Decision 2012
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: terapinedLong odds on repubs just because its a wide open field, have to survive tea party primaries which turn candidates far right...
Yeah, John McCain and Mitt Romney were just soooooooooo far right. *eyeroll*
That's just it, isn't it. The last two Republican candidates have been relatively moderate. More importantly, they haven't been ideologues. They've been compromises/compromisers. There's not too much wrong with that, but I think American politics needs a new idealogy, the type of fire that Regeanomics had. Some of the right-wing candidates had that, but they didn't get past primaries (see media bias, if you want for some reason, but fear on the part of enough of the rank and file party members).
This would cast the opposition in the reflection of the Republicans, and allow the Reps to drive the debate (small government, conformance to the constitution, self reliance, self improvement, all those good Classical Liberal tenets (*) the Republican party was founded on).
(*) maybe I misrepresent the party.. entirely likely. I'd be interested in knowing what the more right of centre among here believe the Republicans should campaign on, and define the battlegrounds.
Quote: thecesspit
That's just it, isn't it. The last two Republican candidates have been relatively moderate. More importantly, they haven't been ideologues. They've been compromises/compromisers. There's not too much wrong with that, but I think American politics needs a new idealogy, the type of fire that Regeanomics had. Some of the right-wing candidates had that, but they didn't get past primaries (see media bias, if you want for some reason, but fear on the part of enough of the rank and file party members).
I blame open-primaries. No reason people not in a party should be helping decide who that party runs.
Where media-bias plays is they will say the GOP is running a bunch of far-right candidates and a contest that is not decided in February is a "circus" while Mrs Bill Clinton/Obama-1st term Senator were "centrists" and "a good contest."
Quote: AZDuffmanI blame open-primaries. No reason people not in a party should be helping decide who that party runs.
Yeah, that is a weird quirk of the US system. The fact there's a huge campaign for primaries that costs millions is bizarre to me as well.
Quote:Where media-bias plays is they will say the GOP is running a bunch of far-right candidates and a contest that is not decided in February is a "circus" while Mrs Bill Clinton/Obama-1st term Senator were "centrists" and "a good contest."
I never understood that either... it's democracy in action to have candidates work across the states, and we don't need a clear winner straight away. The downside was that it -appeared- that it was such a bloody fight that no-one came out without dirt on them that couldn't be used by the opposition.... while the Obama/Clinton fight seemed a lot less muddy.
(maybe that's Canadian/UK news bias).
How about some odds????
Mission146 has an offer for action.
At 5 to 1 Mission146 is offering 5 to 1 odds Clinton next President. I agree with mission146, its the AP bet.
Mission146 takes Clinton and offers 100 dollars on a 20 dollar bet. Cant believe Beethoven9th or Azduffman have not jumped on this.
Clinton is probably more of a lock, 7 to 1, maybe 8 to 1 so a 5 to 1 offer of action is the advantage play.
What do you guys on the right think? 10 to 1 maybe.
This is a gambling odds question. You can still be against Clinton but realize the reality of the situation and admit 5 to 1 would be an advantage player bet.
This is a Vegas gambling board. Take off you political hat and analyze the bet from a strictly gamblers point of view.
From your fingertips to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage! Please let Jeb be the Republican nominee!!Quote: rxwineI predict if Jeb Bush runs, the Republicans will remember two other Bushes won and he will beat out any of their wanna bes and receive the official backing.
Where is our spine? Call it a coup and support the new government or oppose them...but don't try to hide behind needing someone to define it as a coup for you.
A coup d'état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/; plural: coups d'état), also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden deposition of a government,[1][2][3][4] usually by a small group of the existing state establishment—typically the military—to depose the extant government and replace it with another body, civil or military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
coup d'é•tat (ˌku deɪˈtɑ)
n., pl. coups d'é•tat (ˌku deɪˈtɑz, -ˈtɑ)
a sudden and decisive action in politics, esp. one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/coup+d%27etat
Quote: s2dbakerFrom your fingertips to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage! Please let Jeb be the Republican nominee!!
This is a Vegas Board about gambling, keeping thread on topic.
Jed Bush, I estimate 1 to 500 odds. Karl Rove would probably back him and tea party hates Karl Rove. Jeb's problem is immigration reform, its a dirty word To rush, coulter , tea party ect.
What do you think of Mission146 offer of action
Clinton 5 to 1, an advantage bet?
Quote: terapinedThis is a Vegas Board about gambling, keeping thread on topic.
Jed Bush, I estimate 1 to 500 odds. Karl Rove would probably back him and tea party hates Karl Rove. Jeb's problem is immigration reform, its a dirty word To rush, coulter , tea party ect.
What do you think of Mission146 offer of action
Clinton 5 to 1, an advantage bet?
Actually, this could be considered just as off-topic as anything not even vaguely related to "Decision 2012"...there is a case to be made that anything about the results of the election (what has happened since) is related to the thread, but it seems to me that we should have a "Decision 2016" thread to discuss the odds and other things related to that election.
There is a law on the books that requires any aid to be cut off to any country that has a coup of a democratically elected government. If the executive branch calls this a coup then all aid to Egypt will have to immediately be cut off. As long as that word is not used then the law does not take effect. This is why they will not call the coup a coup.Quote: RonCThe White House refuses to label the military takeover of the government of Egypt as a coup...why? The democratically elected government, as bad as it was, was overthrown suddenly without an election.
Where is our spine? Call it a coup and support the new government or oppose them...but don't try to hide behind needing someone to define it as a coup for you.
Now, would it be a good thing to cut off all aid to Egypt at this time? I don't know or care, seriously, it's Egypt. I will never visit Egypt. I have a feeling that this particular flaunting of the law will not be the next Darrell Issa impeachment hearing fodder though because I think all the Congresscritters think that cutting off aid to Egypt at this time would be terrible foreign policy despite the well intention-ed law.
Do you now understand why Obama won't call this coup a coup?
Quote: s2dbakerThere is a law on the books that requires any aid to be cut off to any country that has a coup of a democratically elected government. If the executive branch calls this a coup then all aid to Egypt will have to immediately be cut off. As long as that word is not used then the law does not take effect. This is why they will not call the coup a coup.
Now, would it be a good thing to cut off all aid to Egypt at this time? I don't know or care, seriously, it's Egypt. I will never visit Egypt. I have a feeling that this particular flaunting of the law will not be the next Darrell Issa impeachment hearing fodder though because I think all the Congresscritters think that cutting off aid to Egypt at this time would be terrible foreign policy despite the well intention-ed law.
Do you now understand why Obama won't call this coup a coup?
No. It is a coup. Call it such and ask that the law be changed to provide aid.
Again, his White House is not following the law that it is sworn to uphold. Not the laws we like, not the laws we voted for, but the laws that exist.
Why do we just accept this from ANY administration? Now we don't need to change the law (if it needs changed to allow latitude) because we just won't bother to follow it.
Try that with the laws you have to follow...
The U.S. had no such problem when it went in, fought a little bit, captured Manuel Antonio Noriega and kidnapped him back to the States. As a matter of fact, the aid increased.Quote: RonCThe White House refuses to label the military takeover of the government of Egypt as a coup...why? The democratically elected government, as bad as it was, was overthrown suddenly without an election. Where is our spine? Call it a coup and support the new government or oppose them...but don't try to hide behind needing someone to define it as a coup for you.
I didn't ask if you supported the decision, I merely asked if you understood why they won't call the coup a coup. I don't like the reasoning either. The law is clear though naive but it's still the law.Quote: RonCNo. It is a coup. Call it such and ask that the law be changed to provide aid.
The quitter wants to be a senator, couldn't make it thru 4 years as a governor, doesn't she realize its a 6 year term.
Odds Palin will win Senate seat 1 in 5 million.
Last senate election in Alaska, the candidate Palin supported lost to a write in candidate lol
Hmm, evenbob says no chance Clinton gets elected President. Mission146 has an action offer 5 to 1 odds.
Evenbob with over 11k posts is suddenly silent, the silence says a lot. Its understandable, Mission146 is making the AP bet and the right(beethoven9th and azduffman) cant admit its the correct AP bet. silence from them also. the silence speaks plenty.
Quote: terapinedPalin considering Senate run in Alaska.
The quitter wants to be a senator, couldn't make it thru 4 years as a governor, doesn't she realize its a 6 year term.
So she quit, so what? Obama quit being Senator after 145 days, he just kept collecting his paycheck.
Quote:Last senate election in Alaska, the candidate Palin supported lost to a write in candidate lol
Lets be correct, the candidate lost to the incumbent, but only after defeating the RINO incumbent in the primary.
Quote:Hmm, evenbob says no chance Clinton gets elected President. Mission146 has an action offer 5 to 1 odds.
It isn't so much that people are saying, "no chance" it is that they find this "she is as good as in, who is going to beat her" is silliness. The only thing she has going for her right now is she has the most name recognition on either side. Her qualifications still mostly stem from being Mrs Bill Clinton and what jobs she has held she has done a marginal job at best. Heck, she didn't even realize she wasn't from NY when she ran for Senator there!
Quote: AZDuffmanSo she quit, so what? Obama quit being Senator after 145 days, he just kept collecting his paycheck.
She quit, so what lol. If a repub quits, so what. If a Dem quits, faces the wrath of the right. Obama moved on to the most important job on the planet, Palin, simply a quitter.
Quote: AZDuffman
Lets be correct, the candidate lost to the incumbent, but only after defeating the RINO incumbent in the primary.
Lets be absolutely correct. I was correct, the person Palin supported for senate lost to a write in candidate. Sorry but its a fact. Try to spin it but the fact still remains a fact.
Quote: AZDuffman
It isn't so much that people are saying, "no chance" it is that they find this "she is as good as in, who is going to beat her" is silliness. The only thing she has going for her right now is she has the most name recognition on either side. Her qualifications still mostly stem from being Mrs Bill Clinton and what jobs she has held she has done a marginal job at best. Heck, she didn't even realize she wasn't from NY when she ran for Senator there!
Secretary of State, pretty important job. Haven't heard your opinion on Mission146 AP action. Clinton 5 to 1, I dont expect you to take the action but it is the correct AP bet. What do you think as a gambler?
Action and odds talk, BS walks. Are you NATO? no action, talk only lol
Big deal. Hillary Clinton quit as Secretary of State, yet doe-eyed libs still do their best Lewinsky impression whenever Hillary's nearby.Quote: terapinedThe quitter wants to be a senator
Miller was in the lead through much of the campaign, and he sabotaged himself near the end.Quote: terapinedLast senate election in Alaska, the candidate Palin supported lost to a write in candidate
Also, I might add that Hillary Clinton supported Harris Wofford in 1994, but guess what?? He lost to a guy 32 years younger than he was! Guess Hillary's support doesn't amount to a "Hill" of beans. LOL!
You're obviously not following my posts because I addressed 2016 already.Quote: terapinedthe right(beethoven9th and azduffman) cant admit its the correct AP bet. silence from them also. the silence speaks plenty.
I'll tell you what, you can have your Hillary Clinton. She's an SoS quitter whose political support (i.e. Harris Wofford) means nothing. I mean, if the quitter can't handle SoS for 4 more years, what in the world makes her think that she can handle the presidency???
Nobody took my action yet, and I prefer to skim most posts in this thread rather than fully read all of them.
I take Clinton elected president 2016 race, my 60 bucks against the rest of the Demo field and entire Republican Field to your 20 bucks.
Yes I am downgrading the odds to 3 to 1 but hey, why not see if I get a taker at these odds and be able to have more of an advantage play. After all this board is always seeking ways to improve any advantage play.
Evenbob? cmon, you say no way Clinton can win, if that is what you truly believe, then taking the bet will be an AP play on your part.
But if you have watched Bill O lately, He answered an email question from a viewer called Nettie about Immigration and a suggestion from emailer that congress should not pass immigration reform. Bill's response
"When Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2016, will you say the same thing, Nettie? Because that's what's gonna happen if the GOP does not begin to put forth smart solutions to the country's problems,"
Hmm, gop put forth smart solutions, 1 in 500 odds. Just kidding, no action offer here on smart gop solutions but the 3 to 1 Clinton action offer stands. Any takers?
Odds and action talk, BS walks
If you win (Clinton wins the presidential action), we pay you $60. If anyone else wins, we win $20.
I like that action. Let me consider it.
I really like those odds, but I don't really want to take a prop wager this far from maturity, let alone on a forum.
That's pretty clear. He said that he would put up $60 to anyone else's $20. If Hillary Clinton wins then Terapined wins $20, if anyone else wins then the other party to the bet would win $60 from Terapined.Quote: terapinedOffer for action.
I take Clinton elected president 2016 race, my 60 bucks against the rest of the Demo field and entire Republican Field to your 20 bucks.
Do I have that right?
Checked odds on Betting sites in UK
Clinton is the favorite of course but the odds makers don't have her as the lock I think she is. Probably because its too early.
Here are the current average odds comparing multiple gambling sites in the UK
Clinton 5/2
Rubio 9/1
Christie 12/1
Jeb 12/1
Ryan 16/1
Some longshots
Jesse Ventura 425/1
Donald Trump 150/1
He first has to make it through the Teabagistan primaries. He might win New Hampshire but that's it.Quote: boymimboChristie would be an interesting candidate.
Quote: s2dbakerHe first has to make it through the Teabagistan primaries. He might win New Hampshire but that's it.
What does the gay vote have to do with it? They will not be voting GOP in most cases anyways.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy does the gay vote have to do with it? They will not be voting GOP in most cases anyways.
LOL!
Quote: AZDuffmanWhat does the gay vote have to do with it? They will not be voting GOP in most cases anyways.
I'm trying to figure out what this means, and I'm guessing you're playing off the term "teabagistan", which can be equally performed by anything with a tongue on any male.
I don't think that word means what you think it means:Quote: boymimboI'm trying to figure out what this means, and I'm guessing you're playing off the term "teabagistan", which can be equally performed by anything with a tongue on any male.
"..mimicking the act of steeping a teabag in a mug of warm water. Just replace the water with 'face' and the teabag with 'testicles'"
I'm without an answer there. But they do make me laugh so:Quote: boymimboThat's precisely what I thought. Why is it gay?
By the way, the United States had a surplus in June. Queue the Republican outrage over Obama's surplus in three .. Two .. One ..
Quote: s2dbaker
By the way, the United States had a surplus in June. Queue the Republican outrage over Obama's surplus in three .. Two .. One ..
The USA regularly has a surplus in some months. In fact, Obama was one of the first NOT to have one in April in some years of his administration as it is normal to have one when most receipts come in.
That really was just a gay comment, can't you find anything better?
(NOTE TO ALL: since it is "OK" to use the term "teabagger" in a way not to denote the homosexual act of "teabagging" I am using the term "gay" in its non-homosexual meaning of weak, silly, etc as described in the other thread.)
Quote: boymimboYeah, except "teabagging" is definitely not a gay act.
It can be either a gay or straight act. The fact that calling the opposition to a position by a name related to a sexual act is widely accepted, and even used by POTUS, is sad.
If you can't win on the merits of your argument, call your opponent names!!
Quote: boymimboYeah, except "teabagging" is definitely not a gay act.
Yeah, right. You really expect us to believe that, and you really expect us to believe it is not liberals throwing a homosexual term to describe constitutionalists?
But it wasn't a military coup in Egypt, either!
It's in the right direction, but there's still a long way to go. Still, June's surplus was his best month since he's been in office at 116.5 billion and was the best month on record since April 2008.
Teabagging is not a gay act, unless it is performed by a male, Just like anal sex is not a gay act if it is perfomed on a female.
Quote: terapinedAction offer is off the table. whew, got posted in time lol. Would have honered if someone did take the action. Kind of ridiculous action, 3 years to resolve bet.
Checked odds on Betting sites in UK
Clinton is the favorite of course but the odds makers don't have her as the lock I think she is. Probably because its too early.
Here are the current average odds comparing multiple gambling sites in the UK
Clinton 5/2
Rubio 9/1
Christie 12/1
Jeb 12/1
Ryan 16/1
Some longshots
Jesse Ventura 425/1
Donald Trump 150/1
I would have taken your bet. I dont think Hils is close to 50% to win, let alone the 75% you offered. A three year bet is kinda daft, but Id not get better return on a twenty over the same period.
Quote: thecesspitI would have taken your bet. I dont think Hils is close to 50% to win, let alone the 75% you offered. A three year bet is kinda daft, but Id not get better return on a twenty over the same period.
Been looking at the UK gambling sites of Clinton odds. They started taking bets a year ago and she opened at 7/1 odds. As the year has gone by, the UK odds makers have slowly improved her odds as we get closer to the race. Jan 2013 they had her at 5/1. Today if you make a bet, odds are down to 5/2. If the odds trend continues, should be even money in a year. In 2 years, odds makers will probably have her at the same odds as my taken off the table action offer.
Evenbob thinks there is no chance for a Clinton win. Evenbob, better hurry up and lay down a bet now at these sites because the odds trend is against you.
Odds talk, BS walks
I fail to see how Hilary will get to 1.33 at any point.. possibly to win the nomination, should she run, but the election itself is a toss up right now (I'd say the Democrats have the slight advantage right now).
Quote: thecesspitObama never reached 3 to 1 odds on versus Romney, as the incumbent, and with the polls showing him as a favourite in enough places to be a pretty good lock to win.
I fail to see how Hilary will get to 1.33 at any point.. possibly to win the nomination, should she run, but the election itself is a toss up right now (I'd say the Democrats have the slight advantage right now).
You are right about Obama. I was a little worried because I drank a little of the Karl Rove koolaid. Rove was convinced Obama was going to lose and so I was a bit worried. I watched some of foxnews and wondered, is Nate Silver skewed. Of course now we know better. Karl Rove is a clown and Nate Silver has been spot on last 2 presidential elections. This time I think the odds will reflect whatever Nate Silver predicts. I think Clinton will have better odds then Obama, especially since the republican base is slowly dieing off and shrinking.
Karl Rove has won 2 presidential elections when all of the signs pointed to comfortable wins for his client's opponents. I have lost a lot of respect for Rove over the past 9 years, but you can't take his track record away from him.Quote: terapinedKarl Rove is a clown
Nate Silver's "predictions" are based mostly on polling data & demographics. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve props for picking the winner, but he's no sage or anything. (Lots of people picked Obama last year) The pollsters are the ones who deserve the credit for providing him with accurate snapshots of the electorate.Quote: terapinedThis time I think the odds will reflect whatever Nate Silver predicts.
BTW, why are you so keen on the quitter, Hillary Clinton? If she can't handle being SoS for another 4 years, how the hell can she handle the presidency?
Quote: Beethoven9thNate Silver's "predictions" are based mostly on polling data & demographics. That's not to say that he doesn't deserve props for picking the winner, but he's no sage or anything. (Lots of people picked Obama last year) The pollsters are the ones who deserve the credit for providing him with accurate snapshots of the electorate.
I believe Nate Silver's key virtue is that he doesn't care about the spin of the poll results, but cares about getting the most accurate result he can out of the data. I think that's why he was very accurate... he used a range of data (he's got experience at using baseball data as well) and wants to peg it exact as he can, regardless of what he might want the result to be. Like The Wizard, it's the truth of the data that's important, not whether it helps someone out.
I don't believe that can be said for some of the polls from other sources on either side of the political media.
Quote:BTW, why are you so keen on the quitter, Hillary Clinton? If she can't handle being SoS for another 4 years, how the hell can she handle the presidency?
Some say she quit to give distance for her own run at the White House. I find that unlikely.
Quote: Beethoven9thThe pollsters are the ones who deserve the credit for providing him with accurate snapshots of the electorate.
So, the casinos deserve the credit when they give the Wizard some accurate stats to analyze games then?
Rove and everyone else has access to same stuff.
Political consultants like Rove have to run actual campaigns, make decisions, and develop strategies to win. Nate Silver does none of that. (This isn't a shot at Nate; it's simply the truth)Quote: rxwineRove and everyone else has access to same stuff.
WTF??? I honestly don't know where you come up with this stuff. When you reply to people's posts, you always go off on crazy tangents. *facepalm*Quote: rxwineSo, the casinos deserve the credit when they give the Wizard some accurate stats to analyze games then?
Quote: Beethoven9th
BTW, why are you so keen on the quitter, Hillary Clinton? If she can't handle being SoS for another 4 years, how the hell can she handle the presidency?
Its actually very rare for a secretary of state to serve more then 4 years. Out of the last 26 genuine Secretary of States( excluding "acting" since those are short timers anyway) only 2 have served more the 4 years. George Schultz and Cordell Hull. Its actually quite common to resign after 4 years or less, republican or democrat.I know you are upset that we get to call Palin a quitter but that's the decision she made. Clinton resigned to run for the most important job on the planet. Palin quit to uhh, what was her excuse? anyway the answer is money.
Not keen on Clinton, just a realist. She's the favorite as determined by the independent odds makers. Who knows if she will be a good president or not. I just throw her name around for fun because I know it infuriates the right that she is the odds on favorite.
I'm an independent. I have criticisms of Obama. I totally support Rand Paul when it comes to drones and NSA snooping.
Quote: Beethoven9thKarl Rove has won 2 presidential elections when all of the signs pointed to comfortable wins for his client's opponents. I have lost a lot of respect for Rove over the past 9 years, but you can't take his track record away from him.
Sorry about the clown comment. I should have been more specific. Anyway, Rove has accomplished a lot and that's exactly why I was worried about Obama because I like to listen to all sides. The clown comment that I should have been more specific was in reference to his election night meltdown. I was actually in my Vegas hotel room and made a point of watching Fox to see who won and saw the meltdown live. priceless.
And out of those 26, ZERO became president. People just don't like quitters (i.e. Hillary Clinton).Quote: terapinedOut of the last 26 genuine Secretary of States( excluding "acting" since those are short timers anyway) only 2 have served more the 4 years.
Cool, at least I got you to backtrack. So your argument is no longer about "quitting", it's the "reason for quitting". LOLQuote: terapinedClinton resigned to run for the most important job on the planet.
Yeah, first you kept telling us over & over about how you're a "Republican". Now you're an "independent"?? What will it be next week?Quote: terapinedI'm an independent.
Quote: Beethoven9th
Yeah, first you kept telling us over & over about how you're a "Republican". Now you're an "independent"?? What will it be next week?
Independent but registered Republican. Proudly voted for Dole back in the day. A republican and simply registered as a republican. big difference.
Kind of like that poker movie a few years back when the chick tells the guy," I date poker players, not people that play poker, theres a difference."
By the way added a rove comment in my last post for your reading pleasure via edit function.
Quote: terapinedThe clown comment that I should have been more specific was in reference to his election night meltdown.
By your definition of "meltdown", that occurs in the liberal media every time a Republican looks like they might win a presidential election.
Quote: Beethoven9thAnd out of those 26, ZERO became president. People just don't like quitters (i.e. Hillary Clinton).
Wow, you just dissed 24 of the last 26 secretary of states and tagged them all as quitters. wow.
Ok, by your definition, she and just about every secretary of state have been quitters. If " people just don't like quitters", why is she the favorite as determined by the UK odds makers?
Clinton 5/2
Palin 50/1
