Election Betting
Quote: rxwineIf that’s what I said, I would have said that. Try again.
I can't respond because that would
be a political discussion. How do
you discuss political betting without
discussing politics. It's like betting
on a boxing match where discussing
the boxers isn't allowed.
Quote: GialmereHere are the latest Nevada poll averages. Although Biden once enjoyed a comfortable lead, after Iowa and New Hampshire his numbers have cratered to less than half his highs.
Nevada Poll Averages
Sanders: 24.2%
Biden: 15.9%
Warren: 11.1%
Buttigieg: 10.4%
Bloomberg: 8.4% (did not file for Nevada caucus)
Steyer: 8.0%
Klobuchar: 5.1%
Gabbard: 1.2%
That could flip the race around. Bernie probably holds to first but Bloombers's vote probably goes almost all to Biden. That would keep him in it. Warren only get's third she is in the intensive care unit. As far as betting goes it makes Bernie a good bet. He has the biggest base of them all it is now clear. He will one by one pick up the rest of the far left field's leavings.
Quote: EvenBobI can't respond because that would
be a political discussion. How do
you discuss political betting without
discussing politics.
What's the difference, no one understands politics anyway.
Quote: EvenBobI can't respond because that would
be a political discussion. How do
you discuss political betting without
discussing politics. It's like betting
on a boxing match where discussing
the boxers isn't allowed.
Since you don't bet on politics, I can't see any way for you to contribute here within the rules. That is what DT is for.
Yes, your analogy is correct. I know it seems ridiculous, but I do not apologize for the ban on political statements, yet I wanted a way to discuss betting on the election.
Quote: Wizardyet I wanted a way to discuss betting on the election.
Then the rule should be discuss betting,
but you can't give your reason for betting
that way. I'm for the Yankee's but I'm
forbidden to say why. Because any discussion
of the candidates IS a political discussion.
Anyway, last time everyone in the universe thought Hillary was a sure thing, even up to the last moments. Everyone, EXCEPT, the Los Angeles Times. If I recall, they figured it out way before anyone else. How'd they do that?
Also, I think the Investors Business Daily also figured it out way before.
Can the Los Angeles Times see the future?
Quote: bobbartopI have a question. And I don't think it amounts to "discussing politics". I hope not. I don't want to get thrown in the clink with MDawg.
Anyway, last time everyone in the universe thought Hillary was a sure thing, even up to the last moments. Everyone, EXCEPT, the Los Angeles Times. If I recall, they figured it out way before anyone else. How'd they do that?
Also, I think the Investors Business Daily also figured it out way before.
Can the Los Angeles Times see the future?
The mainstream media all follow each other. They do not go off message. Add in bad polling. Add in that they did not consider the EC.
It was much the same in 1980, the media thought it would be close. It was over before polls closed in the west.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe mainstream media all follow each other. They do not go off message. Add in bad polling. Add in that they did not consider the EC.
It was much the same in 1980, the media thought it would be close. It was over before polls closed in the west.
I think we lost each other here. Yes, I know how the media stick together. But this was different. IF, I remember correctly, and I think I do, there'd have to be some looking stuff up to confirm that I do know what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the last day, after the polls closed, whatever. I seem to remember, the Los Angeles Times AND Investors Business Daily, were WAAAAAAY out in front of everyone else in the media. Days, maybe weeks. It was like they had a crystal ball. My question is, DID they have a crystal ball?
Regarding 1980, I was just a kid. That was my first election. In hindsight, if they thought peanut farmer was close, they're stupid. Those four preceding years should have been an open book. Still, I was just a kid, and hindsight is 20-20.
Quote: bobbartopI think we lost each other here. Yes, I know how the media stick together. But this was different. IF, I remember correctly, and I think I do, there'd have to be some looking stuff up to confirm that I do know what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the last day, after the polls closed, whatever. I seem to remember, the Los Angeles Times AND Investors Business Daily, were WAAAAAAY out in front of everyone else in the media. Days, maybe weeks. It was like they had a crystal ball. My question is, DID they have a crystal ball?
It happens. IIRC it was unthinkable that the GOP would sweep congress but one guy on one show said, "They might take it." IMHO with Trump it was as much about how implausable it was for him to have even gotten that far. Predicting him to win was like predicting that Buffalo Bills to have won the most recent Superbowl.
If you go out on such a limb and are wrong you lose much face. If you predicted Hillary you just say, "we all got surprised." Clearly the sources you cite were confident enough they went out on a limb.
Quote:Regarding 1980, I was just a kid. That was my first election. In hindsight, if they thought peanut farmer was close, they're stupid. Those four preceding years should have been an open book. Still, I was just a kid, and hindsight is 20-20.
I was a kid as well, second election I remember. Things were awful, made 2008 look like great times. Yet somehow they thought Carter had a chance.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat could flip the race around. Bernie probably holds to first but Bloombers's vote probably goes almost all to Biden. That would keep him in it. Warren only get's third she is in the intensive care unit. As far as betting goes it makes Bernie a good bet. He has the biggest base of them all it is now clear. He will one by one pick up the rest of the far left field's leavings.
That seems to be the most likely scenario. Biden still leads in South Carolina. Should he win there and place second (especially a strong second) in Nevada, he would be viable again heading into Super Tuesday.
Then (so the theory goes) Biden, Bloomberg and (to a lesser extent) Buttigieg would split the moderate/establishment vote. Only Warren can outflank Sanders to the left but her numbers have nosedived. Thus Sanders could win state after state with a solid plurality and emerge from Super Tuesday the undisputed front-runner.
Quote: GialmereThat seems to be the most likely scenario. Biden still leads in South Carolina. Should he win there and place second (especially a strong second) in Nevada, he would be viable again heading into Super Tuesday.
Then (so the theory goes) Biden, Bloomberg and (to a lesser extent) Buttigieg would split the moderate/establishment vote. Only Warren can outflank Sanders to the left but her numbers have nosedived. Thus Sanders could win state after state with a solid plurality and emerge from Super Tuesday the undisputed front-runner.
Warren's hopes died last week but everyone is afraid to tell her to go back to the reservation and do what she plans on doing. She keeps acting and sounding more foolish and desperate. The Democrat Party "viability" rule will keep doing her in. IMHO all that is really keeping her going is someone, somewhere saying "we can't have yet another woman fall by the wayside so soon."
Bernie will keep winning pluaralities though not majorities. After Super Tuesday I look for him to have enough to at the least deny anyone else an outright win even if he coasts the rest of the way.
Biden has to hope he gets most of the non-socialist vote. Thing is it is getting hard to see how much of that is left in the party.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt happens. IIRC it was unthinkable that the GOP would sweep congress but one guy on one show said, "They might take it."
If you're talking about 1994, the person I am thinking of that did this was Jack Germond on The McLaughlin Group - and, if I remember correctly, he did it in late 1993, and the other four panelists pretty much laughed at him.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe mainstream media all follow each other. They do not go off message. Add in bad polling. Add in that they did not consider the EC.
It was much the same in 1980, the media thought it would be close. It was over before polls closed in the west.
It was over just before a lot of polls closed in the east. I remember just about being ready to leave my dorm room for dinner at 5:00 (Pacific) when I saw on TV that Reagan had enough electoral votes to win the election. Even the show Fridays (remember when Larry David was a liberal?) joked about it; "President Carter considered conceding the election at 11 AM on election day, but decided to wait until 8:30 PM Eastern, so that only Californians would be screwed out of their vote." Keep in mind the show aired live out of Los Angeles.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt happens. IIRC it was unthinkable that the GOP would sweep congress but one guy on one show said, "They might take it." IMHO with Trump it was as much about how implausable it was for him to have even gotten that far. Predicting him to win was like predicting that Buffalo Bills to have won the most recent Superbowl.
If you go out on such a limb and are wrong you lose much face. If you predicted Hillary you just say, "we all got surprised." Clearly the sources you cite were confident enough they went out on a limb.
I was a kid as well, second election I remember. Things were awful, made 2008 look like great times. Yet somehow they thought Carter had a chance.
In 1975, I don't think anyone outside of Georgia had even heard of Carter. 18 months later, he's in the WH. If I were a professor (ha ha), and I were in charge of setting up a political science course, one with REAL history, I would make the whole class about the making of Carter. Fascinating. But since then, and especially after 1980, it's been fairly easy to see who "THEY" wanted in the WH. Of course, they are good poker players, they leave themselves outs. There's always a backdoor flush possible. In 1980, all three candidates represented the same "entity", including "independent" John Anderson. "They" couldn't miss. There were a lot of pissed off republicans when Bush was chosen to be RR's running mate. And it wasn't RR who chose him. They told RR who was going to be his running mate. As always, he took orders. He BETTER take orders.
Quote: ThatDonGuyIf you're talking about 1994, the person I am thinking of that did this was Jack Germond on The McLaughlin Group - and, if I remember correctly, he did it in late 1993, and the other four panelists pretty much laughed at him.
I forget who because I heard it way after when someone somewhere mentioned it on some show. Even at the time we knew it was earthshaking, What we did not know was how it would be a model for a party pushing something unpopular would forever after pay the price the next election.
Quote:It was over just before a lot of polls closed in the east. I remember just about being ready to leave my dorm room for dinner at 5:00 (Pacific) when I saw on TV that Reagan had enough electoral votes to win the election. Even the show Fridays (remember when Larry David was a liberal?) joked about it; "President Carter considered conceding the election at 11 AM on election day, but decided to wait until 8:30 PM Eastern, so that only Californians would be screwed out of their vote." Keep in mind the show aired live out of Los Angeles.
There of course is coverage of it on YT. It is fun to watch because back then Red/Blue was not established and the GOP was blue on some networks. It was not the landslide of 72 or 84, but that one was the biggest change since 1960. Biggest to this day. It is hard to explain how you could feel the culture change overnight. I remember reading an article about Tux Rentals and how all the colorful Tuxedos just stopped renting right when Reagan took over. They ended up in Southeast Asia where they like them to this day. But in the USA it was as if the popular culture grew from teenagers to adults just like that.
Now how d'ya like it?
Quote: bobbartopAs Carter said goodbye, the national debt had not yet topped 1 trillion. I remember seeing billboards, "NO TRILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL DEBT!"
Now how d'ya like it?
I remember as a kid worrying about it. Now I just figure I will die before the real collapse happens.
I read it was under Teddy Roosevelt IIRC when the budget first hit $1 Billion.
Which will happen first? The 1 Trillionth Big Mac sold or the number Quardilion being in serious use when talking about money?
Quote: AZDuffmanBut in the USA it was as if the popular culture grew from teenagers to adults just like that.
So did the annual deficit.
Quote: AZDuffmanI remember as a kid worrying about it. Now I just figure I will die before the real collapse happens.
I read it was under Teddy Roosevelt IIRC when the budget first hit $1 Billion.
A billion ounces of silver.
Carter, because of Watergate, and big white teeth. Easy bet.
Four years later, another easy bet.
1. Doubled budget from 300 to 600 bil in four years.
2. Iran
3. Nicaragua
4. Taiwan
5. Rhodesia
EASY BET!
Easy money. lol But I was only 20, and didn't have any.
Quote: bobbartopI have a question. And I don't think it amounts to "discussing politics". I hope not. I don't want to get thrown in the clink with MDawg.
Anyway, last time everyone in the universe thought Hillary was a sure thing, even up to the last moments. Everyone, EXCEPT, the Los Angeles Times. If I recall, they figured it out way before anyone else. How'd they do that?
Also, I think the Investors Business Daily also figured it out way before.
Can the Los Angeles Times see the future?
I believe it is just that people are putting different weight on different factors. Ever watch the news when they are showing different Hurricane tracking models to track a path?
Quote: AZDuffmanExactly. Plus this is his second rodeo.
Now if someone can explain what is meant by the GOP having their thumbs in the scales means or how such a comment is not a blatant violation of no politics that would be great.
It's not political, it's a huge factor in considering which way to bet, but I wouldn't expect someone with your avatar (which is BLATANTLY, OFFENSIVELY POLITICAL) to understand anything about how it's being done. So I won't be wasting my time answering your post further.
Feel free to resume the discussion at DT.
Thread closed.
Trump: 215
Giuliani: 230
I don't know what to say.
Source: Washington Post.
I would like to remind the forum that political statements are not allowed. The focus should be on polling, probabilities, and betting on the election. A good litmus test if a post is above the rules is that is should not betray who the poster wants to win.
To get the ball rolling, if I remember correctly, Trump got 51% of the vote in the Iowa GOP caucus. Seems to me if this came down to a two-person race, it would get interesting.
That said, here are are odds on the winner of the overall GOP primary:
Trump: -588
Nikki Haley: +1350
Desantis: +5400
Source: www.oddschecker.com.
I think Haley and Desantis are good bets. Any trusted forum members care to book them?
Quote: WizardThis may not be the best decision I ever made, but I'm going to reopen this thread on betting on politics now that we're in the throws of the GOP primary.
I would like to remind the forum that political statements are not allowed. The focus should be on polling, probabilities, and betting on the election. A good litmus test if a post is above the rules is that is should not betray who the poster wants to win.
To get the ball rolling, if I remember correctly, Trump got 51% of the vote in the Iowa GOP caucus. Seems to me if this came down to a two-person race, it would get interesting.
That said, here are are odds on the winner of the overall GOP primary:
Trump: -588
Nikki Haley: +1350
Desantis: +5400
Source: www.oddschecker.com.
I think Haley and Desantis are good bets. Any trusted forum members care to book them?
link to original post
If by ‘winner of the overall GOP primary’ you mean who gets INITIALLY the most delegates barring his death (or similar) or disqualification it will be Trump. But that is not the same as being the nominee after the GOP convention. I think you mean who will be the GOP nominee, right?
Quote: SOOPOOI think you mean who will be the GOP nominee, right?
link to original post
Right.
Quote: WizardThis may not be the best decision I ever made, but I'm going to reopen this thread on betting on politics now that we're in the throws of the GOP primary.
I would like to remind the forum that political statements are not allowed. The focus should be on polling, probabilities, and betting on the election. A good litmus test if a post is above the rules is that is should not betray who the poster wants to win.
To get the ball rolling, if I remember correctly, Trump got 51% of the vote in the Iowa GOP caucus. Seems to me if this came down to a two-person race, it would get interesting.
That said, here are are odds on the winner of the overall GOP primary:
Trump: -588
Nikki Haley: +1350
Desantis: +5400
Source: www.oddschecker.com.
I think Haley and Desantis are good bets. Any trusted forum members care to book them?
link to original post
No, no, and no. If Trump were not a former POTUS then DeSantis would be the favorite. Haley is attractive but seems to be just a career politician, something the GOP base is not so keen on. She seems to have the "its my turn" mentality that Jeb Bush had in 2016. Looks alone are not going to cut it for her, though she might just be making the run so to get a good job in the cabinet.
DeSantis seems to have missed his shot before he could take it. The Scott Walker of 2024. After he is done being governor I expect him to fade to private life like Tom Ridge did. Go make some real money.
Former POTUS running is mixed. Cleveland won while Roosevelt lost as a 3rd party candidate. Trump is still the most popular with both the base and the crossovers. The establishment hates him, but they have a history of wanting the "guy who's turn it is to run."
I would book Trump at the odds you are offering. Your odds on him are the best since Superbowl III spread.
Quote: WizardHere are the party to win odds at Pinnacle:
Dem +101
Rep -124
Other +2721
If we squeeze out the juice, here are the probabilities:
Dem 45.79%
Rep 50.95%
Other 3.26%
link to original post
Odds to win what, Congress?? POTUS??
Quote: SandybestdogThis election really seems to be sneaking up quickly. For the past 18 months I think everyone has expected there would be some sort of major shakeup but here we are past the Iowa caucuses and no change. I saw the other day at Betonline Trump was at +100 and Biden at +200 to win the general election. Predictit has Trump a few points ahead. What’s interesting is they have the democrats a few points ahead of republicans as the winning party. So there seems to be still a significant chance built into the odds that some kind of major event will occur that will upset things. I would have thought a long time ago the powers that be would have sat Biden down and said you can’t run for reelection. That doesn’t seem to have happened or maybe he ignored them.
link to original post
It is a bit of a throwback to pre-2004. Starting that election we had debates all the year before. This time both sides seem to have looked settled so we did not have that. People forget how late candidates used to get into things. Lets hope it sticks for next time.
Quote: WizardHere are the party to win odds at Pinnacle:
Dem +101
Rep -124
Other +2721
If we squeeze out the juice, here are the probabilities:
Dem 45.79%
Rep 50.95%
Other 3.26%
link to original post
Anyone who wants ‘other’ at +2721 give me a call….
If Haley gets the nod, I think Biden is going to drop out.
Quote: TigerWuI think Haley is the dark horse here, both for the GOP nom and the Presidency.
If Haley gets the nod, I think Biden is going to drop out.
link to original post
The South Carolina primary is the next one after New Hampshire and Nikki Haley used to be Governor there and right now she's down 30 points behind Trump. If you can't even win your home state where you were governor what does that say about the odds of you being elected president.
The only way things get tactically interesting is if one (or both) of them gets forced out. Who comes in from the bullpen?
For the red team it seems obvious that most of Trump's supporters would break for DeSantis. There's a little wiggle room for the other candidates with "little" being the operative word.
For the blue team, things are a bit more open. It's no secret that Newsome has been auditioning to be Biden's understudy over the last year. He comes with baggage of course, but has no holes below the waterline.
Several blue circles put forth Michelle Obama, but this appears to be wishful thinking. Unlike Hillary, Obama seems content being a former First Lady, occasionally dabbling behind the scenes. She's made no indication that she's interested in stepping into the arena.
Then there's VP Harris who you'll note didn't make the cut on the betting chart EB posted. While Obama may or may not be playing coy, the veep and her staff have made it very clear that they will not stand idly by if someone tries to cut the line of succession.
___________
All in all, apart from Biden and Trump, Newsome is the only person I'd consider putting money on.
Quote: AZDuffmanOdds to win what, Congress?? POTUS??
link to original post
POTUS
His health seems to be failing.
Quote: TigerWuI think Haley is the dark horse here, both for the GOP nom and the Presidency.
If Haley gets the nod, I think Biden is going to drop out.
link to original post
I really do not want Haley because I do not want a POTUS younger than me. SCOTUS was bad enough. I have maybe 4-5 POTUS elections left in my life and while it will happen eventually does it have to be this time?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: TigerWuI think Haley is the dark horse here, both for the GOP nom and the Presidency.
If Haley gets the nod, I think Biden is going to drop out.
link to original post
I really do not want Haley because I do not want a POTUS younger than me. SCOTUS was bad enough. I have maybe 4-5 POTUS elections left in my life and while it will happen eventually does it have to be this time?
link to original post
I am the opposite, I would like to see a younger person in.
Quote: ams288Are there any sites that let you bet whether or not DJT will survive till Election Day? I’d love to see those odds.
His health seems to be failing.
link to original post
I don’t think any ‘reputable’ book would take a bet phrased that way. In addition to his health, I think all would agree that he is the most despised person alive in America today. I’d say 50-1 would be fair odds on him not making it to Election Day. Similar to Biden, actually. And no bets for me on this….
On the day of the caucus they were Trump 37 and Biden 29.
Quote: EvenBobThis is how the odds have changed since the Iowa caucus
On the day of the caucus they were Trump 37 and Biden 29.
link to original post
Hopefully DeSantis sees this and has all of his hundreds of supporters switch to Haley….
Mrs. Obama is really the THIRD betting choice!?!
If anyone wants to get on Kennedy I’ll book your action!
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: EvenBobThis is how the odds have changed since the Iowa caucus
On the day of the caucus they were Trump 37 and Biden 29.
link to original post
Hopefully DeSantis sees this and has all of his hundreds of supporters switch to Haley….
Mrs. Obama is really the THIRD betting choice!?!
If anyone wants to get on Kennedy I’ll book your action!
link to original post
I find it interesting and odd that a person winning a caucus they were projected to walk away with moves lines so much. Then again I find it odd how much attention people in other nations pay to our politics in the first place.
As to Michelle, look at it from a handicapping standpoint. Nobody on the Democrat side has been stepping up as the heir apparent the last 4 years. There has always been the wing out there that prefers a guy's spouse run if they liked him. Same as they call for a dead Senator to be replaced by his wife. Combine the two and you can see why it is that way on the board.
He had no chance, but I thought he'd stick around until perhaps Super Tuesday to pick up some trail experience for 2028. I imagine that money was the deciding factor.
