Handicapping the presidential prospects, from Al Gore to Hulk Hogan

National Interests by Gary Griffith

The presidential election is still 21 months away, but the Democratic and Republican nominations will probably be sewn up within 11 months. So I am trying to get my bets down. The dozen or so well-known published polls on the race are fine for cocktail chat. But when you're wagering real money, it is essential to know what the professional oddsmakers are thinking.

Right now, in the Las Vegas line I trust the most, the favorite is Al Gore, at 8 to 5. That means, for example, that if you bet $5000 on Gore now and he is elected president, you will be paid $13,000 -- your original $5000 bet and winnings of $8000 -- on November 7, 2000, after the votes have been counted.

Although it is too early to put much stock in polls, this is an excellent time to pay attention to the odds. The odds will change as the election draws nearer, and the favorites will pay less as the race becomes more certain. Unfortunately, that's the way it works. Six weeks before the 1996 election, for example, the odds on Bill Clinton were 1 to 15, which meant that if you bet $15,000 on Clinton, you got back $16,000.

It is sad that in this great country of ours, where you can bet on horses, dogs, boxers, and little balls rattling around in a cage, you cannot legally bet on elections, even in Las Vegas. However, you can place legal bets on US elections in England, Australia, Ireland, and many other countries. There are also, I am told, a few "undocumented" political bookmakers here in the USA.

But back to the odds. George W. Bush, the Republican governor of Texas, is currently at 7 to 2. Thus, in the oddsmakers' world, Bush is a longer shot than Gore. That seems at variance with every major poll. In the most recent Washington Post poll, for example, Bush beat Gore 50 percent to 40 percent among registered voters.

But oddsmakers are looking at probability. "Gore only has one announced challenger," says David Scott, the political analyst for Roxy Roxborough's Las Vegas Sports Consultants, whose odds I am using here. "He is more likely to win his party's nomination than Bush is."

Gore's most certain challenger for the Democratic nomination is Bill Bradley, the former senator from New Jersey who once played in the NBA. The odds on Bradley are longer: 10 to 1.

John Kerry, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts, has yet to declare his intentions; he is currently at 25 to 1. Jesse Jackson, who also may or may not run as a Democrat, is at 100 to 1. Hulk Hogan, the professional wrestler, is at 10,000 to 1, although I am not sure about his party affiliation, and I am not going to ask.

The Republican field is more crowded. Elizabeth Dole, like her fellow Republican George W. Bush, currently beats Democrat Al Gore in most head-to-head polling match-ups. The latest Los Angeles Times poll, for example, has her beating Gore 50 percent to 42 percent.

But the odds on Liddy are currently 12 to 1. That's the same as for businessman Steve Forbes and Arizona senator John McCain.

Former vice president Dan Quayle and former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander are longer shots, at 20 to 1.

Ohio congressman John Kasich is at 25 to 1. New Hampshire senator Bob Smith, who formalized his announcement last week, is at 60 to 1.

"You'll hear a lot of other people quoting odds," says Scott. "They may know a lot about politics, but they don't know much about oddsmaking." His firm updates its odds as often as necessary, he says, and he stresses that they have to make sense mathematically. They have to be enticing for the bettor, yet provide a margin of profit for the bookmakers no matter which candidate wins.

Most of the clients of Las Vegas Sports Consultants are Nevada casinos and legal bookmakers overseas that pay a monthly charge for the service. They subscribe primarily for odds and point spreads on sporting events. Politics is a very minor part of the firm's business, but one that is taken seriously.

Scientific polling, which doesn't apply to sporting events, makes political oddsmaking easier when the field has narrowed. But at this point, more than a year before the election, with several undeclared candidates viewed as possibilities, it is harder. "This is one of the few exercises where we don't know who's playing," Scott says.

One more thought about election bets. If you pay attention to the race, winning the bets you make with friends and relatives may not be hard. But collecting on those bets, in my experience, has always been difficult. Bookmakers are harder to beat, but when they lose, they actually pay.

Gary Griffith is a long-time Boston journalist now based in Washington.