Political Betting Thread

Ah so you're cookoo for cocoa puffs, now I get it. That's where this conversation ends. Best of luck with your civil war there bud.
 
Trump being president in 2020 at +138. Good price, but given that it will get worse for him before it gets better, I think I will wait a little. +150 onward I might jump on.
 
longway said:
Trump being president in 2020 at +138. Good price, but given that it will get worse for him before it gets better, I think I will wait a little. +150 onward I might jump on.
Click to expand...
Wait for fake polling bullshit that says he has less than a 10% chance like last time

Im holding for +200
 
hasn't been a poll for the dem noms for awhile. is there some sort of schedule that they stick too when doing them or do they just arbitrarily bring them out when they feel like it??im probably being paranoid but it almost feels like they are trying to wait for some of the biden stuff to "blow over" before doing another poll as some sort of damage limitation for his numbers
 
longway said:
An interesting little factoid is that the whistleblower requirement to have firsthand knowledge was changed a few days before the whistleblower submitted his report. Talk about playing dirty.
Click to expand...

Yeah we can get back on track with betting stuff here. But I have to point out that this point is literally not true. There was apparently a revision to the form that they use. But none of the rules or requirements were changed, and there was never a firsthand knowledge requirement.
 
Roads55 said:
hasn't been a poll for the dem noms for awhile. is there some sort of schedule that they stick too when doing them or do they just arbitrarily bring them out when they feel like it??im probably being paranoid but it almost feels like they are trying to wait for some of the biden stuff to "blow over" before doing another poll as some sort of damage limitation for his numbers
Click to expand...

I'm usually checking here - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/

There's been a few released within the past week, including one today. Some weeks are just slow for it. Idk about a schedule, but I'm pretty sure they go harder on polls around major points in the race like debates.
 
rev0lver said:
Yeah we can get back on track with betting stuff here. But I have to point out that this point is literally not true. There was apparently a revision to the form that they use. But none of the rules or requirements was changed, and there was never a firsthand knowledge requirement.
Click to expand...

No. They were.

It was a prerequisite, prior to this, that to be credible, the whistleblower had to have firsthand knowledge. The IG would not even consider any second or third-hand reports. The forms were written in such a way that it assumed the whistleblower had fh knowledge, the forms were re-written to allow SH/TH info to be submitted, prior to this you could not even submit SH/TH info as the layout of the form did not allow it.

The FH requirement/rule/standard was suddenly changed. It goes well beyond a ‘revision’ to the form.

Yes, there is no law that states whistleblower must have fh info.

It was a change in regulations/rules rather than law, so its just a semantic game being played to obsfucate the significance of the change.

Btw even though i said i dont want to go into political discussions that are not betting relsted, please call me out if you think i have got something wrong.
 
Last edited:
I decided to to see if there any betting opportunities in the clownworld that passes for uk politics, esp the 3 ring circus known as brexit.

Exiting the eu prior to dec 2019 is available at over +200. Already 3u on that. I think i may add 2 more. Even though large maority of mps are desperate to remain in eu, it looks like thet are such clowns that they have made it easier for pro brexit pm to take uk out without eu likely to grant a further extension.

It takes some kniwledge background to understand, but this video explains why remain mps shat the bed by passing a piece of legislation called the kinnock amndment.

 
Last edited:
longway said:
No. They were.

It was a prerequisite, prior to this, that to be credible, the whistleblower had to have firsthand knowledge. The IG would not even consider any second or third-hand reports. The forms were written in such a way that it assumed the whistleblower had fh knowledge, the forms were re-written to allow SH/TH info to be submitted, prior to this you could not even submit SH/TH info as the layout of the form did not allow it.

The FH requirement/rule/standard was suddenly changed. It goes well beyond a ‘revision’ to the form.

Yes, there is no law that states whistleblower must have fh info.

It was a change in regulations/rules rather than law, so its just a semantic game being played to obsfucate the significance of the change.

Btw even though i said i dont want to go into political discussions that are not betting relsted, please call me out if you think i have got something wrong.
Click to expand...

So that's also not true. The form was revised after the whistleblower filed their complaint, as per reports and the inspector general's office. This was to prevent confusion on whether a complaint can be filed or not with secondhand info, and didn't change any rules or protocol. The whistleblower's complaint was filed with the same form that existed in 2018. Additionally, both firsthand and secondhand knowledge was checked, indicating at least a level of firsthand knowledge.

The purpose of that section that existed previously (and, again, still existed in the whistleblower's form) was to emphasize that a secondhand complaint will not be escalated until the office can investigate and establish credibility. Secondhand whistleblowing is of course investigated and is a common source of information. The result can be the same, it only has to do with the order of protocol that has to be followed. They looked at the case and found it to be credible, and now, whether or not you agree with the whistleblower's conclusions, we've all seen that it so far did have credible information.
 
Who cares about truth when you can get far right leaning news and videos to influence you to throw your money away !
 
old liz down to evens to win the nomination now, bernie drifted out to 17.5!

economist and monmouth polls have liz on 28 vs 22/25 respectively for biden. politico have biden 11 points ahead... that's a giant difference, and the first ones to have warren leading. this simply has to be direct fallout from the ukraine stuff given biden's previous numbers being very stable. this could be the beginning of the end for him. gonna lay him a bit more as i anticipate some price spikes to push his odds higher.
 
Last edited:
haha wow, hillary went down to 15.5 yesterday lay bet got matched there, back out to 27 as of now. easy money that.
 
I feel like the media frenzy around impeachmentgate or whatever the fuck is happening is making these polls with warren leading go under the radar a bit. can see warren shortening more in the next couple days.
 
if he pulls out then lots of voters go to warren, even if he doesn't speculation could make warren's odds shorten even more combines with her poll leads..
 


heart attack is complete speculation but it's possible. could of been a few things apparently, angina or something maybe. recovery can be relatively qucik but he's still going to be out for a while.
 
Roads55 said:
old liz down to evens to win the nomination now, bernie drifted out to 17.5!

economist and monmouth polls have liz on 28 vs 22/25 respectively for biden. politico have biden 11 points ahead... that's a giant difference, and the first ones to have warren leading. this simply has to be direct fallout from the ukraine stuff given biden's previous numbers being very stable. this could be the beginning of the end for him. gonna lay him a bit more as i anticipate some price spikes to push his odds higher.
Click to expand...

Actually 4 of the 6 national polls I'm seeing from the past 7 days (Economist x2, Monmouth, Quinnipiac) have Warren leading. The two others (Politico, Harvard-Harris) have Biden with an 11 point lead. I haven't done a deep dive into each pollster's methodology in this, but it's a little odd. I think the smart money's on Warren and it's been so for a while.

Bernie's health issue is really unfortunate for his campaign, and even as a Bernie supporter myself, I think is the beginning of the end. Even if it's not as bad as it seemed when the story broke, people are going to see it as an old guy with health problems. Remember how much Hillary's health was questioned in 2016 based on little more than speculation. This could lead up to him dropping out and putting his support behind someone like Warren.

Surprisingly though, the data I've seen in the past showed Biden as a bigger second-choice among Sanders supporters than Warren. I don't think that'll hold up though, and it will mostly translate to more Warren support in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,129
Messages
57,969,671
Members
175,884
Latest member
cloudfair

Share this page

Back
Top