Political Betting Thread

[longway]

I'm not disagreeing with you that bias and manipulation exists, but how is it for Warren? If anything, it seems like she's one of the last candidates they'd want and corporate money would hate her. She's arguably been the most antagonistic with Wall Street of anyone in the field.

She is as much as an outsider as Macron in France if you are familiar with him. She is a fake as anyone else up there. If she was a genuine outsider voice, the media would be undermining her like they do with Gabbard and Yang. Yang said they turned his microphone off for periods of the debate, that's how rigged it is. I learned my lesson with Obama, any candidate that gets so much positive spin from the MSM is not going to do anything to change the status quo.

She is just a puppet, a faux-populist to dangle in front of voters in the hope of beating Trump.

It's just my take in the end. And I have put my money where my mouth is, so what will be will be. I did hedge with Harris, that proved to be a good move. I don't think Harris will make it to the end though, contrary to the discussion above.

I have exchange bets and will sell my positions when I think the profit is enough. I think I got great odds.

PS A less waffly answer to your question is that I think she is getting a lot of positive media coverage and fluff pieces to build her up, this is why I think she has been selected to win. I originally thought it would be Harris, but she is a scumbag who will fall apart under scrutiny, and more of a loose cannon that Warrn imo anyway.

 

[waiguoren]

She is as much as an outsider as Macron in France if you are familiar with him. She is a fake as anyone else up there. If she was a genuine outsider voice, the media would be undermining her like they do with Gabbard and Yang. Yang said they turned his microphone off for periods of the debate, that's how rigged it is. I learned my lesson with Obama, any candidate that gets so much positive spin from the MSM is not going to do anything to change the status quo.

She is just a puppet, a faux-populist to dangle in front of voters in the hope of beating Trump.

It's just my take in the end. And I have put my money where my mouth is, so what will be will be. I did hedge with Harris, that proved to be a good move. I don't think Harris will make it to the end though, contrary to the discussion above.

I have exchange bets and will sell my positions when I think the profit is enough. I think I got great odds.

PS A less waffly answer to your question is that I think she is getting a lot of positive media coverage and fluff pieces to build her up, this is why I think she has been selected to win. I originally thought it would be Harris, but she is a scumbag who will fall apart under scrutiny, and more of a loose cannon that Warrn imo anyway.

At the end of the day, it's the votes that count. Media bias can change perceptions, but it's not necessarily enough. MSM tried to kill Trump over and over in 2015/6, but it didn't work. In other races, it can easily tip the scales. Depends on a lot of factors. If the Sanders camp is dedicated and persuasive, they have a chance to win this.

 

[rev0lver]

She is as much as an outsider as Macron in France if you are familiar with him. She is a fake as anyone else up there. If she was a genuine outsider voice, the media would be undermining her like they do with Gabbard and Yang. Yang said they turned his microphone off for periods of the debate, that's how rigged it is. I learned my lesson with Obama, any candidate that gets so much positive spin from the MSM is not going to do anything to change the status quo.

She is just a puppet, a faux-populist to dangle in front of voters in the hope of beating Trump.

It's just my take in the end. And I have put my money where my mouth is, so what will be will be. I did hedge with Harris, that proved to be a good move. I don't think Harris will make it to the end though, contrary to the discussion above.

I have exchange bets and will sell my positions when I think the profit is enough. I think I got great odds.

PS A less waffly answer to your question is that I think she is getting a lot of positive media coverage and fluff pieces to build her up, this is why I think she has been selected to win. I originally thought it would be Harris, but she is a scumbag who will fall apart under scrutiny, and more of a loose cannon that Warrn imo anyway.

I'm still confused on how Gabbard is an outsider? She's spent her whole career in politics outside her military service. She's even spent more time in elected office than Warren.

I don't think the point about Warren was ever about her being an "outsider", but about her being aggressive and genuine to her principles. Regardless of anyone's agreement with her platform, I haven't seen any reason to doubt that. She has great potential for populist appeal.

 

[longway]

I'm still confused on how Gabbard is an outsider? She's spent her whole career in politics outside her military service. She's even spent more time in elected office than Warren.

I don't think the point about Warren was ever about her being an "outsider", but about her being aggressive and genuine to her principles. Regardless of anyone's agreement with her platform, I haven't seen any reason to doubt that. She has great potential for populist appeal.

I think we agree she has a great potential for populist appeal, which is exactly why she has been selected.

Warren is fully supported by the media and DNC power brokers and she has plenty of corporate backers. She just talks a big game like Obama, but is a bought and paid for corporate war hag, like Clinton, Obama was a bought and paid for corporate war (had to get that in). Gabbard, on the other hand, is running without the back of the swamp. I don't agree with her about everything, but I do think she has integrity, unlike Warren. Which one of the 2 endorsed Sanders in 2016? The one that did left her position in the DNC to do so.

Look at her. Phoney and rehearsed..

 

[Roads55]

Warren is fully supported by the media and DNC power brokers and she has plenty of corporate backers. She just talks a big game like Obama, but is a bought and paid for corporate war hag, like Clinton, Obama was a bought and paid for corporate war (had to get that in). Gabbard, on the other hand, is running without the back of the swamp. I don't agree with her about everything, but I do think she has integrity, unlike Warren. Which one of the 2 endorsed Sanders in 2016? The one that did left her position in the DNC to do so.

Look at her. Phoney and rehearsed..

Are you telling me that a presidential candidate looks phoney and rehearsed? I'm shocked!

 

[longway]

Are you telling me that a presidential candidate looks phoney and rehearsed? I'm shocked!

She is trying to create a viral video, but can't as she is such a phoney.

 

[Roads55]

She is trying to create a viral video, but can't as she is such a phoney.

why do you think the DNC are endorsing her?

 

[rev0lver]

I think we agree she has a great potential for populist appeal, which is exactly why she has been selected.

Warren is fully supported by the media and DNC power brokers and she has plenty of corporate backers. She just talks a big game like Obama, but is a bought and paid for corporate war hag, like Clinton, Obama was a bought and paid for corporate war (had to get that in). Gabbard, on the other hand, is running without the back of the swamp. I don't agree with her about everything, but I do think she has integrity, unlike Warren. Which one of the 2 endorsed Sanders in 2016? The one that did left her position in the DNC to do so.

Look at her. Phoney and rehearsed..

I keep hearing that she has the support of the DNC money but I haven't actually seen any evidence of that. Only reactionary posts here and there from people saying MSNBC didn't totally shit on her or the like. I think it's pretty clear who the favorite children are, and she's not a part of that. She's publicly given her refusal to accept corporate PAC money and lobbyist money, and refused to throw high-dollar private fundraisers. As far as I know, her and Sanders are the only ones doing that last part. Gabbard has only rejected PAC money.

That clip seems fairly normal and just a standard kind of response she'd have ready for situations like that. All of them have lines they have in their pockets, it's not like they go everywhere unprepared. But as far as meaning what she says, her track record holds up a bit more strongly than others in the field.

I don't wanna get too much into debating this though, since this thread is more for discussing probabilities in the race than our personal opinions of the candidates

 

[waiguoren]

It would be very weird if Harris flamed out, Buttigieg never took off, Sanders/Warren split the 'progressive' vote and Biden took the nomination.

I know the market saw Biden as the most likely nominee until the debates, but I never did. Now for the first time I'm starting to see a path for him. He's the only top-tier candidate opposed to decriminalizing improper entry, for example. I'm sure there are other policy areas in which he will be the only centrist on policy. Also a lot of his support is from older folks who aren't paying attention. Those people vote.

I still don't think he'll get it, but with all these pseudo-progressives (e.g., Buttigieg, Harris) copying Sanders's platform and elements of his style, Biden has a clear lane that I didn't think he'd have.

 

[longway]

why do you think the DNC are endorsing her?

It was my gut feeling given the positive media attention she was getting. The debates also made me feel vindicated. She is the puppet that will be used by the DC power brokers. If she wasn't the golden child she would be undermined at every turn.

They gave her centre stage in a debate with 2nd tier candidates and kooks and even ensured microphones were cut off at times for at least 2 of the other candidates and minimised the time for dark horses like Gabbard. She got softball questions and plenty of speaking time. It was clear, to me anyway, that it was intentional. It's just my opinion in the end.

 

[longway]

know the market saw Biden as the most likely nominee until the debates, but I never did. Now for the first time I'm starting to see a path for him. He's the only top-tier candidate opposed to decriminalizing improper entry, for example. I'm sure there are other policy areas in which he will be the only centrist on policy. Also a lot of his support is from older folks who aren't paying attention. Those people vote.

The main reason I dismissed Biden is his age. He is too old.

 

[longway]

I keep hearing that she has the support of the DNC money but I haven't actually seen any evidence of that. Only reactionary posts here and there from people saying MSNBC didn't totally shit on her or the like. I think it's pretty clear who the favorite children are, and she's not a part of that. She's publicly given her refusal to accept corporate PAC money and lobbyist money, and refused to throw high-dollar private fundraisers. As far as I know, her and Sanders are the only ones doing that last part. Gabbard has only rejected PAC money.

That clip seems fairly normal and just a standard kind of response she'd have ready for situations like that. All of them have lines they have in their pockets, it's not like they go everywhere unprepared. But as far as meaning what she says, her track record holds up a bit more strongly than others in the field.

I don't wanna get too much into debating this though, since this thread is more for discussing probabilities in the race than our personal opinions of the candidates

We can agree to disagree. I would happy to be wrong about her. TBH I don't care, as long as I make a profit.

 

[waiguoren]

I think this is probably the work of Biden's senior adviser Symone "we don't need white people running the Democratic Party" Sanders. She is the type of person to freak out about the Harris rise and tell Biden to apologize for doing nothing wrong. In a time when Biden is looking weak and incapable, this compounds the problem.

Symone Sanders being in a senior position on the Biden campaign is another reason why I have been predicting his downfall.

 

[Roads55]

It would be very weird if Harris flamed out, Buttigieg never took off, Sanders/Warren split the 'progressive' vote and Biden took the nomination.

I know the market saw Biden as the most likely nominee until the debates, but I never did. Now for the first time I'm starting to see a path for him. He's the only top-tier candidate opposed to decriminalizing improper entry, for example. I'm sure there are other policy areas in which he will be the only centrist on policy. Also a lot of his support is from older folks who aren't paying attention. Those people vote.

I still don't think he'll get it, but with all these pseudo-progressives (e.g., Buttigieg, Harris) copying Sanders's platform and elements of his style, Biden has a clear lane that I didn't think he'd have.

also his position on medicare makes him stand out from the other top contenders

 

[waiguoren]

also his position on medicare makes him stand out from the other top contenders

You mean on health care? Biden supports a public option, as does Buttigieg. That is, they both oppose Medicare for All (single-payer).

 

[Roads55]

You mean on health care? Biden supports a public option, as does Buttigieg. That is, they both oppose Medicare for All (single-payer).

Yeah. I thought he was the only one that wouldn't scrap private health insurance completely?

 

[Roads55]

Harris odds getting extremely short now. 3.1 atm...
Biden 7.6
Warren 5.2
Buttogieg and sanders roughly the same at 11.0-12.0ish

 

[waiguoren]

Yeah. I thought he was the only one that wouldn't scrap private health insurance completely?

No. In the top 5, Buttigieg also. Outside the top 5, most are on Biden's side of that.

 

[Roads55]

No. In the top 5, Buttigieg also. Outside the top 5, most are on Biden's side of that.

ahh, yeah i meant out of the main contenders, didn't realize buttigieg had that view too.

 

[Joedaman55]

I think this is probably the work of Biden's senior adviser Symone "we don't need white people running the Democratic Party" Sanders. She is the type of person to freak out about the Harris rise and tell Biden to apologize for doing nothing wrong. In a time when Biden is looking weak and incapable, this compounds the problem.

Symone Sanders being in a senior position on the Biden campaign is another reason why I have been predicting his downfall.

Haven’t followed this stuff for a few days (July 4th weekend), if Biden did this, this makes it even worse. This is similar to the mistake Trump made by disavowing David Duke so late after the CNN livefeed. You can’t have that response so many days later on an emotionally charged event because it makes you look like a panderer (which is how it’ll be spun). Jeb did this with the War on Iraq in the last Republican Primary where he waited days and shifted stances on this emotionally powered event. Once I saw this, Bush was essentially done.

Biden’s campaign is on lifeline, people just don’t see it yet.