Political Betting Thread

[Joedaman55]

That doesn't make sense. All 435 House seats are up for re-election every two years. You are correct about the Senate though.



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.

You’re correct about the house, for some reason I thought it was four year terms. Given that new information, I’m not sure how it’ll go. I usually look at a state and see what their senators look like as the voting is statewide and comparable to the electoral college.

 

[waiguoren]

First post-debate poll is out. It's a Morning Consult poll. Morning Consult also polled shortly before the debate. The new poll is not a re-interview poll, i.e., it's a new sample.

Biden dropped 5% from 38 to 33. Sanders held at 19. Harris gained 6, from 6 to 12. Buttigieg gained 1, from 6 to 7. Warren fell from 13 to 12.

Biden 33
Sanders 19
Warren 12
Harris 12
Buttigieg 7


This is just a single poll, not a polling average. I'm not sure how the sample is chosen or how the voters are reached.

@Foghorn Leghorn @Joedaman55 and @Scythe , as the guys predicting Harris you must feel pretty good here. As the guy predicting Sanders or Buttigieg I also feel good.

 

[Roads55]

Bernie went up to 13.0 over the last couple days, back down to 10.0 now.
Biden drifted to 7.0 from 5.6 ish, back to 6.6 now.
Buttigieg has been pretty static, hovering from 9.2 to 9.6 now.
Harris after her initial big drop has stayed around 4.0.
Warren also pretty stagnant barely moving from 5.8-6.0.

buttigieg odds are tempting, and even bidens look like they could be good for a trade. warren im still betting against at these prices, i think she has room to drift from here. i was surprised at how big a price bernie was at for a while.

 

[waiguoren]

Bernie went up to 13.0 over the last couple days, back down to 10.0 now.
Biden drifted to 7.0 from 5.6 ish, back to 6.6 now.
Buttigieg has been pretty static, hovering from 9.2 to 9.6 now.
Harris after her initial big drop has stayed around 4.0.
Warren also pretty stagnant barely moving from 5.8-6.0.

buttigieg odds are tempting, and even bidens look like they could be good for a trade. warren im still betting against at these prices, i think she has room to drift from here. i was surprised at how big a price bernie was at for a while.

How much can one risk on Sanders at 10.0?

imo Harris is way inflated there.

 

[Roads55]

How much can one risk on Sanders at 10.0?

imo Harris is way inflated there.

atm, like £200 so $250ish i guess, and another few hundred down to 9.0. there was the best part of £1000 at 13.0 or 14.0 in the last day or 2. there's been roughly £150k wagered since the debates started, so there is a good amount of money watching on the sidelines so requesting bigger bets at these prices definitely have a good chance to get matched.

 

[Roads55]

does seem like harris is a bit overbet here with how long there is left to go. gonna try to bet against her sub 4.0, got her at 8.0 at some books also so can use some of that potential profit.

 

[Oblivian]

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?

I've given up on trying to handicap politics!

In regards to Buttigieg, the only thing that I'd say is that I'm sure a lot of people won't vote for him because he is gay. Trump would probably delicately play that card to the ultra conservative religious side. My neighbors are both college educated professionals, but they are ridiculously religious. They would never vote for a gay president.

One thing that I did notice with Trump is that a lot of people would criticize him pre-election, but they were actually voting for him. It was almost as if people didn't want to admit that they were supporting Trump. I think a similar thing could happen here. You may have people who like Buttigieg, but when it comes down to voting, they have a hard time with a gay president.

 

[Joedaman55]

First post-debate poll is out. It's a Morning Consult poll. Morning Consult also polled shortly before the debate. The new poll is not a re-interview poll, i.e., it's a new sample.

Biden dropped 5% from 38 to 33. Sanders held at 19. Harris gained 6, from 6 to 12. Buttigieg gained 1, from 6 to 7. Warren fell from 13 to 12.

Biden 33
Sanders 19
Warren 12
Harris 12
Buttigieg 7


This is just a single poll, not a polling average. I'm not sure how the sample is chosen or how the voters are reached.

@Foghorn Leghorn @Joedaman55 and @Scythe , as the guys predicting Harris you must feel pretty good here. As the guy predicting Sanders or Buttigieg I also feel good.

Na, I knew Harris improving dramatically, no shocker here. Bit shocked Bernie didn’t drop but I know his followers are extremely loyal. I think people overrated Warren’s performance and a small drop make sense. People saw Pete for the first time and I thought he did alright, a small jump makes sense.

More polling data will give us a better set of information how things have moved (although I’d be careful as polling data has been way incorrect lately I.e 2016).

 

[Joedaman55]

I've given up on trying to handicap politics!

In regards to Buttigieg, the only thing that I'd say is that I'm sure a lot of people won't vote for him because he is gay. Trump would probably delicately play that card to the ultra conservative religious side. My neighbors are both college educated professionals, but they are ridiculously religious. They would never vote for a gay president.

One thing that I did notice with Trump is that a lot of people would criticize him pre-election, but they were actually voting for him. It was almost as if people didn't want to admit that they were supporting Trump. I think a similar thing could happen here. You may have people who like Buttigieg, but when it comes down to voting, they have a hard time with a gay president.

Being gay would hurt Pete if all things were equal under religious conservatives. The biggest issue among those type of voters is the abortion issue and any Democrat is going to have a tough time winning those votes given their perspective on that.

I think the gay thing hurts him with a lot of people. The world is persuaded the most by creating an image and I think someone can create a strong negative image for a gay man (especially when a lot of people gravitate towards a president for their dominance and strength). It’ll be tough for any gay man trying to be president by the way society will look at this.

 

[rev0lver]

I've given up on trying to handicap politics!

In regards to Buttigieg, the only thing that I'd say is that I'm sure a lot of people won't vote for him because he is gay. Trump would probably delicately play that card to the ultra conservative religious side. My neighbors are both college educated professionals, but they are ridiculously religious. They would never vote for a gay president.

One thing that I did notice with Trump is that a lot of people would criticize him pre-election, but they were actually voting for him. It was almost as if people didn't want to admit that they were supporting Trump. I think a similar thing could happen here. You may have people who like Buttigieg, but when it comes down to voting, they have a hard time with a gay president.

I'm not sold on Buttigieg being "the guy" yet, but imo just about everyone who would refuse to vote for a gay president isn't gonna vote for a democrat here anyway.

And yeah I've heard about the closet Trump voter theories, but I really haven't seen any evidence that it's real. I see it as Clinton inspiring apathy and Trump energizing the otherwise-apathetic.

 

[rev0lver]

Being gay would hurt Pete if all things were equal under religious conservatives. The biggest issue among those type of voters is the abortion issue and any Democrat is going to have a tough time winning those votes given their perspective on that.

I think the gay thing hurts him with a lot of people. The world is persuaded the most by creating an image and I think someone can create a strong negative image for a gay man (especially when a lot of people gravitate towards a president for their dominance and strength). It’ll be tough for any gay man trying to be president by the way society will look at this.

To be fair though, being one of the only 2(?) military vets in the race, with Trump not being one, is a big plus for him

 

[Joedaman55]

To be fair though, being one of the only 2(?) military vets in the race, with Trump not being one, is a big plus for him

Oh absolutely that helps him. I think he might pull a very small amount of Trump voters that have issues about his personal life.

The problem there is Trump is so strong on military spending and he hasn’t got America in any wars. In the previous election were Trump was less of a known commodity as president, this would be a bigger boost.

 

[Oblivian]

I'm not sold on Buttigieg being "the guy" yet, but imo just about everyone who would refuse to vote for a gay president isn't gonna vote for a democrat here anyway.

And yeah I've heard about the closet Trump voter theories, but I really haven't seen any evidence that it's real. I see it as Clinton inspiring apathy and Trump energizing the otherwise-apathetic.

I personally know a lot of people who did not like Trump and they were critical of Trump, yet they voted for him. Agreed - a lot of that simply had to do with choosing to vote against Clinton.

 

[Joedaman55]

I personally know a lot of people who did not like Trump and they were critical of Trump, yet they voted for him. Agreed - a lot of that simply had to do with choosing to vote against Clinton.

Same with people around me, it wasn’t a choice of whether they liked Trump as president, it was a question of who do you hate less in office Hillary or Trump. Elections are usually not about who you like being president; rather, who do you not want being president.

Most conservatives don’t like Trump based on his policy stances (he’s liberal on quite a few of them and changes his mind a lot). He’s the most middle candidate from the two sides who are completely different from each other and want a completely different America than status quo.

 

[waiguoren]

Things are basically playing out as I expected. As I said before, Warren's resurrection from the dead is really cutting into Sanders's support. This is a huge problem for Sanders and my bet. That said, I'm on the fence about Warren's staying power. This is the same candidate who thought it would be a good idea to release her DNA test. I think my Sanders bet still has a decent chance of cashing for the following reason. The conventional wisdom now is that Sanders is done. This ensures he will avoid direct attacks for a while. In reality, he has a hard floor on his support, and Warren is holding a lot of his voters right now. If Warren trails off slowly, Sanders will be hanging out in third or fourth with enough upside to eke out victories come primary time, especially with the top tier cannibalizing itself.

As for Biden/Harris, I think they will continue to kill each other, making way for a new "centrist" candidate without the baggage (Buttigieg). I don't expect either Biden or Harris to drop out, as I think they will have a hold on >80% of the black vote and will continue to feel like they have a chance.

I continue to think the chance of a contested convention is very high, and there is a significant chance the infighting will get so nasty as to split the party and hand Trump an easy victory.

 

[rev0lver]

Things are basically playing out as I expected. As I said before, Warren's resurrection from the dead is really cutting into Sanders's support. This is a huge problem for Sanders and my bet. That said, I'm on the fence about Warren's staying power. This is the same candidate who thought it would be a good idea to release her DNA test. I think my Sanders bet still has a decent chance of cashing for the following reason. The conventional wisdom now is that Sanders is done. In reality, he has a hard floor on his support, and Warren is holding a lot of his voters right now. If Warren trails off slowly, Sanders will be hanging out in third or fourth with enough upside to eke out victories come primary time.

As for Biden/Harris, I think they will continue to kill each other, making way for a new "centrist" candidate without the baggage (Buttigieg). I don't expect either Biden or Harris to drop out, as I think they will have a hold on >80% of the black vote and will continue to feel like they have a chance.

I continue to think the chance of a contested convention is very high, and there is a significant chance the infighting will get so nasty as to split the party and hand Trump an easy victory.

I pretty much agree. The weight of the Sanders/Warren platform is based around both of their numbers, with maybe a couple percent exception. One of them will likely concede to the other when it comes time to do so (unless they somehow end up the top 2)

I truly expect Biden's campaign to play out like Jeb Bush. Gradual declines till he's polling around 4th place when the primaries start, and drop out after disappointing voting results. Though I actually think Jeb was a better candidate than Biden is lol

I think the centrist/moderate camp will end up rallying around Harris/Buttigieg/Booker within a few months. I think people are underestimating Booker's efforts a little bit, even though I wouldn't bet on him being the nominee.

Even though the DNC is clearly behind the moderates, as they always are, they WILL end up going with the most popular choice in the end. The progressive side has already managed to push some of their popular policy ideas into the moderate platforms, and the DNC has been slowly coming around to that strategy. Remember that the infighting among republicans was huge in 2016. Even Lindsey Graham was vehemently opposed to Trump for a long time, and now he's one of his biggest supporters. If Sanders/Warren is the nominee, the left-wing machine will rally behind them to beat Trump. If Biden/Harris/Buttigieg/etc is the nominee, the progressives will largely bite their tongues and help them defeat Trump.

 

[waiguoren]

I pretty much agree. The weight of the Sanders/Warren platform is based around both of their numbers, with maybe a couple percent exception. One of them will likely concede to the other when it comes time to do so (unless they somehow end up the top 2)

Agree. For now, the split is beneficial in the sense that it prevents others from going after them too hard. Biden is the current target, and Harris will be the next target.

I truly expect Biden's campaign to play out like Jeb Bush. Gradual declines till he's polling around 4th place when the primaries start, and drop out after disappointing voting results. Though I actually think Jeb was a better candidate than Biden is lol

Worse candidate for sure, but Biden was the VP for a recent president who remains MEGA popular among the base. These two things balance out and I agree with the timeframe you laid out.

I think the centrist/moderate camp will end up rallying around Harris/Buttigieg/Booker within a few months. I think people are underestimating Booker's efforts a little bit, even though I wouldn't bet on him being the nominee.

I think Booker takes from Harris, but he's at about 3% so who cares. I noticed he's going with the "attack Biden" strategy, but doing it in a less "Hollywood" way. I guess that's smart, but Booker has 0 chance of winning the nomination in my estimation. I think Harris is a flash in the pan. She has a lot of vulnerabilities and showed her hand too early. New Quinnipiac poll has her statistically tied with Biden nationally, so the big guns are coming for her. We are still 7 months from Iowa!

Even though the DNC is clearly behind the moderates, as they always are, they WILL end up going with the most popular choice in the end. The progressive side has already managed to push some of their popular policy ideas into the moderate platforms, and the DNC has been slowly coming around to that strategy.

I'm unsure of how much influence the DNC has, but MSM is clearly anti-Sanders. It's blatant, and I don't think that's going to change. His path is to eke a victory out in spite of MSM attacks.

 

[waiguoren]

One thing that I did notice with Trump is that a lot of people would criticize him pre-election, but they were actually voting for him. It was almost as if people didn't want to admit that they were supporting Trump. I think a similar thing could happen here. You may have people who like Buttigieg, but when it comes down to voting, they have a hard time with a gay president.

Is this really relevant to the DNC primary? I think yes, but only in the sense that because Democrats really want to beat Trump many will be wary of nominating someone who they think is vulnerable in the general (for being gay or any other reason). The problem with that line of thinking is you can use it on any candidate: are voters really going to choose a dramatic half-black woman? Are voters really going to choose a guy who is 76 going on 95? Are voters really going to choose a self-described "democratic socialist"? Are voters really going to choose a white woman who identified herself as a Native American?

 

[rev0lver]

I'm unsure of how much influence the DNC has, but MSM is clearly anti-Sanders. It's blatant, and I don't think that's going to change. His path is to eke a victory out in spite of MSM attacks.

Well I guess when I say "DNC" I'm referring to the establishment in general, including left-leaning MSM outlets. If Sanders/Warren takes over the lead and becomes the nominee, they will change their narratives and get behind them 100% over Trump

 

[waiguoren]

Well I guess when I say "DNC" I'm referring to the establishment in general, including left-leaning MSM outlets. If Sanders/Warren takes over the lead and becomes the nominee, they will change their narratives and get behind them 100% over Trump

That would be interesting to observe. I perceive that there is a lot of corporate money opposing the Sanders agenda, and I wonder if that money could end up slanting coverage to undermine Sanders even on MSNBC and other anti-Trump platforms.