Election Betting
Quote: EvenBobI'm hearing lots of talk the last few days that Hillary is looking at getting back in.
link to original post
No one is talking about Hillary running, just like no one is talking about Michelle Obama running. It's mainstream media clickbait.
And Realclearpolitics:
Trump has basically lost his "assassination attempt bump" and is close to back down where he was after the debate (which is still a substantial lead).
Quote: TigerWuElectionbettingodds as of Monday morning has the following:
And Realclearpolitics:
Trump has basically lost his "assassination attempt bump" and is close to back down where he was after the debate (which is still a substantial lead).
link to original post
Her numbers will go up a lot once the Dem convention rallys around her. It will be a 1 week Harris advertisement
I think Dems have a good chance due to Roevember
Abortion is on the ballot in FL, NV and CO
One thing the right does not want on the ballot is choice and they are fighting it tooth and nail because the last thing they want is their candidates dragged down by the overwhelmingly popular choice issue.
Pending in other states
Arkansas secretary of state took it off the ballot simply because it hurts the republican party. That's being appealed
Quote: DRichQuote: Dieter
I'm tongue-in-cheek.
Nobody wants me as POTUS.
link to original post
I would accept you over the current candidates.
link to original post
We can't. He isn't 35 years old. At least he doesn't look it!
Quote: DRichQuote: Dieter
I'm tongue-in-cheek.
Nobody wants me as POTUS.
link to original post
I would accept you over the current candidates.
link to original post
Kind regards indeed.
Let's hope for future candidates you'd prefer over me.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: EvenBobQuote: BillHasRetired
The last brokered convention (when there no candidate has gained a majority of delegates on the first ballot) was 1952 for the Republicans,and, two weeks later, in the same venue, the Democrats also failed to select a candidate on the first ballot.
link to original post
Abraham Lincoln was confirmed to be the nominee in 1860 after about the 50th ballot as I recall. He was not a popular guy, he was not a popular president, he was barely reelected to a second term and only served one term because he was shot and killed almost immediately after his second term started. It wasn't until years later that people realized he was probably our greatest president.
link to original post
Um, Lincoln won the nomination on the 3rd ballot in 1860, wona decisive electoral college victory, won 22 states to 3 in 1864, and won 212 electoral votes to 21 and won 55.1% of the popular vote. By all accounts, he gave McClellan a shellacking.
link to original post
I just read since the assassination attempt on Trump that Lincoln won on the 50th ballot. Why would they be so far off. What would be the point. Do you have to look up everything you read now to fact check it?
link to original post
A discerning reader always seeks independent sources of information for verification, especially if something sounds extraordinary.
I think Dems have a good chance due to Roevember "
They have literally no chance at all if you count rounding error. Harris will not win.
There is a long history of center-left candidates over-performing in polls and tanking in the election. The fact she is not ahead at this stage means she is absolutely doomed.
There are multiple reasons for this but two factors that are very important are:
1. The lack of anti-authoritarian types in polling surveys who self-deselect themselves from the data. These people lean right.
2. The complete lack of interest on the part of left-wing activists in mobilizing the vote.
If Harris is selected it will not be a contest, it will be an execution.
Quote: Archvaldor"Her numbers will go up a lot once the Dem convention rallys around her. It will be a 1 week Harris advertisement
I think Dems have a good chance due to Roevember "
They have literally no chance at all if you count rounding error. Harris will not win.
There is a long history of center-left candidates over-performing in polls and tanking in the election. The fact she is not ahead at this stage means she is absolutely doomed.
There are multiple reasons for this but two factors that are very important are:
1. The lack of anti-authoritarian types in polling surveys who self-deselect themselves from the data. These people lean right.
2. The complete lack of interest on the part of left-wing activists in mobilizing the vote.
If Harris is selected it will not be a contest, it will be an execution.
link to original post
Will you back that up with say 10 to 1 odds
It's a very fair offer considering what you are saying in your post
Interested?
I believe I won my last political bet on this forum
My betting window is open 😉
Easy money for you according to your post
As per custom here, we can have a trusted 3rd party hold the money
I realize I'll probably lose but I think it's an excellent advantage play
Game?
tuttigym
Quote: ams288Quote: ams288I think there is enough evidence from the past decade to show that debates don’t matter at all.
link to original post
Okay, NOW we can officially say this post of mine aged very, very poorly.
Was the June 27th debate the most consequential debate in US political history?
link to original post
I'm still baffled that his handlers let him debate at all. They had the easy out of simply declaring the president will not deign to debate a convicted felon. They could have even thrown the word "insurrectionist" on top of the pile for added emphases. The party faithful and journalists on the left would have had no problem singing that song into November.
And why the early debate? Was it so they could trowel over a possible bad performance? Did party bosses insist on it in case he needed to be replaced? But if so, why don't they have a plan b ready to go? Some bigwigs want Harris while others are being coy. How will the convention work? The DNC head is taking heat because he doesn't seem to know.
I can see historians 100 years from now still arguing about what's really going on. My guess is they're making sausage on the fly and it's best we don't see how it's being done.
Quote: tuttigymI do not bet online. It is my guess that to date millions may have been wager on Biden both ways. With him dropping out of the race, what happens to this money? Do the books return it to their respective patrons? Do they hold the bets to be later transferred to a new nominee? Or can the patron reclaim his wager in total?
tuttigym
link to original post
I think the books keep the money until after the election and pay out on winning bets. If you bet a candidate to win and he didn't, you lose.
Quote: DRichQuote: tuttigymI do not bet online. It is my guess that to date millions may have been wager on Biden both ways. With him dropping out of the race, what happens to this money? Do the books return it to their respective patrons? Do they hold the bets to be later transferred to a new nominee? Or can the patron reclaim his wager in total?
tuttigym
link to original post
I think the books keep the money until after the election and pay out on winning bets. If you bet a candidate to win and he didn't, you lose.
link to original post
Thanks, DRich not a good answer. "I Think"? It's not like there was a default or disqualification so that Biden loses and Trump wins. It is a "no contest." Surely in sports betting a no contest results in some kind of refund or protection for the patron. Isn't there some kind of disclaimer for the patron?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: DRichQuote: tuttigymI do not bet online. It is my guess that to date millions may have been wager on Biden both ways. With him dropping out of the race, what happens to this money? Do the books return it to their respective patrons? Do they hold the bets to be later transferred to a new nominee? Or can the patron reclaim his wager in total?
tuttigym
link to original post
I think the books keep the money until after the election and pay out on winning bets. If you bet a candidate to win and he didn't, you lose.
link to original post
Thanks, DRich not a good answer. "I Think"? It's not like there was a default or disqualification so that Biden loses and Trump wins. It is a "no contest." Surely in sports betting a no contest results in some kind of refund or protection for the patron. Isn't there some kind of disclaimer for the patron?
tuttigym
link to original post
I disagree, the event is still going on just the person you bet on to win is most likely not going to win. If I bet the Browns to win the Super Bowl and the Browns don't make it to the Super Bowl should I be refunded?
Quote: tuttigym
Thanks, DRich not a good answer. "I Think"? It's not like there was a default or disqualification so that Biden loses and Trump wins. It is a "no contest." Surely in sports betting a no contest results in some kind of refund or protection for the patron. Isn't there some kind of disclaimer for the patron?
tuttigym
link to original post
I'm sure you can google the answer or go to various betting sites to see if they have a disclaimer just as easily as DRich can.
Quote: tuttigymI do not bet online. It is my guess that to date millions may have been wager on Biden both ways. With him dropping out of the race, what happens to this money? Do the books return it to their respective patrons? Do they hold the bets to be later transferred to a new nominee? Or can the patron reclaim his wager in total?
tuttigym
link to original post
Probably depends on how the action is stated. Like a baseball game that requires a starting pitcher. But I would guess that Biden money is gone.
Quote: terapinedQuote: Archvaldor"Her numbers will go up a lot once the Dem convention rallys around her. It will be a 1 week Harris advertisement
I think Dems have a good chance due to Roevember "
They have literally no chance at all if you count rounding error. Harris will not win.
There is a long history of center-left candidates over-performing in polls and tanking in the election. The fact she is not ahead at this stage means she is absolutely doomed.
There are multiple reasons for this but two factors that are very important are:
1. The lack of anti-authoritarian types in polling surveys who self-deselect themselves from the data. These people lean right.
2. The complete lack of interest on the part of left-wing activists in mobilizing the vote.
If Harris is selected it will not be a contest, it will be an execution.
link to original post
Will you back that up with say 10 to 1 odds
It's a very fair offer considering what you are saying in your post
Interested?
I believe I won my last political bet on this forum
My betting window is open 😉
Easy money for you according to your post
As per custom here, we can have a trusted 3rd party hold the money
I realize I'll probably lose but I think it's an excellent advantage play
Game?
link to original post
I think polls are more meaningless than they’ve ever been this cycle with all the uncertainty. Like no independent was seriously considering whether they’d vote for any of these other randoms like Harris vs Trump before now.
That being said, these sort of bet offers are disingenuous, why would anyone bet 1:10 when they can get less the. 1:4 literally anywhere else they could bet it?
You know no one would, so you can offer it and then say someone not putting money where their mouth is when they inevitably don’t answer the rhetorical question.
It's a very fair offer considering what you are saying in your post"
I think you are saying that she will be the Democratic candidate. I was talking about the actual election in November vs Trump.
I agree she will almost certainly be the dem candidate. I would have no reason to take that wager.
Quote: tuttigymI do not bet online. It is my guess that to date millions may have been wager on Biden both ways. With him dropping out of the race, what happens to this money? Do the books return it to their respective patrons? Do they hold the bets to be later transferred to a new nominee? Or can the patron reclaim his wager in total?
tuttigym
link to original post
It depends on the terms that were agreed to before the bet was made. I’ve made a few bets, anti -Trump, with the ‘finishing line’ being the electoral college vote. So I don’t care (for the purpose of this bet) how Trump would not garner those electoral votes.
I’d surmise most bets on Biden will be graded as losers.
Quote: TigerWuElectionbettingodds as of Monday morning has the following:
And Realclearpolitics:
Trump has basically lost his "assassination attempt bump" and is close to back down where he was after the debate (which is still a substantial lead).
link to original post
Have these numbers shifted much? Harris is a friggin steal at those prices.
Quote: ams288Quote: TigerWuElectionbettingodds as of Monday morning has the following:
And Realclearpolitics:
Trump has basically lost his "assassination attempt bump" and is close to back down where he was after the debate (which is still a substantial lead).
link to original post
Have these numbers shifted much? Harris is a friggin steal at those prices.
link to original post
In betting markets Harris vs Trump was at around 39% about a week ago and has actually dropped to that 32-33%. Heck if I understand it, just find it interesting to watch.
Quote: ams288Quote: TigerWuElectionbettingodds as of Monday morning has the following:
And Realclearpolitics:
Trump has basically lost his "assassination attempt bump" and is close to back down where he was after the debate (which is still a substantial lead).
link to original post
Have these numbers shifted much? Harris is a friggin steal at those prices.
link to original post
Betfair only has the sum of Trump and Harris at 85%. Who the frig is the other 15%? Kennedy cannot be over 1%.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: ams288Quote: TigerWuElectionbettingodds as of Monday morning has the following:
And Realclearpolitics:
Trump has basically lost his "assassination attempt bump" and is close to back down where he was after the debate (which is still a substantial lead).
link to original post
Have these numbers shifted much? Harris is a friggin steal at those prices.
link to original post
Betfair only has the sum of Trump and Harris at 85%. Who the frig is the other 15%? Kennedy cannot be over 1%.
link to original post
Other potential winners including the likes of Kanye West and George Clooney, I kid you not.
I was wondering if one could lay them on the exchange but there is 0 liquidity on the lay side unfortunately.
Per a question from above betfair's rules on this market say the wagers on Biden will be graded as losers:
If any candidate withdraws for any reason, including death, all bets on the market will stand and be settled as per the defined rules.
Quote: EvenBobI'm hearing lots of talk the last few days that Hillary is looking at getting back in. A Hillary/Trump election again. She would poll better than Harris.
"Clinton is a ready-made replacement. She possesses an unparalleled resume and an unmatched depth of experience. She has consistently redefined the roles she has served, from secretary of State and U.S. senator to first lady and Children’s Defense Fund attorney. Her extensive background in domestic and international affairs is not just impressive; at a time when global politics are increasingly volatile and complex, her experience is priceless." The Hill Magazine
'It's a possibility': Talks of Hillary Clinton replacing Joe Biden Sky News Australia
link to original post
I counted eight more articles today saying Hillary should get back in or is thinking of getting back in. I don't care if she endorsed Elmer Fudd, that means nothing in politics. Two days before Joe Biden dropped out he swore up and down and his staff swore up and down that he was staying in for the Long Haul. What people say in politics means absolutely nothing it's what they do that counts. Hillary would certainly get more votes than anybody else they could put in right now.
Clinton remains popular in Democratic elite circles but nowhere else. There have been tons of articles from Hilary simps since before Biden was elected trying to push her as a candidate. They didn't work then and they won't now. There is a huge psychological problem with getting the party to accept someone who already lost and who also doesn't have automatic right to Biden's money.
I'll say this in your defense though: she is marginally a less horrible prospect than Harris who is almost designed to be defeated by Trump.
Quote: Archvaldor"I counted eight more articles today saying Hillary should get back in or is thinking of getting back in."
Clinton remains popular in Democratic elite circles but nowhere else. There have been tons of articles from Hilary simps since before Biden was elected trying to push her as a candidate. They didn't work then and they won't now. There is a huge psychological problem with getting the party to accept someone who already lost and who also doesn't have automatic right to Biden's money.
I'll say this in your defense though: she is marginally a less horrible prospect than Harris who is almost designed to be defeated by Trump.
link to original post
A lot of annoying right wing propaganda is infecting this thread
Quote: Archvaldor"I counted eight more articles today saying Hillary should get back in or is thinking of getting back in."
Clinton remains popular in Democratic elite circles but nowhere else. There have been tons of articles from Hilary simps since before Biden was elected trying to push her as a candidate. They didn't work then and they won't now. There is a huge psychological problem with getting the party to accept someone who already lost and who also doesn't have automatic right to Biden's money.
I'll say this in your defense though: she is marginally a less horrible prospect than Harris who is almost designed to be defeated by Trump.
link to original post
(ahem)
I don't see much relevance to betting.
Warning over.
Quote: darkozQuote: Archvaldor"I counted eight more articles today saying Hillary should get back in or is thinking of getting back in."
Clinton remains popular in Democratic elite circles but nowhere else. There have been tons of articles from Hilary simps since before Biden was elected trying to push her as a candidate. They didn't work then and they won't now. There is a huge psychological problem with getting the party to accept someone who already lost and who also doesn't have automatic right to Biden's money.
I'll say this in your defense though: she is marginally a less horrible prospect than Harris who is almost designed to be defeated by Trump.
link to original post
A lot of annoying right wing propaganda is infecting this thread
link to original post
Sorry you cannot handle discussions. I have seen no propaganda. To wonder about Hillary us rational as the Clintons still have lots of pull and she still has her followers. She probably has more a following than Kamala does. Her age and health likely make it not happening, though. Thus bad odds to take.
That is not "propaganda" that is logical discussion.
I am not a right-winger. I do not live in your country.
If I did live in your country and someone pointed a gun at my head and told me I had to vote for someone: I would tell them to pull the trigger.
Quote: DieterQuote: Archvaldor"I counted eight more articles today saying Hillary should get back in or is thinking of getting back in."
Clinton remains popular in Democratic elite circles but nowhere else. There have been tons of articles from Hilary simps since before Biden was elected trying to push her as a candidate. They didn't work then and they won't now. There is a huge psychological problem with getting the party to accept someone who already lost and who also doesn't have automatic right to Biden's money.
I'll say this in your defense though: she is marginally a less horrible prospect than Harris who is almost designed to be defeated by Trump.
link to original post
(ahem)
I don't see much relevance to betting.
Warning over.
Then you are not very perceptive.
To spell it out there is a media bias toward Clinton and Harris which isn't relfective in the likely outcome of elections.That obviously has a lot of utility for betting purposes.
As if it weren't blindingly obvious I hate all of your disgusting politicians and have no interest in this other than making money.
Quote: TigerWuHillary Clinton's betting odds are 1% or less on just about every book site. She's not even on the radar for general polling. The only people talking about her are right-wing media. The notion of her running for President again is pure fanfiction, but if anyone wants to waste their time talking about, it's good for a laugh, I guess.
link to original post
If you do a lot of political/celebrity betting stuff you notice that you get a lot of high-profile individuals offered for the sole reason that they have name recognition.
Even without comprehensive data just from memory I'm pretty certain you can make money just fading any well-known name that has long odds. Former presidents/nominees especially. Bettors buying into that are rarely sophisticated and in possession of quality information.
Quote: TigerWuHillary Clinton's betting odds are 1% or less on just about every book site. She's not even on the radar for general polling. The only people talking about her are right-wing media. The notion of her running for President again is pure fanfiction, but if anyone wants to waste their time talking about, it's good for a laugh, I guess.
link to original post
This thread is supposed to be about betting odds and not political. Some political points will of course be made and latitude has been given. However, can we please go 15 minutes without having to hear the term "right wing?" That is the definition of getting political.
No you can't. Because right-wing media has certain qualities which affect election betting in a very specific way. So does left-wing media but it tends to work in a different way and be more subtle.
In the Romney/Obama election it was possible fo take Obama at 1.3 long after the election was for all practical purposes, over. That was mainly due to right-wing media. You can't ignore something like that.
Quote: ArchvaldorQuote: DieterQuote: Archvaldor"I counted eight more articles today saying Hillary should get back in or is thinking of getting back in."
Clinton remains popular in Democratic elite circles but nowhere else. There have been tons of articles from Hilary simps since before Biden was elected trying to push her as a candidate. They didn't work then and they won't now. There is a huge psychological problem with getting the party to accept someone who already lost and who also doesn't have automatic right to Biden's money.
I'll say this in your defense though: she is marginally a less horrible prospect than Harris who is almost designed to be defeated by Trump.
link to original post
(ahem)
I don't see much relevance to betting.
Warning over.
Then you are not very perceptive.
To spell it out there is a media bias toward Clinton and Harris which isn't relfective in the likely outcome of elections.That obviously has a lot of utility for betting purposes.
As if it weren't blindingly obvious I hate all of your disgusting politicians and have no interest in this other than making money.
link to original post
It's inaccurate to only notice media bias for one side of the ticket. There are multiple local radio stations on the other side, and there's a fair media giant on television combined. If you're trying to balance the odds on media bias being one-side that is.
The media bias I was talking about there is inside the Democratic party and affects only the nomination. Republican media bias is not relevant to the discussion of the Democratic nomination generally.
Quote: AZDuffman
This thread is supposed to be about betting odds and not political. Some political points will of course be made and latitude has been given. However, can we please go 15 minutes without having to hear the term "right wing?" That is the definition of getting political.
link to original post
Yes, that's exactly my point. Hillary Clinton is irrelevant when it comes to betting odds. The only reason that some forum members are talking about her is because of political reasons.
Quote: ArchvaldorQuote: DieterQuote: Archvaldor"I counted eight more articles today saying Hillary should get back in or is thinking of getting back in."
Clinton remains popular in Democratic elite circles but nowhere else. There have been tons of articles from Hilary simps since before Biden was elected trying to push her as a candidate. They didn't work then and they won't now. There is a huge psychological problem with getting the party to accept someone who already lost and who also doesn't have automatic right to Biden's money.
I'll say this in your defense though: she is marginally a less horrible prospect than Harris who is almost designed to be defeated by Trump.
link to original post
(ahem)
I don't see much relevance to betting.
Warning over.
Then you are not very perceptive.
To spell it out there is a media bias toward Clinton and Harris which isn't relfective in the likely outcome of elections.That obviously has a lot of utility for betting purposes.
As if it weren't blindingly obvious I hate all of your disgusting politicians and have no interest in this other than making money.
link to original post
Just make your observations obviously betting related, rather than obliquely betting related.
I'm sure there are plenty of folks who dislike disgusting politicians, but publicizing those thoughts tends to be construed as prohibited political speech.
Quote: TigerWuLOL....just noticed this. Definitely a longshot, but you could probably retire on the winnings!
g]
link to original post
You can get Kanye West at the same odds. Maybe Donald Duck if you asked.
Harris leads Trump 44% to 42% in US presidential race, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
The filing expands on previously introduced articles that target Harris’s record on immigration, a GOP rallying cry against the vice president.
"Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) introduced articles of impeachment against Vice President Kamala Harris Tuesday over her role in immigration law and for allegedly misleading the public on President Joe Biden‘s condition."
Quote: ChumpChangeRep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Harris on Tuesday, as Republicans ramp up attacks while she launches a presidential campaign.
The filing expands on previously introduced articles that target Harris’s record on immigration, a GOP rallying cry against the vice president.
link to original post
They wouldn't do that unless they realized they were about to lose.
Their biggest problem now is they convinced so many undecided voters that age is an issue. Choose the younger candidate when he is only three years younger never made much sense to me anyway.
Now that they have convinced everyone that younger is safer and smarter, watch them pivot to older is wiser lol.
Their biggest problem now is they convinced so many undecided voters that age is an issue. Choose the younger candidate when he is only three years younger never made much sense to me anyway."
They obviously do not believe they are about to lose. Republicans are infamously delusional about their own chances. Even if they weren't Trump is significantly ahead in the betting. You damage your credibility by saying things which are demonstrably not true.
I'd add that of all the dumb stuff Republicans come out with raising the issue as to why exactly a man with visible dementia was allowed to become president is a question that is likely to resonate with the general public.
Quote: Archvaldor"They wouldn't do that unless they realized they were about to lose.
Their biggest problem now is they convinced so many undecided voters that age is an issue. Choose the younger candidate when he is only three years younger never made much sense to me anyway."
They obviously do not believe they are about to lose. Republicans are infamously delusional about their own chances. Even if they weren't Trump is significantly ahead in the betting. You damage your credibility by saying things which are demonstrably not true.
I'd add that of all the dumb stuff Republicans come out with raising the issue as to why exactly a man with visible dementia was allowed to become president is a question that is likely to resonate with the general public.
link to original post
Biden wasn't allowed to become president with visible dementia. He was voted into office 4 years ago and ran the country ever since.
It appears you are listening to republican talking points too much.
Quote: Archvaldor
I'd add that of all the dumb stuff Republicans come out with raising the issue as to why exactly a man with visible dementia was allowed to become president is a question that is likely to resonate with the general public.
link to original post
Political posts are not allowed in this thread.
