Political Betting Thread

[waiguoren]

New Biden interview. Watching now. Biden botches the first question badly.

I don't want to overstate his mental decline, but he just doesn't seem up to this.



Discussion of the race starts around 5:00. Woodruff mentions the new Siena poll and things get a bit testy! Biden tells Woodruff to "be honest".

 

[Roads55]

New Biden interview. Watching now. Biden botches the first question badly.

I don't want to overstate his mental decline, but he just doesn't seem up to this.



Discussion of the race starts around 5:00. Woodruff mentions the new Siena poll and things get a bit testy! Biden tells Woodruff to "be honest".

he doesn't seem that much worse to me, but he does seem very tired unsurprisingly. @ 6.15 was real creepy when he leans in and whispers "look at me". He always comes across so passive aggressive when asked questions he doesn't like.

 

[rev0lver]

Boom.

New York Times/Siena was the top pollster in the 2018 midterms.

Today brings us a New York Times/Siena poll of the Iowa Democratic caucus. This is their inaugural poll, so no movement can be detected:

Warren 22
Sanders 19
Buttigieg 18
Biden 17
Klobuchar 4
Harris 3
Yang 3
Steyer 2
Gabbard 2
Booker 2
O'Rourke 0
Bennet 0

=========

Four-way heat at the top, and more yet evidence that the "experts" have been underestimating Buttigieg for the past year.

Buttigieg is now in 2nd place in the Iowa RCP average.

Also notable that Sanders is significantly overperforming his RCP average in this poll.

I definitely love that the CNN lines on this were "Buttigieg and Biden within striking distance of Warren in Iowa". I don't know if media bias in the primary could be any more clear at this point.

I'm of the camp that doesn't think Iowa is the most important thing in the world anymore, but rather uses it as a gauge for who has a shot vs who's definitely gonna fail. Trump didn't even win Iowa, and Hillary beat Bernie there by 0.2%. Mitt Romney didn't win Iowa either.

Pete's been doing decently there for a while, so it's not a big surprise that he's toward the top. Problem is, he's campaigned so hard there yet lags wayyyy behind in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Biden, Sanders, and Warren will all be fine if they lose Iowa so long as they have a decent performance because of their stronger national support. If Pete loses Iowa, he's basically dead in the water.

 

[waiguoren]

he doesn't seem that much worse to me, but he does seem very tired unsurprisingly. @ 6.15 was real creepy when he leans in and whispers "look at me". He always comes across so passive aggressive when asked questions he doesn't like.

Oh, I mean his mental decline relative to previous cycles. I don't mean that he has declined over the past few months.

Completely agree on the creepy responses. Just strange.

I'm of the camp that doesn't think Iowa is the most important thing in the world anymore, but rather uses it as a gauge for who has a shot vs who's definitely gonna fail. Trump didn't even win Iowa, and Hillary beat Bernie there by 0.2%. Mitt Romney didn't win Iowa either.

Pete's been doing decently there for a while, so it's not a big surprise that he's toward the top. Problem is, he's campaigned so hard there yet lags wayyyy behind in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Biden, Sanders, and Warren will all be fine if they lose Iowa so long as they have a decent performance because of their stronger national support. If Pete loses Iowa, he's basically dead in the water.

If the most recent CNN/UNH poll is to be believed, the state of the race in NH is in flux. 76% are undecided. The gap between the leader (Sanders, 21) there and Buttigieg (10) is only 11%.

Out of the top four, people have their minds made up about everyone except Buttigieg.

23% don't know what they think of him yet. I take this as a sign of growth potential.

Serious improvements in his second choice standing:

I mean this with respect: I think the reason you aren't seeing his potential is captured in the following plot (you're a Sanders guy). Notice how he takes from Biden and Warren:

This one is great for him as well:

 

[rev0lver]

Oh, I mean his mental decline relative to previous cycles. I don't mean that he has declined over the past few months.

Completely agree on the creepy responses. Just strange.



If the most recent CNN/UNH poll is to be believed, the state of the race in NH is in flux. 76% are undecided. The gap between the leader (Sanders, 21) there and Buttigieg (10) is only 11%.

Out of the top four, people have their minds made up about everyone except Buttigieg.

23% don't know what they think of him yet. I take this as a sign of growth potential.

Serious improvements in his second choice standing:

I mean this with respect: I think the reason you aren't seeing his potential is captured in the following plot (you're a Sanders guy). Notice how he takes from Biden and Warren:

This one is great for him as well:

None of this is really that positive, though. People being "undecided" about less popular candidates is pretty normal, and doesn't normally translate to growth at this point in time (if it does, it's usually earlier on). An 11% gap in NH is... pretty big. There's other candidates between them there too. Pete needs BIG gains in the next few months, he can't just bank on edging out Iowa (which, I should add, is far from a given when he's never had a lead there). I'm not saying he has absolutely no chance, but he's still very far behind even if he's sitting at the right table for the first caucuses. From a historical perspective of primaries, it would be a wild outlier for him to win at this point. Something truly big would have to happen for his campaign.

 

[waiguoren]

None of this is really that positive, though. People being "undecided" about less popular candidates is pretty normal, and doesn't normally translate to growth at this point in time (if it does, it's usually earlier on). An 11% gap in NH is... pretty big. There's other candidates between them there too. Pete needs BIG gains in the next few months, he can't just bank on edging out Iowa (which, I should add, is far from a given when he's never had a lead there). I'm not saying he has absolutely no chance, but he's still very far behind even if he's sitting at the right table for the first caucuses. From a historical perspective of primaries, it would be a wild outlier for him to win at this point. Something truly big would have to happen for his campaign.

I don't agree on multiple points.

1) People being undecided on less-known candidates is normal. What's not normal is to have a candidate with Buttigieg's lower level of name recognition already tied with the national front runner in terms of favorability. Soon, that 23% "not sure" will drop to the 5% that Sanders/Warren/Biden have....how do you expect the residual 18% to break down? I think he's almost certain to surpass Warren's current level of favorability unless he makes a hard "heel turn" at the next debates thereby alienating people (a non-trivial possibility for sure, as he almost went too far 'heel' at the last debate)

2) An 11% gap in NH at this stage is not large. You only have to look back to the last cycle to see why. At this stage last cycle (late October 2015) Sanders's RCP average lead over Clinton was about 2.4%. He beat her in the actual primary by about 22.5%: that is, >20% movement.


3) Buttigieg needs to gain, yes. He's in great position to do so. If Biden falls off (as many are predicting) and Warren continues to dip a bit, Buttigieg will be the biggest gainer (the plot I posted supports this).

 

[Joedaman55]

In the new podcast I referenced, he seems to be coming around to the idea that Buttigieg is a top contender. That was not his position in the past. I think as the months go on, you'll see Adams change his prediction again to upgrade Buttigieg's standing.




Yeah I think that's a fair assessment of his position and I think it's really shallow and inaccurate. There is a lot more to the psychology of Democratic voters than just "oooh, sassy black female prosecutor! vote!" As I outlined the other day, a candidate needs to actually convince voters that she has plans to solve their perceived problems that she believes in and that can be implemented. Harris has never shown this ability. Adams says Harris's problems are "the easiest to fix", because he thinks Harris's problems are just surface features like her body language and laughing at her own jokes. I'm saying Harris's problems are a lot deeper than that.

Haven’t listened to him in about a week but he was of the idea there was no top contender so it’s anyone’s race.

He’s right, Kamala’s problems are the easiest to fix, the problem is people have already anchored around what they’ve seen from her in the last 4 months. It’s really hard to reset an anchor in people’s minds in this quick of a time period. Adams overestimates this because he see’s someone like Trump do it with no effort but Trump is a master influencer the world has never seen in politics (no one can do the things he does and get the support he does, it’s amazing).

 

[Joedaman55]

Boom.

New York Times/Siena was the top pollster in the 2018 midterms.

Today brings us a New York Times/Siena poll of the Iowa Democratic caucus. This is their inaugural poll, so no movement can be detected:

Warren 22
Sanders 19
Buttigieg 18
Biden 17
Klobuchar 4
Harris 3
Yang 3
Steyer 2
Gabbard 2
Booker 2
O'Rourke 0
Bennet 0

=========

Four-way heat at the top, and more yet evidence that the "experts" have been underestimating Buttigieg for the past year.

Buttigieg is now in 2nd place in the Iowa RCP average.

Also notable that Sanders is significantly overperforming his RCP average in this poll.

Again, I wouldn’t get too excited about Iowa, it’s generally a very poor predictor on who wins the nomination.

 

[waiguoren]

He’s right, Kamala’s problems are the easiest to fix,

We just fundamentally disagree here. I think she is a very poor candidate and it wouldn't be fixable even if she had a year to try.

Again, I wouldn’t get too excited about Iowa, it’s generally a very poor predictor on who wins the nomination.

The eventual Democratic nominee has finished within the top three in the Iowa caucuses in all modern caucuses (i.e., every caucus starting in 1972).

 

[Austisthunder]

Clinton at 10-1 has value

 

[TrueAscension]

It had much much better value a few weeks ago that’s for sure.

 

[Austisthunder]

It had much much better value a few weeks ago that’s for sure.

While true the current dnc situation is such a shitshow im essentially betting whether Clinton runs or not

If it enters the race, it will win the nomination

 

[longway]

^ it can't unite the dnc which is in a civil war, so i hope it does.

 

[longway]

Trump attending UFC 244, very fitting as he is one BMF himself.

 

[waiguoren]

Betting-wise Biden is at +320 or so at Bookmaker. Warren was at +135 last I checked.

I've been thinking about Biden quite a bit these past two days. I noted that the new NY Times/Siena poll has his support at 2% in Iowa among those < 45 years old, yet he's still in the top four.

He's still doing very well among the >45 crowd and I imagine he's crushing it with the > 65 crowd. The latter group can be counted on to turn out and to refuse to change their preference much. This could mean Biden has a higher floor than I ever thought.

Think about the media diet of those older people. It's basically all MSM, maybe some Facebook shared content with their like-minded friends. Now, WaPo and NYT have recently started running pieces about Biden's "inarticulateness", and I do expect these to do some damage, but I also wonder if the net coverage for him might be positive.

One of the major reasons I have been bearish on him since the Ukraine thing broke is that I expected a full-fledged Trump/RNC assault on the Hunter Biden situation. Instead what I've seen so far is that the MSM has more or less respected the Biden campaign's request to stay out of the Hunter Biden situation. At the same time, I have seen Republicans playing less offense than I expected. I still expect this to change, and I therefore expect Biden to take damage among the older crowd.

I don't watch FOX News, but I imagine Hannity and company are slamming Biden nightly. Old Democrats might not watch FOX, but people in their circles do and the relevant information will get out there.

How much progress can he make with his new Super PAC, given that he's the only one in the race who has formed one and given that he's almost guaranteed to raise huge money through it?

He raised over $5 million in "online donations" in October. I think his people found a way to rig that game (should be a very easy thing to do), which is a great sign for him. It means he has a way to funnel big donor money into his campaign while circumventing contribution limits.

The other top three are vying for the <45 vote. Add in a potential Harris rebound (and NB she almost certainly will rebound somewhat in Iowa) and that vote is split four ways. I don't see any of those four being nearly so appealing to many in the older crowd.

Biden has a lot going for him. People know he is inarticulate and possibly somewhat senile but he still has his people. This feels somewhat similar to Trump 2016. He's up 5% in today's Harris poll (national poll), leading the pack with 33% with Sanders a distant 2nd at 18%.

There are many more angles to this that I have thought of and won't bother to write down. Bottom line is I will be keeping my eye out to see if Biden's odds improve to the point that I become interested in a pseudo-hedge on him.

Another interesting question: has Elizabeth Warren peaked? The "plan for everything" approach is hurting her at the moment even as it was a key part of her rise.

If Buttigieg were 10 years older and had held a governorship, I think he's be a shoo-in. I see evidence that the big money (to the extent this is a real concept) is shifting from Biden to Buttigieg. As things stand, I still see Biden people making the argument that he's too young and inexperienced. That said, I think many of them will go to Buttigieg in the event of a Biden collapse.

My Current bets (Democratic nomination):


April 15 Bernard Sanders +410 $2439.02
May 19 Peter Buttigieg +550 $1818.18
August 31 Peter Buttigieg +2000 $500
September 20 Peter Buttigieg +2026 $493.58
September 25 Elizabeth Warren +123 $4268

 

[longway]

has Elizabeth Warren peaked? The "plan for everything" approach is hurting her at the moment even as it was a key part of her rise.

I don't know if she has peaked, but her schtick is paper-thin, there is no depth to her or her plans. She is easily rattled, like Harris, and needs orchestrated set pieces to generate her 'viral' moments.

 

[waiguoren]

I don't know if she has peaked, but her schtick is paper-thin, there is no depth to her or her plans. She is easily rattled, like Harris, and needs orchestrated set pieces to generate her 'viral' moments.

I see it differently. I think she's a good candidate overall who made a horrible political decision by releasing the DNA test.

What do you mean when you say her plans have no depth? I haven't read any of the 30+ plans she has released, but I've started looking into her M4A funding proposal and it's certainly more detailed than anything other candidates usually release at this stage in a cycle. Sanders has released much less detail on M4A, by contrast. More importantly I don't see why you would focus on detail here. Most primary voters don't demand detail on most issues at this early stage, and candidates often win with minimal detail on some of their main proposals. Think about how light on detail Trump's wall proposal was, for example. Obviously the standard will be higher for a candidate marketing herself as "the candidate with a plan for that", but I think she's still gone above and beyond what most voters expect in this area.

What do you mean she's easily rattled? If the DNA test release is an example, fair. I haven't seen any further signs though.

=============

Breaking:

New ABC/WaPo poll (national)

Biden 28 (-1%)
Elizabeth W. 23 (+5%)
Sanders 17 (-2%)
Buttigieg 9 (+5%)
....
Everyone else: 2% or less.


The last version of this poll was two months ago.

The topline is great for Buttigieg. He was already "top tier" in IA but now he's "top tier" nationally. Obviously a big gap still between him and the front-runner though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/context-card/eea087b6-ca22-4cd9-a254-6bdd49d000a4/


65% cell phone 35% landline. MOE is ~6%

Other interesting bits:

Second choice among those who are leaning Democrat and have a 1st preference:

Sanders 21
Elizabeth W. 18
Biden 15
Buttigieg 8
Harris 8
Klobuchar 4
....

Do you think [Candidate] is in good enough overall health to serve as president (yes/no)?

Biden 74/19
Sanders 48/45
Warren 80/9

 

[longway]

What do you mean when you say her plans have no depth? I haven't read any of the 30+ plans she has released, but I've started looking into her M4A funding proposal and it's certainly more detailed than anything other candidates usually release at this stage in a cycle. Sanders has released much less detail on M4A, by contrast. More importantly I don't see why you would focus on detail here. Most primary voters don't demand detail on most issues at this early stage, and candidates often win with minimal detail on some of their main proposals. Think about how light on detail Trump's wall proposal was, for example. Obviously the standard will be higher for a candidate marketing herself as "the candidate with a plan for that", but I think she's still gone above and beyond what most voters expect in this area.

I'm being unfair to her I admit. I find her irritating. I think its bc I used to like her, now I realise she was just grandstanding for cameras. I suppose I should hate the game, not the players.

 

[Roads55]

I see it differently. I think she's a good candidate overall who made a horrible political decision by releasing the DNA test.

What do you mean when you say her plans have no depth? I haven't read any of the 30+ plans she has released, but I've started looking into her M4A funding proposal and it's certainly more detailed than anything other candidates usually release at this stage in a cycle. Sanders has released much less detail on M4A, by contrast. More importantly I don't see why you would focus on detail here. Most primary voters don't demand detail on most issues at this early stage, and candidates often win with minimal detail on some of their main proposals. Think about how light on detail Trump's wall proposal was, for example. Obviously the standard will be higher for a candidate marketing herself as "the candidate with a plan for that", but I think she's still gone above and beyond what most voters expect in this area.

What do you mean she's easily rattled? If the DNA test release is an example, fair. I haven't seen any further signs though.

=============

Breaking:

New ABC/WaPo poll (national)

Biden 28 (-1%)
Elizabeth W. 23 (+5%)
Sanders 17 (-2%)
Buttigieg 9 (+5%)
....
Everyone else: 2% or less.


The last version of this poll was two months ago.

The topline is great for Buttigieg. He was already "top tier" in IA but now he's "top tier" nationally. Obviously a big gap still between him and the front-runner though.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/context-card/eea087b6-ca22-4cd9-a254-6bdd49d000a4/


65% cell phone 35% landline. MOE is ~6%

Other interesting bits:

Second choice among those who are leaning Democrat and have a 1st preference:

Sanders 21
Elizabeth W. 18
Biden 15
Buttigieg 8
Harris 8
Klobuchar 4
....

Do you think [Candidate] is in good enough overall health to serve as president (yes/no)?

Biden 74/19
Sanders 48/45
Warren 80/9

where do you hear about these when they are released?

i think action on bernie is a bit exaggerated over the last week or 2, and that last statistic helps confirm that to me. I was really surprised how people and a lot of the media seemingly forgot he just had a heart attack and only took a few days to recover, that is not sustainable in a very long race like this imo.

 

[waiguoren]

where do you hear about these when they are released?

i think action on bernie is a bit exaggerated over the last week or 2, and that last statistic helps confirm that to me. I was really surprised how people and a lot of the media seemingly forgot he just had a heart attack and only took a few days to recover, that is not sustainable in a very long race like this imo.

I read Nate Cohn's tweets. He's in charge of the NYTimes/Siena polling operation.

For this recent one, I just saw it in the WaPo front page.