Political Betting Thread

[waiguoren]

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.

Ah, ok. Yes, that was very cringy. I still don't think that will sink him. I think the fundamental problem is that most of his current supporters are unreliable college types, and he offers nothing vis a vis the field that would attract other types of voters.

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.

For the sake of my bet, I hope so. Do you think other candidates on the debate stage will go after Warren for that?

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the two frontrunners are old white guys, and people who prefer each of them have the other as the most common second choice, despite being probably the two furthest apart on policy and ideology. Note also that Democrats have only once nominated a non-white candidate.

I agree that people who make a bid deal about race are not a large portion of the electorate, but people to whom race matters are more likely to reject than to support a non-white candidate.

 

[waiguoren]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the two frontrunners are old white guys

It seems pretty obvious to me that this is built on name recognition, length of time in the game, and lack of major scandals. There are no non-white candidates in the field who can match them on that trifecta.

people who prefer each of them have the other as the most common second choice, despite being probably the two furthest apart on policy and ideology.

More evidence for my belief that policy/ideology are heavily overrated in political outcomes.

Note also that Democrats have only once nominated a non-white candidate.

Obama is half-white, not non-white. That actually helps your point, but I still think you're wrong. I think your belief was correct 50 years ago. I think it's a non-issue now.

 

[Jack V Savage]

More evidence for my belief that policy/ideology are heavily overrated in political outcomes.

Policy more than ideology, I'd think, but the closer you look at any individual factor in political outcomes, the more you start to believe it doesn't matter. Obviously *something* matters, and it's not entirely random, but the process is mysterious. Most people just sub in their own preferences (X is popular/unpopular because he's awesome/sucks; if only the XYZs would do what I want them to do, they'd win, etc.).

Obama is half-white, not non-white. That actually helps your point, but I still think you're wrong. I think your belief was correct 50 years ago. I think it's a non-issue now.

Less of an issue now than at any time previously, especially in a Democratic primary, but still an issue. Obama's race probably cost him ~4% in the national popular votes.

 

[waiguoren]

Policy more than ideology, I'd think, but the closer you look at any individual factor in political outcomes, the more you start to believe it doesn't matter. Obviously *something* matters, and it's not entirely random

My model agrees.

the process is mysterious

I think it's one of many matters on which informed humans can predict better than current quantitative models based on the standard variables. Fight prediction is another example.

Most people just sub in their own preferences (X is popular/unpopular because he's awesome/sucks; if only the XYZs would do what I want them to do, they'd win, etc.).

Not sure if "most" do this, but many do. Many are influenced by the opinions of "opinion-makers" in MSM.

Obama's race probably cost him ~4% in the national popular votes.

I seriously doubt it cost him anything significant in the Democratic primary. If anything, I think it most likely helped him.

 

[Joedaman55]

Ah, ok. Yes, that was very cringy. I still don't think that will sink him. I think the fundamental problem is that most of his current supporters are unreliable college types, and he offers nothing vis a vis the field that would attract other types of voters.



For the sake of my bet, I hope so. Do you think other candidates on the debate stage will go after Warren for that?

I believe the moderators will bring it up after being pushed by the DNC. The DNC has a lot of power and once the figure out who they have the best chance with they’ll push them. I think other candidates will be attacking Biden as he is the current front runner and has some pictures some would consider sexual assault (I’m not saying it is but some parts of the U.S. are going bat shit crazy).

Biden is an easy target and whomever attacks him correctly will look strong and voters shift to people of strength for leadership. Trump did this very well early in the Republican primaries by attacking Jeb really early, built momentum, and kept his foot on the gas. Jeb was way ahead in the polls prior to the first debate I believe.

 

[waiguoren]

I think I'll keep my Sanders action. I think Warren's bump is probably driven largely by her call for impeachment (popular among the D base) and she probably will fall off and drop out fairly early. She's just not a great candidate.

I'm also imagining that we could have a contested convention with 5+(!) major candidates. Proportional delegate allocation + lots of well-funded candidates + ideological divisions could lead to bizarre results here. I think Sanders+Warren would probably form a P+VP pair if they both made it that far.

 

[trident]

Warren is a goof @waiguoren if Sanders loses it's not to her

 

[waiguoren]

Warren is a goof @waiguoren if Sanders loses it's not to her

It's not about "losing to her". The concern is that the two of them would split the "progressive" vote, allowing an "establishment" candidate like Buttigieg to eke out a victory.

 

[trident]

It's not about "losing to her". The concern is that the two of them would split the "progressive" vote, allowing an "establishment" candidate like Buttigieg to eke out a victory.

You don't have the same concern with the "establishment" candidates splitting votes amongst themselves?

 

[waiguoren]

You don't have the same concern with the "establishment" candidates splitting votes amongst themselves?

Not only is that not a concern, but it's the core reason for my Sanders bet.

I think there will be a hard core of "progressive" voters in the electorate who will reject Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris. Let's say this core is 25% of the electorate. They will vote for only Sanders, Warren, or Gabbard.

Let's say there are 40% who are not "progressives" and will more or less vote for the candidate(s) the MSM and talk shows like The View promote. In my estimation, there are a lot of middle-aged ladies who fit this model, and a large percentage of them dislike Sanders and aren't that fond of Warren. I can see all of Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris splitting these votes, and potentially even more candidates (Booker, Klobuchar) if they stay in the race. Let's call these the "establishment" voters.

Those two groups are mutually exclusive.

That leaves 35% of voters up for grabs. In a "progressive" v "establishment" battle, let's say these people split evenly.

Assuming Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris don't split the 40% "establishment vote" evenly (Imagine Buttigieg 20%, Biden 10%, Harris 7%, O'Rourke 3%), can you see why Warren can be a big problem for Sanders? The difference between Sanders getting the full 25% "progressive vote" and his getting 18% is likely the difference between victory and defeat.

@Jack V Savage

 

[trident]

Not only is that not a concern, but it's the core reason for my Sanders bet.

I think there will be a hard core of "progressive" voters in the electorate who will reject Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris. Let's say this core is 25% of the electorate. They will vote for only Sanders, Warren, or Gabbard.

Let's say there are 40% who are not "progressives" and will more or less vote for the candidate(s) the MSM and talk shows like The View promote. In my estimation, there are a lot of middle-aged ladies who fit this model, and a large percentage of them dislike Sanders and aren't that fond of Warren. I can see all of Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris splitting these votes, and potentially even more candidates (Booker, Klobuchar) if they stay in the race. Let's call these the "establishment" voters.

Those two groups are mutually exclusive.

That leaves 35% of voters up for grabs. In a "progressive" v "establishment" battle, let's say these people split evenly.

Assuming Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris don't split the 40% "establishment vote" evenly (Imagine Buttigieg 20%, Biden 10%, Harris 7%, O'Rourke 3%), can you see why Warren can be a big problem for Sanders? The difference between Sanders getting the full 25% "progressive vote" and his getting 18% is likely the difference between victory and defeat.

@Jack V Savage

You've put a lot more time into this than I have, or will, so take my words just as someone who has had their foot in this process in the past but not so much now.

I see your thinking. This Buttigieg fellow seems legit. Naval Intelligence Officer, Rhodes Scholar, Mayor... he has some fuel to burn for sure. And his sexual persuasion likely makes him more attractive to a Democratic party that seems to care more about book covers than books.

Sanders's age is a legit strike against him and could be more set off by a young buck.

I might be too outside the mainstream to call these anymore, I didnt see Trump winning in 2016, but i do not see the appeal of Warren, Booker and Harris and just cant imagine they are viable.

I could see the Democratic party picking Biden though. I think that's who I'd put my money on.

Sanders is not as attractive a candidate as he was in 2016 and, like you suggested, Warren could peel of some of his female supporters.

Buttigieg has a nice vitrine but the party may end up believing a seasoned politician like Biden is the way to defeat Trump. This all depends if Biden can keep his shit together as he may have aged out of historic gaffes and can work with a new slate as an "elder statesman".

You never know with this ship of goofs. After 8 years of Reagan the best they could muster was Dukakis.

 

[waiguoren]

lol...Biden has taken a giant part of Buttigieg's magic...Harris rising...

Joseph Biden +245
Bernard Sanders +400
Peter Buttigieg +475
Kamala Harris +540
Elizabeth Warren +1250
Robert O'Rourke +1500
....

@Jack V Savage
@Trotsky



At this point I'm considering a Buttigieg play as a pseudo-free roll. I can't see anyone getting the nomination besides those two gentleman.

 

[Joedaman55]

Not only is that not a concern, but it's the core reason for my Sanders bet.

I think there will be a hard core of "progressive" voters in the electorate who will reject Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris. Let's say this core is 25% of the electorate. They will vote for only Sanders, Warren, or Gabbard.

Let's say there are 40% who are not "progressives" and will more or less vote for the candidate(s) the MSM and talk shows like The View promote. In my estimation, there are a lot of middle-aged ladies who fit this model, and a large percentage of them dislike Sanders and aren't that fond of Warren. I can see all of Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris splitting these votes, and potentially even more candidates (Booker, Klobuchar) if they stay in the race. Let's call these the "establishment" voters.

Those two groups are mutually exclusive.

That leaves 35% of voters up for grabs. In a "progressive" v "establishment" battle, let's say these people split evenly.

Assuming Biden/Buttigieg/O'Rourke/Harris don't split the 40% "establishment vote" evenly (Imagine Buttigieg 20%, Biden 10%, Harris 7%, O'Rourke 3%), can you see why Warren can be a big problem for Sanders? The difference between Sanders getting the full 25% "progressive vote" and his getting 18% is likely the difference between victory and defeat.

@Jack V Savage

Harris is a Progressive (as of now) who will shift to moderate positions as it gets closer to Iowa.

Hardcore Progressives will go Sanders, people in the middle will go for Harris and Booker, and Moderates will go Harris and Biden.

The previous election had Sanders and Clinton splitting the people in the middle. The party has shifted more to the left since last election so probably many more Progressives. Moderates likely don’t vote in the general election if a person like Sanders is chosen (similarly what parts of the Republican Party did when McCain was running and chose Palin as VP).

 

[Roads55]

Progressives will probably be made up of a Much younger demographic on average compared to the moderate and the middle vote. You guys think there will be some cloudy speculation on how many of these young ppl will actually turn up to vote?

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Oh this thread is centered around Murrca. Too bad, I was going to ask if anyone was making a market for Trudeau apology odds.

For example when he will apologise next and to which group,e.g.:
1 to 4 that Trudeau will apologise this week
or 1 to 20 that he will apologise to Blacks when he apologises (this one is tougher because Canada is a mosaic of different groups)
Or a parlay: 1 to 100 that Trudeau apologises to Blacks this week, etc.

 

[Joedaman55]

Progressives will probably be made up of a Much younger demographic on average compared to the moderate and the middle vote. You guys think there will be some cloudy speculation on how many of these young ppl will actually turn up to vote?

Good question and I’d guess less than last time based on the following:
1. Trump was an unknown commodity and many people feared what he would do as president. Now that they’ve been through the first term with no major issues, that fear is smaller.
2. I think the tax cuts boosted wages for low to middle class workers (along with tariffs which shifted consumption/supply markets). This was a big thing for progressive voters as it decreasing income inequality is a hot issue (although I’m not sure if it did but Trump will tweet about wage growth make it visually seem this way).
3. There isn’t a polarizing candidate like last time. Even though Sanders is the same person, he doesn’t have the same appeal after his book income was known. He feels more like a rich millionaire who doesn’t believe in his more socialist ideas as he isn’t redistributing his wealth. It would be like Obama pushing for Obamacare but not using it himself.

I think you’ll have the strongest political progressives louder but the number will decrease as they will choose not to vote as they don’t identify with anyone strongly enough (at least in swing states). Places like California with strong progressive followings will continue to grow voter wise and Moderates will struggle there.

 

[waiguoren]

Added:

$1818 on Peter Buttigieg to win the 2020 Democratic nomination +550



This guy is an elite-level candidate, like Reagan- and Obama-level. With Warren making some strong moves, I'm no longer confident that Sanders can monopolize the "progressive" vote early enough to ward off a Buttigieg surge. I think there is a serious chance that by the time Warren drops out, Buttigieg will already have captured the hearts of the fence-sitters and run away with this.

With Sanders +410 and Buttigieg +550, I think I'm in good shape. I really can't see anyone else getting the nomination.


@Jack V Savage

 

[Roads55]

biden a sizeable favorite now. we're like 3 weeks off from the first debates.
buttigieg, sanders and harris are basically all at around 6.0(+500).
took buttigieg very small at 11.0-12.5 a week or 2 back, kicking myself for not betting a much bigger bet. he's shortened in price a lot this week. not sure why, maybe just anticipation for the debates?

 

[Roads55]

so biden's poll #'s while still miles in front have been dropping. that's to be expected after some trail off from his announcement hype. warren's had a good week, she's up in the polls the only candidate(that has a chance) to do so of late, a lot of media coverage also. playing out now could be the establishment trying to split bernie's progressive votes to ultimately give biden a better shot as we talked about in here.