Political Betting Thread

[PolarBearPaulVarelans]

I think many people significantly overrate the importance of race of candidates to Democratic primary voters. Maybe the voters would choose Chinese > white if all else were equal, but all else is never equal.

Tell that to the primary candidates, including Hillary, that Obama steamrolled in 2008.

 

[waiguoren]

Tell that to the primary candidates, including Hillary, that Obama steamrolled in 2008.

Obama was a vastly better candidate than H. Clinton.

 

[PolarBearPaulVarelans]

Obama was a vastly better candidate than H. Clinton.

A freshman senator who hadn't even completed a full term, and done absolutely nothing of note in that time? You really believe that Obama would even have decided to run for President, let alone finished in the top 5, if he was fully white?

No wonder you're so confident about Bernie, then.

 

[waiguoren]

A freshman senator who hadn't even completed a full term, and done absolutely nothing of note in that time? You really believe that Obama would even have decided to run for President, let alone finished in the top 5, if he was fully white?

No wonder you're so confident about Bernie, then.

First of all, our bet is Sanders v Biden, not Sanders v field. So it's not that I'm "so confident in" Sanders, only that he is far more likely to get the nomination than Biden.

Second, being a "good candidate" has little to do with C.V. President Reagan is one of the greatest candidates in modern US history, but his political C.V. was quite thin (two terms as governor and a failed presidential bid). Obama was an amazing candidate with a similarly thin resume (Harvard law professor, civil rights attorney, Illinois state senator, U.S. Senator from Illinois). Now we are seeing that Peter Buttigieg might have the qualities of a great candidate, but his political C.V. is even thinner.

Finally, on the race issue: the answer to your question is no. I think being half black was one of the qualities that made him a great candidate in context. That said, I do think he would have finished in the top 5 in the Democratic primary if he were 100% white.

 

[waiguoren]

Current Bookmker odds (Democratic nomination):

Peter Buttigieg +300
Joseph Biden +340
Bernard Sanders +350
Kamala Harris +640
Robert O'Rourke +1160
...

 

[Roads55]

That buttigieg line feels like bookies setting a trap for ppl jumping on his hype train, his line on the exchange is 8.0(+700ish) which is a pretty crazy difference. seems clear to me over the last couple of weeks that the DNC is going to be supporting and pushing biden(obviously this can still change as we get a slightly clearer picture of each nominee's reception), While likely using the newer progressive candidates to take away from bernie's base.
I will be watching very closely in the next couple of weeks to see how much of a fading effect biden receives as most do after declaring their candidacy, and whether they could possibly choose someone else. if it seems little to none compared to that of buttigieg and o'rourke etc, I will be betting biden if his odds are anything similar to current odds. I will probably start scaling in small on his current line (i can get 4.7 (( +370)) atm) this week actually to go with my sanders bets. the campaign will soon be in full swing and with such a wide open field odds wise, I think there will be a lot of opportunity to make bank.

 

[Joedaman55]

Harris should be at +200 tops. I don’t bet on politics via bookies but I have bets with 4 friends where I take her and they get the field.

She’s the most polished (although not as strong as Hilary, Bernie, or Biden) that doesn’t have major red flags in policy or any major creepy images (ala Biden feeling peeps up). Pete is the next Rubio, Biden has major photo issues, Bernie is going full socialist (although his persuasion game is on another level).

It’s highly likely the DNC backs Harris and has her start working with Robert Cialdini which is what Obama did. She had the best shot at beating Trump but I have him around -400.

 

[Scythe]

I just bet Harris at +700. Don't think I could lay below +400 on anyone yet but she's my favorite to win in this field at the moment too. I'd gladly take -300 against Buttigieg.

 

[waiguoren]

Harris should be at +200 tops. I don’t bet on politics via bookies but I have bets with 4 friends where I take her and they get the field.

She’s the most polished (although not as strong as Hilary, Bernie, or Biden) that doesn’t have major red flags in policy or any major creepy images (ala Biden feeling peeps up). Pete is the next Rubio, Biden has major photo issues, Bernie is going full socialist (although his persuasion game is on another level).

It’s highly likely the DNC backs Harris and has her start working with Robert Cialdini which is what Obama did. She had the best shot at beating Trump but I have him around -400.

I disagree with this for multiple reasons.

While Harris might not have any "major red flags in policy or major creepy images", she does have red flags including (1) the fact that she was the mistress of San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who recently admitted to influencing Harris's career by naming Harris to influential political positions (2) Harris's crime lab scandal: a judge ruled that Harris's San Fransisco DA office violated defendants' rights by concealing information about a corrupted drug lag technician involved in a cocaine-skimming scandal (3) as DA, a record of pursuing abnormally harsh sentences for non-violent drug offenses in contrast to her recent calls for sentencing reform.

In terms of the political dynamics of the race, I can't find Harris's "lane". She doesn't have the female advantage since there are five other prominent females running. She doesn't offer any polices that set her apart from the pack. She isn't an amazing orator. She doesn't have deep political connections outside of California politics. The "progressive wing" of the Party can't stand her. While there is some big money behind her, a lot of that money is also flowing to Biden, Buttigieg, and O'Rourke and for this reason I expect the "establishment vote" to be divided among them. More subjectively, she just doesn't seem to want this very much. Finally, I think the DNC will be very wary of making any moves that voters could perceive as tilting the scales this time around given the problems that occurred last time.

Harris's best advantage seems to be that many people find her physically attractive and that she is a non-white female. In a field this packed, I don't think that will be enough.

I have Sanders as the most likely nominee, but I think Buttigieg can seriously threaten him.

 

[waiguoren]

Bookmaker odds update:

Peter Buttigieg +300
Bernard Sanders +330
Joseph Biden +340
Kamala Harris +700
Robert O'Rourke +1160
...

 

[Scythe]

You could be right about Buttigieg but I just see him as too much of a blank, and am expecting the mirror to shatter.

Agree with all considerations about Harris but think being in all those lanes at once might not be a bad thing in a year's time. Actually feel her relationship with Brown could turn into a weapon in the current anti-misogyny climate if her rank rising is questioned (as a woman). She's clearly trying to court progressives with some of her recent positions, however well that will work.

 

[Joedaman55]

I disagree with this for multiple reasons.

While Harris might not have any "major red flags in policy or major creepy images", she does have red flags including (1) the fact that she was the mistress of San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who recently admitted to influencing Harris's career by naming Harris to influential political positions (2) Harris's crime lab scandal: a judge ruled that Harris's San Fransisco DA office violated defendants' rights by concealing information about a corrupted drug lag technician involved in a cocaine-skimming scandal (3) as DA, a record of pursuing abnormally harsh sentences for non-violent drug offenses in contrast to her recent calls for sentencing reform.

In terms of the political dynamics of the race, I can't find Harris's "lane". She doesn't have the female advantage since there are five other prominent females running. She doesn't offer any polices that set her apart from the pack. She isn't an amazing orator. She doesn't have deep political connections outside of California politics. The "progressive wing" of the Party can't stand her. While there is some big money behind her, a lot of that money is also flowing to Biden, Buttigieg, and O'Rourke and for this reason I expect the "establishment vote" to be divided among them. More subjectively, she just doesn't seem to want this very much. Finally, I think the DNC will be very wary of making any moves that voters could perceive as tilting the scales this time around given the problems that occurred last time.

Harris's best advantage seems to be that many people find her physically attractive and that she is a non-white female. In a field this packed, I don't think that will be enough.

I have Sanders as the most likely nominee, but I think Buttigieg can seriously threaten him.

Harris is a very good speaker; however, she is shifting from a legal way of talking to a political way. She has improved greatly over the last two months and is starting to talk more like a salesman instead of a lawyer (she’s working with someone good). Her advantage is she’s a black female in a party that is overvaluing diversity that thinks they can easily duplicate Obama (which is impossible as him and Trump are the strongest presidential candidates I’ve seen in my lifetime). There are a lot of women in the contest but a lot will drop out after Super Tuesday opening up the field for her (plus her female competition isn’t very good, Warren is her best competitor and she has already damaged her candidacy beyond recovery).

Kamala’s biggest weakness is name recognition and lack of identity. On some important issues, you don’t know where she stands. I bet you’ll see her shift right before the first debate as progress is a heavier influencer than current status (See “Win Bigly”).

The only way I see Kamala losing is if they’ve given up on 2020 and focus on 2024 and choose to run a Socialist to teach that part of their wing a message (which is critical given the AOC attention). If that’s the case, they’ll run Bernie. Trump’s results as president is really strong and he’s had the strongest first term I’ve seen since maybe Clinton.

Biden is done and he won’t stay the front runner after early debates and Beto was done after his fund raising answer to those college kids.

 

[waiguoren]

You could be right about Buttigieg but I just see him as too much of a blank, and am expecting the mirror to shatter.

Agree with all considerations about Harris but think being in all those lanes at once might not be a bad thing in a year's time. Actually feel her relationship with Brown could turn into a weapon in the current anti-misogyny climate if her rank rising is questioned (as a woman). She's clearly trying to court progressives with some of her recent positions, however well that will work.

Harris is a very good speaker; however, she is shifting from a legal way of talking to a political way. She has improved greatly over the last two months and is starting to talk more like a salesman instead of a lawyer (she’s working with someone good). Her advantage is she’s a black female in a party that is overvaluing diversity that thinks they can easily duplicate Obama (which is impossible as him and Trump are the strongest presidential candidates I’ve seen in my lifetime). There are a lot of women in the contest but a lot will drop out after Super Tuesday opening up the field for her (plus her female competition isn’t very good, Warren is her best competitor and she has already damaged her candidacy beyond recovery).

Kamala’s biggest weakness is name recognition and lack of identity. On some important issues, you don’t know where she stands. I bet you’ll see her shift right before the first debate as progress is a heavier influencer than current status (See “Win Bigly”).

The only way I see Kamala losing is if they’ve given up on 2020 and focus on 2024 and choose to run a Socialist to teach that part of their wing a message (which is critical given the AOC attention). If that’s the case, they’ll run Bernie. Trump’s results as president is really strong and he’s had the strongest first term I’ve seen since maybe Clinton.

Biden is done and he won’t stay the front runner after early debates and Beto was done after his fund raising answer to those college kids.

Despite all these good points as well as the new polls showing a big lead for Biden, I'm doubling down. It will be either Sanders or Buttigieg, and I lean Sanders.

 

[Scythe]

I would bet Sanders if he were +700 too, although I favor Harris just slightly.

Last time around, I did much better betting primaries than the straight candidates. I should probably stay away from this thread for another year.

 

[waiguoren]

Already starting to be concerned for my Sanders bet and considering buying out of it when an opportunity arises.

I never anticipated that Warren's polling would come up this high. She dropped off a cliff after the DNA test gaffe, but she's made a huge rebound. I think the biggest threat to Sanders is a viable "progressive" alternative. Other than Gabbard, Warren is the only candidate who I can see the Sanders base defecting to. In their eyes, she can actually edge him in pinning down her ideas to specific policy proposals.

As for Biden, I'm still bearish. He had an excellent roll-out, but I think the debates will tear him down. That's where I expect Buttigieg to steal many of his supporters through superior articulateness, youth, and less baggage. I think Buttigieg's "I won't tell you what I stand for" approach is also genius. I figure he can avoid attacks on that point by virtue of the other big-namers focusing their crosshairs on Biden, similar to Trump in 2015 and early 2016.

I also think the chance of a contested convention is high, and things are definitely going to get ugly.

@Jack V Savage , hope you'll visit us from time to time over here. It's more civil and productive than the War Room.

 

[waiguoren]

Beto was done after his fund raising answer to those college kids.

You could be right, but that would surprise me. I thought he answered that question perfectly. It's possible you're referring to a different question though.

I think he's done because he doesn't come off as genuine and doesn't stand out from the crowd in any important way.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@Jack V Savage , hope you'll visit us from time to time over here. It's more civil and productive than the War Room.

I think we're pretty much on the same page here, though I'm far more skeptical of any claims to knowledge on the issue. I also think that you don't go far enough with the race thing--being white is still clearly an advantage for a presidential candidate, even in a Democratic primary (less so than in a general, and less in a general than it used to be).

 

[waiguoren]

I think we're pretty much on the same page here, though I'm far more skeptical of any claims to knowledge on the issue. I also think that you don't go far enough with the race thing--being white is still clearly an advantage for a presidential candidate, even in a Democratic primary (less so than in a general, and less in a general than it used to be).

What's your evidence that being white is an advantage in the Democratic primary? I think most voters are basically color-blind, but some of the big names (Biden, Sanders) happen to be white. I think those who are not color-blind are louder than the others, which gives many observers a distorted view of how important that issue is to the voters.

 

[Joedaman55]

Already starting to be concerned for my Sanders bet and considering buying out of it when an opportunity arises.

I never anticipated that Warren's polling would come up this high. She dropped off a cliff after the DNA test gaffe, but she's made a huge rebound. I think the biggest threat to Sanders is a viable "progressive" alternative. Other than Gabbard, Warren is the only candidate who I can see the Sanders base defecting to. In their eyes, she can actually edge him in pinning down her ideas to specific policy proposals.

As for Biden, I'm still bearish. He had an excellent roll-out, but I think the debates will tear him down. That's where I expect Buttigieg to steal many of his supporters through superior articulateness, youth, and less baggage. I think Buttigieg's "I won't tell you what I stand for" approach is also genius. I figure he can avoid attacks on that point by virtue of the other big-namers focusing their crosshairs on Biden, similar to Trump in 2015 and early 2016.

I also think the chance of a contested convention is high, and things are definitely going to get ugly.

@Jack V Savage , hope you'll visit us from time to time over here. It's more civil and productive than the War Room.

I think Warren’s campaign ended after the Native American blood test. It may not seem big but being not Native American than most Americans and claiming that as your identity for job applications (especially for a high paying educational job) ends her campaign. She’ll be out after Super Tuesday, possible before.

 

[Joedaman55]

You could be right, but that would surprise me. I thought he answered that question perfectly. It's possible you're referring to a different question though.

I think he's done because he doesn't come off as genuine and doesn't stand out from the crowd in any important way.

Your ingenuine part is true. The question I’m referring to is he was asked why he doesn’t donate anything to charity and his response is he’s out doing this which is like charity. That wasn’t his exact verbiage but that was the message. The clip is on YouTube that will kill him in the debates.