- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
Oh i noticed it quite gleefully. See my previous post. Everything the dnc pretended to matter over the last 3 years is utter bs. But i always knew it, but even normies can see it now.
Political Betting Thread
- Thread starter GearSolidMetal
- Start date
Oh i noticed it quite gleefully. See my previous post. Everything the dnc pretended to matter over the last 3 years is utter bs. But i always knew it, but even normies can see it now.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 4,374
- Reaction score
- 104
@longway you been betting on the iowa market still? I've been watching it a little bit every couple days, the swings have been crazy, going from like 1.2 ish to close to evens multiple times. apparently they will be re canvasing partially on monday/tuesday. sanders wanted like 12 precincts re-canvassed and pete wanted like 50 but will only get like 10 or so as they said the others wouldn't make much difference. i'll take a deeper look later but in the aftermath of the day it looked like the incorrect sde's awarded would give bernie the win in the case of a re-canvass.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
No, embarrassingly I didn't realise this market was still open on betfair. I just use the 'my markets' option, so I never even looked at the iowa lines there. I made my 3u bet on 5d and then have been waiting for the winner to be declared. But thanks to you I can now arb a position where I can make a profit both ways.
I'm just trying to decide whether the recanvass will be valid or not, if it is then bernie will obviously win, but if they are still cheating then Pete has the edge, and weight the arbitrage according to that. Upto now they have just managed to keep Pete ahead, but I don't think that will be possible in the final count.
Im just going to split the possible profit evenly either way, I don't care any more, its all a farce anyway.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 4,374
- Reaction score
- 104
i think so, at least i think he will get bet more. the momentum he has is being realized slowly. he's 1.9 still on betfair exchange, idk if you can access it. but shop arund maybe you can get better prices.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 4,374
- Reaction score
- 104
some weird discrepancy's between all the different betting platforms, bernie is very short at some. especially US books. then on the exchange you have this weird betting pressure on bloomberg. the book is 95% too.... very strange
I am curious - is the payout for the nomination based purely on who the eventual nominee is, regardless of the vote winner? I'd assume it is. Imagine dem insiders putting down large bets with knowledge that they will choose Bloomberg (or someone else) in a contested convention.
This is why judging value on Bernie's line is tough. By this point, I think I'm confident that Bernie will win the majority of state primaries, but not necessarily a 50%+ majority of delegates. Crazy that we only have to talk about this with him and it wasn't even a discussion for any other candidates lol
This is why judging value on Bernie's line is tough. By this point, I think I'm confident that Bernie will win the majority of state primaries, but not necessarily a 50%+ majority of delegates. Crazy that we only have to talk about this with him and it wasn't even a discussion for any other candidates lol
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 4,374
- Reaction score
- 104
it might differ at some books, but i think at almost all it is who the eventual winner is at the convention.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
Betfair have a market on whether any candidate will achieve a majority or not. Plurality sitting at -140ish.
Bernie getting nomination is about even money, and mini is great value at +480.
I think the play would be one of those two, and hedge with the other.
Imo mini was, if such a term can be applied, the winner of the last debate, the others came across as crazy or were drowned out.
Mini admitted he bought the congressional majority ie he is the guy who will get things done. Which is all anyone cares imo.
Its hard to be bullish on bernie, even at even money, as all the other candidates are committed to or ok with freezing him out if he comes the convention with a plurarity, though warren sounded like she said she would trade her delegates to the highest bidder.
If bernie gets the nod i will make a 5u play on gop flipping the house. The guy is a bigger loon than i thought. His biggest appeal is none of the stuff he wants to do has a chance of passing, and voters will make sure of that.
Bernie getting nomination is about even money, and mini is great value at +480.
I think the play would be one of those two, and hedge with the other.
Imo mini was, if such a term can be applied, the winner of the last debate, the others came across as crazy or were drowned out.
Mini admitted he bought the congressional majority ie he is the guy who will get things done. Which is all anyone cares imo.
Its hard to be bullish on bernie, even at even money, as all the other candidates are committed to or ok with freezing him out if he comes the convention with a plurarity, though warren sounded like she said she would trade her delegates to the highest bidder.
If bernie gets the nod i will make a 5u play on gop flipping the house. The guy is a bigger loon than i thought. His biggest appeal is none of the stuff he wants to do has a chance of passing, and voters will make sure of that.
Last edited:
All the reactions I've seen of his debate performance, even from MSM outlets, have been overwhelmingly negative. Only good thing to say is that he did better than last time, but that's not saying much. Trump-voter in my office was the only guy I heard cheering him on lol. Keep in mind that even in the first debate, Bloomberg's approval went slightly up with conservative dems but saw massive drops among everyone else.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2010
- Messages
- 4,374
- Reaction score
- 104
I disagree with the people saying bloomberg did well, it's only relative to his previous performance where that is true. but that does not make it good in and of itself.
Not that it was terrible per se, but him and pete definitely came off as a lot calmer than the rest who all came across as desperate imo
Not that it was terrible per se, but him and pete definitely came off as a lot calmer than the rest who all came across as desperate imo
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2017
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 25
I thought Biden looked good compared to everyone yesterday, he stumbled because his mind is slowing down but his answers felt genuine.
Pete was pandering hard and he is coming off extremely fake, very similar to what occurred with Rubio when he went overly aggressive at Trump.
I think Bernie’s stock took a hit, even though people aren’t sure how he’s going to pay for all this stuff, he seemed a bit shaky yesterday and lashed out aggressively which is sort of like him but it was a little different, he felt frustrated and more authoritarian.
Warren came off the same, it’s the same Warren we’re use to, aggressive and might inspire some.
Mike is just a bad debater, he tries being too logical and it makes him look like an apathetic rich guy (he reminds me a lot of Mr Burns). I think he is done as I doubt he can recover from the first impressions given from his first debate.
Nothing changed with Amy or Steyer.
Pete was pandering hard and he is coming off extremely fake, very similar to what occurred with Rubio when he went overly aggressive at Trump.
I think Bernie’s stock took a hit, even though people aren’t sure how he’s going to pay for all this stuff, he seemed a bit shaky yesterday and lashed out aggressively which is sort of like him but it was a little different, he felt frustrated and more authoritarian.
Warren came off the same, it’s the same Warren we’re use to, aggressive and might inspire some.
Mike is just a bad debater, he tries being too logical and it makes him look like an apathetic rich guy (he reminds me a lot of Mr Burns). I think he is done as I doubt he can recover from the first impressions given from his first debate.
Nothing changed with Amy or Steyer.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
I don't disagree with you guys, but if you are anywhere near an independent voter or a so called moderate dem; for whom would you vote out of those on stage?
Perhaps winner is too strong a descriptor, I'm not claiming he did well, but there isn't anyone who did well. But he can deliver results, and that's all anyone cares about in the privacy of the voting booth. And that message was sent. Time will tell if it was received.
Just to let you know my personal anecdote. I became a Trump fan as soon as I heard him say 'We need strong borders, if we don't have borders we don't have a country'. Finally, a politician said something that wasn't nonsense. Politicians talk endless shit, and all I heard from the rest on that stage was endless shit, the only thing that stood out was Bloomberg will get the job done, if you like what he will do, and personally I don't at all.
Charisma etc etc, he has none, and I don't rate his policy making too highly either, but he will run a tight ship.
Agree with most of this. I think the substance of most of Biden's answers was a bit incoherent and ramble-y, but I think he came across as extremely likable. Probably moreso than in any other debate performance. Have to admit it's a good look for him heading into SC.
Seeing lots of media outlets point toward Pete as a/the "winner". Regardless of views, I don't see how he did anything to change his stock. They love him because he speaks like an Obama protege with the fake generic energy of the last 30 years of dem politics. They don't realize this disingenuousness exactly what a lot of people are turning away from. He's not gaining anyone new here.
I don't think Bernie had his best performance and did get a bit overzealous in defending himself, but I think he did fine overall and ended the debate pretty strongly. Don't think he'll take much of a hit here if at all. But I am prepared for a MSM spin on this recent oppo tanking his campaign if he loses SC, despite him never polling ahead in that state anyway.
I get how this line of thinking makes sense on its face, but it's pretty much the biggest gripe I have with the establishment dem strategy. The logic is that a democratic candidate has to pull in independents, which is true. But the assumption here is that independents are moderates or centrists, which isn't true.
Bernie Sanders is literally an independent, yet this gets brought up as a negative for him not being a "real democrat". IIRC he actually polls the highest among independents. Some of them are looking for certain policy proposals, some of them are just looking for an honest politician with integrity.
If you're actually a centrist or a moderate dem, then sure, someone like Bloomberg is your guy. I just think we vastly overestimate how many of them there are, and their importance relative to alternative strategies.
No one's asking Trump to walk back his immigration policies or propose a progressive climate plan to pull on-the-fence dems. But dems are, for whatever reason, desperate to attract moderates and centrists rather than driving turnout within their base. Progressive policies are very popular among independents, who might otherwise be apathetic or just vote for Trump/3rd party. I think Bloomberg is the antithesis of what many of them want and why they identify as an independent, because he represents the status quo that both parties' establishments have been pushing for decades.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
I think there are 2 facets here, and we often conflate them, one is GE viability, and tbh honest I don't think anyone on that stage would survive a GE cycle with Trump.
The other is the dem primary, eventually voters will have to coalesce along 2 main poles represented by 2 candidates; those 2 will be Bernie and Bloomberg, imo anyway. Yeah, Biden is likable, but you got to at least be seen as moderately capable as well. Biden is not. I was confused for a while by the seeming imperiousness of Biden support given his clear mental decline, but my faith was restored, as when it came time to vote that 'support' melted away. I still think he wins SC, but I'm not bullish on his chances going forward.
Does Bloomberg win a plurality? Unlikely, but if it does go to a brokered convention, he is the most likely one to get the nomination.
If that's what our bets come down to I'm actually not 100% sold on them choosing Bloomberg. Like you said, he represents one extreme of the party, and they could end up going with the middle of that in Buttigieg, or even as far as Warren. IMO that's the only reason some of these candidates are still in the race.
But if this does end up happening and they hand the nomination to someone other than the vote-winner in round 2, RIP to my bets and congrats on another Trump term.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 2,366
- Reaction score
- 776
Its possible they could try Buttigieg or Warren; it is an interesting thought, but that would mean Bloomberg is content to be kingmaker. I dont think so as he is selling himself as president and attacking the rest of the field.
If he has the 2nd most number of delegates and has spent hundreds of millions, he will want to be crowned at the end of the process.
Last edited:
