Political Betting Thread

[Roads55]

Actually 4 of the 6 national polls I'm seeing from the past 7 days have Warren leading. The two others 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.

yeah i agree about the bernie's support, i also remember reading a couple articles about bernie/warrne having surprisingly different demographics but if bernie endorses the warren that looks pretty likely then the lions share will end up with her. yeah i forgot there was 2 other polls that had warren leading a week or so ago, been slacking lately following the polls properly.

 

[longway]

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.

No, FH info was integral, the IG would not investigate unless the report contained FH info.

It says so in the ICIG press release

The whisltleblower did tick the box that stated he had FH info, but in fact he did not. What FH did he have? So the IG ignored its own guidance in escalating this complaint. And the whisltle blower lied. Of course if he did have FH info, I take this all back, but I dont know of any. He stated himself he was not privy to the call or transcript but relied on sources who were afaik.

Yes, there are no federal statutes that require FH info, but the IG had the discretion to decide what would be deemed credible and what not, and it was very clear that FH info was a pre-requisite. of course exceptions can be made, but what are the previous examples of these? that would probably clear up how unusual this case was.

The forms were changed after, you are right about that afaics. But its strange that this case would trigger a change to a form in use previously without issue.

 

[longway]

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 dont understand. On bet fair they are still at +1400. My 1u at various prices above +2000 is in the green. In fact all my bets except for my biden hedge (but I did lay him for 0.5U, so that covers that easily and then some) and the tiny sprinkle on Buttigieg are doing well.

I take it back, it has gone back up again.

 

[longway]

What an incredible change in tone and language, what a difference a day makes. Looks like Pelosi has realised she has made a blunder and is trying to retreat from impeachment. You can always fade any bandwagon Clunkton climbs on, she is great fade material.

Perhaps its part of strategy, but not a good look, given all the hysterical shrieking over the last couple of days.

 

[rev0lver]

No, FH info was integral, the IG would not investigate unless the report contained FH info.

It says so in the ICIG press release

The whisltleblower did tick the box that stated he had FH info, but in fact he did not. What FH did he have? So the IG ignored its own guidance in escalating this complaint. And the whisltle blower lied. Of course if he did have FH info, I take this all back, but I dont know of any. He stated himself he was not privy to the call or transcript but relied on sources who were afaik.

Yes, there are no federal statutes that require FH info, but the IG had the discretion to decide what would be deemed credible and what not, and it was very clear that FH info was a pre-requisite. of course exceptions can be made, but what are the previous examples of these? that would probably clear up how unusual this case was.

The forms were changed after, you are right about that afaics. But its strange that this case would trigger a change to a form in use previously without issue.

We don't totally know the specific details of every series of events that led to the whistleblower receiving info. Receiving an official briefing on an event he listed out could constitute FH info depending on your interpretation of that. This, among other things, is probably why the section was later removed in the form to prevent any confusion. Whistleblower complaints are taken seriously whether it's FH or SH info. FH info was not a requirement for credibility, it would just create IMMEDIATE credibility to escalate the case. Otherwise the IG office looks to make a determination of credibility, which they did here in their review of the case, as laid out in the IG's letter to Joseph Maguire.

What an incredible change in tone and language, what a difference a day makes. Looks like Pelosi has realised she has made a blunder and is trying to retreat from impeachment. You can always fade any bandwagon Clunkton climbs on, she is great fade material.

Perhaps its part of strategy, but not a good look, given all the hysterical shrieking over the last couple of days.

Not sure what this is getting at? This was always an impeachment inquiry from the day she first announced it. They want Trump and co to come out and incriminate each other more as they've been doing in the media. This is generally how the process is supposed to work. They're not just gonna come out and call an impeachment vote without gathering more info, laying a specific case, and assuring they have the necessary votes.

 

[longway]

What you state is simply not true. In order to even begin the investigation fh is a prequisite. Its there in writing. I dont know what more i can add at this point. There 14 days to determine if compmaint is credible, but in order to start that process, there must be fh info.

In addition, the law required the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community within
14 calendar days to determine whether information with respect to the urgent concern “appeared
credible.” Id. § 3033(k)(5)(B). The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined,
after conducting a preliminary review, that there were reasonable grounds to believe the urgent
concern appeared credible.
At the time the Complainant filed the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form with the ICIG
on August 12, 2019, the ICIG followed its routine practice and provided the Complainant
information, including “Background Information on ICWPA Process,” which included the
following language:
In order to find an urgent concern “credible,” the IC IG must be in
possession of reliable, first-hand information. The IC IG cannot transmit
/QUOTE]

As far as the pelosi back track, i changed my post before i saw your reply, yes it is an inquiry, but until this point all the democrats were adamant it was self evident he was guilty. Now pelosi opening up a path to say perhaps it was ok after all. Its a big change imo.

Tbh i still dont see what he has done wrong. Its his duty to invedtigate the issues he raised in the phone call. What biden did, as his son was working in burisma is worthy of invedtigation. Just bc biden is running doesnt make him above the law. Also no sign yet of any law broken, and the quid pro quo narrative is shot to pieces.

Its all intepretive dance now.

 

[rev0lver]

What you state is simply not true. In order to even begin the investigation fh is a prequisite. Its there in writing. I dont know what more i can add at this point.

Let me clarify a little more. There was never a rule or guideline in the IG's office that FH info was a requirement for them to investigate a whistleblower complaint. The IG made this clear in recent days, and that any indication of that in the form's supplemental materials was incorrect as it pertains to their actual protocols. All FH and SH complains are investigated appropriately and nothing has changed about that. I mean, just logically, it wouldn't make sense, and that's why it's not and wasn't an actual rule.

Plus, like I said, there could've been FH info in this case anyway depending on what you define as FH. But it would be investigated with or without that.

 

[rev0lver]

Tbh i still dont see what he has done wrong. Its his duty to invedtigate the issues he raised in the phone call. What biden did, as his son was working in burisma is worthy of invedtigation. Just bc biden is running doesnt make him above the law. Also no sign yet of any law broken, and the quid pro quo narrative is shot to pieces.

Its all intepretive dance now.

It's not his duty to do that at all. And there's a million other people you could investigate for various crimes, yet he singled out a political rival who wasn't even a target of investigation. Hell, if he was legitimately concerned about corruption in Ukraine he could've said "hey, you should go back and look into companies like Burisma", but he wanted Biden dirt.

The only thing that's being shot to pieces is evidence wrongdoing by the Bidens, and I don't even like Joe Biden. If he can be brought down, great, but requesting help from foreign governments isn't the right way to do this. This is an abuse of power and can constitute a thing of value for his campaign, which would be a crime as per many many legal analysts. It's practically an open and shut case for impeachment. Finding direct, unquestionable evidence of a quid pro quo would just be icing on the cake for them.

Impeachment is a very good bet right now.

 

[TrueAscension]

what are your bets?

I dont bet on politics. I bet MMA and football.

 

[Roads55]

I dont understand. On bet fair they are still at +1400. My 1u at various prices above +2000 is in the green. In fact all my bets except for my biden hedge (but I did lay him for 0.5U, so that covers that easily and then some) and the tiny sprinkle on Buttigieg are doing well.

I take it back, it has gone back up again.

yeah the line moved. it went up to 28.0 where my unmatched bet was sitting (maybe even higher i didnt see) before coming back in a bit and right now she's at 21.0. I'll lay her again if the odds drop back down to 15's. I added small to buttigieg also.

 

[longway]

Let me clarify a little more. There was never a rule or guideline in the IG's office that FH info was a requirement for them to investigate a whistleblower complaint. The IG made this clear in recent days, and that any indication of that in the form's supplemental materials was incorrect as it pertains to their actual protocols. All FH and SH complains are investigated appropriately and nothing has changed about that. I mean, just logically, it wouldn't make sense, and that's why it's not and wasn't an actual rule.

Plus, like I said, there could've been FH info in this case anyway depending on what you define as FH. But it would be investigated with or without that.

There was. I quoted the press release of the IG office that shows there was. How to define FH info? Come on now.

On both issues, i think its about semantics now.

I have put everything i know forward, you have presented your rebuttal. Lets leave it here.

 

[longway]

It's not his duty to do that at all. And there's a million other people you could investigate for various crimes, yet he singled out a political rival who wasn't even a target of investigation. Hell, if he was legitimately concerned about corruption in Ukraine he could've said "hey, you should go back and look into companies like Burisma", but he wanted Biden dirt.

The only thing that's being shot to pieces is evidence wrongdoing by the Bidens, and I don't even like Joe Biden. If he can be brought down, great, but requesting help from foreign governments isn't the right way to do this. This is an abuse of power and can constitute a thing of value for his campaign, which would be a crime as per many many legal analysts. It's practically an open and shut case for impeachment. Finding direct, unquestionable evidence of a quid pro quo would just be icing on the cake for them.

Impeachment is a very good bet right now.

Ok, whatever. In any case, no law broken, no quid pro quo. The rest is opinion.

I agree that impeachment is a good bet.

The latest is that whistleblower went to schiff first. I dont think this means much in itself, but explains much of the timeline and pelosi saying she knew what was in the call on 60 minutes. But they expected a quid pro quo that wasnt there, so they are lurching around now.

Both the dnc and wh knew this was going to blow up in advance imo. Both sides are working hard to take advantage.





Im loving the pushback from wh. I think the impeachment will be disastrous for dnc. Wh nessaging is superb. The first video is sure to go viral, reaching well beyond trump's base.

 

[longway]

Im 3u deep at about +200 that uk leaves eu by dec 2019 and 1u on uk leaving eu on 31 oct at slightly better odds.

Boris looks like he wants out, and the remainer clowns are squabbling amongst themselves as usual.

Man, i hope this pays off, i was steering clear of this brexit circus, but the odds look good currently.

 

[Roads55]

Im 3u deep at about +200 that uk leaves eu by dec 2019 and 1u on uk leaving eu on 31 oct at slightly better odds.

Boris looks like he wants out, and the remainer clowns are squabbling amongst themselves as usual.

Man, i hope this pays off, i was steering clear of this brexit circus, but the odds look good currently.

won't the EU only let the UK leave if parliament approves a deal including a no deal though? could be wrong, every time i try to look into it in depth my brain shuts off..

 

[longway]

won't the EU only let the UK leave if parliament approves a deal including a no deal though? could be wrong, every time i try to look into it in depth my brain shuts off..

Dont blame you, its a tangled mess. But if eu dont grant extension, and boris says he wont ask for one, the default is exit on 31 october. Well, thats whati can make of it anyway.

Best path for remainers is vote no confidence in boris and install caretaker pm to ask for extension, but swinson wont let corbyn get pm slot and corbyn wont let anyone else get pm slot, so they are not able to get act together.

 

[rev0lver]

There was. I quoted the press release of the IG office that shows there was. How to define FH info? Come on now.

On both issues, i think its about semantics now.

I have put everything i know forward, you have presented your rebuttal. Lets leave it here.

I'm trying to explain that it wasn't a rule. It was a misleading statement on the old whistleblower form that did not align with the office's rules and guidelines the way it's being interpreted. The IG office has explained this and that narrative has been thoroughly debunked. SH whistleblower complaints don't just get ignored and thrown away. And as far as the FH stuff goes, receiving an official briefing on information could be considered FH info as one could argue it doesn't constitute hearsay. So even though it doesn't matter to a great extent, FH info could have correctly been checkmarked.

Ok, whatever. In any case, no law broken, no quid pro quo. The rest is opinion.

I agree that impeachment is a good bet.

The latest is that whistleblower went to schiff first. I dont think this means much in itself, but explains much of the timeline and pelosi saying she knew what was in the call on 60 minutes. But they expected a quid pro quo that wasnt there, so they are lurching around now.

Both the dnc and wh knew this was going to blow up in advance imo. Both sides are working hard to take advantage.





Im loving the pushback from wh. I think the impeachment will be disastrous for dnc. Wh nessaging is superb. The first video is sure to go viral, reaching well beyond trump's base.

Quid pro quo does not need to be established for a law to be broken. Most legal analysts, including even half the ones on Fox News (except the ardent defenders who will defend Trump no matter what), have stated there's already a very easy case for a law being broken. Quid pro quo would only be an ADDITIONAL charge, and the possibility of finding more direct evidence of that is still very much there. We don't even have an actual transcript of the call yet, just a summary that's missing pieces.

We've learned that the whistleblower talked to a Schiff staffer who outlined to Schiff what was going on. The whistleblower never went to Schiff himself.

The pushback has been disastrous so far. Trump + Rudy are digging themselves in a deeper hole every day, no one seems to care about possible Biden issues beyond the fervent Trump supporters, and public support for impeachment has now reached a clear majority. He's slowly losing any defense against impeachment he might have, and he's losing the case with the general public. Trump just looks desperate in his tweets now, and no matter what face him + his media supporters like Hannity Carlson etc are putting on, he's in a very precarious situation right now. Both for his status in office and his reelection campaign.

 

[longway]

Most legal analysts, including even half the ones on Fox News (except the ardent defenders who will defend Trump no matter what), have stated there's already a very easy case for a law being broken.

I can get down with the idea that what Trump did not have a good look, but it is well within his prerogative to ask for an investigation into the Bidens' activities there.

So, I am still curious, what law has been broken?

 

[longway]

Latest is that Pelosi doesn't want a vote on opening an impeachment inquiry, which is apparently what happened prior to opening all other impeachment inquiries. Its quite strange, she is playing into the narrative that this impeachment inquiry is just another partisan witch-hunt by unhinged sore losers.

Why would she do this? Is she afraid she doesn't have the necessary votes?

 

[longway]

Ive cashed out of all my brexit positions. New info is that eu will accept letter asking for extension from pretty much anyone, so the extension is likely imo.

No loss in cashing out though.

Going to stick to us politics, far more stable.

 

[trident]

Latest is that Pelosi doesn't want a vote on opening an impeachment inquiry, which is apparently what happened prior to opening all other impeachment inquiries. Its quite strange, she is playing into the narrative that this impeachment inquiry is just another partisan witch-hunt by unhinged sore losers.

Why would she do this? Is she afraid she doesn't have the necessary votes?

Did you just meet Pelosi yesterday? She has been this way her whole career. Except she is getting older now.

She does not want to do this because she knows (a) there is no there there and (b) there is a there there with Biden

This is not an impeachable event and she knows it. That phone call is so open to interpretation as to render it meaningless.