Presidential Election Betting

Quote: gordonm888

Hey, let me say that it was my mistake about the name of the Democratic Party, I honestly believed the legal name of the Party was the Democrat Party. I believe I was taught that in Junior High School in Queens NY. I have looked it up and I am wrong, it is indeed the Democratic Party. I had no idea that there was any issue of apparent bias about the name; I am innocent of any intention to denigrate the Democratic Party*. I apologize for my error or ignorance in that regard. I am sorry.

I meant only to list the issues about Biden that I thought would cost him votes in the polls without discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of those issues. I guess I could have been lawyerly and used the adjectives "apparent" and "alleged" but I was trying to be telegraphic as I listed what I think would be the top three voter anti-Biden issues in Nov 2024. Again, I wanted to avoid any discussion about why those issues are currently being identified by some voters (of both parties) as concerns and are being cited by some pollsters.

*By way of full disclosure from 2009 -2012 I worked for the federal government as a senior scientist in the office of a national security official who reported directly to President Obama.
link to original post

Lots of people make the "Democrat" party mistake.

It really just derives from proper usage issues.

There is the Republican party. Those Voters are called Republicans. If you ask how they vote they will say "I vote Republican "

Then you have the Democratic party. You don't refer to those voters as the Democratics. If you ask a Democratic party member how they vote the answer is "I vote Democrat" no one says "I vote Democratic "

So it's a natural mistake. Why it's even an issue is beyond me. Truthfully anything can be turned into an insult. "Oh, you're a MOD? No wonder!" (Not insulting mods just showing how anything can be made to sound like its sneerful.)

Quote: EvenBob

RCP from 4 days ago has the race in a dead heat. How will this affect what the odds makers do.


link to original post

RCP sucks.

Take a look at their final Senate predictions from 2022:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/elections-map_no_toss_ups.html

They got EVERY competitive swing state race wrong except WI.

And this is my favorite, their governor predictions:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/governor/elections-map_projection.html

They thought Gretchen Whitmer was going to lose MI. She won by 11 points!

.
this is from www.thelines.com from 9/8/23 (linked)

I was kinna surprised with Gavin Newsom being almost equal to DeSantis - I wasn't aware of that until now





https://www.thelines.com/odds/election/


.

Quote: gordonm888

Trump is the most polarizing candidate I have ever seen. If he is the GOP nominee, IMO it doesn't matter who the other candidates are, it doesn't matter if Biden has a stroke while campaigning. The election will come down to a referendum on Donald Trump. The Democrat voters hate him, most of the mass media hate him and various district attorneys are trying to pull him down. The Democrat Party voter turnout would be extremely high. I think that Trump would lose versus any candidate - I don't think he could beat Dianne Feinstein in a Nov 2024 general election. Just my opinion.

If Trump doesn't run and Biden does, the election will become a referendum on Biden. Of course, Biden's negatives are his age and his apparent mental decline, his corruption, and the inflation that has already occurred. If Biden has a younger opponent who is credible, I think he would probably lose that election. Just my views from Sept 2023.
link to original post

I'm wondering how the overall odds change if neither Trump or Biden are the nominees. Definitely not out of possible reality.

Quote: gordonm888

Hey, let me say that it was my mistake about the name of the Democratic Party, I honestly believed the legal name of the Party was the Democrat Party. I believe I was taught that in Junior High School in Queens NY. I have looked it up and I am wrong, it is indeed the Democratic Party. I had no idea that there was any issue of apparent bias about the name; I am innocent of any intention to denigrate the Democratic Party*. I apologize for my error or ignorance in that regard. I am sorry.

I meant only to list the issues about Biden that I thought would cost him votes in the polls without discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of those issues. I guess I could have been lawyerly and used the adjectives "apparent" and "alleged" but I was trying to be telegraphic as I listed what I think would be the top three voter anti-Biden issues in Nov 2024. Again, I wanted to avoid any discussion about why those issues are currently being identified by some voters (of both parties) as concerns and are being cited by some pollsters.

*By way of full disclosure from 2009 -2012 I worked for the federal government as a senior scientist in the office of a national security official who reported directly to President Obama.
link to original post

So, party members are 'democratics" not democrats? Just asking.

tuttigym

Quote: unJon

@michaelbluejay, Can you site the 4% republican advantage vs popular vote? I’m wondering how accurate it is as a predictive measure as I assume it depends in large part on voter turnout in high population non-swing states like NY and CA. link to original post

Quote: MichaelBluejay

You're right, it's not a hard and fast rule. Here's how I figured it: Biden won the popular vote in 2016 by 2.5 pts but lost the electoral college significantly. In 2020 he won the popular vote by 4.5 pts but just squeaked by in the electoral college, winning three states by 0.63 points or less. Let's take 0.32 pts off his 2020 margin, giving him a 4.18-pt popular win. Let's also say that the 0.32-pt shift happens uniformly in the swing states. That flips these two states:

Georgia • Biden +0.24 in 2020 • Biden -0.08 in 2024
Arizona • Biden +0.31 in 2020 • Biden -0.01 in 2024

That gives Biden a razor-thin electoral college win of 276 votes, courtesy of a razor-thin win of Wisconsin by 0.31 pts.

If instead of taking 0.32 its of Biden's 2020 margin, instead we take 0.64 pts off, giving him a 3.86-pt popular win, he also loses Wisconsin and the election.

Conclusion: All things being equal, Biden wins re-election with ≥3.87-pt popular vote win, and loses with ≤3.86-pt. popular vote win.

Of course isn't precise. I'm not saying it is. But it's almost certainly very close.
link to original post

Okay, unJon, here you go: NYT says that while Biden lost 3.2pts in the nationwide popular vote (compared to 2020 election results), he didn't lose *any* points in the swing states:

Not what I expected. Then again, my Election Results Predictor does show Biden squeaking out a win based on swing state polling.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: unJon

@michaelbluejay, Can you site the 4% republican advantage vs popular vote? I’m wondering how accurate it is as a predictive measure as I assume it depends in large part on voter turnout in high population non-swing states like NY and CA. link to original post

Quote: MichaelBluejay

You're right, it's not a hard and fast rule. Here's how I figured it: Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by 2.5 pts but lost the electoral college significantly. In 2020 he won the popular vote by 4.5 pts but just squeaked by in the electoral college, winning three states by 0.63 points or less. Let's take 0.32 pts off his 2020 margin, giving him a 4.18-pt popular win. Let's also say that the 0.32-pt shift happens uniformly in the swing states. That flips these two states:

Georgia • Biden +0.24 in 2020 • Biden -0.08 in 2024
Arizona • Biden +0.31 in 2020 • Biden -0.01 in 2024

That gives Biden a razor-thin electoral college win of 276 votes, courtesy of a razor-thin win of Wisconsin by 0.31 pts.

If instead of taking 0.32 its of Biden's 2020 margin, instead we take 0.64 pts off, giving him a 3.86-pt popular win, he also loses Wisconsin and the election.

Conclusion: All things being equal, Biden wins re-election with ≥3.87-pt popular vote win, and loses with ≤3.86-pt. popular vote win.

Of course isn't precise. I'm not saying it is. But it's almost certainly very close.
link to original post

Okay, unJon, here you go: NYT says that while Biden lost 3.2pts in the nationwide popular vote (compared to 2020 election results), he didn't lose *any* points in the swing states:

Not what I expected. Then again, my Election Results Predictor does show Biden squeaking out a win based on swing state polling.
link to original post

Super interesting. Thanks for posting.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Here's how I figured it: Biden won the popular vote in 2016 by 2.5 pts but lost the electoral college significantly.

Biden didn't run in 2016

you meant Hilary Clinton

.

Quote: lilredrooster

Biden didn't run in 2016

you meant Hilary Clinton

Indeed. I corrected.

Quote: lilredrooster

.



https://www.thelines.com/odds/election/.
link to original post

I wish I lived in Ontario. One could arb Biden at BetMGM at +175 and Trump at Caesars at +300.

To be specific, bet four units on Biden and three on Trump. If either wins, you win one unit. 14.29% player advantage. Again, this assumes one of them wins, but I think that's pretty likely. Is there a market for a single bet on anyone but Trump or Biden?

Quote: Wizard

I wish I lived in Ontario. One could arb Biden at BetMGM at +175 and Trump at Caesars at +300.

To be specific, bet four units on Biden and three on Trump. If either wins, you win one unit. 14.29% player advantage. Again, this assumes one of them wins, but I think that's pretty likely. Is there a market for a single bet on anyone but Trump or Biden?

yes, I in Canada you can bet on any of those shown in the link
DeSantis is bet down to as low as +800 at one of the books
it's not legal in the U.S. - not yet anyway
not 100% sure but I would bet that the overseas books such as betonline.com have it and you could arb there
don't think they really care what's legal and what's not legal except maybe in the country that they're in

.

In WI, it is illegal to vote in a contest in which you have placed a wager.

https://bringit.wi.gov/sites/bringit/files/3%204%20Voter%20Eligibility-2020%20july%20update.pdf

I don’t know how this can be enforced, and I’m a poll worker.

.
so much chatter everywhere about Biden's age - 80

Trump is 77 - not much younger

and to top it off he's at least 20 pounds overweight

.

Quote: lilredrooster

.
so much chatter everywhere about Biden's age - 80

Trump is 77 - not much younger

and to top it off he's at least 20 pounds overweight

.
link to original post

Nonsense! He is a healthy 6 ft 3, 215 pound man!

I think Biden should accept Trump's challenge.
Let's see them ride a bike two miles, walk 200 yards, climb a flight of stairs and then answer the same questions.
All live. I think we deserve it.

Quote: mcallister3200

intentionally misleading about her heritage
link to original post

As someone who is an actual tribal citizen (I will DM proof with redactions of PPI to anyone if requested once I get off work), Warren was intentionally misleading with her heritage. Claiming Native heritage and releasing a DNA test "proving it" was a bad PR stunt at best. Citizenship in the tribe (Cherokee) she was claiming isn't based on blood quantum anyway. I would know because I went through the process myself with my immediate family many years ago.

.
triple whammy for Biden


1___Hunter charged with illegal gun possession

2___Impeachment inquiry begun

3___possible Government shutdown looming


too, too much for him to handle

I think he should declare he's not running and allow some fresh faces to compete for the nomination

.

I think he should declare he's not running and allow some fresh faces to compete for the nomination

Seriously?
His son is charged with a crime that is rarely prosecuted. Can you tell us the last person sent to jail for this? A Federal judge has already ruled against the law he is charged with, and the party of gods and guns supports his decision.
Republicans launched an impeachment investigation with no proof, and the law Republicans passed to protect Trump states the DOJ or any Federal can NOT cooperate with any impeachment investigation unless it is authorized by a vote of the House. It's a sham investigation that may well turn illegal if it attempts to compel anyone to testify.
Any government shutdown comes from the republican controlled house that is more concerned with a boy wearing a dress and banning books than governing. A shutdown will be the best campaign donation the Democrats can ask for.

.

Quote: billryan

I think he should declare he's not running and allow some fresh faces to compete for the nomination

Seriously?
His son is charged with a crime that is rarely prosecuted. Can you tell us the last person sent to jail for this? A Federal judge has already ruled against the law he is charged with, and the party of gods and guns supports his decision.
Republicans launched an impeachment investigation with no proof, and the law Republicans passed to protect Trump states the DOJ or any Federal can NOT cooperate with any impeachment investigation unless it is authorized by a vote of the House. It's a sham investigation that may well turn illegal if it attempts to compel anyone to testify.
Any government shutdown comes from the republican controlled house that is more concerned with a boy wearing a dress and banning books than governing. A shutdown will be the best campaign donation the Democrats can ask for.

.
link to original post

Three day suspension for partisan political speech

Quote: billryan

charged with a crime that is rarely prosecuted. Can you tell us the last person sent to jail for this? A Federal judge has already ruled against the law he is charged with
link to original post

"Status" laws have always been difficult to uphold or enforce. In the 1950s in America there were laws popping up that made it a crime to be an addict. What exactly is or how exactly to define an addict was unclear, and eventually these laws were struck down as unconstitutional, because you can't punish someone for drug addiction because it is a status versus an act, and being an addict doesn't mean that the person has engaged in any illegal conduct. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).

In immigration law, it remains on the books that a person who has at any time been a drug addict or abuser may not become a citizen or immigrate to this country, but that law hasn't been enforced in a long time too, and in fact, when an immigrant gets in trouble and is at risk of being removed (deported) proof of rehabilitation is accepted as a defense against removal, even though technically that proof would be evidence of a drug problem to begin with.

In California, the State Bar moral character question as it relates to drug use is whether or not the person's use of drugs or alcohol would presently affect his practice of law.

Biden's son is charged in connection with allegedly lying on the application to obtain a firearm by answering No to whether he was addicted to drugs. But this sort of thing gets back again to "status" of whether he was really addicted to drugs in the first place, and then the constitutionality of the law to begin with. Someone could be addicted to drugs or alcohol and still be functioning and another person could be not addicted and drink or use enough to be a danger to himself or others. And how to define whether someone is addicted or not?

I believe the question is “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” and that would make all the potheads in violation of the law as well. Marijuana users typically use the drug daily, and even if not, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level.
Anyway, I am sure that Biden's attorneys will challenge the constitutionality of the law besides trying to make a factual defense on the grounds of that he wasn't addicted. The unlawful use, if he was using something other than marijuana, may get tricky, but still the question as a whole seems to proscribe status versus any specific act, which gets back to those old 1950's anti-addict laws, which were all struck down.

Today, being under the influence of an illegal drug is against the law, being under the influence of anything legal or not to the point where you're a danger to yourself or others is illegal, but simply being an addict or abuser of drugs is not a crime. In a state like Nevada, for example, they essentially don't even have an under the influence law because it's so hard to enforce it, absent some other crime being committed (i.e. driving under the influence) the police need a search warrant just to gather the evidence (blood test, etc.) to make a case. Driving impaired - Nevada prosecutes. Walking around loaded - as long as the person isn't bothering anyone and is staying away from the high rollers on the Strip - is left alone.

Mdawg, in regards to the second paragraph from the bottom. There’s a difference between habitual use of substances like alcohol, coffee, marijuana and an addiction. The way you wrote that paragraph seems to imply there can be no distinction.

And yes, I did group caffeine in with the others, it’s also a mind altering substance that is heavily abused.

If the question is “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” then any unlawful use triggers a Yes. Alcohol is not an unlawful (controlled) substance. Nor is caffeine.

I assume that because "controlled substance" is added at the end after an Or, it means that the only substances that trigger the question are "controlled" substances.

Controlled substances are defined under federal law as under five different schedules, I - V, and marijuana is in there as a Schedule I, right up there with heroin. Schedule I substances cannot be lawful under federal law because they are deemed to "have no currently accepted medical use in the United States, a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and a high potential for abuse."

https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/

Some prescription drugs may be used lawfully, even though they are controlled.

So, the way the question is written, any person either (1) addicted to or (2) using unlawfully a "controlled" substance would have to answer Yes.

Assuming I got the exact question right, it's really a set up for a constitutional argument for at least, say, the people who are lawfully prescribed a Schedule II - V controlled substance, such as say Xanax which is under Schedule IV. Someone could be prescribed Xanax which is therefore lawful use so that gets him out of the "unlawful user" half of the question, but the second half "or addicted to...any other controlled substance" doesn't seem to excuse lawful use. There are people out there lawfully prescribed drugs like Xanax who are fully addicted but not using it unlawfully, so are they forbidden under federal law to own a firearm?

I've always felt that the federal schedule laws are whacked, at least with reference to the difference between Schedule I and any other schedule.

Forget about marijuana for a minute, let's consider heroin. Heroin is Schedule I which means all bad, illegal, no matter what. But morphine is Schedule II which means that they "have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence" but become lawful if prescribed.

So what's the difference between morphine and heroin anyway? One pass of heroin (diacetylmorphine) through the blood brain barrier and it becomes - morphine. In the United Kingdom heroin is or was legal by prescription, but not here.

And then of course comes the argument that some of the Schedule I drugs like marijuana, psychedelics and even Ecstasy, do have some medical use.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

I think he should declare he's not running and allow some fresh faces to compete for the nomination

Seriously?
His son is charged with a crime that is rarely prosecuted. Can you tell us the last person sent to jail for this? A Federal judge has already ruled against the law he is charged with, and the party of gods and guns supports his decision.
Republicans launched an impeachment investigation with no proof, and the law Republicans passed to protect Trump states the DOJ or any Federal can NOT cooperate with any impeachment investigation unless it is authorized by a vote of the House. It's a sham investigation that may well turn illegal if it attempts to compel anyone to testify.
Any government shutdown comes from the republican controlled house that is more concerned with a boy wearing a dress and banning books than governing. A shutdown will be the best campaign donation the Democrats can ask for.

.
link to original post

Three day suspension for partisan political speech
link to original post

No idea how the response is partisan political speech but the original post is not.

It’s a response that the “triple whammy” is not actually that.

This is a thread that I’m actually interested in. But it’s going to be real tough to participate if answering why something will or will not hurt odds is “political speech”

Quote: FinsRule

No idea how the response is partisan political speech but the original post is not.
link to original post

I thought that was odd too..

Quote: FinsRule

No idea how the response is partisan political speech...

."It's a sham investigation..."

"...the republican controlled house that is more concerned with a boy wearing a dress and banning books than governing."

You honestly don't see the political opinions expressed in the above? Seriously?

P.S. I have billryan blocked but once someone quotes him two levels deep, it shows up.

I read it as a response to the issue whether the “triple whammy” will affect Biden’s odds. I’m not sure if you’re able to answer the question with “it won’t” without being “partisan”

But I understand your point.

If I call Biden and trump both “weak candidates” in the same post it’s not partisan.

But if there’s a post where I only say Biden is a weak candidate, is that suspension worthy?

Quote: FinsRule

If I call Biden and trump both “weak candidates” in the same post it’s not partisan.

But if there’s a post where I only say Biden is a weak candidate, is that suspension worthy?
link to original post

I think of any mention of either of them should be suspension worthy. If we don't speak of them the world will be perfect and a better place.

Being lawfully and legally addicted to a drug is how a bunch of OxyContin users started out. A whole bunch, as I understand.

Quote: FinsRule

If I call Biden and trump both “weak candidates” in the same post it’s not partisan.

But if there’s a post where I only say Biden is a weak candidate, is that suspension worthy?
link to original post

I suggest assigning X to one, and Y to the other.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Quote: FinsRule

No idea how the response is partisan political speech...

."It's a sham investigation..."

"...the republican controlled house that is more concerned with a boy wearing a dress and banning books than governing."

You honestly don't see the political opinions expressed in the above? Seriously?

P.S. I have billryan blocked but once someone quotes him two levels deep, it shows up.
link to original post

Mission was the one who made the statement, so perhaps rules or interpretations have changed since he was a mod, but at that time publicly disclosing you’d blocked someone was considered trolling them.

In January 2021, Wizard declared the "new more relaxed and liberal" moderation policies, and ever since then the policies have been supposedly relaxed even more. Among the reforms were abolishment of the automatic martingale (AxelWolf still hasn't caught on to that one, he keeps asking why it's not happening, even though it has been almost 3 years now).

You can't always know who is going to turn out well and who badly.

From 2018:

Quote: gordonm888

The moderators should be treating members like DarkOz and WizardofNothing as precious assets and they should be trying to attract more people like them and retain them as active members.
link to original post

and yet, wizardofnothing ended up nuked for scamming DarkOz (his daughter), among other scams. He tried to set me up for some kind of in Vegas sting too, while here as a sock puppet (expectedvalue).

Quote: MDawg

From 2018:

Quote: gordonm888

The moderators should be treating members like DarkOz and WizardofNothing as precious assets and they should be trying to attract more people like them and retain them as active members.
link to original post

link to original post

Precious assets? I missed that one. LOL Gordon, what were you thinking..

Quote: MDawg

I've always felt that the federal schedule laws are whacked, at least with reference to the difference between Schedule I and any other schedule.

Forget about marijuana for a minute, let's consider heroin. Heroin is Schedule I which means all bad, illegal, no matter what. But morphine is Schedule II which means that they "have a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence" but become lawful if prescribed.

So what's the difference between morphine and heroin anyway? One pass of heroin (diacetylmorphine) through the blood brain barrier and it becomes - morphine. In the United Kingdom heroin is or was legal by prescription, but not here.

And then of course comes the argument that some of the Schedule I drugs like marijuana, psychedelics and even Ecstasy, do have some medical use.
link to original post

Welcome to my world for the past 30 years of practice...

I'm on the cusp of closing this thread again. The purpose of the thread is supposed to be betting on elections, but almost no posts mention specific bets and many are clearly biased. No post should betray the politics of the poster.

If it’s closed, can we open it back up after 1/1?

I do think it’s an interesting discussion

Newsweek reports that a Reuters/Ipsos polls show Trump crushing Biden in the swing states (including Michigan) by a whopping 6 points. However, I don't see those polls listed on Five Thirty Eight, except for a Reuters/Ipsos poll for Michigan which shows Biden *ahead* by 3 pts.

I want bettors to have the same confidence in Trump as they did last time.

I just don’t think something like that will ever happen again. It’s the most I’ve made on one single event.

As for the poll, I’m obviously not an expert. But usually when results are that far out of whack, there’s something wrong with the polls.

You would just think that it would be +3 -3 on these swing states.

I still think it’s too early

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Newsweek reports that a Reuters/Ipsos polls show Trump crushing Biden in the swing states (including Michigan) by a whopping 6 points. However, I don't see those polls listed on Five Thirty Eight, except for a Reuters/Ipsos poll for Michigan which shows Biden *ahead* by 3 pts.
link to original post

I’m open for bets. I will bet Trump does not win the State of Michigan in the 2024 Presidential election.

Quote: SOOPOO

I’m open for bets. I will bet Trump does not win the State of Michigan in the 2024 Presidential election.

Well, the only polling I can actually verify for MI shows Biden ahead there, so I'm certainly not gonna take the other side...yet.

Quote: FinsRule

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: billryan

I think he should declare he's not running and allow some fresh faces to compete for the nomination

Seriously?
His son is charged with a crime that is rarely prosecuted. Can you tell us the last person sent to jail for this? A Federal judge has already ruled against the law he is charged with, and the party of gods and guns supports his decision.
Republicans launched an impeachment investigation with no proof, and the law Republicans passed to protect Trump states the DOJ or any Federal can NOT cooperate with any impeachment investigation unless it is authorized by a vote of the House. It's a sham investigation that may well turn illegal if it attempts to compel anyone to testify.
Any government shutdown comes from the republican controlled house that is more concerned with a boy wearing a dress and banning books than governing. A shutdown will be the best campaign donation the Democrats can ask for.

.
link to original post

Three day suspension for partisan political speech
link to original post

No idea how the response is partisan political speech but the original post is not.

It’s a response that the “triple whammy” is not actually that.

This is a thread that I’m actually interested in. But it’s going to be real tough to participate if answering why something will or will not hurt odds is “political speech”
link to original post

Consider this:
"the republican controlled house that is more concerned with a boy wearing a dress and banning books than governing."
which is partisan political speech and has nothing to do with election odds or candidate issues.

But saying that Biden should declare he’s not running is not partisan.

Quote: FinsRule

But saying that Biden should declare he’s not running is not partisan.
link to original post

I tend to agree.
It does advocate a political strategy (which can get messy and controversial), but the specific course of action proposed could be adopted by the 'pros' or the 'cons'.

So, technically correct, because "partisan" does not apply, but still off topic because it is promoting a hypothetical political course of action, rather than agreeing to a wager, discussing a line, or discussing a specific data point you believe relevant to a line or wager.

Hopefully reading and understanding that opinion is punishment enough.

Because of the Auto Workers Strike, nobody will be able to drive cars 13 months from now, not even the Post Office, so mail-in votes will not be counted.

Quote: ChumpChange

Because of the Auto Workers Strike, nobody will be able to drive cars 13 months from now, not even the Post Office, so mail-in votes will not be counted.
link to original post

I don't understand. Why won't we be able to drive our cars in 13 months?

Where will you get parts and service if this strike lasts 13 months? This is a rerun of the writers & actors strike at this point with the state of the industry on the precipice of demolition. I've gotta get a new speedometer cluster next week. I hope the car maker dealership where my service is getting done will still be open. The part should be in the mail to them already from Detroit. I'm betting they will be open, because the strike union is going to shut down the transmission plants first and throw everybody else onto unemployment eventually. But will my car dealership stay open if they can't get parts or cars in a few weeks?

Quote: DRich

Quote: ChumpChange

Because of the Auto Workers Strike, nobody will be able to drive cars 13 months from now, not even the Post Office, so mail-in votes will not be counted.
link to original post

I don't understand. Why won't we be able to drive our cars in 13 months?
link to original post

You gotta love DRich. Even in the wake of an ostensibly nonsensical statement, he replies with the patience of Job giving all benefits of the doubt and asking for clarification.

Quote: ChumpChange

Where will you get parts and service if this strike lasts 13 months?

Do you really think all of our cars will break down in the next 13 months? If I had to guess there will still be 98% of the cars on the road in 13 months.

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: gordonm888

Hey, let me say that it was my mistake about the name of the Democratic Party, I honestly believed the legal name of the Party was the Democrat Party. I believe I was taught that in Junior High School in Queens NY. I have looked it up and I am wrong, it is indeed the Democratic Party. I had no idea that there was any issue of apparent bias about the name; I am innocent of any intention to denigrate the Democratic Party*. I apologize for my error or ignorance in that regard. I am sorry.

So, party members are 'democratics" not democrats? Just asking.

tuttigym
link to original post

Quick version:
Nouns: Democrat, Republican
Adjectives: Democratic, Republican
The one I'm not so sure of as to usage is, is it "I vote Democrat," or, "I vote Democratic"?

Keeping this post on topic, here's a question:
Nevada Gaming Regulation 22.1205(3) prohibits betting in Nevada on "the outcome of any election for any public office." Does it ban taking a bet on, say, "who will be sworn in as President of the USA on 1/20/2025"? Technically, that's not "the outcome of an election," especially as there is a chance that the winner of the election may not, for whatever reason, be the one sworn in that day.