2016 Vice President betting
JULIAN CASTRO? I read a blurb about his accomplishments, and all it mentioned was that he was Latino and thus would make a great running mate for Hilary. Mayor of San Antonio, by the way.....
The Republicans are no better with Nikki Haley leading the pack. She did give a good speech...
We make such a big deal about learning every iota about every presidential candidate, so we can VOTE for the best one, but for VP it is someone picked out of a hat. Since the VP is of course first in line to be prez if needed, I think this system of selecting him or her sucks.
Why not
Its a hoot
Quote: jml24Worried about the next Gerald Ford? With Trump, Clinton, and Sanders all near or over 70, the probability of the next VP becoming president seems higher than average. The other Republican front runners are young, though.
VP Biden is 73; he could end up the candidate if the Democrats feel Sanders can't win and Hillary ends up in jail...all a VERY long shot, of course, but the odds are nearly as long as 18 yo's in a row...
Quote: SOOPOO
JULIAN CASTRO? I read a blurb about his accomplishments, and all it mentioned was that he was Latino and thus would make a great running mate for Hilary. Mayor of San Antonio, by the way.....
I also think it will be one of the Castro twins. Julian makes more sense than his brother because his brother would have to vacate his House seat and Julian will be looking for a job when the Obama administration ends (I assume).
He's very young, but has executive gov't experience, which helps with the age issue (both hers and his). He's latino, which helps with them and other minorities and balances off Jeb, Cruz, and Mario all in one, and he's Southern, which might help in places where Hillary is still regarded as a carpetbagger despite the time in Arkansas. He's got a clean record professionally and personally.
I would guess it's all about electoral math. Florida, Texas, Nevada, and California will all be in play. He helps with all of those.
Quote: beachbumbabs
I would guess it's all about electoral math. Florida, Texas, Nevada, and California will all be in play. He helps with all of those.
Two of those states are not in play.
If Texas is in play the dems win so big they take back the senate and the only real question is how many seats they take back in the house.
Likewise if California is in play, then a republican will win the presidency and the repubs will easily hold the senate and probably increase their advantage in the house
Hillary has high negatives in CA as well as high positives. It could swing depending on the matchup. I haven't seen any polling that would indicate Sanders' relative chances.
Quote: beachbumbabsTexas is considered purple these days, especially in Presidential years. The Dems are focused on winning it, and the experts think it will be very close. I think it's the #1 reason the Castros are short-listed for VP.
Hillary has high negatives in CA as well as high positives. It could swing depending on the matchup. I haven't seen any polling that would indicate Sanders' relative chances.
Found a really interesting thing on Nate Silver's 538 blog about this. Here's a screen shot:
So, the graphs above are set to reflect the vote nationally from the 2012 election. The 4th graph, and 4th column, are Latinos. They voted in 2012 71% Democratic, with a 48% turnout. However, when I move them to 85% Democratic and a 70% turnout, that's the breakpoint for Texas to turn blue (shown in the last column). The 4th column is what percentage of the state is currently Latino.
Last poll I saw, Hillary Clinton was running at 85% nationally with Latinos (this week, not sure which poll). If one of the Castro brothers of Texas were her (or any Dem's) running mate, there's no question in my mind the Texas Latinos would turn out in force to vote for that ticket, 70% at least (not out of the question, with 77% of CE Whites turning out). So with 38 electoral votes, that could be the ballgame right there.
EDIT: FWIW, if the Hispanics nationwide turn out at 70% and break 85-15% and nothing else changes among other demographics, AZ and NC are the other 2 states that change from red to blue. The rest of the states stay where they were.
Quote: beachbumbabsTexas is considered purple these days, especially in Presidential years.
No. Texas is NOT purple. Texas is still deep red. 2012 presidential results: Romney 57.1%, Obama 41.3%. That is a 16 percentage point win.
If Texas continues on it's current trajectory as far as the Latino voters growing, it could become purple at some point in the next 20 years, but it is still a long way off.
In this day and age, they almost know the exact makeup of the electorate....it's a science. For instance, North Carolina is 5 points more red (or redder) than Virginia and Ohio. If North Carolina gets close as it did in 2008, when Obama won by less than 1%, then they can be reasonably sure Virginia and Ohio (true swing states) have already easily gone democratic.
So for Texas to get close enough that it is in play means the Dems will easily win all the true swings states and win some other slightly leaning red states.
It would work the same way with California. If California really came into play in a presidential election, it would take a republican wave and that means that all the swing states and even a few slightly leaning blue states will have already gone republican before California does.
Quote: kewljNo. Texas is NOT purple. Texas is still deep red. 2012 presidential results: Romney 57.1%, Obama 41.3%. That is a 16 percentage point win.
If Texas continues on it's current trajectory as far as the Latino voters growing, it could become purple at some point in the next 20 years, but it is still a long way off.
In this day and age, they almost know the exact makeup of the electorate....it's a science. For instance, North Carolina is 5 points more red (or redder) than Virginia and Ohio. If North Carolina gets close as it did in 2008, when Obama won by less than 1%, then they can be reasonably sure Virginia and Ohio (true swing states) have already easily gone democratic.
So for Texas to get close enough that it is in play means the Dems will easily win all the true swings states and win some other slightly leaning red states.
It would work the same way with California. If California really came into play in a presidential election, it would take a republican wave and that means that all the swing states and even a few slightly leaning blue states will have already gone republican before California does.
You're not wrong, but neither am I. It's a complex question. Please look at what I just posted about Texas and how it might work there.
Latinos traditionally vote at less then 50%, usually in the upper 40's for presidential elections. Latino's have a much lower turnout than both whites and black.
I am not sure why you would think Latino voter turnout would jump from 48% or 49% to 70% because a Latino was on the ticket. That is a massive (and unrealistic jump).
For comparison the black turnout jumped from 60% in 2004 to 65% in 2008, when the first black candidate was on the ticket. And he was on the top of the ticket and the increase was only 5%.
Quote: kewlj70% voter turnout by Latinos is very unrealistic.
Latinos traditionally vote at less then 50%, usually in the upper 40's for presidential elections. Latino's have a much lower turnout than both whites and black.
I am not sure why you would think Latino voter turnout would jump from 48% or 49% to 70% because a Latino was on the ticket. That is a massive (and unrealistic jump).
For comparison the black turnout jumped from 60% in 2004 to 65% in 2008, when the first black candidate was on the ticket. And he was on the top of the ticket and the increase was only 5%.
I'm isolating Texas. A popular, young, Texas-born Latino man for VP, the first to run? They are both well-spoken, bright, charismatic men as well. The Texas Latinos would turn out. I think there'd be a nationwide bump as well, not as much, but significant.
I should add, too, that the Latino community is galvanized by their demonization in the immigration fight, too. A Castro is an implicit acknowledgement of their community, and immigration has not been front-and-center in a Presidential election in many years. They'll turn out even if it's not a Castro, better than they have before, just because they're so angry. If you watch any Univision or Telemundo coverage (or even Jose Balart-Diaz on MSNBC), you'll hear plenty about it.
Quote: beachbumbabsI'm isolating Texas. A popular, young, Texas-born Latino man for VP, the first to run? They are both well-spoken, bright, charismatic men as well. The Texas Latinos would turn out. I think there'd be a nationwide bump as well, not as much, but significant.
I think you are being overly optimistic.
Quote: kewljI think you are being overly optimistic.
You could be right. I'd suggest a prop bet on it, but I know you don't generally do them. It would be fun, though.
The Dems here have been trying to tell us how it is changing and they overstate their case. Again, I think it will change but I think the timelines are longer rather than shorter.
Quote: beachbumbabsYou could be right. I'd suggest a prop bet on it, but I know you don't generally do them. It would be fun, though.
I love stuff like this. Over/under on Latino turnout? Dems win Texas?
I might do it. I'm not well known, I know, so I'd be fine with you holding the money.
Quote: RigondeauxI love stuff like this. Over/under on Latino turnout? Dems win Texas?
I might do it. I'm not well known, I know, so I'd be fine with you holding the money.
You've been a good member for over a year; I'd take a chance on you for a few dollars.
Seems to me a parlay might work; part 1 (or a pre-requisite for the bet) would be yes or no on whether the party will pick one of the Castros. There are other, more prominent people available; either Hillary or Bernie could pick Martin O'Malley for most of the same reasons, minus the Latino heritage, for example. Bernie might well pick Elizabeth Warren, for another.
The result would have to be "yes" for me to bet the second part. I don't think Texas will be in play without one of them.
Over/under on Latino turnout would be good.
Texas red or blue would be really good, kind of the ultimate point of the bet.
I don't know much about setting odds or lines, though. Maybe the Wizard could suggest something fair.
Quote: beachbumbabsHillary has high negatives in CA as well as high positives. It could swing depending on the matchup. I haven't seen any polling that would indicate Sanders' relative chances.
I agree with the rest of "if California is considered 'in play,' then you might as well give the White House to the Republicans right now" camp - especially as the Democrats won't want to take any chances with the Senate seat being vacated by Barbara Boxer. (Actually, the Senate seat could work against the Democrats, if California's "open primary" results in the November race being between two Democrats - and if the Clinton/Sanders race is still close in June, expect a huge Democratic turnout at the primary.)
Even if it was in play, I can think of four words that can change it: Vice President Dianne Feinstein.
Quote: terapinedTrump/Palin
Why not
Its a hoot
Indeed. I think Palin is ...interesting, much the same way Trump is. Both are opinionated, and both are great communicators, but the things they say can be pretty ....well, unfiltered may be the best way to put it.
I like both from an entertainment point of view and find Palin to be quite attractive - but as leaders, it's tough. I don't know if congress would treat them any better than they did Obama. Unfortunately, our population of voters hasn't figured out how to tell congress to do their job and get things done, whether they like the president or not.
Be warned - I don't like Obama - but I do admit part of that reason is because he and the congress can't seem to get many things done. The somehow pushed the ACA through - which was an incredible lifeline to some, but at the expense of so very many. Ultimately, it's the hospitals and pharmaceutical companies that seem to be making out like bandits.
Some believe Palin would cost Trump the election. Some think it would guarantee it. It's tough to say. I don't think I'd want Sarah for VP if I were Trump. I'd prefer to have someone with prior senatorial experience - since the VP runs that show. It'd be a shame to waste "the honeymoon period" with her just figuring things out.
"10. Neither Julian nor Joaquin speak Spanish.
Julian took Latin in high school, Joaquin took German. Julian told Vogue in 2013, “I’ve resolved that before I die, I want to speak it fluently." At the time, Joaquin was listening to language tapes sent by fellow Texan Eva Longoria."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/23/the-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-julian-castro/
I don't know if speaking the language is important or not; I am just posting it as a fun fact. For whatever reason, the more successful Latinos I meet speak a lot less Spanish (they either don't know it or don't use it) than the less successful ones.
Quote: beachbumbabsYou've been a good member for over a year; I'd take a chance on you for a few dollars.
Seems to me a parlay might work; part 1 (or a pre-requisite for the bet) would be yes or no on whether the party will pick one of the Castros. There are other, more prominent people available; either Hillary or Bernie could pick Martin O'Malley for most of the same reasons, minus the Latino heritage, for example. Bernie might well pick Elizabeth Warren, for another.
The result would have to be "yes" for me to bet the second part. I don't think Texas will be in play without one of them.
Over/under on Latino turnout would be good.
Texas red or blue would be really good, kind of the ultimate point of the bet.
I don't know much about setting odds or lines, though. Maybe the Wizard could suggest something fair.
I'm fine with pinning it to the VP nom. A Trump presidential nom would probably help drive up Latino votes as well, but that can be part of the gamble.
I'd def. give you odds on Texas going blue if a Castro is the VP nom. Would have to think about an over/under.
Quote: opsyI can see Elizabeth Warren being Bernie Sander's VP
Unless something outlandish happens to Hillary (criminal charges, major health issue) I can't see any real way for Sanders to win the nomination. Can you?
