Political Betting Thread

[rev0lver]

could deval eat into bidens share of the black vote?

I don't think he's going to do much of anything tbh. Black voters looking for identity-based Biden alternatives already have a reasonable and solid person in Cory Booker, and haven't carried him far enough in the polls. Deval's a much more problematic candidate in the old style of democrats as an executive of an investment company. If Booker is an Obama-lite, Deval's even more of one with baggage.

 

[rev0lver]

I finally found someone who's excited about Michael Bloomberg. My 90 year old blind and dementia-stricken grandpa, apparently. I can't imagine his 3-4% coming from any demographic other than that.

 

[Joedaman55]

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.

South Carolina has been the best predictor at who will win the Democratic Primary based on the last 30 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_primary

 

[rev0lver]

South Carolina has been the best predictor at who will win the Democratic Primary based on the last 30 years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_primary

This is probably true, but I wouldn't give it a ton of weight in itself. They were off pretty significantly in a couple of them (1988 and 2004), and a couple others weren't very competitive primaries going in (2000 and 2016). 1992 and 2008 are the only interesting ones, where Bill Clinton picked up steam around the SC primary and Hillary-Obama were competitive throughout the primary.

Election-to-election circumstances are more important to look at imo. I think it's more notable that Biden is in competitive races in the first two states. Super Tuesday is going to show the real momentum here, where Biden is likely to lose some big states like California, but whether or not he can maintain his southern state leads could depend on a lot of factors.

 

[Joedaman55]

This is probably true, but I wouldn't give it a ton of weight in itself. They were off pretty significantly in a couple of them (1988 and 2004), and a couple others weren't very competitive primaries going in (2000 and 2016). 1992 and 2008 are the only interesting ones, where Bill Clinton picked up steam around the SC primary and Hillary-Obama were competitive throughout the primary.

Election-to-election circumstances are more important to look at imo. I think it's more notable that Biden is in competitive races in the first two states. Super Tuesday is going to show the real momentum here, where Biden is likely to lose some big states like California, but whether or not he can maintain his southern state leads could depend on a lot of factors.

1988 was run as a caucus instead of an open primary, caucuses are terrible predictors of a general election because it discriminates against a large population of general election voters.

In 2004, Kerry was going against Edwards and Edwards was from North Carolina and popular in the Carolinas. This makes this outlier logical.

 

[Roads55]

Hillary +1100

had to keep myself from going a full unit on that

I see absolutely no value with that line, it seems likely she is just projecting the idea of running to boost book sales, which seems exactly like the type of thing she would do. on top of that, it's too late for her, a lot of people close to her have already endorsed other candidates like biden, and she's too far behind everyone else with campaign infrastructure. also that line is pretty juiced with the line being 15-17.0 (+1400-+1600) at many sites, and being +1900 or more a day or 2 ago. that's before we even begin to consider the deeply flawed policies and character traits that still live fresh in the memory of the voters. save your money!

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

agreed although she could of answered it a bit better, she came across too angry for no reason

 

[longway]

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

I agree it was a stupid question, but that's progressives for you, they make everything about race. They think they are preventing the rise of nazism again, and there are plenty of cynical players willing to feed that delusion (including Warren). If she didn't know that she would get these sorts of questions, then it speaks loudly about being ill-prepared.

Instead, she got rattled badly as she thought she was being led into a trap.

 

[waiguoren]

Haven't been following the primary news so much for the past 24 hours, but I saw that Bloomberg plans to spend $100 million (?!) in swing states to run anti-Trump online ads? If I got that right I'm thinking he's "in" for real. A lot of people are dismissing him but I insist he can radically change the outcome of this race with money alone. He has $50 billion!

Add in the fact that many in the "moderate lane" will like him and this is a big development. Very good for Sanders imo and maybe also Elizabeth Warren. I posted last week that I thought Bloomberg would hurt Biden. Today's Reuters national poll has Biden/Sanders tied for 1st at 19% if Bloomberg is included. Otherwise it's Biden 23% Sanders 19%.







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

New Iowa poll confirms Buttigieg is for real:

 

[waiguoren]

Erm...so Warren is now functionally the same as Buttigieg on the healthcare issue. Wow.



===========

In other news, Politico has another front-page article effectively pronouncing Harris to be DOA.

‘No discipline. No plan. No strategy.’: Kamala Harris campaign in meltdown

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/15/kamala-harris-campaign-2020-071105

 

[longway]

^ i just came on to post a link about warren’s latest lurch regarding her m4whatever plan, but you beat me to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-100-days.html

She keeps trying to be all things to all people, but she just manages to be annoying to most. She is losing to biden, a guy who probably has to be reminded he is running to be a presidential candidate on Mondays, a jewish socialist. and a gay mayor is catching her up. Lol.

 

[waiguoren]

^ i just came on to post a link about warren’s latest lurch regarding her m4whatever plan, but you beat me to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-100-days.html

She keeps trying to be all things to all people, but she just manages to be annoying to most. She is losing to biden, a guy who probably has to be reminded he is running to be a presidential candidate on Mondays, a jewish socialist. and a gay mayor is catching her up. Lol.

I look at it this way. The M4A vs (something else) debate has been raging for six months within the Party. Before the race gained full speed, it was mostly the activists talking about it, pretty much always positively, so it seemed like an obvious winner. Also, "Medicare for All" sounds like "medical care for all", so it polled really well.

Warren made the choice to join with Sanders at the hip on this. She uttered the words "I'm with Bernie on this" on the debate stage and can't take them back.

I believe she could still have won by sticking win M4A. Instead, she's flip flopping on the issue that self-identified "progressives" say is most important. I'm pretty sure @rev0lver can't be happy about this, for example. Seems like a foolish move to me, politically.

 

[rev0lver]

I look at it this way. The M4A vs (something else) debate has been raging for six months within the Party. Before the race gained full speed, it was mostly the activists talking about it, pretty much always positively, so it seemed like an obvious winner. Also, "Medicare for All" sounds like "medical care for all", so it polled really well.

Warren made the choice to join with Sanders at the hip on this. She uttered the words "I'm with Bernie on this" on the debate stage and can't take them back.

I believe she could still have won by sticking win M4A. Instead, she's flip flopping on the issue that self-identified "progressives" say is most important. I'm pretty sure @rev0lver can't be happy about this, for example. Seems like a foolish move to me, politically.

Yup. Foolish not just because I think m4a is the best plan, but because of the consistency. Trust and genuineness is such a hugely underrated factor in politics. Whether or not someone agrees with Bernie's policies, pretty much everyone at least respects the fact that he truly believes in what he says and has decades of consistency on the issues. He's not going to play games and bs you. Warren was supposed to have this factor to at least some effect, but something like this is going to shake people's faith in her whether they're pro or anti m4a.

 

[longway]

Wow, check this out.



A few weeks ago Warren was +8 clear of the pack. No wonder she crapped in her pants and ran off the stage when asked about Iowa, she knows she is losing and floundering in trying to understand why.

 

[waiguoren]

Given that Buttigieg is now polling #1 in Iowa, I think it's reasonable to suspect that other candidates will go for his heart on Wednesday.

Who will do it? My best guesses are Klobuchar and/or Gabbard and/or Harris. The obvious attack is that they are much more experienced and he's just a small city mayor. The problem is I can't see any other reasonable attack angle for them.

For Buttigieg, it's essential that he stay cool/calm/collected and just be himself. I stand by my statements from back in April: this guy is a natural elite-level candidate. He doesn't need to get too clever here.

Bloomberg's entry into the race now appears inevitable. I believe he will announce on Tuesday. I continue to believe he will have a large effect on this race. In particular, I think he will hurt Biden.


==========


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]

Given that Buttigieg is now polling #1 in Iowa, I think it's reasonable to suspect that other candidates will go for his heart on Wednesday.

Who will do it? My best guesses are Klobuchar and/or Gabbard and/or Harris. The obvious attack is that they are much more experienced and he's just a small city mayor. The problem is I can't see any other reasonable attack angle for them.

For Buttigieg, it's essential that he stay cool/calm/collected and just be himself. I stand by my statements from back in April: this guy is a natural elite-level candidate. He doesn't need to get too clever here.

Bloomberg's entry into the race now appears inevitable. I believe he will announce on Tuesday. I continue to believe he will have a large effect on this race. In particular, I think he will hurt Biden.


==========


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

Should be Warren, but she is too much of a coward. Harris for sure, she has nothing to lose and she is a skank anyway, so she thrives on this kind of stuff. I'm hoping that Gabbard will set her sights on Warren again, I don't think Warren has protected staus anymore, so they won't cut to commercial this time, and then she will tank completely. Remember that Gabbard once not only endorsed Bernie, but gave up a high flying position in the DNC for him, so I don't think she will mind taking her out for him. Say what you want about her, but she is principled. Funny how Biden is not even considered anymore.

 

[waiguoren]

I don't think Warren has protected staus anymore, so they won't cut to commercial this time

I never saw that as protection, but you could be right. MSM was way too much power over this whole process.

 

[longway]

I never saw that as protection, but you could be right. MSM was way too much power over this whole process.

Really? Hmm, maybe it was just coincidence, but I find it hard to believe. I am sure a DNC operative closely supervises these debates. It's not as if there isn't past form. eg Killary getting debate questions in advance.

 

[waiguoren]

Really? Hmm, maybe it was just coincidence, but I find it hard to believe. I am sure a DNC operative closely supervises these debates. It's not as if there isn't past form. eg Killary getting debate questions in advance.

If it happens again I'll be with you. Gabbard is likely to go for someone's heart on Wednesday. Let's see if she gets cut off.


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

California Dems question whether it’s time for Harris to drop out

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/17/kamala-harris-california-dems-2020-drop-out-071329


Third "Harris is done" front-page Politico article in the last three weeks. Politico is very well connected with big Democratic donors. What's the angle here? My belief: as the field winnows, the "establishment" wants the dynamic to be "Sanders/Warren v. Moderate Lane". Harris muddies that narrative by 1) taking up space on the stage/attention 2) attempting to straddle the "progressive" and "establishment" lanes. Also she is one of the few who is well-placed to go after the Chosen One, i.e. Buttigieg. Finally, if she has a comeback, she can weaken Biden in SC and other southern states.

 

[rev0lver]

Given that Buttigieg is now polling #1 in Iowa, I think it's reasonable to suspect that other candidates will go for his heart on Wednesday.

Who will do it? My best guesses are Klobuchar and/or Gabbard and/or Harris. The obvious attack is that they are much more experienced and he's just a small city mayor. The problem is I can't see any other reasonable attack angle for them.

For Buttigieg, it's essential that he stay cool/calm/collected and just be himself. I stand by my statements from back in April: this guy is a natural elite-level candidate. He doesn't need to get too clever here.

Bloomberg's entry into the race now appears inevitable. I believe he will announce on Tuesday. I continue to believe he will have a large effect on this race. In particular, I think he will hurt Biden.


==========


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

It's definitely Pete's turn to feel some fire in the debates. There is an angle of attack in his experience. This is a guy who's only had 8,000 people ever vote for him in a small city. But I think there are more angles than that. He's faced a lot of backlash in the past week over the Douglass plan (his racial justice plan). Black leaders being named as supporters who never actually endorsed him. Releasing a supporter list that's actually half white. The fact that he's polling at 0% with black voters nationally. Not to mention the racially-charged police chief scandal he's been involved in with his city.

There is certainly a policy angle too, though. He's trying to make everyone happy without actually standing for anything. Out of all the frontrunners, his type of presidency is the least clear with how he'd actually be and what his priorities are.

Despite his jump in Iowa, I'm still extremely skeptical of Pete's chances. Iowa's not a given. He's still trailing slightly in other Iowa polls. And multiple others are close enough to him where anything could happen. He's trailing in New Hampshire despite seeing some improvements there. And he's far behind in South Carolina and Nevada. He doesn't even seem to be in the running in any other states (maybe Indiana?) because of his big investment in Iowa. I don't think he's running a bad strategy here considering his big disadvantage in popularity going into this race. But it's a bet by his campaign on momentum. He could conceivably win Iowa, come from behind and take New Hampshire, and still not reach the necessary support by Super Tuesday.

 

[rev0lver]

If it happens again I'll be with you. Gabbard is likely to go for someone's heart on Wednesday. Let's see if she gets cut off.


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

California Dems question whether it’s time for Harris to drop out

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/17/kamala-harris-california-dems-2020-drop-out-071329


Third "Harris is done" front-page Politico article in the last three weeks. Politico is very well connected with big Democratic donors. What's the angle here? My belief: as the field winnows, the "establishment" wants the dynamic to be "Sanders/Warren v. Moderate Lane". Harris muddies that narrative by 1) taking up space on the stage/attention 2) attempting to straddle the "progressive" and "establishment" lanes. Also she is one of the few who is well-placed to go after the Chosen One, i.e. Buttigieg. Finally, if she has a comeback, she can weaken Biden in SC and other southern states.

Yes there's the possible strategic angle here from the establishment, but it's also not wrong lol. She's not going to win. A comeback would take something drastic, and it seems like lots of people have made their minds up on her. She's a distant 4th in her own state. Imo it's better for the primary in general if everyone outside the top 4 drops out. Lets us actually focus on the ones who might be the eventual candidate.