Political Betting Thread

[longway]

so basically Trump is a lock for 2020.

Yeah, I am going to build up to a 10U position on him winning in 2020, 1U already at +145. But not doing it all at once, I feel pretty confident, but am going to keep a close eye how things are going. So far, looking great. Just the usual shrieking by hysterics egged on by the puppeteers cooking up nothing-burgers to keep them shrieking. I already have 1.25U at +670 on him winning popular vote and election. I think he has a great chance of winning so-called 'PV' this time.

 

[Roads55]

so basically Trump is a lock for 2020.

warren now 0.2% ahead in rcp's average poll

 

[rev0lver]

Talking about 2 different topics. Is she going to run? Unlikely, I agree. Does she want to run? I think so. She clearly has not been able to accept she lost the last election and wants vindication.

The democrats are in trouble though. Biden will now be compromised by is his corrupt dealings in Ukraine and China. Warren has adopted positions that will make moderates baulk. Anecdotally, I have super liberal friends and relatives living in California and they think Warren will crash the economy if elected, and even though a couple have really bad cases of TDS, they won't vote for her.

So there is a space for Killary to exploit if she wants to swoop in. The last time I looked, the price for Killary was around +1500 or so, I would price it at +1000, so there is value there imo.

Moderate Democrats really don’t like Warren and think they have zero chance of winning if she is the candidate. With the Biden Ukraine thing and Warren rising in the polls, it has a lot of Moderate Democrats worrying. Moderates still have control of a lot of the financial influence of the party so I’ve seen this narrative get pushed from some within the party.

The division between the socialist and moderate wings of the party is very large due to the very large differences in economic opinions for policies.

I only agree about the "moderate" issue from an establishment standpoint. Some of the elites on the left don't want Warren to win (though they may prefer her to Bernie). The whole idea of financial influence within the party is something a lot of the electorate doesn't even like. She espouses a level of economic populism that can energize the base, bring out loads of otherwise-apathetic and young voters, and can target Trump's biggest voting demographics in the working class. The anti-Trump moderate dems will still end up voting for her over Trump. And fwiw, I'm also a liberal living in California and haven't heard anything of that sort from people lol. People here generally like Sanders more than Warren, but still like her too.

The establishment dems want Biden to squeak by on simple anti-Trump sentiment despite it repeating the 2016 strategy. I'd only be worried there in a 1v1 matchup considering Biden's a much worse debater and less competent than Hillary. I'm not very worried about Sanders or Warren losing to Trump.

Also want to point out that Warren is still doing very well in the general election polling against Trump, even if it's not as consistently well as Sanders and Biden. It's exceedingly rare for an incumbent president to win with these kinds of polling numbers a year out from the election. And you're free to disagree, but I see the gap as widening as we get further along.

 

[Joedaman55]

I only agree about the "moderate" issue from an establishment standpoint. Some of the elites on the left don't want Warren to win (though they may prefer her to Bernie). The whole idea of financial influence within the party is something a lot of the electorate doesn't even like. She espouses a level of economic populism that can energize the base, bring out loads of otherwise-apathetic and young voters, and can target Trump's biggest voting demographics in the working class. The anti-Trump moderate dems will still end up voting for her over Trump. And fwiw, I'm also a liberal living in California and haven't heard anything of that sort from people lol. People here generally like Sanders more than Warren, but still like her too.

The establishment dems want Biden to squeak by on simple anti-Trump sentiment despite it repeating the 2016 strategy. I'd only be worried there in a 1v1 matchup considering Biden's a much worse debater and less competent than Hillary. I'm not very worried about Sanders or Warren losing to Trump.

Also want to point out that Warren is still doing very well in the general election polling against Trump, even if it's not as consistently well as Sanders and Biden. It's exceedingly rare for an incumbent president to win with these kinds of polling numbers a year out from the election. And you're free to disagree, but I see the gap as widening as we get further along.

There is a big divide between progressives and moderates on economic issues. I wouldn’t expect people in California to care too much about Warren because they are more on the progressive side recently based on the laws I’m seeing (even though Clinton won in 2016, a lot has changed there). To win the GE you’re going to have win more swing states which have more moderates (see the 2016 Democratic primary results). If a moderate Democrat couldn’t win those in 2016, a progressive has an even smaller probability of winning.

Also, Warren is probably doing worse in the polls than Clinton was at this time in 2015. Trump should always be down in general election polls because of general election results in D.C and California where he gets a terrible percentage. This skews people into thinking he’s way behind when he’s actual ahead in the electoral college.

 

[rev0lver]

There is a big divide between progressives and moderates on economic issues. I wouldn’t expect people in California to care too much about Warren because they are more on the progressive side recently based on the laws I’m seeing (even though Clinton won in 2016, a lot has changed there). To win the GE you’re going to have win more swing states which have more moderates (see the 2016 Democratic primary results). If a moderate Democrat couldn’t win those in 2016, a progressive has an even smaller probability of winning.

Also, Warren is probably doing worse in the polls than Clinton was at this time in 2015. Trump should always be down in general election polls because of general election results in D.C and California where he gets a terrible percentage. This skews people into thinking he’s way behind when he’s actual ahead in the electoral college.

I'd disagree with what people see as the "moderates" though. These working class swing state voters are the biggest benefactors of progressive policies. They may be more moderate on social issues, but as far as economic policies go, they're not stans for Wall St and the healthcare industry. They respond pretty well to the progressive wing's healthcare and tuition plans, and this is reflected when polling on these issues themselves. I mean, just look at the way Missouri pushed out a moderate dem senator while overwhelmingly voting to raise the minimum wage in the same election. Moderate dems don't actually do anything for them. In the 2016 primaries, Bernie actually WON a lot of states that Hillary ended up losing to Trump. There's just this fear of what you're saying because of this popular narrative that you need to be "moderate" to win these midwest states, but that narrative is outdated and wrong.

I'm not sure how I'd construct a polling average to go by from 2016, but Hillary was losing to Trump in many polls at this point in that election cycle. Warren appears to be polling better than Hillary. The even bigger oddity here is that Trump's an incumbent, and it's exceedingly rare for an incumbent to poll this poorly right now.

Nationwide election polling typically accounts for different locations. But in state polling, Warren's still looking pretty good right now. Though she's in tight races in swing states, it's a positive look to at least be at evens against an incumbent a year away from the election. She's tied or ahead of Trump in the big swings like Florida and Ohio, and looking good in tougher swing states like North Carolina. She's even got a decent shot at Texas here, and some dems have pulled ahead there.

 

[longway]

I'm also a liberal living in California and haven't heard anything of that sort from people lol

Interesting. I wonder if this is age related. I dare say I am older than you, so that may explain the difference. Anecdotal evidence is inherently risky to trust.

 

[longway]

Given the current odds in the dem primary, all the value is on Biden. The risk on putting anything on him now is that he could have a bad showing on 15 Oct, and the odds will get even longer. Of course, Warren could mess up, but more likely Biden.

I think I will wait till after debates to decide if I want to bet him. Biden is not doing badly in early primary states. He still has a good chance to win the nomination, and I can cash out with a profit if the odds swing to a more realistic level. Warren way over priced now, actually thats not true, Biden line has the value, Warren’s is probably accurate.

 

[Joedaman55]

I'd disagree with what people see as the "moderates" though. These working class swing state voters are the biggest benefactors of progressive policies. They may be more moderate on social issues, but as far as economic policies go, they're not stans for Wall St and the healthcare industry. They respond pretty well to the progressive wing's healthcare and tuition plans, and this is reflected when polling on these issues themselves. I mean, just look at the way Missouri pushed out a moderate dem senator while overwhelmingly voting to raise the minimum wage in the same election. Moderate dems don't actually do anything for them. In the 2016 primaries, Bernie actually WON a lot of states that Hillary ended up losing to Trump. There's just this fear of what you're saying because of this popular narrative that you need to be "moderate" to win these midwest states, but that narrative is outdated and wrong.

I'm not sure how I'd construct a polling average to go by from 2016, but Hillary was losing to Trump in many polls at this point in that election cycle. Warren appears to be polling better than Hillary. The even bigger oddity here is that Trump's an incumbent, and it's exceedingly rare for an incumbent to poll this poorly right now.

Nationwide election polling typically accounts for different locations. But in state polling, Warren's still looking pretty good right now. Though she's in tight races in swing states, it's a positive look to at least be at evens against an incumbent a year away from the election. She's tied or ahead of Trump in the big swings like Florida and Ohio, and looking good in tougher swing states like North Carolina. She's even got a decent shot at Texas here, and some dems have pulled ahead there.

Bernie won NH, Wisconsin, and Michigan but got beat in every other one and got killed in the three most important ones (Ohio, Florida, and Arizona). There was a brief period where Trump was doing better than Hillary but it was for maybe a week or two, real clear politics has this polling data.

I don’t care about the popular narrative, I am basing assumptions based on previous results and the current environment.

I’m not sure if you’re aware but polling has been so off on results lately that it is barely okay data and seems to be way off (even outside their margin for error). I think the Florida and Ohio polls were some of the biggest ones off in 2016.

 

[rev0lver]

Interesting. I wonder if this is age related. I dare say I am older than you, so that may explain the difference. Anecdotal evidence is inherently risky to trust.

Maybe lol. I'm 27. The younger demographics overwhelmingly favor Sanders and Warren across the country while rejecting Biden.

 

[rev0lver]

Given the current odds in the dem primary, all the value is on Biden. The risk on putting anything on him now is that he could have a bad showing on 15 Oct, and the odds will get even longer. Of course, Warren could mess up, but more likely Biden.

I think I will wait till after debates to decide if I want to bet him. Biden is not doing badly in early primary states. He still has a good chance to win the nomination, and I can cash out with a profit if the odds swing to a more realistic level. Warren way over priced now, actually thats not true, Biden line has the value, Warren’s is probably accurate.

The biggest problem with Biden imo is a poor comeback factor. When he gets overtaken in the polls (as he may have already), how does he bounce back from that? His good polling numbers have been little more than his name recognition. He has no ceiling, he started his campaign at the ceiling, while everyone else has potential to improve as people learn more about them and their platforms. Whether they're more moderate or progressive, the other candidates generally have more robust policy platforms and more attractive personal attributes, while Biden just has "I was Obama's VP".

I think if the polling trends keep going as they are, his only realistic shot is a contested primary where the DNC votes him in.

 

[rev0lver]

Bernie won NH, Wisconsin, and Michigan but got beat in every other one and got killed in the three most important ones (Ohio, Florida, and Arizona). There was a brief period where Trump was doing better than Hillary but it was for maybe a week or two, real clear politics has this polling data.

I don’t care about the popular narrative, I am basing assumptions based on previous results and the current environment.

I’m not sure if you’re aware but polling has been so off on results lately that it is barely okay data and seems to be way off (even outside their margin for error). I think the Florida and Ohio polls were some of the biggest ones off in 2016.

I'm not just talking about swing states in the 2016 primaries though. Bernie won primaries in safe-red states like Kansas, Oklahoma, and Idaho, and he started at the bottom floor in that race while not even at peak popularity for half the voting season. The attitudes in the swing states are not necessarily "moderate", they're just fed the narrative that they need to vote for corporatist dems to sway conservatives or have nothing.

Minus some outliers, Warren is doing pretty similar to Hillary was at this point in time. My point is moreso that incumbents are supposed to have a much bigger bump than this, and Warren doesn't even have the benefit of Hillary's name and popularity. Putting any other factors aside, you'd expect a candidate in Warren's position to only improve and eventually win. The only presidential incumbent to ever win with these polling numbers at this point in time was Obama in 2012, and Warren's generally polling better than Romney was here.

The narrative about 2016 polling isn't what a lot of people think it is. The polls would've predicted an electoral win for Clinton, but it was far closer than what people seemed to say. Florida was well within the margin of error with Trump ahead in some polls. Ohio had Trump ahead in the last few weeks.

The major issue with the way polls were reported here is that two-way polling vs four-way polling gave very different pictures in many states. Michigan and Pennsylvania seemed like safe wins for Hillary in a two-way race, but four-way polling had them in virtual ties toward the end. When you look at four-way polling in Ohio and Florida, they were in a virtual tie in Florida while Trump was safely ahead in Ohio. The results weren't so much about Trump getting more votes than expected, but about the 3rd party candidates actually pulling votes somewhat accurate to the polling, when they typically receive less support on election day. I don't see this same factor coming into play again. (btw, I'm not saying 3rd parties were at fault for the 2016 results like some democrats do, but that the 3rd party voting was just one manifestation of the apathy toward Hillary).

Polling's rarely going to be an exact predictor of a result, but it generally gives you a good picture of what's going to happen. Trump's team knows this, and they'd be stupid to ignore polls just because statisticians predicted he'd lose in 2016. Now we have even more data to go by though, such as approval ratings and the 2018 election, which doesn't make Trump's chances look very strong.

 

[waiguoren]

Bernie won NH, Wisconsin, and Michigan but got beat in every other one and got killed in the three most important ones (Ohio, Florida, and Arizona). There was a brief period where Trump was doing better than Hillary but it was for maybe a week or two, real clear politics has this polling data.

I don’t care about the popular narrative, I am basing assumptions based on previous results and the current environment.

I’m not sure if you’re aware but polling has been so off on results lately that it is barely okay data and seems to be way off (even outside their margin for error). I think the Florida and Ohio polls were some of the biggest ones off in 2016.

Do you still heavily favor Kamala Harris to win the Democratic nomination?

 

[longway]

I'm not just talking about swing states in the 2016 primaries though. Bernie won primaries in safe-red states like Kansas, Oklahoma, and Idaho, and he started at the bottom floor in that race while not even at peak popularity for half the voting season. The attitudes in the swing states are not necessarily "moderate", they're just fed the narrative that they need to vote for corporatist dems to sway conservatives or have nothing.

Minus some outliers, Warren is doing pretty similar to Hillary was at this point in time. My point is moreso that incumbents are supposed to have a much bigger bump than this, and Warren doesn't even have the benefit of Hillary's name and popularity. Putting any other factors aside, you'd expect a candidate in Warren's position to only improve and eventually win. The only presidential incumbent to ever win with these polling numbers at this point in time was Obama in 2012, and Warren's generally polling better than Romney was here.

The narrative about 2016 polling isn't what a lot of people think it is. The polls would've predicted an electoral win for Clinton, but it was far closer than what people seemed to say. Florida was well within the margin of error with Trump ahead in some polls. Ohio had Trump ahead in the last few weeks.

The major issue with the way polls were reported here is that two-way polling vs four-way polling gave very different pictures in many states. Michigan and Pennsylvania seemed like safe wins for Hillary in a two-way race, but four-way polling had them in virtual ties toward the end. When you look at four-way polling in Ohio and Florida, they were in a virtual tie in Florida while Trump was safely ahead in Ohio. The results weren't so much about Trump getting more votes than expected, but about the 3rd party candidates actually pulling votes somewhat accurate to the polling, when they typically receive less support on election day. I don't see this same factor coming into play again. (btw, I'm not saying 3rd parties were at fault for the 2016 results like some democrats do, but that the 3rd party voting was just one manifestation of the apathy toward Hillary).

Polling's rarely going to be an exact predictor of a result, but it generally gives you a good picture of what's going to happen. Trump's team knows this, and they'd be stupid to ignore polls just because statisticians predicted he'd lose in 2016. Now we have even more data to go by though, such as approval ratings and the 2018 election, which doesn't make Trump's chances look very strong.

The professional pollsters, save Nate Silver I think, were way off the mark in their predictions. Most of them had it as a virtual lock for Killton. Anyway, rather than rehashing the polling; it's interesting and worth digging up when the presidential campaigns are properly underway, but at this stage, it's not that significant.

US voters are nearly 50% democrat or democrat leaning and 40% GOP or GOP leaning, so the DNC has an inherent advantage in every election. Given this and the constant negative press, it's no surprise that any generic DNC candidate polls well against Trump.

What matters is the DNC being able to get their vote out and GOP getting their vote out. Trump has been working hard to ensure that his base is energised and at the same time trying to depress DNC voter turnout. Hence the focus on Biden's corruption and making the 'squad' the face of the DNC. These are tactics aimed at depressing DNC turnout and maximising his own. You might think they won't work, and that is fair enough, but you are underestimating him if you don't see he is working a strategy and wants to win in 2020.

 

[longway]

The biggest problem with Biden imo is a poor comeback factor. When he gets overtaken in the polls (as he may have already), how does he bounce back from that? His good polling numbers have been little more than his name recognition. He has no ceiling, he started his campaign at the ceiling, while everyone else has potential to improve as people learn more about them and their platforms. Whether they're more moderate or progressive, the other candidates generally have more robust policy platforms and more attractive personal attributes, while Biden just has "I was Obama's VP".

I think if the polling trends keep going as they are, his only realistic shot is a contested primary where the DNC votes him in.

Maybe you are right, but I think he is being counted out too hastily. I'm not sure I want to bet him, as he is a schmuck at the end of the day. If what you say is right, then Warren is a lock and thats where the value is. I'm going to wait for the fallout from the next debate and see if I can make any plays after that.

 

[Joedaman55]

Do you still heavily favor Kamala Harris to win the Democratic nomination?

No, she has regressed as a candidate, a pretty insane collapse in my opinion. It’s really tough to predict the Democratic nomination at this point especially given Biden’s health issues.

 

[rev0lver]

The professional pollsters, save Nate Silver I think, were way off the mark in their predictions. Most of them had it as a virtual lock for Killton. Anyway, rather than rehashing the polling; it's interesting and worth digging up when the presidential campaigns are properly underway, but at this stage, it's not that significant.

US voters are nearly 50% democrat or democrat leaning and 40% GOP or GOP leaning, so the DNC has an inherent advantage in every election. Given this and the constant negative press, it's no surprise that any generic DNC candidate polls well against Trump.

What matters is the DNC being able to get their vote out and GOP getting their vote out. Trump has been working hard to ensure that his base is energised and at the same time trying to depress DNC voter turnout. Hence the focus on Biden's corruption and making the 'squad' the face of the DNC. These are tactics aimed at depressing DNC turnout and maximising his own. You might think they won't work, and that is fair enough, but you are underestimating him if you don't see he is working a strategy and wants to win in 2020.

Well if you're talking about our actual election system the DNC doesn't really have an advantage lol. Both in house district races and with the electoral college map, at least until some big states like Texas turn blue. Dems have issues with voter turnouts too. The percentage of registered democrats in solid-red states is surprising sometimes when you compare it to election results. Yeah a national poll of a generic D vs Trump ticket isn't how the election will play out in itself, but there's a bigger gap than what we've seen before.

There's a variety of factors that can come into play over the next year, but my point was just that polling of incumbents at this stage in the race has actually been a strong indicator of election results.

Team Trump has been trying to play everything off as if it's nothing, but it's definitely something. Trump was just tweeting about "great republican victories" in NC and Louisiana. The NC elections were very tight elections in deep-red districts. The Louisiana governor did 10% BETTER than he did 4 years ago, and now just goes to a runoff that he'll probably win again. They're not being honest with the narrative here. And them trying to spin the Ukraine narrative definitely isn't working the way they want it to.

 

[longway]

Team Trump has been trying to play everything off as if it's nothing, but it's definitely something. Trump was just tweeting about "great republican victories" in NC and Louisiana. The NC elections were very tight elections in deep-red districts. The Louisiana governor did 10% BETTER than he did 4 years ago, and now just goes to a runoff that he'll probably win again. They're not being honest with the narrative here. And them trying to spin the Ukraine narrative definitely isn't working the way they want it to.

I don't know about the details of these races, and I might dig into them, but there is a difference between the republican party and trump, I agree should be a correlation between the results of one on the other, but you have to be careful making assumptions about the causes of these results.

Presidential approval tracking up again. So not sure where you get the idea trump has been wounded.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

[rev0lver]

Presidential approval tracking up again. So not sure where you get the idea trump has been wounded.

Mostly from the growing number of people supporting his impeachment that has now reached a majority (or at least a strong plurality), also showing impeachment+removal from office around the same numbers, and these numbers have not regressed. I'd pay attention to that more than a small fluctuation in approval rating averages which, if you're going to put stock in, Trump's been on the losing end of since February 2017.

And yeah the results of these elections doesn't necessarily mean anything to Trump, but there are things you can draw from this. Trump was giving the R's heavy endorsements and acted like they were huge R victories, which is an extremely dishonest narrative to what happened and shows either purposeful misdirection or a heavy denial of the realities of our current political climate. NC is a swing state, and if pro-Trump republicans are winning the state's reddest districts by historically low margins, that spells trouble.

 

[longway]

Trump was giving the R's heavy endorsements and acted like they were huge R victories, which is an extremely dishonest narrative to what happened and shows either purposeful misdirection or a heavy denial of the realities of our current political climate. NC is a swing state, and if pro-Trump republicans are winning the state's reddest districts by historically low margins, that spells trouble.

You are still making the same assumption. You equate gop district elections as a reflection of trump's chances. It could be that his endorsement is keeping the seat red. We would need to look closer to know what is happening.

You could be right on the impeachment side as more of those who disapprove support impeachment than before.

 

[waiguoren]

No, she has regressed as a candidate, a pretty insane collapse in my opinion. It’s really tough to predict the Democratic nomination at this point especially given Biden’s health issues.

Well, you could still be right. She still has plenty of money and name recognition. Our disagreement was about her quality as a candidate. I just don't think she's ever been a strong candidate (the gratuitous pandering is a feature, not a bug) and that's a major reason why I don't think she can win. However, for purposes of both entertainment and my bankroll I am hoping that she will come back somewhat. If she rebounds somewhat, she can take from Biden and Elizabeth Warren and that would be great for my bets. I think it would be interesting to see what happens if she tries to sneak attack Elizabeth Warren on the debate stage.

The current state of the race is as I predicted it back in April, with the caveats that I did not consider Elizabeth Warren's potential for a rise from the dead and I expected some of the "second tier candidates" like Harris to gain more steam. I foolishly listened to my politically disengaged (but intelligent) friend, who assured me that Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign was over after the DNA test release. Lesson learned.

I think the exact outcome of the race depends on the DNC. For example, how restrictive will future debate entrance requirements be? In my view, if the DNC restricts the entrance requirements to only four candidates for all debates starting in January, Buttigieg will win the nomination.

I think there's good value on Sanders also at +1200 or whatever he is.





My Current bets (Democratic nomination) :


April 15 Bernard Sanders +410 $2439.02
May 19 Peter Buttigieg +550 $1818.18
August 31 Peter Buttigieg +2000 $500
September 20 Peter Buttigieg +2026 $493.58
September 25 Elizabeth Warren +123 $4268