of running the country and WE people are not so, as democrats are, to believe that we are all just a bunch of degenerates in a basket.

  • Pingback: Evaluating Google Trends, Candidate Likability, and Virtue Signaling - Free Market Shooter()

  • Pingback: Even Bigger Conflicts, Of Rational Self-Interest - Free Market Shooter()

  • Pingback: The 'Real' Reasons People Will Vote For Trump | Newsstand()

  • Pingback: The 'Real' Reasons People Will Vote For Trump | | Investing Matters()

  • Pingback: Pre-Election Odds and Market Analysis Update - Free Market Shooter()

  • Pingback: This '60 Minutes Segment' On "Fake News" Illustrates Why And How The MSM Is Losing The Media War - Investing Matters()

  • Pingback: This ’60 Minutes Segment’ On “Fake News” Illustrates Why And How The MSM Is Losing The Media War | Daily News Inc.()

  • Pingback: This '60 Minutes Segment' On “Fake News” Illustrates Why And How The MSM Is Losing The Media WarSince 1998 Hitrust.net = Privacy and Protection | Since 1998 Hitrust.net = Privacy and Protection()

  • Pingback: This ’60 Minutes Segment’ On “Fake News” Illustrates Why And How The MSM Is Losing The Media War | US-China News()

  • Pingback: This '60 Minutes Segment' On "Fake News" Illustrates Why And How The MSM Is Losing The Media War - Alternative Report()

  • Pingback: The 60 Minutes “Segment” On “Fake News” Illustrates Why And How The MSM Is Losing The Media War - David Olliver()

  • Pingback: This '60 Minutes Segment' On "Fake News" Illustrates Why And How The MSM Is Losing The Media War - Black Barth News()

  • Pingback: This '60 Minutes Segment' On - Alternative Report()

  • Pingback: This ’60 Minutes Segment’ On “Fake News” Illustrates Why And How The MSM Is Losing The Media War | zeitgeist777()

  • Pingback: If Recent Trends Are Any Indication, Marine Le Pen Is Being Drastically Underpriced By Oddsmakers | ValuBit News()

  • Pingback: If Recent Trends Are Any Indication, Marine Le Pen Is Being Drastically Underpriced By Oddsmakers | It's Not The Tea Party()