Political Betting Thread

[rev0lver]

Alex has been right about a number of political subjects for years. I bet Trump to win the Presidency at various odds because of Alex's show. The odds that I was able to get for Trump were between +350 to +1050. You obviously don't understand that the polls fed to the bewildered herd are not accurate. Alex was the first to report about Hillary's health problems. He was correct. The man doesn't have a crystal ball. He has sources all over DC & various gov't agencies.

No he doesn't. He also claimed the elites and the deep state were going to prevent Trump from getting elected and that polls are fake news at the same time.

Polling is done pretty accurately. I bet Trump in 2016 because he was generally polling within the margin of error in the states he needed. Complacent electorate vs highly-energized electorate made me think Trump would get a decent bump at the voting booths above what the polls showed. Fake polling does zero favors to a campaign and, if anything, would probably hurt campaigns like this. Lots of dem voters stayed home because they didn't care about Hillary and didn't think Trump was going to win.

Please don't post Alex Jones conspiracies in here. Let's go with more realistic speculation

 

[rev0lver]

I would disagree. Uniting the dnc around these whackos is exactly what he wants to do. Besides that the whacko faction hates Pelosi and the old guard, and still do. The old guard were trying to disassociate themselves from the whacko fringe element, now Trump has strengthened the position of whacko fringe and made them the face if the DNC. The man is a political genius.

But isn't that exactly what happened in 2015-2016 with Trump? Where most of the republican party was condemning Trump and rallying around the Jebs and Teds until Trump won out? They thought it would bring down their party, now it's the right-wing's mainstream platform.

Both sides see the other as whacko. If the dems shift to AOC's side and we get a 2020 candidate from that side, you have the left's response to Trump's politics. Then people will decide which form of populism they like more, rather than having populism vs establishment politics. And quite honestly, personal opinions aside, the progressive issues poll far better for the left and they only have to worry about the figurehead itself.

 

[rev0lver]

Agreed, Pelosi will not impeach as she is trying to not lose the House in 2020 and attempting to impeach Trump will do that.

Pelosi will not impeach because she doesn't want Trump out of office before the 2020 elections. She sees him as much easier to beat, regardless of candidate, than if he resigns or gets removed from office.

 

[rev0lver]

Not sure if Republicans will control the House but the Senate is theirs until 2022, I think a few tossup states are on the ballot again then.

2020 Senate race is going to be really interesting imo. It's just kinda hard to pay attention to with presidential elections like this lol. The presidential election of course has a big influence on the votes here, and it also takes away from attention incumbent challengers face. Republicans have the advantage on the map in terms of safe seats, but if democrats rally certain states they have a path to 51. Probably better for them than the 2018 races.

Dems have a good chance at flipping Colorado and Arizona. Decent chance at flipping NC. Possible chance at flipping Maine, Iowa, and Georgia. If they maintain all current seats, they need 4 of these to gain a senate majority. However, there's a wild card here in Alabama with Doug Jones. It's hard to say if incumbency advantage will keep it blue or if the R turnout for Trump will make it red again.

 

[Omni1]

No he doesn't. He also claimed the elites and the deep state were going to prevent Trump from getting elected and that polls are fake news at the same time.

Polling is done pretty accurately. I bet Trump in 2016 because he was generally polling within the margin of error in the states he needed. Complacent electorate vs highly-energized electorate made me think Trump would get a decent bump at the voting booths above what the polls showed. Fake polling does zero favors to a campaign and, if anything, would probably hurt campaigns like this. Lots of dem voters stayed home because they didn't care about Hillary and didn't think Trump was going to win.

Please don't post Alex Jones conspiracies in here. Let's go with more realistic speculation

Sigh. You poor fool.

 

[rev0lver]

Sigh. You poor fool.

I'm just saying you're following a guy who even half the conspiracy communities believe is a plant because his stuff is so blatantly crazy and illogical. And whether that's true or not, his profit model is based on pushing these ideas (and fake supplements) to you. Come on man, I don't like Hillary Clinton but I'm very confident she's not a literal demon who smells of sulfur. Let's not go with those things in a serious discussion

 

[Joedaman55]

2020 Senate race is going to be really interesting imo. It's just kinda hard to pay attention to with presidential elections like this lol. The presidential election of course has a big influence on the votes here, and it also takes away from attention incumbent challengers face. Republicans have the advantage on the map in terms of safe seats, but if democrats rally certain states they have a path to 51. Probably better for them than the 2018 races.

Dems have a good chance at flipping Colorado and Arizona. Decent chance at flipping NC. Possible chance at flipping Maine, Iowa, and Georgia. If they maintain all current seats, they need 4 of these to gain a senate majority. However, there's a wild card here in Alabama with Doug Jones. It's hard to say if incumbency advantage will keep it blue or if the R turnout for Trump will make it red again.

You need 4 with Murkowski in the Senate (she’s a Democrat posing as a Republican). Jones is going to lose, Blunt was just that bad as a candidate. Maine doesn’t matter either because Susan Collins is also another Democrat posing as a Republican. Doesn’t matter who wins that race.

Colorado and Arizona are a toss up, comes down to who’s running against John and who’s the better AZ candidate. Iowa and GA have almost no chance. Sullivan won’t lose in AK. There’s a shot in Kansas but prolly not. VA could go Republican but prolly not.

Best scenario is +2 Democrats, worst case is -1, likely outcome is +1 Democrats and I’m counting Susan Collins as a Democrat. I have the current Senate as 51-49 Republicans and they’ll own the tie with VP.

 

[APras1428]

Open borders, paying for the whole world's healthcare, and supporting full term abortion polls well?

 

[rev0lver]

You need 4 with Murkowski in the Senate (she’s a Democrat posing as a Republican). Jones is going to lose, Blunt was just that bad as a candidate. Maine doesn’t matter either because Susan Collins is also another Democrat posing as a Republican. Doesn’t matter who wins that race.

Colorado and Arizona are a toss up, comes down to who’s running against John and who’s the better AZ candidate. Iowa and GA have almost no chance. Sullivan won’t lose in AK. There’s a shot in Kansas but prolly not. VA could go Republican but prolly not.

Best scenario is +2 Democrats, worst case is -1, likely outcome is +1 Democrats and I’m counting Susan Collins as a Democrat. I have the current Senate as 51-49 Republicans and they’ll own the tie with VP.

I mean, you can count Collins and Murkowski as democrats, but they're generally still going to align with republican votes and it matters when choosing the senate majority leader. Also of course makes a difference in confirming justices/cabinet positions, which Collins and Murkowski generally have gone with (except Murkowski on Kavanaugh voting "present" iirc). I'm counting King and Sanders as democrats here, as they're I's who caucus with the democrats. I don't remember exactly how that affects a technical majority though. But if 4 that I mentioned flip with everyone else holding, it would be 49 D 49 R and 2 I's who vote with the democrats. And if Sanders ends up moving along in the presidential race, Vermont will probably still choose a D or a similar independent.

Colorado and Arizona are likely flipping imo. Arizona of course voted in a D in the midterms who beat McSally, who gained her seat only as an appointed successor. Anti-Trump sentiment is stronger in Arizona than the state is red due to Trump's anti-McCain sentiments. Gardner narrowly won his seat in Colorado in a state that's been getting more blue as time goes on and will likely see a strong D turnout next year.

Kansas is a weird scenario that I normally wouldn't pay much attention to. If Kobach wins the R nomination there, there's a chance the D's win. But if pro-Trump turnout brings extra R votes to the polls it might not matter.

There's a ton of variables in the NC election and that state is pretty much a coinflip. If that starts to look like it'll go D, Maine might matter a lot more than you think. I think the 2021 senate will end up looking 50/50 or 51-49 for either side.

 

[rev0lver]

Open borders, paying for the whole world's healthcare, and supporting full term abortion polls well?

Universal healthcare (MFA or otherwise), free college tuition, higher taxes on the wealthy, increased minimum wage, abortion rights, and paid family leave all poll very favorably. Most over 70%, some are even over 50% among republicans.

Trump's side is smart (intentionally or not) to avoid most social issues here. Issues like marijuana policy and same-sex marriage are generally lost causes for the right wing at a national level nowadays. Personally I just don't think he cares much about them one way or the other. So the presidential race will probably be framed around economic and class issues. Against a moderate democrat, status quo policy is pretty easy to attack. Against a progressive, you have different ideas that a lot of people seem to agree with. Despite having a good economy under Trump, his platform is not very popular when it comes to these deeper issues.

The figurehead here matters a lot though. So it's up in the air whether the electorate can get behind an individual candidate along with the right platform.

 

[Joedaman55]

I mean, you can count Collins and Murkowski as democrats, but they're generally still going to align with republican votes and it matters when choosing the senate majority leader. Also of course makes a difference in confirming justices/cabinet positions, which Collins and Murkowski generally have gone with (except Murkowski on Kavanaugh voting "present" iirc). I'm counting King and Sanders as democrats here, as they're I's who caucus with the democrats. I don't remember exactly how that affects a technical majority though. But if 4 that I mentioned flip with everyone else holding, it would be 49 D 49 R and 2 I's who vote with the democrats. And if Sanders ends up moving along in the presidential race, Vermont will probably still choose a D or a similar independent.

Colorado and Arizona are likely flipping imo. Arizona of course voted in a D in the midterms who beat McSally, who gained her seat only as an appointed successor. Anti-Trump sentiment is stronger in Arizona than the state is red due to Trump's anti-McCain sentiments. Gardner narrowly won his seat in Colorado in a state that's been getting more blue as time goes on and will likely see a strong D turnout next year.

Kansas is a weird scenario that I normally wouldn't pay much attention to. If Kobach wins the R nomination there, there's a chance the D's win. But if pro-Trump turnout brings extra R votes to the polls it might not matter.

There's a ton of variables in the NC election and that state is pretty much a coinflip. If that starts to look like it'll go D, Maine might matter a lot more than you think. I think the 2021 senate will end up looking 50/50 or 51-49 for either side.

I think you’re underrating Sinema in the last Arizona race, she was strong and so is McSally. Arizona and Colorado will go to the stronger candidate similarly to what occurred with Tester in Montana when Montana is normally red.

 

[rev0lver]

I think you’re underrating Sinema in the last Arizona race, she was strong and so is McSally. Arizona and Colorado will go to the stronger candidate similarly to what occurred with Tester in Montana when Montana is normally red.

I really don't think Sinema was a great candidate lol. She's a generic establishment democrat. McSally is a pretty solid candidate, though, and appeals nicely to the R's base in that state. If she can be beaten by someone as average as Sinema, I'm feeling pretty confident moving forward. Tying McSally to Trump support could be more effective there than in other swing states.

Tester does well in Montana due to his (at least perceived) genuineness and anti-corruption platforms. He is a great politician in that state.

But it is pretty damn hard to talk about this when lots of these races don't even have clear challengers yet lol. I mean the Alabama special election was going to be a non-event until Roy Moore won the nomination.

 

[Omni1]

I'm just saying you're following a guy who even half the conspiracy communities believe is a plant because his stuff is so blatantly crazy and illogical. And whether that's true or not, his profit model is based on pushing these ideas (and fake supplements) to you. Come on man, I don't like Hillary Clinton but I'm very confident she's not a literal demon who smells of sulfur. Let's not go with those things in a serious discussion

Clearly you haven't a clue. As someone who has listened to The Alex Jones Show since 2006 the only appropriate response to your nonsense is my previous comment. Sigh. You poor fool. It's honestly what first came to mind.

 

[rev0lver]

Clearly you haven't a clue. As someone who has listened to The Alex Jones Show since 2006 the only appropriate response to your nonsense is my previous comment. Sigh. You poor fool. It's honestly what first came to mind.

Not to derail the thread but analyzing conspiracy theories and getting involved with those communities from a skeptical perspective has been one of my biggest hobbies for about the same timeframe lol. So I'm very familiar with his stuff.

 

[Omni1]

Not to derail the thread but analyzing conspiracy theories and getting involved with those communities from a skeptical perspective has been one of my biggest hobbies for about the same timeframe lol. So I'm very familiar with his stuff.

If you are into Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster & aliens good for you. Chuckle. That has nothing to do with Alex Jones. It's obvious that you are absolutely clueless in regards to him. I tell ya what son. If I ever need someone to talk about the Big Foot conspiracy I'll definitely look you up. But in regards to politics. It's best if you leave that to the adults.

 

[waiguoren]

I placed my Sanders bet on April 15. Over three months later, the race is starting to shape up as I expected. Although I did not anticipate the rise of Warren, I now believe she takes more from Harris than from Sanders. CBS has a new poll out today for Iowa, Texas, New Hampshire, South Carolina and California.

• Biden leads in all five states, but his lead is under 7% everywhere except for Texas and South Carolina.
• Sanders is in 2nd place in three of five states and in fourth for two of five. Even in his worst state (Texas) he's polling well (12%). I believe Sanders voters are harder to reach than supporters of other candidates, so I expect him to overperform slightly his polling.
• Sanders is strongest in the first two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) so he could win there and get a bump for South Carolina, where he's already in 2nd.

Again, one of the core ideas behind my Sanders bet was that none of the major candidates has breakaway power due to intra-party divisions and overall weakness of the field. In a large field, with proportional delegate allocation and 15% thresholds, the ~15% floor that Sanders seems to have in most states would be a huge advantage.

From a strategic standpoint, the Sanders people need to be smart. They should not alienate Biden voters. This could be difficult as some of Sanders's supports are young and reckless. Multiple polls indicate that Biden voters' most common second choice is Sanders. Sanders must not alienate these people. He should be cordial and friendly toward Biden while drawing clear lines on policy and record. Most of us in this thread expect Biden to fall out of the #1 position within the next three months. Sanders can absorb some of that support.

Continuing with Biden: I expect July 31 to be a bad night for him @PolarBearPaulVarelans. He will again be on the stage with Nasty Harris (this time standing right next to him) but this time he will also have de Blasio and Booker aiming at him. I also think some of the lesser-known candidates might take swings. It's desperation time for them, since the entrance requirements will increase for the next debate. I think we're likely to see another "deer in the headlights" moment for Biden.

@Jack V Savage

 

[rev0lver]

If you are into Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster & aliens good for you. Chuckle. That has nothing to do with Alex Jones. It's obvious that you are absolutely clueless in regards to him. I tell ya what son. If I ever need someone to talk about the Big Foot conspiracy I'll definitely look you up. But in regards to politics. It's best if you leave that to the adults.

I'm more talking about 9/11, Sandy Hook, Pizzagate, Obama's birth certificate, QAnon, Route 91, that kind of stuff. But keep making assumptions bud. Alex Jones is doing a bit, consciously or not. It's how he's made his living. He has nothing actually intelligent to say about current events.

(aliens exist tho maybe)

 

[rev0lver]

From a strategic standpoint, the Sanders people need to be smart. They should not alienate Biden voters. This could be difficult as some of Sanders's supports are young and reckless. Multiple polls indicate that Biden voters' most common second choice is Sanders. Sanders must not alienate these people. He should be cordial and friendly toward Biden while drawing clear lines on policy and record. Most of us in this thread expect Biden to fall out of the #1 position within the next three months. Sanders can absorb some of that support.

I honestly believe a lot of Biden voters are on him for perceived electability, and actually otherwise like Bernie's platform. Electability is what most of the media likes to focus on, and the democratic base sees beating Trump as the #1 priority before anything else. They think a Sanders type is an ideal goal that won't be reached because of the fear that going "too left" will cost them an election. The Sanders wing doesn't necessarily have to convince them on ideas during primary time, they have to convince them that Biden isn't much more than a repeat of the 2016 strategy.

Biden could just shoot himself in the foot more without him needing to do anything though. Biden's next debate night has a lot of other people who are fully willing to butt heads with him.

 

[longway]

Universal healthcare (MFA or otherwise), free college tuition, higher taxes on the wealthy, increased minimum wage, abortion rights, and paid family leave all poll very favorably. Most over 70%, some are even over 50% among republicans.

Trump's side is smart (intentionally or not) to avoid most social issues here. Issues like marijuana policy and same-sex marriage are generally lost causes for the right wing at a national level nowadays. Personally I just don't think he cares much about them one way or the other. So the presidential race will probably be framed around economic and class issues. Against a moderate democrat, status quo policy is pretty easy to attack. Against a progressive, you have different ideas that a lot of people seem to agree with. Despite having a good economy under Trump, his platform is not very popular when it comes to these deeper issues.

The figurehead here matters a lot though. So it's up in the air whether the electorate can get behind an individual candidate along with the right platform.

Voters like a mixture of policies by both parties, determining how they prioritize them is important, as are the messengers.

Trump knows he is relatively unpopular, this is why he has set up 4 loony attention whores as the face of the dnc, as when contrasted with them he will be viewed favourably.

And as they are fame addicted attention seekers at their core, the dnc will never get them to shut up.

With a few tweets he has 4 marionettes dancing to his tune at the heart of the dnc, and the dnc are bound into protecting them.

He is very smart. A maestro is at work.

 

[rev0lver]

Voters like a mixture of policies by both parties, determining how they prioritize them is important, as are the messengers.

Trump knows he is relatively unpopular, this is why he has set up 4 loony attention whores as the face of the dnc, as when contrasted with them he will be viewed favourably.

And as they are fame addicted attention seekers at their core, the dnc will never get them to shut up.

With a few tweets he has 4 marionettes dancing to his tune at the heart of the dnc, and the dnc are bound into protecting them.

He is very smart. A maestro is at work.

He did this with wildly unpopular comments (from the perception of people outside his base) against congresswomen whose policies people generally like, even if their outspokenness is controversial.

Relying on constant pandering to your own base isn't smart politics. The people with these points of view are already going to vote for Trump, and it energizes the other side even more. I keep hearing about him playing 4D chess despite every sign pointing to him losing in a climate that an incumbent should usually win. If he actually wants to increase his support, he should be trying something more than keeping his guaranteed voters happy.