Political Betting Thread

[Omni1]

Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with a chance to beat The Donald.

Biden is a creepy .

Crazy Bernie is, well.... crazy.

Lieawatha Warren has zero chance.

Hell. Let's be real. None of these nut jobs have a chance.

 

[Roads55]

very interesting article here about the manipulation of mitt romney's odds during his presidential campaign in 2012. something to be aware off at least as plausible to happen again at some point : https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/24/trader-romney-intrade_n_3982812.html

 

[waiguoren]

Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with a chance to beat the Donald.

Biden is a creepy .

Crazy Bernie is, well.... crazy.

Lieawatha Warren has zero chance.

Hell. Let's be real. None of these nut jobs have a chance.

I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar would both beat Trump. If it's Buttigieg, I don't think the race will be close. There are also some no names (e.g., Bullock, Moulton) who seem like they could give Trump problems but have no chance of getting the nomination.

I agree that Warren/Biden/Harris would get smashed---especially Harris. That would be brutal. Sanders is a wildcard---he's got huge advantages but the Republicans can hit him with the commie label and AIPAC and its MSM cronies would favor Trump heavily. I think our (Israeli) MSM would torpedo Gabbard early and often.

I did not anticipate the Warren surge. She's been playing very smart politics recently. Probably has a smart adviser or two working with her. Wonder if she fired the dunce who told her to release the DNA test.

I think the debates are going to be wild. I predict a lot of the no-names are going to go straight for Biden's heart.

I still think Sanders/Buttigieg are the guys to be on here. With Sanders ceding 2nd to Warren in recent polls, I think he will avoid attacks for the time being. I'm very curious to see if anyone attacks Warren on the Native American thing. I think it will happen and will be both hilarious and impactful.

 

[Omni1]

I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar would both beat Trump. If it's Buttigieg, I don't think the race will be close. There are also some no names (e.g., Bullock, Moulton) who seem like they could give Trump problems but have no chance of getting the nomination.

I agree that Warren/Biden/Harris would get smashed---especially Harris. That would be brutal. Sanders is a wildcard---he's got huge advantages but the Republicans can hit him with the commie label and AIPAC and its MSM cronies would favor Trump heavily. I think our (Israeli) MSM would torpedo Gabbard early and often.

I did not anticipate the Warren surge. She's been playing very smart politics recently. Probably has a smart adviser or two working with her. Wonder if she fired the dunce who told her to release the DNA test.

I think the debates are going to be wild. I predict a lot of the no-names are going to go straight for Biden's heart.

I still think Sanders/Buttigieg are the guys to be on here. With Sanders ceding 2nd to Warren in recent polls, I think he will avoid attacks for the time being. I'm very curious to see if anyone attacks Warren on the Native American thing. I think it will happen and will be both hilarious and impactful.

The mainstream media is dead & has no influence. I knew Trump would win the Presidential race & I bet him at various odds from +350 to +1050. I couldn't believe the bookies were still getting their info from MSM. The MSM polls said that Hillary had a 98% chance to win the election. They threw everything including the kitchen sink at Trump. Yet Trump continued to fill football stadiums. Meanwhile, Hillary could NOT even fill a bingo hall. The number of sheep still living in a 6 o'clock news reality is exponentially shrinking. I said it once & I'll say it again because it's true. The only Dem that has a chance to defeat Trump is Tulsi. Independent internet left wing news media is larger than anything on TV. MSM have been trying to demonize her but no one is listening.

 

[Omni1]

I think Buttigieg and Klobuchar would both beat Trump. If it's Buttigieg, I don't think the race will be close. There are also some no names (e.g., Bullock, Moulton) who seem like they could give Trump problems but have no chance of getting the nomination.

I agree that Warren/Biden/Harris would get smashed---especially Harris. That would be brutal. Sanders is a wildcard---he's got huge advantages but the Republicans can hit him with the commie label and AIPAC and its MSM cronies would favor Trump heavily. I think our (Israeli) MSM would torpedo Gabbard early and often.

I did not anticipate the Warren surge. She's been playing very smart politics recently. Probably has a smart adviser or two working with her. Wonder if she fired the dunce who told her to release the DNA test.

I think the debates are going to be wild. I predict a lot of the no-names are going to go straight for Biden's heart.

I still think Sanders/Buttigieg are the guys to be on here. With Sanders ceding 2nd to Warren in recent polls, I think he will avoid attacks for the time being. I'm very curious to see if anyone attacks Warren on the Native American thing. I think it will happen and will be both hilarious and impactful.

In regards to Klobuchar. Chuckle. Who da fook is dat? That man or woman has ZERO chance to defeat Trump. As for Buttlick. My brother lives in Indiana. Buttlick is not very popular there & most people before his election had never heard of him. He's a carpet bagger who was parachuted in by the establishment into a very poor area with very low voter turnout. The actual number of people who voted for him was very low. He won because his competition was even lower. As I said before the establishment is fully behind him & are doing their best to make him seem more popular than he really is.

 

[Omni1]

very interesting article here about the manipulation of mitt romney's odds during his presidential campaign in 2012. something to be aware off at least as plausible to happen again at some point : https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/24/trader-romney-intrade_n_3982812.html

Same far left liars that said Hillary was going to win the election with 98% certainty. Oh, foolish man, what can you not be made to believe?

 

[Roads55]

Same far left liars that said Hillary was going to win the election with 98% certainty. Oh, foolish man, what can you not be made to believe?

did you even read the article?

 

[Omni1]

did you even read the article?

No. I clicked on the link. A box popped up & said that I needed to consent for Huff post to access my device & use my data. No thanks.

 

[Roads55]

No. I clicked on the link. A box popped up & said that I needed to consent for Huff post to access my device & use my data. No thanks.

ok i bit the bullet for you. don't worry they won't get to see the porn you watch now:

BUSINESS
24/09/2013 15:01 BST | Updated 06/12/2017 22:10 GMT
One Trader Apparently Lost Millions Boosting Romney On Intrade

• 
  a new studysuggests.
  
  Here's why you should care, even though Intrade is now defunct: We media types watch prediction markets closely because they are seen as infallible gauges of conventional wisdom. Romney is surging! It says so on Intrade! But if these markets can be manipulated, maybe we should look at them a little more skeptically.
  
  "It is worth knowing that a highly visible market that drove many a media narrative could be manipulated at a cost less than that of a primetime television commercial," wrote the study's authors, David Rothschild of Microsoft Research in New York and Rajiv Sethi of Barnard College, Columbia University.
  
  Their study crunches all of the action on Intrade in two weeks leading up to the November 2012 election. By volume, Intrade was the biggest market for bets on the election's winner. Still, just one trader -- whose identity is unknown to the researchers or anybody else but Intrade (call us, trader!) -- was responsible for about a third of the trading in Mitt Romney contracts during that period.
  
  This Romney fan was so busy and effective, in fact, that he seems to have skewed the Intrade "stock price," as it were, for Romney and President Obama. In the chart below, reprinted with Sethi's permission, you can see that, even on election day, Obama's Intrade price was noticeably lower than his price on a competing prediction market, Betfair. And you can also see how busy our hero "Trader A," was that day. (Story continues below chart.)
  
  
  
  
  
  This gap between Intrade and Betfair prices for Romney was wide and persistent for several days ahead of the election, leading to widespread suspicions of market manipulation. It turns out those suspicions were probably right.
  
  The trader's motive is still a mystery. It seems unlikely that he or she was trying to make a killing on a Romney upset or hedge some other kind of investment. The trader could simply have been trying to make Romney look stronger to boost donations and voter turnout.
  
  In an email to the Huffington Post, Sethi pointed out that the effort at manipulation failed. Romney lost handily, for one thing -- an outcome that Intrade still predicted, despite Trader A's best efforts. Nobody was fooled by Intrade action if they also watched other prediction markets, conventional wisdom and polls.
  
  Still, come 2016, it will be worth remembering how easily these markets can be pushed around by somebody with the motivation and cash to burn.
  
  
  

 

[waiguoren]

The mainstream media is dead & has no influence.

I think this is way off. I think the MSM is extremely influential over Democrats and Democratic voters.
In September 2017, Gallup found that about 72% of Democrats have a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of trust in the mass media when it comes to "reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly".

I couldn't believe the bookies were still getting their info from MSM

The lines are shaped by the bettors' money. The books have a minimal role there.

They threw everything including the kitchen sink at Trump. Yet Trump continued to fill football stadiums.

Crowd size is not necessarily an indicator of victory. Sanders had much larger crowds than Clinton in 2016. Didn't work out for him. Ron Paul had great crowds.

Independent internet left wing news media is larger than anything on TV.

Source?

MSM have been trying to demonize her but no one is listening.

I disagree, and I'd happily take a bet with you that Gabbard never gets more than 5% of the total vote before dropping out. In my estimation, her chance of getting the nomination is the same as Michael Avenatti's.

 

[waiguoren]

In regards to Klobuchar. Chuckle. Who da fook is dat?

You're making my point, in part. My claim is that Klobuchar has almost no chance to win the nomination but that she would most likely beat Trump if she could become the nominee.

Trump needs to win the rustbelt again, but that's where Klobuchar is strongest. In 2016, Trump barely won Michigan (margin: 0.23%) despite running against a candidate who is very weak there---voters associate Clinton with NAFTA and TPP, and Wikileaks released an e-mail indicating that Clinton supports some form of "[western] hemispheric open market, with open trade and open borders". It's no wonder that many voters flipped from Obama to Trump in those states.

Klobuchar represents a midwest state (Minnesota) and is very popular there. In head-to-head races, she has proven herself to be a strong candidate as she has consistently outperformed her state's partisan lean. She is also more moderate than many of the Democratic contenders, which would be an advantage in the general election.

As for Buttlick. My brother lives in Indiana. Buttlick is not very popular there & most people before his election had never heard of him. He's a carpet bagger who was parachuted in by the establishment into a very poor area with very low voter turnout. The actual number of people who voted for him was very low. He won because his competition was even lower. As I said before the establishment is fully behind him & are doing their best to make him seem more popular than he really is.

A carpetbagger? He was born in South Bend, Indiana and lived there until he went off to Harvard. He later served as (and continues to serve as) the mayor of South Bend.

What's your source for depressed turnout in Buttigieg's elections? In 2011 he received 74% of the vote. Four years later he was re-elected with 80% of the vote.

Unlike you, I think the RCP polling average is quite accurate. The reason for my belief is past accuracy. It was accurate in 2016, for example. When we consider the current RCP polling average, we see that Buttigieg is already in 4th place despite having <60% name recognition. That's impressive. More subjectively, he is preposterously articulate, handsome and consistently well-dressed and has run a very intelligent campaign so far. He also served in Afghanistan, was a Rhodes Scholar.

 

[Roads55]

buttigegg has been hovering around 7.0-7.4 (+600-+640) ish for the last week or so. I'm trading out for profit here, I don't think he will go much lower. can't see him poll very well with the black/hispanic vote.

 

[waiguoren]

I saw somewhere that "ORANGE" goes first.

I wonder if anyone will go after Warren hard. I'm thinking Ryan and DeLaney will attack her for being too left. I expect that to have little effect given that we're in the primary.

I think Gabbard will fail to attack Warren except for her votes for the Trump budgets, which won't go far. Pretty sure goofy Robert O'Rourke already pledged to not attack any other candidates. Boxed himself in on that. Castro and Inslee will remain in obscurity.

Will Booker and Klobuchar go after Warren, and for what? This will be fascinating to watch. Both candidates have the potential to get a boost from this.

Booker needs to start playing a little dirty IMO. I think he can attack Warren for the Pocohantas thing with some success.

I also expect de Blasio to say some wild stuff. It seems Democrats (especially those on Twitter) really don't like the guy. He seems like a brash guy and I expect him to cry out for attention will all kinds of attacks.

 

[waiguoren]

Feeling like a complete mongoloid for liking beta o dorke at 9 cents rn 4 the nomination

imo this guy has no chance. He pissed off a lot of the MSM watchers and "feminists" with his presumptuous Vanity Fair cover and loses the "young, handsome, articulate, white male who stands for few policies" category to Buttigieg.

 

[waiguoren]

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).

I think she's an ok speaker and nothing more. I agree with you that Harris has benefitted so far from "black female privilege" (I think she would be a no-name if she were a white male, for example) but I think that it remains to be seen how far that can carry her. I'm also not convinced that many Party officials think they can "easily duplicate Obama".

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).

The "winnowing of the field" argument is a strong one for sure. I expect Gabbard, Klobuchar and Gillibrand to go nowhere fast. That leaves Warren v Harris. I think they occupy much of the same "lane" here. Although Warren is surging now, I expect her to fall off eventually.

I don't have much confidence in Harris at all, but I think the complicated dynamics of this race could play into her hands. She might not be the first choice of many voters, but she could steal enough from all of Biden/Sanders/Warren to edge out a victory. I see her as the 3rd most likely nominee:

1. Sanders/Buttigieg (Tie)
2.
3. Harris
4. Warren
5 ?

 

[Austisthunder]

imo this guy has no chance. He pissed off a lot of the MSM watchers and "feminists" with his presumptuous Vanity Fair cover and loses the "young, handsome, articulate, white male who stands for few policies" category to Buttigieg.

It is/ was more of a value play than thinking he can actually win it

 

[Roads55]

damn, warren down to 6.8 atm. laid (bet against) some of that, i guess it's because of the debate line up where she is the only major candidate on day 1 along with her recent momentum. seems really short though.

 

[waiguoren]

damn, warren down to 6.8 atm. laid (bet against) some of that, i guess it's because of the debate line up where she is the only major candidate on day 1 along with her recent momentum. seems really short though.

I'm with you there. I think fading Warren right now is a good play.

I continue to think the chance of a contested convention is high unless Buttigieg breaks away. I saw a Minnesota poll earlier today with the top 5(!) candidates in a statistical tie.

 

[Joedaman55]

I think she's an ok speaker and nothing more. I agree with you that Harris has benefitted so far from "black female privilege" (I think she would be a no-name if she were a white male, for example) but I think that it remains to be seen how far that can carry her. I'm also not convinced that many Party officials think they can "easily duplicate Obama".


The "winnowing of the field" argument is a strong one for sure. I expect Gabbard, Klobuchar and Gillibrand to go nowhere fast. That leaves Warren v Harris. I think they occupy much of the same "lane" here. Although Warren is surging now, I expect her to fall off eventually.

I don't have much confidence in Harris at all, but I think the complicated dynamics of this race could play into her hands. She might not be the first choice of many voters, but she could steal enough from all of Biden/Sanders/Warren to edge out a victory. I see her as the 3rd most likely nominee:

1. Sanders/Buttigieg (Tie)
2.
3. Harris
4. Warren
5 ?

We’ll see what happens. Nothing has shifted me from thinking Kamala is the heavy favorite and everything is moving as predicted.

We’ll see what occurs in the debates, I’m guessing Biden will start falling pretty quick after the first one or two debates.

 

[waiguoren]

We’ll see what happens. Nothing has shifted me from thinking Kamala is the heavy favorite and everything is moving as predicted.

We’ll see what occurs in the debates, I’m guessing Biden will start falling pretty quick after the first one or two debates.

Part of what makes this particular primary so fun is seeing intelligent people with mutually exclusive views of it.

I see Biden falling back to where he started (and expect a continued decline), Warren surging, Buttigieg holding strong, Sanders falling off a bit, and Harris stabilizing after a significant decline. I expect Buttigieg to shine in the debates, but Sanders to provide a contrasting message that the voters find compelling.