• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Political Betting Thread

Just watched the debate (had softball).

Winner was Kamala Harris big (although her finish was bad), she played a perfect high ground maneuver with the food fight line, used strong persuasion techniques early in the debate and absolutely torched Biden to a point he can’t recover.

No change to Pete, pretty boring but he didn’t do anything to hurt himself, no defining moments.

Losers were all the bottom feeder candidates as none of them stood out like Castro did yesterday. Hillebrand tried but just talked too much about nothing but women and it seemed over pandering similar to Beto and his Spanish speaking.

Big loser was Bernie as he just rambled on with no big ideas. He comes off as a cranky old grandpa who complains about everything with no real solutions. I don’t think he has the same inspiration he had last election and he hasn’t adapted to inspire people with something new.

Biden was a giant loser. Harris pushed him to a point where he was in a lose lose argument with the race argument; he chose to debate instead of using a high ground maneuver to dominate the conversation. Colossal mistake when someone uses passive aggressiveness as you come off as a bully and intolerant. Who made giant mistakes everywhere and he is done (similarly to the way Trump dismantled Bush last election cycle).

You should see a big jump for Kamala, Biden in free fall, and Bernie falling.
 
Debates happened as expected (except for Castro, very surprising and brilliant to pick on Beto to boost appearance). I still have Kamala around 80% to win. You’ll notice a dramatic change in the way she speaks early on in the debate and based on the techniques, I can tell she is working with behavioral economists and world renowned psychologists.

She’ll just keep grinding people down as her sales techniques will start winning over. These persuasion skills are so unnatural for her so you’ll see her start strong and weaken in debates. These skills are very difficult to learn and take years to master (she’s trying to do it in a year and a half).

Better make money while you can on her.
 
Joedaman55 said:
Big loser was Bernie as he just rambled on with no big ideas. He comes off as a cranky old grandpa who complains about everything with no real solutions. I don’t think he has the same inspiration he had last election and he hasn’t adapted to inspire people with something new.

Biden was a giant loser. Harris pushed him to a point where he was in a lose lose argument with the race argument; he chose to debate instead of using a high ground maneuver to dominate the conversation. Colossal mistake when someone uses passive aggressiveness as you come off as a bully and intolerant. Who made giant mistakes everywhere and he is done (similarly to the way Trump dismantled Bush last election cycle).
Click to expand...

To be fair to Bernie, half the issues discussed this week were ideas he was pushing in 2016 that were dismissed as too radical. His ideas have clearly taken over the popular platforms even if he doesn't win himself. I don't think he did great tonight but I don't think anything pushed him off. He didn't alienate a base like Biden did, I just don't think he won anyone new here. I expect he'd do better when things get less crowded.

Biden's still totally riding off name recognition and perceived electability. He's gonna keep falling as democrats realize he's a relic of a past era with nothing much to like.

Only thing about people like Kamala seeing sudden success is that there are still vulnerabilities behind her. I think these debates are gonna shake things up pretty nicely, but being among the best debaters doesn't mean you'll keep winning moving forward. Bernie gets to tout decades of consistency while Harris seemed to suddenly become a progressive a few months ago. There's also a bit of a "Kamala's a cop" sentiment among the far-left, since there are a lot of problematic issues during her time as a DA and AG. These things will certainly be exposed more as she gains popularity. I think she'd do very well against Trump but I'm not gonna place bets on her nomination yet.
 
rev0lver said:
To be fair to Bernie, half the issues discussed this week were ideas he was pushing in 2016 that were dismissed as too radical. His ideas have clearly taken over the popular platforms even if he doesn't win himself. I don't think he did great tonight but I don't think anything pushed him off. He didn't alienate a base like Biden did, I just don't think he won anyone new here. I expect he'd do better when things get less crowded.

Biden's still totally riding off name recognition and perceived electability. He's gonna keep falling as democrats realize he's a relic of a past era with nothing much to like.

Only thing about people like Kamala seeing sudden success is that there are still vulnerabilities behind her. I think these debates are gonna shake things up pretty nicely, but being among the best debaters doesn't mean you'll keep winning moving forward. Bernie gets to tout decades of consistency while Harris seemed to suddenly become a progressive a few months ago. There's also a bit of a "Kamala's a cop" sentiment among the far-left, since there are a lot of problematic issues during her time as a DA and AG. These things will certainly be exposed more as she gains popularity. I think she'd do very well against Trump but I'm not gonna place bets on her nomination yet.
Click to expand...
Sooner or later you'll come to the Harris war wagon
<{jackyeah}>
 
rev0lver said:
To be fair to Bernie, half the issues discussed this week were ideas he was pushing in 2016 that were dismissed as too radical. His ideas have clearly taken over the popular platforms even if he doesn't win himself. I don't think he did great tonight but I don't think anything pushed him off. He didn't alienate a base like Biden did, I just don't think he won anyone new here. I expect he'd do better when things get less crowded.

Biden's still totally riding off name recognition and perceived electability. He's gonna keep falling as democrats realize he's a relic of a past era with nothing much to like.

Only thing about people like Kamala seeing sudden success is that there are still vulnerabilities behind her. I think these debates are gonna shake things up pretty nicely, but being among the best debaters doesn't mean you'll keep winning moving forward. Bernie gets to tout decades of consistency while Harris seemed to suddenly become a progressive a few months ago. There's also a bit of a "Kamala's a cop" sentiment among the far-left, since there are a lot of problematic issues during her time as a DA and AG. These things will certainly be exposed more as she gains popularity. I think she'd do very well against Trump but I'm not gonna place bets on her nomination yet.
Click to expand...

No one has a shot against Trump, his game is levels above any politician in the game right now. I don’t think Obama could beat him after Trump’s first term. Trump will use similar tactics he used with Rubio against Kamala and will beat her worse than Clinton.
 
Joedaman55 said:
No one has a shot against Trump, his game is levels above any politician in the game right now. I don’t think Obama could beat him after Trump’s first term. Trump will use similar tactics he used with Rubio against Kamala and will beat her worse than Clinton.
Click to expand...

Lol I'd cap democrats around -300 for 2020. I don't think it'll even be close in the end. There's so much misunderstanding on what won in 2016. And for the record, I bet on Trump in 2016.
 
rev0lver said:
Lol I'd cap democrats around -300 for 2020. I don't think it'll even be close in the end. There's so much misunderstanding on what won in 2016. And for the record, I bet on Trump in 2016.
Click to expand...
How would you cap it if Harris were the nominee? I think Trump would dominate Harris.
 
waiguoren said:
How would you cap it if Harris were the nominee? I think Trump would dominate Harris.
Click to expand...

About the same. There's not many democrats I'd be worried against Trump. Unless Marianne memes her way to the top
 
People seriously overestimate Trump's support and his ability to win based off 2016. He ran a populist campaign against a terrible candidate whose own party wasn't excited for. Most of America thinking he wouldn't win created a ton of complacency in potential Clinton voters. And he still just squeaked by in swing states to win. He should've won, but he should've won by more. His problem now is, his polarization makes it extremely difficult to gain support he didn't already have. He can really only lose people the more time passes.

Democrats have a chance to combat his populism with a better form of populism. Trump's shown similar or worse approval ratings than every president who lost their incumbency. And his numbers have been consistent, whereas those presidents managed high points. He's also far behind Obama's polling numbers in his incumbency at this point in time, against pretty much every major candidate and the generic option.

The 2018 elections are a pretty big indicator of what's going on. It was the biggest congressional loss for Republicans since Watergate, in spite of Trump's hardcore campaigning for the party. Sure, flips have happened before in a midterm between an incumbent winning, but there isn't any indication that sentiment has changed so far.
 
Lol we shall see during November 2020. I have Trump an easy winner over Kamala. The Democratic Party is going way to left to win.

Regarding 2018, the map was setup for the Democrats to win a lot of seats in the house just as the map was great for Republicans in the Senate. Trump is highly unfavored in the more liberal states (one of the reason he loses the popular vote) but he is favored in the majority of the all states. The Democratic party is going way to left to win middle America.
 
Joedaman55 said:
Regarding 2018, the map was setup for the Democrats to win a lot of seats in the house
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense. All 435 House seats are up for re-election every two years. You are correct about the Senate though.

rev0lver said:
People seriously overestimate Trump's support and his ability to win based off 2016. He ran a populist campaign against a terrible candidate whose own party wasn't excited for. Most of America thinking he wouldn't win created a ton of complacency in potential Clinton voters. And he still just squeaked by in swing states to win. He should've won, but he should've won by more. His problem now is, his polarization makes it extremely difficult to gain support he didn't already have. He can really only lose people the more time passes.

Democrats have a chance to combat his populism with a better form of populism. Trump's shown similar or worse approval ratings than every president who lost their incumbency. And his numbers have been consistent, whereas those presidents managed high points. He's also far behind Obama's polling numbers in his incumbency at this point in time, against pretty much every major candidate and the generic option.

The 2018 elections are a pretty big indicator of what's going on. It was the biggest congressional loss for Republicans since Watergate, in spite of Trump's hardcore campaigning for the party. Sure, flips have happened before in a midterm between an incumbent winning, but there isn't any indication that sentiment has changed so far.
Click to expand...

I mostly disagree with you, and it's nice to have a well-expressed and well-thought-out dissenting view. Overall I think you are underestimating Trump. Of the top five Democratic candidates right now, I am confident that Buttigieg beats Trump. I think Trump trounces Harris, and beats Biden fairly comfortably. Battles against Sanders and Warren would be tougher, but I'd lean Trump slightly.
 
Joedaman55 said:
Lol we shall see during November 2020. I have Trump an easy winner over Kamala. The Democratic Party is going way to left to win.

Regarding 2018, the map was setup for the Democrats to win a lot of seats in the house just as the map was great for Republicans in the Senate. Trump is highly unfavored in the more liberal states (one of the reason he loses the popular vote) but he is favored in the majority of the all states. The Democratic party is going way to left to win middle America.
Click to expand...

Tbh I feel like the democratic party needs to go more left to win. You can't expect different results with the same plans. America's pretty progressive on single issues by the polling, and promising status quo reform isn't going to excite anyone. Americans, even on the working-class right, don't like corporatism. Being an establishment, corporatist democrat isn't a winning strategy anymore. They're not going to win most of the right wing no matter where they are on the spectrum, they have to bring out more new voters and appeal to disillusioned independents.

And everyone's up for election in house races. But state district maps HEAVILY favor republicans, with a couple exceptions. In 2018, if the democrats took every district that voted for Clinton + every district that Trump won by 3%, they wouldn't have even taken the house. It was a pretty dominant turn that was only a bit muted by the senate results, which would've been pretty tough to take with the seats that were up.
 
waiguoren said:
underestimating Trump. Of the top five Democratic candidates right now, I am confident that Buttigieg beats Trump. I think Trump trounces Harris, and beats Biden fairly comfortably. Battles against Sanders and Warren would be tougher, but I'd lean Trump slightly.
Click to expand...

I feel we'd agree on some aspects of this, but I'm curious why you specifically think Buttigieg/Sanders/Warren do the best against Trump, while Harris and Biden would fail? I personally think Buttigieg and Harris would do about the same, if not give a slight edge to Harris.

Also, it might seem like I'm underestimating Trump, but I do not think the democrats should act like they do. Them taking things more seriously makes me more confident in my choice.
 
rev0lver said:
I feel we'd agree on some aspects of this, but I'm curious why you specifically think Buttigieg/Sanders/Warren do the best against Trump, while Harris and Biden would fail? I personally think Buttigieg and Harris would do about the same, if not give a slight edge to Harris.

Also, it might seem like I'm underestimating Trump, but I do not think the democrats should act like they do. Them taking things more seriously makes me more confident in my choice.
Click to expand...

Buttigieg is the most articulate candidate I have ever heard. He's from the midwest and I believe he would be very strong in the rustbelt where Trump eked out his victory over a candidate who was weak in the rustbelt. He's actually "educated" and not just in the sense of schooling. I know that the online progressives don't like him right now, but I'm confident he could change their minds and bring the "progressive" and "moderate" wings together. He's not a phony. There is almost nothing from his history for Trump to attack him on. He served in Afghanistan and Trump is a draft dodger. There are almost too many things to list. I think he would beat Trump in a landslide. I think he is an elite-level candidate, even better than Obama/Reagan. NB As an apolitical person I would not support him myself. I am handicapping only.

Harris would do amazing numbers on the coasts and would be fine in some suburbs. I think Trump would win the rustbelt again without much trouble. I think her pandering style would turn off middle America. Basically a repeat of 2016.

Biden should be a tough matchup for Trump but time is up for "sleepy Joe". That's a brilliant nickname, the guy is too tired and unmotivated. Trump just has way more pep at this point and would undermine Biden repeatedly similar to what we saw Harris do last night until the voters get discouraged. Probably a lower turnout election.

Warren would drive suburban female turnout. It would be close due to Warren having some pep in the rustbelt. I see that as a very hard-fought battle but the 'pocohantas' attack would work better on independents and the youth than one might think. Keep in mind that incumbency is a proven significant advantage, so even though Warren is superior to Clinton in the rustbelt Trump should also perform somewhat better. (I am not as convinced as you that 2018 results will be predictive here.)

Sanders...his biggest weakness would be the "socialist" smear. It works even when the candidate doesn't call himself a socialist, and I think it would work even better here. "Crazy Bernie" is a brilliant nickname too. However: 1) Sanders is the most genuine major candidate in the entire race 2) His #1 issue is health care, which is a top issue for independents 3) He has showed serious strength in the rustbelt (consider his upset over Clinton in Michigan) 4) He polls extremely well against Trump head-to-head (usual disclaimer that it's too early for that to be predictive in many cases) 5) His anti-corruption, anti-greed message appeals to independents and disengaged voters. 6) He would turn out the youth vote. This would be dogfight. I don't think I could call it, but gun to my head I take Trump in a squeaker but I am not confident in that one.

@Oblivian what are your thoughts?
 
Last edited:
rev0lver said:
Tbh I feel like the democratic party needs to go more left to win. You can't expect different results with the same plans. America's pretty progressive on single issues by the polling, and promising status quo reform isn't going to excite anyone. Americans, even on the working-class right, don't like corporatism. Being an establishment, corporatist democrat isn't a winning strategy anymore. They're not going to win most of the right wing no matter where they are on the spectrum, they have to bring out more new voters and appeal to disillusioned independents.

And everyone's up for election in house races. But state district maps HEAVILY favor republicans, with a couple exceptions. In 2018, if the democrats took every district that voted for Clinton + every district that Trump won by 3%, they wouldn't have even taken the house. It was a pretty dominant turn that was only a bit muted by the senate results, which would've been pretty tough to take with the seats that were up.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective and this candidate will be further left than Clinton (they all are with their current stances). We’ll have to see the results of the November election to see if a more liberal candidate is more electable than a moderate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,586
Messages
58,377,298
Members
176,017
Latest member
KTFOPerformance

Share this page

Back
Top