Election Betting
It may act as some raw meat to the rank and file (always a good thing), but to everyone else it's just trombone talk from Charlie Brown's teacher. I note, however, that Trump has slipped a few points in the RCP betting pools since the story broke so, we'll see.
Quote: GialmereMy reading of the tea leaves is that the Nazi story is actually bad news for Harris. Think about it. It's crunch time, and the best October surprise the blue team can come up with us to play the Hitler card on Trump? Yet again? White noise.
It may act as some raw meat to the rank and file (always a good thing), but to everyone else it's just trombone talk from Charlie Brown's teacher. I note, however, that Trump has slipped a few points in the RCP betting pools since the story broke so, we'll see.
link to original post
Goodwin's Law.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: MDawgElon Musk produced a fake Atlantic headline comparing Trump to Hitler in satire. That was refuted by the Atlantic.
The comments Kelly made about Trump wanting Nazi generals and that Hitler did some good things were made in interviews with both the New York Times and the Atlantic. These have not been “proven to be fake” though it is interesting if AZDuffman is a Trump supporter if this sort of perception is typical of Trump voters to try to come up with some reason - false or not - to overlook yet another bad headline.
Of course team Trump has denied the comments the same way they have denied all the negative and unhinged things Trump has been reported as saying such as “military are losers’ but these go along the lines of denials of sexual assault and criminal activity where juries have already determined otherwise.
The end result of the criminal defendant who keeps saying that everyone else is a liar is a conviction. It’s hard to believe that deny deny deny is leading to convincing people to vote for a candidate but we will know in a couple of weeks.
What I’m interested in seeing is if this latest Trump Hitler gaffe will affect the polls.
link to original post
This all falls under a general rubric of bad-faith argumentation. In any kind of reasonable analysis, no one is asked to prove a negative. It leads to logical absurdities. I can't prove I don't support Hitler either. If somebody got stabbed out on the Strip last night I can't prove I didn't do it, and if accused, my only defense would be the principle that I don't have to prove a negative. I know, sounds weak, doesn't it? But sorry to tell you- but unless you can prove you were somewhere else at the time it's the only defense you have too.
"But it appeared in not just one, but TWO sources known for extreme partisan bias and putting themselves in service of one political party! Refute THAT, now!"
A grotesquely illustrative example of this bad-faith tactic was shown during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings. They trotted out this woman, sounded like a nut, to accuse Kavanaugh of raping her at a party when they were teens. No evidence that she had ever even met Kavanaugh or been at the same place at the same time he was, just a lurid story.
"Ah, but can you prove you DIDN'T assault her?
Then after she laid an egg up there, nobody was buying it, they came up with a bunch more accusers, each one telling a story worse than the last, we were supposed to accept that as "mounting evidence."
"They can't ALL be lying, now!
Why yes, yes they can be. And apparently were.
The neverending snow job. It appears to date back to a time when people of one particular political orientation were taught by their perfessers that they were smarter than everyone else. You've read the right books, you've correctly recited the right ideas, you laugh at the right jokes, have the right friends, and everybody else is an idiot. It's natural for people to like believing those things about themselves, and a belief that people like will be sincerely held. The result of that is a form of communication intended to deceive people who have been deemed just not bright enough to make their own decisions.
So I hear a story like this, and I'm expected to say: "Well golly gee whiz Mabel, says right here in the New York Times that Trump is for Hitler! Says he's a Russian agent too. Why, that's against the Good Book, I ain't subjecting myself to e-ternal damnation by voting for no Russian agent who's for Hitler!" Needless to say it hasn't been very effective, and the rejection of the bad-faith rhetoric that we weren't supposed to be smart enough to figure out leads to people who uttered the rhetoric to doubt themselves, that maybe their dearly held beliefs about who is smart and who is not are reversed, and it becomes personal. This is why the unprecedented venom and vituperation directed by the establishment media against one political figure extends well beyond that figure to anyone who supports him- the fact that they continue to support him and it is only this establishment that has lost credibility shatters their illusions of themselves as brilliant patricians capable of hoodwinking and herding the ignorant plebs.
link to original post
I'm trying to be lenient, but this post is way over the line. I will start with a Warning. In this thread you are not supposed to argue for or against Trump or Harris, or for or against the righteousness of some of the anecdotal information that politicians are claiming or have claimed in the past. We insist that you take those kinds of posts to a forum other than WOV. Anyone who continues to break these rules will face suspension.
I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf, MDawg. Any moderator may come after me and suspend one or more of you. Please rein in the partisan argumentation.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? SHOW ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote: gordonm888Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: MDawgElon Musk produced a fake Atlantic headline comparing Trump to Hitler in satire. That was refuted by the Atlantic.
The comments Kelly made about Trump wanting Nazi generals and that Hitler did some good things were made in interviews with both the New York Times and the Atlantic. These have not been “proven to be fake” though it is interesting if AZDuffman is a Trump supporter if this sort of perception is typical of Trump voters to try to come up with some reason - false or not - to overlook yet another bad headline.
Of course team Trump has denied the comments the same way they have denied all the negative and unhinged things Trump has been reported as saying such as “military are losers’ but these go along the lines of denials of sexual assault and criminal activity where juries have already determined otherwise.
The end result of the criminal defendant who keeps saying that everyone else is a liar is a conviction. It’s hard to believe that deny deny deny is leading to convincing people to vote for a candidate but we will know in a couple of weeks.
What I’m interested in seeing is if this latest Trump Hitler gaffe will affect the polls.
link to original post
This all falls under a general rubric of bad-faith argumentation. In any kind of reasonable analysis, no one is asked to prove a negative. It leads to logical absurdities. I can't prove I don't support Hitler either. If somebody got stabbed out on the Strip last night I can't prove I didn't do it, and if accused, my only defense would be the principle that I don't have to prove a negative. I know, sounds weak, doesn't it? But sorry to tell you- but unless you can prove you were somewhere else at the time it's the only defense you have too.
"But it appeared in not just one, but TWO sources known for extreme partisan bias and putting themselves in service of one political party! Refute THAT, now!"
A grotesquely illustrative example of this bad-faith tactic was shown during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings. They trotted out this woman, sounded like a nut, to accuse Kavanaugh of raping her at a party when they were teens. No evidence that she had ever even met Kavanaugh or been at the same place at the same time he was, just a lurid story.
"Ah, but can you prove you DIDN'T assault her?
Then after she laid an egg up there, nobody was buying it, they came up with a bunch more accusers, each one telling a story worse than the last, we were supposed to accept that as "mounting evidence."
"They can't ALL be lying, now!
Why yes, yes they can be. And apparently were.
The neverending snow job. It appears to date back to a time when people of one particular political orientation were taught by their perfessers that they were smarter than everyone else. You've read the right books, you've correctly recited the right ideas, you laugh at the right jokes, have the right friends, and everybody else is an idiot. It's natural for people to like believing those things about themselves, and a belief that people like will be sincerely held. The result of that is a form of communication intended to deceive people who have been deemed just not bright enough to make their own decisions.
So I hear a story like this, and I'm expected to say: "Well golly gee whiz Mabel, says right here in the New York Times that Trump is for Hitler! Says he's a Russian agent too. Why, that's against the Good Book, I ain't subjecting myself to e-ternal damnation by voting for no Russian agent who's for Hitler!" Needless to say it hasn't been very effective, and the rejection of the bad-faith rhetoric that we weren't supposed to be smart enough to figure out leads to people who uttered the rhetoric to doubt themselves, that maybe their dearly held beliefs about who is smart and who is not are reversed, and it becomes personal. This is why the unprecedented venom and vituperation directed by the establishment media against one political figure extends well beyond that figure to anyone who supports him- the fact that they continue to support him and it is only this establishment that has lost credibility shatters their illusions of themselves as brilliant patricians capable of hoodwinking and herding the ignorant plebs.
link to original post
I'm trying to be lenient, but this post is way over the line. I will start with a Warning. In this thread you are not supposed to argue for or against Trump or Harris, or for or against the righteousness of some of the anecdotal information that politicians are claiming or have claimed in the past. We insist that you take those kinds of posts to a forum other than WOV. Anyone who continues to break these rules will face suspension.
I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf, MDawg. Any moderator may come after me and suspend one or more of you. Please rein in the partisan argumentation.
link to original post
And please don't make some weak BS up to save face. You can always go back and read everything again and let me know you have made a mistake.
Duffman, OTOH, only posts political crap and never gets in trouble.
Quote: ams288I agree that AxelWolf’s posts have not been political. He is extremely betting-focused. AKA what this thread is supposedly for.
Duffman, OTOH, only posts political crap and never gets in trouble.
link to original post
None of Axel’s posts are quoted in the above warning post???
As at 22h BST
Winner : Trump 1.68/1.69 Harris 2.48/2.50
Popular vote : Harris 1.49/1.50 Trump 2.96/3.00
The BBC has been covering many of the current stories and I imagine it will cover the voting overnight.
Quote: unJonQuote: ams288I agree that AxelWolf’s posts have not been political. He is extremely betting-focused. AKA what this thread is supposedly for.
Duffman, OTOH, only posts political crap and never gets in trouble.
link to original post
None of Axel’s posts are quoted in the above warning post???
link to original post
But he was given a warning for some reason???
Quote: AZDuffmanReports I am getting say this week's polls will be among the last. One pundit said that there is rarely anyone changes their mind the last week, though undecideds may still break one way or the other. So, will the betting markets lock in as well? Or will they keep drifting the direction they have been like an out of balance Superbowl line? As betting markets are not really mature yet will be interesting to see.
link to original post
Frank Luntz who I personally cannot stand, said yesterday that everybody in the country who's going to make up their mind has made up their mind. He says the 2% who are undecided don't like either candidate and are not going to vote because that's the way it always is. He said it's too late for an October surprise because that has to happen far earlier in the month, it's too close to the election now. Now that everybody is voting, a lot of it in person in most of the states already, it's all over except for the counting. The media of course will not tell you this because they want you to keep tuning in that anything could happen any minute that would change everything. Nope, not going to happen.
Quote: gordonm888
I'm trying to be lenient, but this post is way over the line. I will start with a Warning. In this thread you are not supposed to argue for or against Trump or Harris, or for or against the righteousness of some of the anecdotal information that politicians are claiming or have claimed in the past. We insist that you take those kinds of posts to a forum other than WOV. Anyone who continues to break these rules will face suspension.
I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf, MDawg. Any moderator may come after me and suspend one or more of you. Please rein in the partisan argumentation.
link to original post
Thank you. I figured the rule wouldn't be enforced until somebody edgelorded it so I TOFTT.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: GialmereMy reading of the tea leaves is that the Nazi story is actually bad news for Harris. Think about it. It's crunch time, and the best October surprise the blue team can come up with us to play the Hitler card on Trump? Yet again? White noise.
It may act as some raw meat to the rank and file (always a good thing), but to everyone else it's just trombone talk from Charlie Brown's teacher. I note, however, that Trump has slipped a few points in the RCP betting pools since the story broke so, we'll see.
link to original post
Goodwin's Law.
link to original post
“With Hitler, the more I learn about this guy the more I don’t care for him.”
- Norm MacDonald
Implied likelihood overall for the winner now 57-43 in Trump’s favor.
Quote: SOOPOOInteresting bet opportunity. Some ‘experts’ think that one or the other candidate will win all of the 7 ‘swing states’. So that whoever wins, will win by a large margin of electoral votes. You can bet on Predictit ‘win by XX -YY’. The favorite is GOP by 65-104. Implied likelihood around 25%. Democrat to win by that margin around 12%.
Implied likelihood overall for the winner now 57-43 in Trump’s favor.
link to original post
65-104? What is that meaning?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: SOOPOOInteresting bet opportunity. Some ‘experts’ think that one or the other candidate will win all of the 7 ‘swing states’. So that whoever wins, will win by a large margin of electoral votes. You can bet on Predictit ‘win by XX -YY’. The favorite is GOP by 65-104. Implied likelihood around 25%. Democrat to win by that margin around 12%.
Implied likelihood overall for the winner now 57-43 in Trump’s favor.
link to original post
65-104? What is that meaning?
link to original post
That the difference in electoral college votes will fall in that band.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: SOOPOOInteresting bet opportunity. Some ‘experts’ think that one or the other candidate will win all of the 7 ‘swing states’. So that whoever wins, will win by a large margin of electoral votes. You can bet on Predictit ‘win by XX -YY’. The favorite is GOP by 65-104. Implied likelihood around 25%. Democrat to win by that margin around 12%.
Implied likelihood overall for the winner now 57-43 in Trump’s favor.
link to original post
65-104? What is that meaning?
link to original post
That the difference in electoral college votes will fall in that band.
link to original post
Ok thanks. Now makes a bit more sense.
Quote: EvenBob{snip} the election is still 11 days away. {snip}
link to original post
The election is happening right now. A large fraction of the electorate is using early voting in 47 states. It's reported that over 32 million had already voted by the end of yesterday (Thursday).
2.3 million have already voted in Georgia, a key swing state.
Last election, in 2020, 100 million voted early, and it's projected that this election will surpass that.
So, IMO, late breaking swings in polling numbers are difficult to interpret.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: EvenBob{snip} the election is still 11 days away. {snip}
link to original post
The election is happening right now. A large fraction of the electorate is using early voting in 47 states. It's reported that over 32 million had already voted by the end of yesterday (Thursday).
link to original post
Yeah but they're all voting for this guy.
Are you too proud to admit you were wrong and apologize to me?Quote: gordonm888]
I’ll tell you why but it’s going to be a political statement. If you bet on Kamala and she wins you make money. If she loses, well small price to pay for the entertainment we’ll get on election night. Think of it like your home team making it to the World Series and then betting against them.Quote: AxelWolfI was very surprised after talking to a number of AP's who are staunch Trump supporters.
They are betting or have bet on Kamala Harris.
link to original post
Quote: AxelWolfAre you too proud to admit you were wrong and apologize to me?Quote: gordonm888]
link to original post
I actually have no idea which issue you are talking about. But if I have wronged you then I do apologize. I think you're a good guy and a significant asset to this forum and I bear no ill will to you.
You said "I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf,"Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfAre you too proud to admit you were wrong and apologize to me?Quote: gordonm888]
link to original post
I actually have no idea which issue you are talking about. But if I have wronged you then I do apologize. I think you're a good guy and a significant asset to this forum and I bear no ill will to you.
link to original post
I asked you to show me the post.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/34308-election-betting/21/#post939356
Quote: AxelWolfYou said "I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf,"Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfAre you too proud to admit you were wrong and apologize to me?Quote: gordonm888]
link to original post
I actually have no idea which issue you are talking about. But if I have wronged you then I do apologize. I think you're a good guy and a significant asset to this forum and I bear no ill will to you.
link to original post
I asked you to show me the post.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/34308-election-betting/21/#post939356
link to original post
You are correct. I've gone back and checked and you are entirely innocent of posting anything that is partisan politics. I do apologize to you for including your name in that warning. I was mistaken and made an error. I am sorry.
I somehow attributed in my mind a post made by MDawg with a partisan phrase to you. I assume that people don't often confuse you with MDawg! I'll try not to do that again.
I can get in enough trouble on my own without some fabricated charges.Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfYou said "I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf,"Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfAre you too proud to admit you were wrong and apologize to me?Quote: gordonm888]
link to original post
I actually have no idea which issue you are talking about. But if I have wronged you then I do apologize. I think you're a good guy and a significant asset to this forum and I bear no ill will to you.
link to original post
I asked you to show me the post.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/34308-election-betting/21/#post939356
link to original post
You are correct. I've gone back and checked and you are entirely innocent of posting anything that is partisan politics. I do apologize to you for including your name in that warning. I was mistaken and made an error. I am sorry.
I somehow attributed in my mind a post made by MDawg with a partisan phrase to you. I assume that people don't often confuse you with MDawg! I'll try not to do that again.
link to original post
I guess my theory that gordonm888 has been out to get me, might actually be correct after all
Here are a few reasons why you might perceive helicopters as following you.
1)BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
2)BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
😉
But in all seriousness, much respect for the admission, correction, and apology.
Quote: AxelWolfI can get in enough trouble on my own without some fabricated charges.Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfYou said "I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf,"Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfAre you too proud to admit you were wrong and apologize to me?Quote: gordonm888]
link to original post
I actually have no idea which issue you are talking about. But if I have wronged you then I do apologize. I think you're a good guy and a significant asset to this forum and I bear no ill will to you.
link to original post
I asked you to show me the post.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/34308-election-betting/21/#post939356
link to original post
You are correct. I've gone back and checked and you are entirely innocent of posting anything that is partisan politics. I do apologize to you for including your name in that warning. I was mistaken and made an error. I am sorry.
I somehow attributed in my mind a post made by MDawg with a partisan phrase to you. I assume that people don't often confuse you with MDawg! I'll try not to do that again.
link to original post
I guess my theory that gordonm888 has been out to get me, might actually be correct after all
Here are a few reasons why you might perceive helicopters as following you.
1)BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
2)BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
😉
But in all seriousness, much respect for the admission, correction, and apology.
link to original post
Would you say the charges were “Trumped up?”
Ok, I’ll suspend myself from the thread for that one.
Quote: mcallister3200Quote: AxelWolfI can get in enough trouble on my own without some fabricated charges.Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfYou said "I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf,"Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfAre you too proud to admit you were wrong and apologize to me?Quote: gordonm888]
link to original post
I actually have no idea which issue you are talking about. But if I have wronged you then I do apologize. I think you're a good guy and a significant asset to this forum and I bear no ill will to you.
link to original post
I asked you to show me the post.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/34308-election-betting/21/#post939356
link to original post
You are correct. I've gone back and checked and you are entirely innocent of posting anything that is partisan politics. I do apologize to you for including your name in that warning. I was mistaken and made an error. I am sorry.
I somehow attributed in my mind a post made by MDawg with a partisan phrase to you. I assume that people don't often confuse you with MDawg! I'll try not to do that again.
link to original post
I guess my theory that gordonm888 has been out to get me, might actually be correct after all
Here are a few reasons why you might perceive helicopters as following you.
1)BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
2)BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
😉
But in all seriousness, much respect for the admission, correction, and apology.
link to original post
Would you say the charges were “Trumped up?”
Ok, I’ll suspend myself from the thread for that one.
link to original post
Being suspended for that quip would be nothing short of ….
Harrisment
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: mcallister3200Quote: AxelWolfI can get in enough trouble on my own without some fabricated charges.Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfYou said "I have observed the following members making posts that may be considered to be excessively political: AutomaticMonkey, AZDuffman, AxelWolf,"Quote: gordonm888Quote: AxelWolfAre you too proud to admit you were wrong and apologize to me?Quote: gordonm888]
link to original post
I actually have no idea which issue you are talking about. But if I have wronged you then I do apologize. I think you're a good guy and a significant asset to this forum and I bear no ill will to you.
link to original post
I asked you to show me the post.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/online/34308-election-betting/21/#post939356
link to original post
You are correct. I've gone back and checked and you are entirely innocent of posting anything that is partisan politics. I do apologize to you for including your name in that warning. I was mistaken and made an error. I am sorry.
I somehow attributed in my mind a post made by MDawg with a partisan phrase to you. I assume that people don't often confuse you with MDawg! I'll try not to do that again.
link to original post
I guess my theory that gordonm888 has been out to get me, might actually be correct after all
Here are a few reasons why you might perceive helicopters as following you.
1)BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
2)BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!
😉
But in all seriousness, much respect for the admission, correction, and apology.
link to original post
Would you say the charges were “Trumped up?”
Ok, I’ll suspend myself from the thread for that one.
link to original post
Being suspended for that quip would be nothing short of ….
Harrisment
link to original post
He is just Biden his time. Choosing what Hillary to die on.
Quote: AxelWolfI can get in enough trouble on my own without some fabricated charges.
That's the spirit! lol
Quote: EvenBobMore people in the news are talking about the national poll than any of the other polls. Today RCP is exactly tied at 48.5 for each candidate. This is unheard of because everybody knows it means that Trump is actually ahead nationally if we go from past results. Joe Biden led by eight points in 2020 and finished at four points ahead and Hillary was ahead by five and she finished ahead by two. This means Trump is probably two and a half points ahead in the national poll and the election is still 11 days away. We've never had a presidential election where the non-incumbent candidate actually has coattails. So much so that how many Democrats running for Senate and Congress are mentioning Trump in a positive way in their TV ads. Democrats are trying to get elected on Trump's coattails. We're in an alternate universe and we don't even know it.
link to original post
Alternate universes are easy to facilitate in a sim…! As easy as changing the settings on your favorite slot, without the required paperwork for Gaming…
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: mcallister3200
Would you say the charges were “Trumped up?”
Ok, I’ll suspend myself from the thread for that one.
link to original post
Being suspended for that quip would be nothing short of ….
Harrisment
link to original post
And we wonder why we build Walz in this country.
Sorry in ad-Vance for that one.
Quote: DeucekiesQuote: SOOPOOQuote: mcallister3200
Would you say the charges were “Trumped up?”
Ok, I’ll suspend myself from the thread for that one.
link to original post
Being suspended for that quip would be nothing short of ….
Harrisment
link to original post
And we wonder why we build Walz in this country.
Sorry in ad-Vance for that one.
link to original post
How bad that was! Que mala!
Many an election bettor has been deceived by their terrible forecasts in past elections.
Quote: ams288It seems some people are putting all their eggs in the RCP basket.
Many an election bettor has been deceived by their terrible forecasts in past elections.
link to original post
I didn't think RCP does any forecasting. They are just aggregators of polls, betting data, and news articles, no?
I've been reading RealClear media since they were an obscure site and really like it. Their political coverage is meticulously fair, to the point of placing opposing articles on a topic adjacent to one another on the list. Their science coverage is really good too.
Now Harris can be the 47th president by Biden doing the croak thing or for whatever reason resigning and then lose the election, and it adds up to over 100% so it looks like you could bet the nuts on both that happening and Trump winning.
As for RCP, I think of it as sort of the S&P 500 of political polling. A polling firm that can consistently beat the RCP average has justifiable bragging rights.
Quote: GialmereThere's also speculation that Trump wins the election but never takes office. Legal issues perhaps. Maybe a revolt at the electrical college vote, or even another assassination attempt. I'd like to say it's crazy talk, but this election and crazy have been walking hand in hand all year.
As for RCP, I think of it as sort of the S&P 500 of political polling. A polling firm that can consistently beat the RCP average has justifiable bragging rights.
link to original post
On the PredictIt site I do not see the VP candidates anywhere in the mix for being the next president, even though they are the two next likely people to take the office given the rules for who takes over each ticket if something were to happen to the main candidate between now and the inauguration. So I take that to mean that the VP candidate will be the proxy for the presidential candidate under the rules for the bet. I don't have any money there so I didn't really study the rules.
As far as the crazy, if I knew where to bet that it won't be settled in November I would give that bet a good look. But when a political party pays no price for anything they do to acquire and retain power, they have no reason to just sit there and take the L.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyI see what looks like an arb on PredictIt. They have a separate bet for- who wins the election, and Harris being the 47th president.
Now Harris can be the 47th president by Biden doing the croak thing or for whatever reason resigning and then lose the election, and it adds up to over 100% so it looks like you could bet the nuts on both that happening and Trump winning.
link to original post
I don't think he dies, he looks in better shape that I think he has 1-2 years of hanging on. But maybe he resigns to let her be the "first woman POTUS." There was some state IIRC in the 1990s they played this little game 4 people in line all resigned one after the other letting them serve for one day each, IMHO it is a bet if you get real good odds and want to have some fun with it. I do not see it happening though but who knows.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: ams288It seems some people are putting all their eggs in the RCP basket.
Many an election bettor has been deceived by their terrible forecasts in past elections.
link to original post
I didn't think RCP does any forecasting. They are just aggregators of polls, betting data, and news articles, no?
I've been reading RealClear media since they were an obscure site and really like it. Their political coverage is meticulously fair, to the point of placing opposing articles on a topic adjacent to one another on the list. Their science coverage is really good too.
link to original post
Here is their forecast for Senate in 2022.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/elections-map-rcp-projection.html
They called every swing state other than WI wrong.
And their 2022 governor forecast in which they said Gretchen Whitmer would lose MI (she won by 10 pts).
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/governor/elections-map-rcp-projection.html
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyI see what looks like an arb on PredictIt. They have a separate bet for- who wins the election, and Harris being the 47th president.
Now Harris can be the 47th president by Biden doing the croak thing or for whatever reason resigning and then lose the election, and it adds up to over 100% so it looks like you could bet the nuts on both that happening and Trump winning.
link to original post
I don’t think you are interpreting it incorrectly. Predictit lists it in ‘cents’, not ‘%’. Today, Trump is at 61, Harris at 43. Meaning you bet 61 cents on Trump to win 39 cents, and 43 cents on Harris to win 57 cents. As you notice, there is a slight ‘vig’ built in. The implied odds are (approximately) Trump 59, Harris 41.
I don't think you're going to find too much there. Everything is priced in. For instance back in the spring when Biden was running and winning the primary's, he was still only at maybe 35% to win the election. There is a separate market - which party will win the election. Throughout the democrat nominee process that was consistently around 55% (meaning it didn't matter who the nominee was). Meanwhile the Biden or Harris markets were fluctuating wildly. So basically everything is priced in.Quote: AutomaticMonkeyI see what looks like an arb on PredictIt. They have a separate bet for- who wins the election, and Harris being the 47th president.
Now Harris can be the 47th president by Biden doing the croak thing or for whatever reason resigning and then lose the election, and it adds up to over 100% so it looks like you could bet the nuts on both that happening and Trump winning.
link to original post
Quote: ams288Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: ams288It seems some people are putting all their eggs in the RCP basket.
Many an election bettor has been deceived by their terrible forecasts in past elections.
link to original post
I didn't think RCP does any forecasting. They are just aggregators of polls, betting data, and news articles, no?
I've been reading RealClear media since they were an obscure site and really like it. Their political coverage is meticulously fair, to the point of placing opposing articles on a topic adjacent to one another on the list. Their science coverage is really good too.
link to original post
Here is their forecast for Senate in 2022.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/elections-map-rcp-projection.html
They called every swing state other than WI wrong.
And their 2022 governor forecast in which they said Gretchen Whitmer would lose MI (she won by 10 pts).
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/governor/elections-map-rcp-projection.html
link to original post
Still, they are only using data from the polls other polling outfits have taken. They are adjusting them by the historical inaccuracy of that pollster, which also can be laid at the feet of the pollster and not the aggregator. This is different from a projection by the likes of Silver or Lichtman where they are doing fundamental analysis of real-world conditions rather than just empirically crunching numbers someone else got God-knows-how. They are transparent with what they are doing, unlike polling itself where the methodology can be somewhat opaque.
Quote: GialmereThere's also speculation that Trump wins the election but never takes office. Legal issues perhaps. Maybe a revolt at the electoral college vote, or even another assassination attempt. I'd like to say it's crazy talk, but this election and crazy have been walking hand in hand all year.
link to original post
I don't see that happening. What I can see happening is, Trump doesn't appear at the "official" inauguration on 1/20, but has a "private" one on that date. There is no requirement that the President be sworn in by the Chief Justice; for example, JFK was sworn in by someone else in 1963.
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: GialmereThere's also speculation that Trump wins the election but never takes office. Legal issues perhaps. Maybe a revolt at the electoral college vote, or even another assassination attempt. I'd like to say it's crazy talk, but this election and crazy have been walking hand in hand all year.
link to original post
I don't see that happening. What I can see happening is, Trump doesn't appear at the "official" inauguration on 1/20, but has a "private" one on that date. There is no requirement that the President be sworn in by the Chief Justice; for example, JFK was sworn in by someone else in 1963.
link to original post
I'd also consider a "President Atchison" situation.
In 2009 a very smart man pointed out to me that Obama was 2 minutes late in taking the oath of office. The Constitution has a drop-dead expiration of the term of a president and vice president of 12 noon on election day. That was enacted in 1933 after there were time zones so we have to take that as meaning Eastern Standard Time rather than local solar time which they would have been using when the Constitution was ratified. (Although that has not been put to any test. What if the President or President-Elect are in a different time zone on January 20th?)
So at the stroke of noon, Bush and Cheney were no longer President and VP. Who was? There is no succession to the position of VP, it can (and had for an extended period when VP Hobart died in office) remain vacant.
The Speaker of the House and Speaker pro tempore of the Senate can't be, because they would have to resign their seats in Congress first. (The Speaker of the House does not need to be a member of Congress and presumably would ascend automatically if he was not.)
So then it goes to the Cabinet officials, in the order in which the Cabinet position was created. First would be Secretary of State, who was at the time Condoleezza Rice. Under this interpretation, Condi Rice would be President for those two minutes, thus "the next President" under the terms of the bet. (and also the first....?)
Most people would say there was no lawful president for those two minutes, but this is not an argument I want to have with a bookmaker in another country in order to get paid. In the 2009 case an absurdly literal interpretation of the laws would have left someone who bet a dollar on Condi Rice a year ago with the whole pot. With the current level of creepiness in contemporary elections and the way disputes could be resolved, I'd rather pass and bet on something where everybody at least agrees on the final score.
Early rallies that fade out are sometimes even cause to Short.
So what really matters here is the final momentum into the bell not what might just be a head fake that runs of out gas and reverses before what really matters.
We might be near or even past the final hour but not at the bell yet.
If the dollars bet were a small fraction of that, I could see political forces dumping money in as a campaign ad. But at $2.5 billion I think it’s mostly real gamblers using whatever info they have.
Quote: ThatDonGuyQuote: GialmereThere's also speculation that Trump wins the election but never takes office. Legal issues perhaps. Maybe a revolt at the electoral college vote, or even another assassination attempt. I'd like to say it's crazy talk, but this election and crazy have been walking hand in hand all year.
link to original post
I don't see that happening. What I can see happening is, Trump doesn't appear at the "official" inauguration on 1/20, but has a "private" one on that date. There is no requirement that the President be sworn in by the Chief Justice; for example, JFK was sworn in by someone else in 1963.
link to original post
Robert's screwed up the sworn oath for Obama because he insisted on going by memory
Next morning Obama Administration had him do it again privately
