Political Betting Thread

[Joedaman55]

Harris back on the warpath. I can't bother to watch the whole thing. I do expect her numbers in Iowa to improve somewhat given her big investment there. As I've said from the beginning, I don't consider her a serious contender.

Attacks Elizabeth Warren for "taking away people's private plan options" on health insurance. Says her plan is better in part because 10 year transition is better than four year transition.




======================

I think a minor Harris comeback (~4%) in Iowa would affect the race. I think it's going to happen given that she's pouring so many resources into IA now and is refocusing her messaging. Also the Senate will hold impeachment hearings in the week leading up to the IA caucus so Harris will get TV time to play prosecutor (@Joedaman55). Who would she hurt? Probably (as we've said before) Elizabeth Warren and possibly Biden. Would be good for Buttigieg and/or Sanders.

I still need to see more evidence that Bloomberg is in this to win this. He has flirted with this so many times before. If he's serious, I think this changes things a lot. He has $50 billion and I think he will appeal to a lot of Democrats (doesn't mean he will be the first choice of many of them). If he's in it to win it, he will pour 10s of millions, maybe more, into ad markets in the Super Tuesday states. I think this hurts Biden the most.

I think Harris is pretty much done and she knows it. I doubt she attacks anyone and just tries to drop out of the race gracefully to not make any enemies within the party. I think it’s a two way neck and neck race in Iowa between Pete and Warren, if Harris drops out early, those votes will go to Pete and Biden.

 

[rev0lver]

Won most of my money on bets with friends that had their degree in political science or worked in government. Most of my bets occurred in December where people still had Cruz and Rubio as the likely winners. Most people didn’t put him as the serious front runner until the South Carolina Primary.

And imo that was idiotic when he was consistently polling at #1 since July 2015 and was dominating the public discourse without seeing his numbers slip. But the MSM didn't see him as fitting "the mold" and outright refused to take him seriously in spite of what the actual people in the republican base were showing. Always important to see how the data might clash with your biases or what you're being told, no matter what side you're on.

 

[rev0lver]

Just heard an interesting take. Once, if, impeachment reaches the senate, it will hinder sanders and warren`s ability to campaign as they have to spend time on the impeachment farce instead. And trump could get mitch to drag it out. That will really piss off the bernie bros, and it was the progressives who were pushing for it in the first place.

I don't think it's really much of a hinderance. These guys are already multitasking as sitting senators, and they can easily fly back and forth between wherever they need to. And they don't need to be in DC for more than what they need to.

These proceedings could be a boon for them as well. It's likely to have heavily-viewed events, and gives Warren and Sanders more unique opportunities to speak against Trump and the administration, while showing how much they care about the sanctity of the president's office. The Kavanaugh hearings were a public spectacle that gained Booker and Harris positive reception from their lines of questioning. If the timing lines up nicely with the start of primaries, the candidates from the senate could use it as a good opportunity.

 

[longway]

I don't think it's really much of a hinderance. These guys are already multitasking as sitting senators, and they can easily fly back and forth between wherever they need to. And they don't need to be in DC for more than what they need to.

These proceedings could be a boon for them as well. It's likely to have heavily-viewed events, and gives Warren and Sanders more unique opportunities to speak against Trump and the administration, while showing how much they care about the sanctity of the president's office. The Kavanaugh hearings were a public spectacle that gained Booker and Harris positive reception from their lines of questioning. If the timing lines up nicely with the start of primaries, the candidates from the senate could use it as a good opportunity.

Understand your point, but I can't see it as being anything other than a negative overall. Wasted energy. There are queues of dims looking for a camera to do the orange man bad posturing while trying to look solemn and oh so serious, at this stage, they may as well have clown make up on. Warren and Sanders doing it too will not help them that much, its been the entire schtick of the dims and MSM for nigh on 3 years and they still can't muster up a candidate that can reliably beat him in the swing states. They need to hone their message and senate impeachment hearings won't help them. Its a boost for Biden and Buttigieg, they get to keep the focus on their campaigns.

BTW Warren is really bad. Check out her handling of a mildly awkward question. She would freeze up completely in the face of anything actually hostile. She is trying to court some of the same demographic as Sanders and she clearly despises them. <45>

 

[rev0lver]

BTW Warren is really bad. Check out her handling of a mildly awkward question. She would freeze up completely in the face of anything actually hostile. She is trying to court some of the same demographic as Sanders and she clearly despises them. <45>

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of this. But Elizabeth Warren made her name in congress with her aggressive questionings of bank executives in senate hearings. Before the public controversies surrounding the Native American heritage, I'd say it was pretty much what she's known for. If she was able to make headlines over something most people pay little attention to, she could certainly play it just as tough here and possibly give herself a boost.

 

[longway]

^ im not sure what you mean, this was a friendly interview. This incident did not make headlines. I just follow people of various political persuasions as i like to look for info that helps my betting.

Stuff like this gives me confidence thst my lay bet on warren is sound. She is easily rattled and is unptedictable in her reactions.

This is bread and butter stuff, a variety of ways to answer the question quite amicably, it would have been easy to segue into a message about how she will help sc. Instead she laid an egg.

 

[waiguoren]

Boom. Gabbard hits 6% in New Hampshire. @kpt018 @Trotsky. IIRC she is one poll away from qualifying for the December debate. Harris is polling below Tom Steyer! Also appears that Buttigieg is a very serious threat in NH as in IA.

 

[Louis101]

Seems interesting, are there lines available for different bets?

 

[rev0lver]

^ im not sure what you mean, this was a friendly interview. This incident did not make headlines. I just follow people of various political persuasions as i like to look for info that helps my betting.

Stuff like this gives me confidence thst my lay bet on warren is sound. She is easily rattled and is unptedictable in her reactions.

This is bread and butter stuff, a variety of ways to answer the question quite amicably, it would have been easy to segue into a message about how she will help sc. Instead she laid an egg.

I meant her hearings with wall street execs making headlines when they otherwise wouldn't receive much coverage.

I think she's given poor responses to interview questions like this one. But give her speaking time in senate proceedings against Trump, or have her question administration officials, and she can definitely shine. Tbh I don't know much about how the senate proceedings will work here, but if I were Trump, Warren would be one of the last people I'd want to send allies to be questioned by in a publicly-broadcasted arena. She's extremely tough when she's controlling the discussion. Depending on how much she could highlight herself in this scenario, she could definitely turn it into a W for her campaign.

 

[waiguoren]

Seems interesting, are there lines available for different bets?

Current Bookmaker odds:

Elizabeth Warren +185
Joseph Biden +351
Peter Buttigieg +538
Bernard Sanders +583
Michael Bloomberg +945
Hillary Clinton +2018
Andrew Yang +2170
Amy Klobuchar +5000
Tulsi Gabbard +5300
Kamala Harris +5500
Cory Booker +16500 (@Trotsky)
Julian Castro +75000
Marianne Williamson +75000

===========
The Elizabeth Warren --- Kamala Harris nexus I've been writing about is real. Here's an example:

 

[Louis101]

Current Bookmaker odds:

Elizabeth Warren +185
Joseph Biden +351
Peter Buttigieg +538
Bernard Sanders +583
Michael Bloomberg +945
Hillary Clinton +2018
Andrew Yang +2170
Amy Klobuchar +5000
Tulsi Gabbard +5300
Kamala Harris +5500
Cory Booker +16500 (@Trotsky)
Julian Castro +75000
Marianne Williamson +75000

===========
The Elizabeth Warren --- Kamala Harris nexus I've been writing about is real. Here's an example:

Don't care about the 'nexus' bit and are those odds posted anywhere else so i can verify?

 

[waiguoren]

Don't care about the 'nexus' bit and are those odds posted anywhere else so i can verify?

Try making an account with a bookie. The 'nexus' part was for everyone in the thread, not just you.

 

[waiguoren]

Boom. Buttigieg leads in Iowa according to latest Monmouth poll. Gains 14 points :

Buttigieg 22 (+14)
Biden 19 (-9)
Warren 18 (-1)
Sanders 13 (+4)
Klobuchar 5 (+2)
Harris 3 (-8)
Yang 3 (+1)
Steyer 3 (+0)
Gabbard 2 (+1)
Booker 2 (+1)
Castro 1
Bullock 1
Bennet 0


My Current bets:


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

==========================

 

[waiguoren]

 

[waiguoren]

I was just running some delegate arithmetic and realized a key difference between the 2016 and 2020 Democratic races. As most people reading this thread probably know, over 35% of the total delegates will be awarded on March 3. Last time, most of those delegates came from the southern states, which gave HRC a huge delegate haul and associated media boost.

This time is different mostly because California has been moved up to March 3.

March 3 delegates available from southern states: 485

March 3 delegates available from northern states + California: 547

March 3 delegates available from the midwest: 208

March 3 delegates available from Virginia (sort of a 50/50 north/south state): 99


Assuming Biden is strong in the South, weak in the North (and California), and somewhere in the middle in the midwest: this means that Biden won't be able to play the "wait for Super Tuesday" strategy nearly as well as HRC did in 2016.

In this environment, I believe performance IA/NH/NV/SC will be more important than usual. Momentum is real in presidential politics. If Biden underperforms in SC, he's probably done.

 

[Roads55]

anyone know where to find a site showing the latest amounts each candidate has raised so far?

 

[waiguoren]

Looks like Patrick is definitely in, as opposed to flirting:

Deval Patrick tells Democrats he will run for president

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/13/deval-patrick-democrats-president-2020-070716

===================

anyone know where to find a site showing the latest amounts each candidate has raised so far?

Campaigns file their financial records with the FEC quarterly only. Q3 recently ended so here's the best you'll find:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-fundraising-q3/


=================


Things are playing out as expected...Elizabeth Warren -9%, Biden -3%, Sanders +5%, Buttigieg +8%....




Harris at only 6% in her home state....


==============

My Current bets:


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

 

[longway]

I meant her hearings with wall street execs making headlines when they otherwise wouldn't receive much coverage.

I think she's given poor responses to interview questions like this one. But give her speaking time in senate proceedings against Trump, or have her question administration officials, and she can definitely shine. Tbh I don't know much about how the senate proceedings will work here, but if I were Trump, Warren would be one of the last people I'd want to send allies to be questioned by in a publicly-broadcasted arena. She's extremely tough when she's controlling the discussion. Depending on how much she could highlight herself in this scenario, she could definitely turn it into a W for her campaign.

I think you have a point. The more she campaigns the less people like her, but she does much better in scripted settings, so help her relative to bernie.

could deval eat into bidens share of the black vote?

There is a bernie or bust pac now.
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-bust-warningignore-it-trump-wins-opinion-1467225


Very interesting primary!

 

[ill800]

Hillary +1100

had to keep myself from going a full unit on that

 

[TrueAscension]

^ im not sure what you mean, this was a friendly interview. This incident did not make headlines. I just follow people of various political persuasions as i like to look for info that helps my betting.

Stuff like this gives me confidence thst my lay bet on warren is sound. She is easily rattled and is unptedictable in her reactions.

This is bread and butter stuff, a variety of ways to answer the question quite amicably, it would have been easy to segue into a message about how she will help sc. Instead she laid an egg.

She wasn't rattled, it was a stupid ass question.