Political Betting Thread

Yes there's the possible strategic angle here from the establishment, but it's also not wrong lol. She's not going to win. A comeback would take something drastic, and it seems like lots of people have made their minds up on her. She's a distant 4th in her own state. Imo it's better for the primary in general if everyone outside the top 4 drops out. Lets us actually focus on the ones who might be the eventual candidate.
That doesn't address the point though. You are a guy who believes in the "establishment" vs "grassroots" frame. Why is the "establishment" suddenly going after Harris?

But I think there are more angles than that. He's faced a lot of backlash in the past week over the Douglass plan (his racial justice plan). Black leaders being named as supporters who never actually endorsed him. Releasing a supporter list that's actually half white. The fact that he's polling at 0% with black voters nationally. Not to mention the racially-charged police chief scandal he's been involved in with his city.
The police chief scandal is a non-issue, imo. He's already addressed it in previous debates and came out fine.

The Douglass plan thing is the result of a contractor doing sloppy work. I agree that it could be a fruitful line of attack if a black candidate were to make it. There are no such candidates left on the stage except for Booker who is running as the "let's all get along" guy.

Despite his jump in Iowa, I'm still extremely skeptical of Pete's chances. Iowa's not a given. He's still trailing slightly in other Iowa polls. And multiple others are close enough to him where anything could happen. He's trailing in New Hampshire despite seeing some improvements there. And he's far behind in South Carolina and Nevada. He doesn't even seem to be in the running in any other states (maybe Indiana?) because of his big investment in Iowa. I don't think he's running a bad strategy here considering his big disadvantage in popularity going into this race. But it's a bet by his campaign on momentum. He could conceivably win Iowa, come from behind and take New Hampshire, and still not reach the necessary support by Super Tuesday.

Only one candidate is leading in the South and he has been since the beginning. Sanders and Warren have had their time at or near the top and haven't made a dent there. If Buttigieg can't as he rises, who can? Anyway, I see a lot of people assuming that he can't improve there. I think they are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Funny how Biden is not even considered anymore.

Yeah but I think it would be dangerous to keep it that way, at least in the national discussion. I think he has more time to slip, but we can't pretend he doesn't have a chance to win. He still has big leads in 2 of the first 4 primary states, with a chance in Iowa and New Hampshire as well. He's also leading a good chunk of Super Tuesday states.

Maybe Biden will slip out if the MSM starts ignoring him and painting the race as Pete vs Warren or Sanders. But I don't think anyone should act like Biden isn't in the running, when he'd possibly win if all the primaries were held tomorrow.
 
That doesn't address the point though. You are a guy who believes in the "establishment" vs "grassroots" frame. Why is the "establishment" suddenly going after Harris?

Yeah I believe in that to an extent but I don't think it applies to everything or that everything has nefarious intentions. Saying Harris should drop out seems like an obvious take. I strongly disagree with Biden's platform, but I wouldn't say he should drop out considering his polling numbers. I strongly disagree with Klobuchar's platform, and I think she should drop out. Not because I dislike her, but because she's wasting money and wasting space for discourse within the realistic nominee pool.
 
Saying Harris should drop out seems like an obvious take.
We're talking about three news articles, not opinion pieces. Politico is placing "Harris is kaput" news articles on its front page at a rate of one per week. Why isn't Politico doing the same for Booker or Castro, both of whom are performing much worse than Harris?
 
We're talking about three news articles, not opinion pieces. Politico is placing "Harris is kaput" news articles on its front page at a rate of one per week. Why isn't Politico doing the same for Booker or Castro, both of whom are performing much worse than Harris?

I see what you're getting at, but Booker and Castro were longshot candidates who no one expected to get very far. Harris has been touted as a major 2020 player for years. About a year ago, I actually thought Sanders+Biden+Warren wouldn't even run, and Harris would be the candidate. But Harris is now the first major candidate to be almost definitively out of the running. So I'd consider that a bigger story.
 
I see what you're getting at, but Booker and Castro were longshot candidates who no one expected to get very far. Harris has been touted as a major 2020 player for years. About a year ago, I actually thought Sanders+Biden+Warren wouldn't even run, and Harris would be the candidate. But Harris is now the first major candidate to be almost definitively out of the running. So I'd consider that a bigger story.
I guess that's fair. Her peak RCP average was about 12% too, much higher than most. Bigger fall gets bigger coverage. Still, she's very much still in the race and had more cash on hand than Biden at the end of Q3. This type of "reporting" can become self-fulfilling, and Politico editors know this.
 
threw a couple speculative bets out there this week, i laid half my warren position off in expectancy that she will drift further, i think she's starting to become isolated as this sort of middle ground candidate between moderates and progressives, when things go wrong for her she will lose support from both sides which for the most part isn't going to happen with the other candidates. and it seems likely she will be facing scrutiny from other candidates at the next debate soon. I scaled out of my position on her last week also somewhat but should of committed to doing so more before that big drift a couple days ago. I don't think she will be able to rebound in the polls without a very good debate showing which she hasn't really looked like having in previous ones.

on the other hand I laid buttigieg also just for a trade as time and time again we have seen the market overreact with hype on surging candidates, before drifting back out to a more accurate representation of the field. happened with harris, biden, warren, beto, even hillary and bloomberg. I'm less confident about this bet but at worst i can get back in at slightly worse odds. pete's problems with black voters isn't one that i see as solvable currently, and eventually that should factor into the polls in some way. I think his youth and inexperience is a big positive for him however where he can make big inroads with voters nationally. historically candidates with less experience have done very well against their more experienced counterparts. I want to get out of this trade before the next debate however, he has a giant opportunity here to carry on this big boost in momentum he has had from the iowa poll to establish himself as a top tier candidate to effectively make this a 4 horse race with the field wide open. whether or not this will be reflected in the subsequent polls nationally will be a huge indicator to me and a good sign that biden/warren will be very vulnerable to losing support.
 
The police chief scandal is a non-issue, imo. He's already addressed it in previous debates and came out fine.

Missed your edits here. The police chief scandal is definitely not a non-issue if it gets brought up more. There are a lot of unanswered questions there, and the black community in South Bend doesn't seem like they've been totally satisfied. It came out recently that the officers involved had planned to use Buttigieg's donors to get the chief fired.

Only one candidate is leading in the South and he has been since the beginning. Sanders and Warren have had their time at or near the top and haven't made a dent there. If Buttigieg can't as he rises, who can? Anyway, I see a lot of people assuming that he can't improve there. I think they are wrong.

Two issues here imo. One is that southern states still have a lot of religious influence in their culture, even among democrats. Pete's sexuality is unfortunately an obstacle here that he has to overcome in those states. Lots of articles recently about South Carolina in particular with this issue, and that it's a real thing that southern democrats have actually expressed.

Another issue is that black voters in the south are a major voting bloc. With them being majority-red states, democrats' support is more centralized to urban areas than in other states. Pete's failure to make inroads with black voters directly ties into his struggle here.
 
I think we are heading for a brokered convention. Perhaps a little early to be speculating, but from a betting perspective worth looking at. IMO it can only mean a dual ticket, with 2 of candidates forming a team. I initially thought Warren would fit best with Sanders, but their respective core bases hate each other and Warren, as another poster suggested, is looking more and more isolated. While Sanders has a lot of support, he cannot win alone, and if he and Warren cant get together then his chances are slim to none.

The most natural odd couple imo is, weirdly, Biden and Buttigieg. They complement each other, with Biden being able to pull in the black vote and Buttigieg being a fresh face who is articulate and presentable and has one of the identities that progressives fetishize so much, a weird reincarnation of the Obama and Biden ticket that was so successful. Biden - Warren also possible. So is Biden the one with value in his line? I can't imagine him accepting a VP slot a second time, and whatever you can say about him, he is one of the top candidates.

One thing nice to see is that my lay bet on Warren is already profitable. Laid her ar +200 and she is sitting at +350 now. If it hits +700 I will cash out, even though I don't think she can win, this primary process can throw up all kinds of surprises.
 
Last edited:
I think it'd be a little too reactionary to say Warren is done. She still polls well even with some slippage. I think the next debate will give a more clear picture of where everyone stands. Wouldn't get too down on your bets there.

There is a bit of a gap left from Pete's recent strategy to become the Biden-alternative. Warren can be the one really straddling the line between progressives and moderates. I'm not a fan of this strategy with how uncompromising the progressives can be. But there's a chance it ends up working.
 
I think it'd be a little too reactionary to say Warren is done. She still polls well even with some slippage. I think the next debate will give a more clear picture of where everyone stands. Wouldn't get too down on your bets there.

There is a bit of a gap left from Pete's recent strategy to become the Biden-alternative. Warren can be the one really straddling the line between progressives and moderates. I'm not a fan of this strategy with how uncompromising the progressives can be. But there's a chance it ends up working.

I dont think she is done, but something needs to change for her to win now. I can see her being a force in the convention and wangling a VP slot, but as things stand she has been severely weakened as the chasm between the progressives and corporate wings is unbrigdable. Most likely she continues to bleed support until her line goes to +600, though I hope it will become overdold to +700.

The debate will be an interesting one, given the recent changes in the polls. I really hope gabbard goes for her again, and tarnishes her brand further. I will have the rare opportunity to watch live in the usa, as i am on my way there for work and arrive wednesday evening.
 
Poll with Pete leading in NH. Bernie at 9%. Bernie bros losing their shit over it and saying its a rigged poll, similiar said about Iowa poll. I must say that they have a point.

 
Harris went after Gabbard. Pointless attack for self styled top-tier candidate, but confirms she is Hitlery's bitch.
 
Watched the debate, don’t think much changed. Biden looked jumbled a bit but whatever, he’s been doing that for awhile, not sure it changes much. Kamala just looked like a Hillary panderer, I mean it might help her get Hillary support but she’s so far behind. Warren needs something new, her message and look doesn’t seem as energetic as before. Bernie doing what Bernie fans like, nothing will change. Pete came off pretty aggressive at the end and the pandering to get the black vote is stomach churning, some people might like it but I think it hurts him in larger colored communities.

I still see Biden winning at this moment, Pete has a shot but struggles when he gets heat.
 
^ i liked the exchange between pete and tulsi at the end, she is the only one who went after him agressively. It could come off as a petty squabble, but its a good strategy by tulsi to attack a candidate gaining momentum. I think she got the better end of it.

Klobuchar's lines of attack on Pete were feeble and self pitying. Maybe its just me, but she comes across as a whiny little bitch, and that trembling hairlock made her look nervous. Not sure what people see in her.

I thought Yang had matured considerably, i hope he doesnt give up on his aspirations.
 
I'd say sanders did the best today, good all round performance from him, some good laughs. yang did pretty well also despite his lack of speaking time. klobuchar made her case well too.
warren did alright, but no one really attacked her.
biden.. pretty abysmal apart from a good reply about saudi arabia and china.
harris did good but it's pretty much irrelevant anyway.
buttigieg did better than average but he(and harris/tulsi) made it pretty obvious his candidacy is for the time being doomed because of his utter lack of support from black people.
I expect to see buttigieg drift slightly along with biden, sanders, harris, klobuchar, yang to shorten slightly.
 
Last edited:
It also felt a bit like the dnc were using this debate to see if buttigieg can actually make inroads with the black vote and his national poll #'s and maybe take over as their preferred candidate over biden.
 
I'd say sanders did the best today, good all round performance from him, some good laughs. yang did pretty well also despite his lack of speaking time. klobuchar made her case well too.
warren did alright, but no one really attacked her.
biden.. pretty abysmal apart from a good reply about saudi arabia and china.
harris did good but it's pretty much irrelevant anyway.
buttigieg did better than average but he(and harris/tulsi) made it pretty obvious his candidacy is for the time being doomed because of his utter lack of support from black people.
I expect to see buttigieg drift slightly along with biden, sanders, harris, klobuchar, yang to shorten slightly.

Agree with pretty much all of this.

I've seen a lot of establishment media figures raving about Buttigieg's performance while trashing Tulsi. I'm seeing the exact opposite reception on social media/reddit/etc. Buttigieg performed well by classical standards, but it showed how much of a politician-y politician he is. Even slipped in a statement about his faith in a blatant attempt to appeal to religious voters. He looked super rattled when attacked by Tulsi, whether he's right or wrong, and that's gonna happen all day if he's on stage with Trump. I'm pretty skeptical on how his performance really resonates with regular people in this political climate. The MSM influence may be a factor moving forward if they choose him as their guy, but he'll also face a lot more scrutiny on things like the racial issues that he hasn't responded to very well.

Warren did fine but I think it's a net negative considering her position right now. She needed a bigger performance that she didn't really bring.

Klobuchar is increasingly becoming a surprise on the debate stage after lackluster performances in the first two debates, even though I'm not a fan of her or her positions. Must have a good team behind her. But I don't think she's going to get anywhere.

I think Booker's worth a mention here, too. He had a great performance last night with some memorable moments. It's just hard to see him carving out a bigger support base when there's little new or unique about his policy platform. I still think he's just positioning himself as a great VP choice.
 
I'm still a little surprised by these wild differences in polling results. Four national primary polls released this week. Emerson had Sanders tied at the top with Biden (notably had the smallest sample size, though). The Hill/HarrisX and Politico/Morning Consult had Sanders in a decent 2nd at +3 over Warren. Economist/YouGov had Sanders in a distant 3rd at -10 to Warren. Maybe that last one is just oversampling older voters a lot harder than the others. But it's just odd that it would be so wildly different.

New Hampshire is also a little odd in how quickly it's supposedly jumped. Two polls this week with roughly equal sample sizes (~500 registered voters). CBS/YouGov has Buttigieg in a solid 4th at -15 to the frontrunner. Yesterday, St Anselm puts out a poll showing Buttigieg at a whopping +10. That's a... pretty massive swing. Unless the state really is in flux this heavily, something's weird with the methodologies here.
 
I am so glad that i made a lay bet on Warren s,he seems determined to throw herself head first into wood chippers.



Maybe you guys have a different take, but why would she put her weight behind such a controversial issue? there is no good way to deal with it.

Maybe she is just dumb. She gets rattled easily, and with her sliding in the polls she is already resorting to desperate pandering. After all, she is just a player in the game. <45>
 
Last edited:
Back
Top