Presidential Election Betting
Quote: EvenBobQuote: DRichIf we considered this would it change the odds of any candidate in the 2024 election?
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
link to original post
Luckily no candidate that I know of has been charged with insurrection. You know something we don't know?
link to original post
Read that again. It says "engaged" not "charged"
…then EB chimed in with his political nonsense.
Quote: rsactuary
Read that again. It says "engaged" not "charged"
link to original post
If I see a Volkswagen Beetle and I call it a Cadillac, does that make it a Cadillac just because I said so? Apparently a lot of people think they can call Volkswagen Beetles Cadillacs and we're all just supposed to believe it. I'm sorry but when I see a beetle, that's all I'm seeing. No matter what somebody else called it. They can try and convince me until they're blue in the face that it's a Cadillac but it's still a Volkswagen Beetle.
/inˈɡāj,enˈɡāj/
verb
past tense: engaged; past participle: engaged
participate or become involved in.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Quote: rsactuaryen·gage
/inˈɡāj,enˈɡāj/
verb
past tense: engaged; past participle: engaged
participate or become involved in.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
link to original post
Here is an example of your duck in action. Just because somebody calls a Volkswagen Beetle a Cadillac that don't make it so. Lack of standing means you have no legal justification to bring the lawsuit.
Quote: rsactuaryThe defendents lacked standing, he did not comment on the merit of the case.
link to original post
If the defendant lacks standing there's no merit to comment on. There is no case. I can accuse you of something you never did and I totally lack standing, the case has no merit, nothing for the judge to comment on. Again, it's a Volkswagen Beetle but you keep seeing a Cadillac because the Cadillac is what you want to see. You think if you just try hard enough that Volkswagen Beetle will become a Cadillac. And a federal judge throwing this out is a big deal because this means if they keep pushing it it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court and of course they will throw it out for lack of standing.
Quote: GenoDRPh
How would SCOTUS rule if a Secretary of State of a state declares a certain candidate ineligible under Section 3? Certainly Secretaries of States who prepare ballots for voting have standing. If not them, then who does have standing?
link to original post
What state let's the Secretary of State pick and choose who goes on the federal election ballot. This would give the Secretary of State in every state the power of who becomes president by just leaving the opposing party off the ticket.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: rsactuaryThe defendents lacked standing, he did not comment on the merit of the case.
link to original post
If the defendant lacks standing there's no merit to comment on. There is no case. I can accuse you of something you never did and I totally lack standing, the case has no merit, nothing for the judge to comment on. Again, it's a Volkswagen Beetle but you keep seeing a Cadillac because the Cadillac is what you want to see. You think if you just try hard enough that Volkswagen Beetle will become a Cadillac. And a federal judge throwing this out is a big deal because this means if they keep pushing it it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court and of course they will throw it out for lack of standing.
link to original post
Clearly you didn't go to law school and never decided to do any casual reading on how the law works.
Quote: GenoDRPhSelf deleted for political content. Actually, legal content that dives deeply into politics,
link to original post
thought about that, but hey, I'm off to the UK for two weeks!
Quote: EvenBobQuote: GenoDRPh
How would SCOTUS rule if a Secretary of State of a state declares a certain candidate ineligible under Section 3? Certainly Secretaries of States who prepare ballots for voting have standing. If not them, then who does have standing?
link to original post
What state let's the Secretary of State pick and choose who goes on the federal election ballot. This would give the Secretary of State in every state the power of who becomes president by just leaving the opposing party off the ticket.
link to original post
Every state lets the Sec of State determine which potential candidates qualify under the Constitution to go on the Federal election ballot. That choice is not arbitrary or subject to political whims, but determined by the US Constitution. Which state allows anyone to go on the ballot, irrespective of whether or not the candidate meets Constitutional requirements? If a state DQs someone, they can always sue, like Kanye did in certain states when he was denied ballot access for not collecting enough nomination signatures (he lost in MA and I'm unsure about other states). Hypothetically, it's entirely possible (and the way things are going, possibly likely) that a state will deny 1 or more candidates ballot access, citing Section 3 and the issue decided in court, all the way to SCOTUS.
No more political posting from me,
As for Presidential betting, I'd bet the previous President gets renominated by his party for the general election, and the incumbent President wins reelection by carrying all but 1 of the swing states he won in 2020. A criminal conviction or publicly disclosed health complications can alter my bet as time draws near.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: EvenBobQuote: GenoDRPh
How would SCOTUS rule if a Secretary of State of a state declares a certain candidate ineligible under Section 3? Certainly Secretaries of States who prepare ballots for voting have standing. If not them, then who does have standing?
link to original post
What state let's the Secretary of State pick and choose who goes on the federal election ballot. This would give the Secretary of State in every state the power of who becomes president by just leaving the opposing party off the ticket.
link to original post
Every state lets the Sec of State determine which potential candidates qualify under the Constitution to go on the Federal election ballot. That choice is not arbitrary or subject to political whims, but determined by the US Constitution. Which state allows anyone to go on the ballot, irrespective of whether or not the candidate meets Constitutional requirements? If a state DQs someone, they can always sue, like Kanye did in certain states when he was denied ballot access for not collecting enough nomination signatures (he lost in MA and I'm unsure about other states). Hypothetically, it's entirely possible (and the way things are going, possibly likely) that a state will deny 1 or more candidates ballot access, citing Section 3 and the issue decided in court, all the way to SCOTUS.
No more political posting from me,
As for Presidential betting, I'd bet the previous President gets renominated by his party for the general election, and the incumbent President wins reelection by carrying all but 1 of the swing states he won in 2020. A criminal conviction or publicly disclosed health complications can alter my bet as time draws near.
link to original post
The more likely option is for an opposing Republican primary candidate sues to have Trump off of the ballot. That was the essence of the ruling EB incorrectly interpreted above.
Quote:On 9/1/2011, Mitt Romney led Barack Obama 49%-45% in an ABC/Washington Post poll
Polls mean nothing this far out. A poll showing them tied is probably good for the one who isn’t facing prison time.
Why drive a Volkswagon when you can drive a Cadillac?
My memory of this Viagra-related comment made me completely incapable of understanding what EB was posting about.
The only bet I would even consider at this point is a bet that doesn’t involve biden or trump.
Polls are certainly useful even now, because nothing is moving the needle. Trump was indicted four times for nearly 100 felony counts and he lost virtually no support. Why would a conviction be any different?Quote: ams288Quote:On 9/1/2011, Mitt Romney led Barack Obama 49%-45% in an ABC/Washington Post poll
Polls mean nothing this far out. A poll showing them tied is probably good for the one who isn’t facing prison time.
link to original post
On Biden, voters are mostly concerned about his age, and he's not gonna get any younger between now and election day.
That doesn't mean Trump will definitely win, just that he's certainly on a path to win, and Biden has a significant deficit to make up, with no prospects for doing so.
Obama/Romney was over a decade ago, before the massive polarization in the electorate.
Polls are certainly useful even now, because nothing is moving the needle. Trump was indicted four times for nearly 100 felony counts and he lost virtually no support. Why would a conviction be any different?Quote: MichaelBluejay
link to original post
Trump not only did not lose support, he gained support every time he was indicted. People aren't stupid, they know what's going on that this is all political. Look at the polls that came out today, Trump was ahead of Biden in polls that he's never been ahead of Biden in ever. Never ever. Even people who don't like Trump are saying enough is enough already, you want so badly for us not to vote for him that just to spite you we're going to support him. The American public is sick and tired of being played for suckers with all the hoaxes perpetrated by the media. And they very well remember how well they had it when Trump was president and how much everything stinks under Joe Biden.
I don’t remember everything stinking or going very well under trump, Biden or any other president. They’ve never affected my lifeQuote: EvenBobAnd they very well remember how well they had it when Trump was president and how much everything stinks under Joe Biden.
link to original post
Quote: FinsRuleIf you’re betting this far out, you need a great price. Especially with high interest rates.
The only bet I would even consider at this point is a bet that doesn’t involve biden or trump.
link to original post
Assuming you aren’t betting on credit.
Quote: Ace2I don’t remember everything stinking or going very well under trump, Biden or any other president. They’ve never affected my lifeQuote: EvenBobAnd they very well remember how well they had it when Trump was president and how much everything stinks under Joe Biden.
link to original post
link to original post
I remember paying under $3 a gallon almost the entire time Trump was president. For instance in Trump's second year as president gas was on average about $2.75 a gallon. In Bidens second year the average price was $4.15 a gallon. You think people don't remember this? You think people don't remember that we had no wars that we were paying for under Trump? This is all having a huge effect on Trump's popularity in the upcoming election. Not to mention that Trump would stand at the podium during a news conference and answer every single question asked of him. How many questions does the current president answer, usually none. Zero. Nada. That's when he has a press conference which is usually never. Just yesterday he was on his way to Rehoboth Beach again to continue his vacation and a reporter asked him why he was going there. Biden says, where else do I have to go. That about sums it up.
How does the price per pound of cat food compare now versus then ? How much was it in the 1950s?
Quote: Ace2How much were you paying for fake hamburger meat during trump years? Under the $9/pound you currently pay ?
link to original post
Don't know, as I pointed out about five times I didn't buy this plant-based hamburger it was given to me because the person who bought it didn't want it. I have also pointed out about five times that I would never buy it because it's way too expensive. I get so tired of explaining things to people who do not read posts, they just skim it and think they get it.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: Ace2I don’t remember everything stinking or going very well under trump, Biden or any other president. They’ve never affected my lifeQuote: EvenBobAnd they very well remember how well they had it when Trump was president and how much everything stinks under Joe Biden.
link to original post
link to original post
I remember paying under $3 a gallon almost the entire time Trump was president. For instance in Trump's second year as president gas was on average about $2.75 a gallon. In Bidens second year the average price was $4.15 a gallon. You think people don't remember this? You think people don't remember that we had no wars that we were paying for under Trump? This is all having a huge effect on Trump's popularity in the upcoming election. Not to mention that Trump would stand at the podium during a news conference and answer every single question asked of him. How many questions does the current president answer, usually none. Zero. Nada. That's when he has a press conference which is usually never. Just yesterday he was on his way to Rehoboth Beach again to continue his vacation and a reporter asked him why he was going there. Biden says, where else do I have to go. That about sums it up.
link to original post
Considering Congress was also in recess, the SS was doing security upgrades to his family home, and the President never goes on vacation but just gets a change in scenery,it was a good answer.
Maybe we should ask the oil companies why gas prices are so high, considering they are pumping record amounts of domestic oil.
Quote: EvenBobI remember paying under $3 a gallon almost the entire time Trump was president. For instance in Trump's second year as president gas was on average about $2.75 a gallon. In Bidens second year the average price was $4.15 a gallon. You think people don't remember this? You think people don't remember that we had no wars that we were paying for under Trump? This is all having a huge effect on Trump's popularity in the upcoming election. Not to mention that Trump would stand at the podium during a news conference and answer every single question asked of him. How many questions does the current president answer, usually none. Zero. Nada. That's when he has a press conference which is usually never. Just yesterday he was on his way to Rehoboth Beach again to continue his vacation and a reporter asked him why he was going there. Biden says, where else do I have to go. That about sums it up.
link to original post
Warning: This is partisan political speech. If you continue doing this we will issue suspensions.
Talk about chances/odds to win the nominations and the general election. Do not give your viewpoints on how wonderful or terrible Joe Biden, Donald Trump or any other candidate is. Do not vent your anger and contempt.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: EvenBobI remember paying under $3 a gallon almost the entire time Trump was president. For instance in Trump's second year as president gas was on average about $2.75 a gallon. In Bidens second year the average price was $4.15 a gallon. You think people don't remember this? You think people don't remember that we had no wars that we were paying for under Trump? This is all having a huge effect on Trump's popularity in the upcoming election. Not to mention that Trump would stand at the podium during a news conference and answer every single question asked of him. How many questions does the current president answer, usually none. Zero. Nada. That's when he has a press conference which is usually never. Just yesterday he was on his way to Rehoboth Beach again to continue his vacation and a reporter asked him why he was going there. Biden says, where else do I have to go. That about sums it up.
link to original post
Warning: This is partisan political speech. If you continue doing this we will issue suspensions.
Talk about chances/odds to win the nominations and the general election. Do not give your viewpoints on how wonderful or terrible Joe Biden, Donald Trump or any other candidate is. Do not vent your anger and contempt.
link to original post
This is an interesting conundrum from a Moderation standpoint.
On the one hand, we can talk about Election Betting odds.
On the other hand, we can't talk about politics.
On the third, mutated hand, talking about how a potential candidate may be perceived (politics) is almost inseparable from talking about that candidate's odds. For instance, based on what EB said, if someone accepts it as true, then he could be implying that the Odds are undervaluing Trump right now.
Definitely an interesting balance to be struck. This post should not be taken as suggestion or criticism; it's just commentary. I certainly don't mind not being the one to have to figure out where the balance is. Thank you to Gordon and all other Admins for their efforts.
Quote: Mission146
On the third, mutated hand, talking about how a potential candidate may be perceived (politics) is almost inseparable from talking about that candidate's odds.
link to original post
And there lies the rub. You cannot talk about a candidate for office without talking about that candidates politics and his record because that's how we determine who we vote for. We don't vote for somebody because they're good looking and they play a really good game of tennis. We vote because we like what they're going to do or have done for the country and that's politics. So either Mike has to agree to that or get rid of the thread. IMO
Quote: EvenBobQuote: Mission146
On the third, mutated hand, talking about how a potential candidate may be perceived (politics) is almost inseparable from talking about that candidate's odds.
link to original post
And there lies the rub. You cannot talk about a candidate for office without talking about that candidates politics and his record because that's how we determine who we vote for. We don't vote for somebody because they're good looking and they play a really good game of tennis. We vote because we like what they're going to do or have done for the country and that's politics. So either Mike has to agree to that or get rid of the thread. IMO
link to original post
Or we all can follow the rules and not post prohibited content. Mike's forum=Mike's rules. It is entirely possible to talk about election betting odds without talking about politics.
Quote: GenoDRPh
Or we all can follow the rules and not post prohibited content. Mike's forum=Mike's rules. It is entirely possible to talk about election betting odds without talking about politics.
link to original post
That's like talking about horse betting odds without discussing what the odds are based on. Can't be done. If I hear political odds I want to know exactly where they get those odds from. Like in a horse, we get to hear does he run good on a muddy track, does he have a good jockey, is he too old. On and on the facts go and this is where they get the odds from. It's exactly the same with politics. You can't say Trump is the FrontRunner without discussing why he's the FrontRunner.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: GenoDRPh
Or we all can follow the rules and not post prohibited content. Mike's forum=Mike's rules. It is entirely possible to talk about election betting odds without talking about politics.
link to original post
That's like talking about horse betting odds without discussing what the odds are based on. Can't be done. If I hear political odds I want to know exactly where they get those odds from. Like in a horse, we get to hear does he run good on a muddy track, does he have a good jockey, is he too old. On and on the facts go and this is where they get the odds from. It's exactly the same with politics. You can't say Trump is the FrontRunner without discussing why he's the FrontRunner.
link to original post
Everyone was doing fine in this thread til you chimed in. Maybe they’re just more talented than you.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: GenoDRPh
Or we all can follow the rules and not post prohibited content. Mike's forum=Mike's rules. It is entirely possible to talk about election betting odds without talking about politics.
link to original post
That's like talking about horse betting odds without discussing what the odds are based on. Can't be done. If I hear political odds I want to know exactly where they get those odds from. Like in a horse, we get to hear does he run good on a muddy track, does he have a good jockey, is he too old. On and on the facts go and this is where they get the odds from. It's exactly the same with politics. You can't say Trump is the FrontRunner without discussing why he's the FrontRunner.
link to original post
You can say why he's the frontrunner without giving political opinions, Learn how to be objective in your analysis,
Quote: Mission146Quote: gordonm888Quote: EvenBobI remember paying under $3 a gallon almost the entire time Trump was president. For instance in Trump's second year as president gas was on average about $2.75 a gallon. In Bidens second year the average price was $4.15 a gallon. You think people don't remember this? You think people don't remember that we had no wars that we were paying for under Trump? This is all having a huge effect on Trump's popularity in the upcoming election. Not to mention that Trump would stand at the podium during a news conference and answer every single question asked of him. How many questions does the current president answer, usually none. Zero. Nada. That's when he has a press conference which is usually never. Just yesterday he was on his way to Rehoboth Beach again to continue his vacation and a reporter asked him why he was going there. Biden says, where else do I have to go. That about sums it up.
link to original post
Warning: This is partisan political speech. If you continue doing this we will issue suspensions.
Talk about chances/odds to win the nominations and the general election. Do not give your viewpoints on how wonderful or terrible Joe Biden, Donald Trump or any other candidate is. Do not vent your anger and contempt.
link to original post
This is an interesting conundrum from a Moderation standpoint.
On the one hand, we can talk about Election Betting odds.
On the other hand, we can't talk about politics.
On the third, mutated hand, talking about how a potential candidate may be perceived (politics) is almost inseparable from talking about that candidate's odds. For instance, based on what EB said, if someone accepts it as true, then he could be implying that the Odds are undervaluing Trump right now.
Definitely an interesting balance to be struck. This post should not be taken as suggestion or criticism; it's just commentary. I certainly don't mind not being the one to have to figure out where the balance is. Thank you to Gordon and all other Admins for their efforts.
link to original post
yes its a thin line we're walking. Most of the participants have done a fairly good job of sticking to this rule (and we notice this and appreciate it.) but a couple of posters are simply venting the partisan arguments. That's what we're trying to put the kibosh on.
I think we can all ignore any predictions he makes about 2024.
At what point did you stop buying gasoline? $3.25? $3.50? It would be unfathomable to pay $4 per gallon, so I assume you started taking the bus at that point ?Quote: EvenBobQuote: Ace2How much were you paying for fake hamburger meat during trump years? Under the $9/pound you currently pay ?
link to original post
Don't know, as I pointed out about five times I didn't buy this plant-based hamburger it was given to me because the person who bought it didn't want it. I have also pointed out about five times that I would never buy it because it's way too expensive. I get so tired of explaining things to people who do not read posts, they just skim it and think they get it.
link to original post
The reality is that the polls show a tight race. That's what MSM is reporting, highlighting Biden's vulnerability explicitly. (So much for the supposed liberal bias of the MSM.) And since polls tend to underestimate Trump support (see below), his chances are probably better then the near-even poll numbers show.
(2) Trump likes to say that the indictments only increase his support. (And his supporters say the same thing, because Trump said it.) But that's not what the polls are showing. I took this chart from RCP and added the indictment dates to it. The takeaway is that voters don't care very much one way or the other about the indictments. It's like I said, everyone made up their minds long ago, precious little will change it, on either side. You could look at the chart and conclude that Trump took a hit from the indictments, except (a) the difference is *tiny*, and (b) the tiny movement can't be tied to the indictments anyway. Prior to the indictments, polling averages were shifting slightly from other factors anyway.
#1 - 3/30/23 Hush money fraud (trial 3/25/24)
#2 - 6/8/23 Classified documents (trial 5/24)
#3 - 8/1/23 Election interference (trial 3/4/24)
#4 - 8/14/23: GA election interference (trial not set)
(3a) The winner will be decided in the swing states, and
(3b) Polls tend to overstate Dem. support.
Note: There were some transcription errors in the data, and by the time you read it it's probably dated anyway. See my Google Docs spreadsheet for corrected and updated figures.
Here's my table showing what the polls predicted in 2020, how far off they were, and what the result is if we apply the 2020 error to 2024 polls. In that scenario, Trump flips three states (GA, AZ, and NV) and Biden wins 270 to 268, the smallest margin possible. And notice that in that scenario, he gets PA by the tiniest sliver, 0.16 pts. If the race were held today, it's a tossup.
Sources: 2020 state polls • Margins • 2024 polls (latest for each state) • Electoral outcome from 3 flips.
While we're on the topic of polls overstating Dem. support, in 2020 they had Biden +8.5, his actual margin was 4.5.
(4) Paths to victory
If these five states are the deciders, here are the paths to victory for each candidate. If we go only by the number of paths to victory (which is admittedly a stupid way to do it), Biden has a 56% chance of winning and Trump 44%.
And that's how you write a post about presidential election prognosticating without making it overly/overtly political.
Quote: MichaelBluejay(1) Partisans on both sides tend to believe their candidate is way ahead. Even locally, in this thread, a Trump critic strongly disagreed with my assertion that Trump has an excellent shot at re-election, and on the other side, EvenBob, well, I have him blocked, but it's a reliable guess that he thinks Trump is the clear favorite, right? I mean, predictable. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
The reality is that the polls show a tight race. That's what MSM is reporting, highlighting Biden's vulnerability explicitly. (So much for the supposed liberal bias of the MSM.) And since polls tend to underestimate Trump support (see below), his chances are probably better then the near-even poll numbers show.
(2) Trump likes to say that the indictments only increase his support. (And his supporters say the same thing, because Trump said it.) But that's not what the polls are showing. I took this chart from RCP and added the indictment dates to it. The takeaway is that voters don't care very much one way or the other about the indictments. It's like I said, everyone made up their minds long ago, precious little will change it, on either side. You could look at the chart and conclude that Trump took a hit from the indictments, except (a) the difference is *tiny*, and (b) the tiny movement can't be tied to the indictments anyway. Prior to the indictments, polling averages were shifting slightly from other factors anyway.
#1 - 3/30/23 Hush money fraud (trial 3/25/24)
#2 - 6/8/23 Classified documents (trial 5/24)
#3 - 8/1/23 Election interference (trial 3/4/24)
#4 - 8/14/23: GA election interference (trial not set)
(3a) The winner will be decided in the swing states, and
(3b) Polls tend to overstate Dem. support.
Here's my table showing what the polls predicted in 2020, how far off they were, and what the result is if we apply the 2020 error to 2024 polls. In that scenario, Trump flips three states (GA, AZ, and NV) and Biden wins 270 to 268, the smallest margin possible. And notice that in that scenario, he gets PA by the tiniest sliver, 0.16 pts. If the race were held today, it's a tossup.
Sources: 2020 state polls • Margins • 2024 polls (latest for each state) • Electoral outcome from 3 flips.
While we're on the topic of polls overstating Dem. support, in 2020 they had Biden +8.5, his actual margin was 4.5.
(4) Paths to victory
If these five states are the deciders, here are the paths to victory for each candidate. If we go only by the number of paths to victory (which is admittedly a stupid way to do it), Biden has a 56% chance of winning and Trump 44%.
And that's how you write a post about presidential election prognosticating without making it overly/overtly political.
link to original post
EB is totally convinced Trump won 2020
Enough said :-)
You forgot the biggest issue
Abortion
It's why there was no red wave at the midterms
It's Republican kryponite
Trump won Ohio 53%
The recent Ohio referendum no change the rule vote 57% victory for the Dems and turnout was very high.
This was essentially an abortion vote
Trump and Alito created Roevember
Dems are gonna run hard on this after what happened in Ohio. The ads will directly blame Trump for millions of Women losing their rights
I did not. That's already baked into the numbers I reported. However much abortion moved the needle, if at all, that's reflected in the figures in my post. Abortion rights were revoked, and Biden is *still* looking at a super-tough race, by all accounts.Quote: terapinedYou forgot the biggest issue
Abortion
Let me guess, you support Biden, right? And therefore you think that Biden has an outsized chance of winning. See how that works?
Quote: GenoDRPh
Or we all can follow the rules and not post prohibited content. Mike's forum=Mike's rules. It is entirely possible to talk about election betting odds without talking about politics.
link to original post
(Quote clipped; quote-in-quotes removed)
I don't plan to participate in this thread at all, unless and until I write an article about this subject. Of course, I have always assumed I can get into a little bit of stuff in my articles (and sometimes light language) that might not be appropriate for the Forum side (per rules) and have never been told otherwise.
The point that I am making is that you could say something like:
"Okay, the Odds are this, this and this."
But, how could you possibly discuss whether the odds are good, or bad, without somewhat getting into political discussion? I imagine polling and historical results would be fairly safe, but it seems very difficult to discuss (or Moderate) the more subjective elements of what make odds good, or bad, without the discussion veering slightly into the political in nature.
Gordon's post makes me think it's about tone and neutrality as much as anything else. I think Bluejay's post is a good example of one that can make some statements that venture into the political, but is neutral in both content and tone, as it presents the views of both sides.
The rules are vague but I think the point is to stop partisan bickering. That is, my impression is that it's fine to talk about *politics*, but it's not fine to talk about a politician, party, or issue as being good or bad. It's pretty easy to follow the rules that way.Quote: Mission146But, how could you possibly discuss whether the odds are good, or bad, without somewhat getting into political discussion?
That said, I did cross that line at one point, couldn't help myself.
Thanks, but objective analysis is *not* presenting the views of both sides. I didn't present the views of any side. I posted objective facts about the numbers. If we're seeing data that supports or hurts a candidate's chances of re-election as being on a "side", then that's part of the problem. Like I said, partisans tend to inflate their side's chances of winning.Quote: Mission146I think Bluejay's post is a good example of one that can make some statements that venture into the political, but is neutral in both content and tone, as it presents the views of both sides.
Let's say a candidate is convicted of burglary, and the media objectively reports that fact. Do we say the media is biased against that candidate because they reported something negative about him? If the coverage is negative is that the fault of the media or the candidate? Is the media taking a "side" by reporting the objective fact?
I would say clearly not, but right now half the country sees it differently, they see any objective reporting about the candidate, based on that candidate's actions, as an unfair attack on the candidate. And that statement I just made has now veered into political discussion, but it's really difficult to not reference the elephant in the room.
I think negative partisanship is a big driver of turnout now.
People don’t like Biden. But they don’t hate him. They hate Hillary. And they hate Trump.
Biden +175 or Trump +225….
I pretty much hate both of those bets 14 months out. If you force me to bet $1 on either choice, I take Biden, but I’m not happy about it.
It's not a matter of *regretting* their vote for Biden, it's that they might have been fine with voting for a 77-year-old but not fine with voting for an 81-year-old. A clear majority of Americans think Biden will be too old to govern for another term. Americans generally don't like *either* candidate, and we've had that problem for a few cycles now. Some system we've got going, huh?Quote: FinsRuleBiden beat Trump once. I find it hard to believe that enough people are going to regret their choice to change their vote.
And while you might believe that people would be reluctant to switch sides, the polls are saying that they are.
Quote: FinsRule
Biden +175 or Trump +225….
If I could get those odds I would be rich. Just bet both sides.
Quote: FinsRuleBiden beat Trump once. I find it hard to believe that enough people are going to regret their choice to change their vote.
link to original post
Don't count on that being true. Joe Biden for about the first six months in office polled over 50% approval but ever since then he's been in the 40s, the low 40s and even into the 30s, that's how much people regret voting for him. When they saw what his policies were doing, his poll numbers plummeted and they've never recovered. The age thing is huge, he will be 81 in 2 months and he'll be 82 the same month as the election next year. I can't think of a single business that I want an 82-year-old man running, let alone with four more years in front of it. I know a couple people in their 80s they all have one thing in common, they like to take a lot of naps and watch a lot of TV. I wouldn't trust any of them with anything of any importance.
In my analysis above, I erred because I thought one of the NV polls was Biden/Trump, but it was really Trump/Desantis. Of course Biden has a much tougher time against Desantis because Desantis isn't as hugely unpopular as Trump is. So, using the correct figure, according to current polling, Trump would flip only 2 states, not 3, and the electoral count would be 276-262 Biden.
I won't continually update this thread, but I made a Google docs spreadsheet which I'll update with state polling from time to time.
Quote: DRichQuote: FinsRule
Biden +175 or Trump +225….
If I could get those odds I would be rich. Just bet both sides.
link to original post
Head to bovada
