Mitt Romney's $10,000 bet
Poll
 | 7 votes (28%) | ||
| | 4 votes (16%) | ||
| | 3 votes (12%) | ||
| | 11 votes (44%) |
25 members have voted
December 11th, 2011 at 6:03:36 PM
permalink
I usually take an interest when the subjects of gambling and politics collide. This this case, Mitt Romney challenged Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet in the last debate. Here is a clip of it. Rick Perry said the amount of the wager was "a little out of touch with the normal Iowa citizen."
I think we could all agree that it would take about $10,000 for a wager to mean anything to Mitt Romney, and that such a wager would be enormous compared to the means of most Americans.
So, the question for the poll is should Romney have been more sensitive, and suggested a smaller wager, or would that have just been denying the reality that he is a wealthy man. For example, if he had suggested $20 it wouldn't have fooled me that is some regular Joe.
I think we could all agree that it would take about $10,000 for a wager to mean anything to Mitt Romney, and that such a wager would be enormous compared to the means of most Americans.
So, the question for the poll is should Romney have been more sensitive, and suggested a smaller wager, or would that have just been denying the reality that he is a wealthy man. For example, if he had suggested $20 it wouldn't have fooled me that is some regular Joe.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 11th, 2011 at 6:26:36 PM
permalink
He should have gone with a larger, more rhetorical, bet. He should have said "I'll bet you a million dollars...." Everyone makes "bets" like that.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
December 11th, 2011 at 6:34:26 PM
permalink
"I'll donate ____? dollars to your campaign if I'm wrong." might of been an interesting twist.
Sanitized for Your Protection
December 11th, 2011 at 6:57:49 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI think we could all agree that it would take about $10,000 for a wager to mean anything to Mitt Romney, and that such a wager would be enormous compared to the means of most Americans.
Since when do Mormons, especially a bishop, bet?
December 11th, 2011 at 7:16:46 PM
permalink
Those wascally Mormons. They've been heavily invested in Vegas
since the Howard Hughes days, yet they don't believe in gambling.
It was inapproriate for Romney to make such a suggestion.
since the Howard Hughes days, yet they don't believe in gambling.
It was inapproriate for Romney to make such a suggestion.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
December 11th, 2011 at 8:21:59 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThose wascally Mormons. They've been heavily invested in Vegas since the Howard Hughes days, yet they don't believe in gambling. It was inapproriate for Romney to make such a suggestion.
A few months ago I wrote a post about what I liked about the LDS faith. One thing was they aren't embarrassed about money and enamored with poverty. Yet, I'm sure the most conservative Mormons don't gamble.
Once, when their missionaries came to my door, I asked if they would even accept somebody in the gambling business. Elder whoever said that as long as it was legitimate legal work, "sure!" However, he added they do not accept tithes from professional gamblers.
What is my point? I don't think the church micro-manages to the point about making a friendly wager between friends. The most conservative Mormons I'm sure didn't like it. The more liberal ones I could picture making friendly bets on the golf course, and not having a problem with it. Like any large group, there are bound to be internal differences and degrees of adherence.
Personally, I applaud Romney for suggesting the wager, and I think it showed weakness on Perry's part for declining it.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 11th, 2011 at 9:19:23 PM
permalink
Quote: rxwine"I'll donate ____? dollars to your campaign if I'm wrong." might of been an interesting twist.
That's a genius move to make.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
December 11th, 2011 at 9:42:03 PM
permalink
Wow. $10,000 was exactly the wrong amount to throw out. A very small bet or a gentlemen's bet would have proven the point, so would a giant amount. $10,000 isn't big enough to be giant, and it surely isn't small. $10,000 has the very unfortunate side-effect of reminding the audience exactly how loaded Mitt Romney is without really achieving the purpose of under-scoring the fact that Perry is wrong.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
December 11th, 2011 at 9:48:05 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusWow. $10,000 was exactly the wrong amount to throw out.
I said this before, but wouldn't Romney come off like a phony offering a $20 bet? That is nothing to him.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 11th, 2011 at 10:05:11 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI said this before, but wouldn't Romney come off like a phony offering a $20 bet? That is nothing to him.
A token bet like $20 is much better than a pompous bet of 10K.
Thats nothing to Romney, he's mega rich. Its an insult to the
common worker, especially in these hard times. I think it was
arrogant and presumptious on his part.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
December 11th, 2011 at 11:09:23 PM
permalink
It's a huge mis-step on his part. The Ultra-conservatives can use the flippancy and betting against him. The common worker, conservative can think he's out of touch. He could have proven his point in many better ways.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
December 12th, 2011 at 4:28:21 AM
permalink
havent voted yet, inclined to vote for "gentleman's wager". But what does that mean exactly, anybody?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 12th, 2011 at 4:40:10 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardI don't think the church micro-manages to the point about making a friendly wager between friends. The most conservative Mormons I'm sure didn't like it. The more liberal ones I could picture making friendly bets on the golf course, and not having a problem with it. Like any large group, there are bound to be internal differences and degrees of adherence.
Sounds like Catholics and birth control.
December 12th, 2011 at 5:30:55 AM
permalink
I think, the amount was totally appropriate, and Perry totally blew it.
I don't see what it has to do with "normal Iowa citizen". Romney was not offering a bet to a "normal citizen", he offered to Perry that he puts some money where his mouth was, and Perry refused, that's all.
Personally, I don't see anything "insulting to the common worker" or to whoever else in people doing what they want with their own money. There is nothing wrong or shameful or offensive with being rich. It is something to aspire, not to be ashamed of.
But if Perry was too "sensitive", and "cared" about lower class so much, and was afraid someone would be offended or something, he could donate the winnings to a homeless shelter or some such, he could have made it a condition of the bet, that the money is donated, whoever is the winner. That would look sensitive. Simply refusing the bet looks cowardly (as it always does). Talk is cheap.
I don't see what it has to do with "normal Iowa citizen". Romney was not offering a bet to a "normal citizen", he offered to Perry that he puts some money where his mouth was, and Perry refused, that's all.
Personally, I don't see anything "insulting to the common worker" or to whoever else in people doing what they want with their own money. There is nothing wrong or shameful or offensive with being rich. It is something to aspire, not to be ashamed of.
But if Perry was too "sensitive", and "cared" about lower class so much, and was afraid someone would be offended or something, he could donate the winnings to a homeless shelter or some such, he could have made it a condition of the bet, that the money is donated, whoever is the winner. That would look sensitive. Simply refusing the bet looks cowardly (as it always does). Talk is cheap.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
December 12th, 2011 at 5:54:54 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThose wascally Mormons. They've been heavily invested in Vegas
since the Howard Hughes days...
Uh ... no, not really.
In fact, the Mormons have been investing heavily in Las Vegas casinos since 1955; that is the year E. Parry Thomas loaned $750K to Milton Prell for the Sahara.
The Mormons were in bed with the wise guys for a decade before Hughes arrived.
"What, me worry?"
December 12th, 2011 at 6:46:57 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambithavent voted yet, inclined to vote for "gentleman's wager". But what does that mean exactly, anybody?
A gentleman's wager is betting "honor." The loser must graciously declare that he was wrong and the victor was right.
A Gentlemen's wager might be appropriate if:
1. The wealth of the two parties are significantly different, and an agreeable amount of money could never be found.
2. One or both has a moral objection to gambling (money).
3. It would be in poor taste to gamble money. For example, a surgeon and anesthesiologist wagering on whether their patient would survive.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 12th, 2011 at 11:15:22 AM
permalink
I thought the wager was in very poor taste and
I don't see the point of it. I don't like Romney
anyway, he has major political douchebag written
all over him.
I don't see the point of it. I don't like Romney
anyway, he has major political douchebag written
all over him.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
December 12th, 2011 at 12:57:10 PM
permalink
The bet should have been $1.
Valentine wins the $1 bet.
Valentine wins the $1 bet.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
December 12th, 2011 at 1:03:18 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI don't like Romney anyway, he has major political douchebag written all over him.
I hope you like Obama, he will mop the floor with Gingrich if he is the candidate. As someone said, G. would be the Goldwater of our day. Likely single digit electoral college results.
Just my opinion, of course, but I will be glad to lay odds on G losing, and put my money where my mouth is.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
December 12th, 2011 at 3:45:15 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitLikely single digit electoral college results.
I agree that Obama would beat Gingrich, but it won't be a landslide. Gingrich would easily win every state in the south, except maybe Virginia. I don't count Florida as being in the "south", BTW. I think we'll have to wait until Jan 31 to know the Republican candidate, or longer. Here are my predictions:
Jan 3: Gingrich wins Iowa.
Jan 10: Romney wins NH.
Jan 21: Gingrich wins SC.
Jan 31: Florida primary.
Florida is the first state that is somewhat representative of the whole country. It is pretty obvious that if the primary were today Gingrich would win the solid red states, and the Romney the ones that are more moderate. An exception will be that Romney wins UT and ID, which are very conservative.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 12th, 2011 at 5:57:18 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizard
Jan 3: Gingrich wins Iowa.
Jan 10: Romney wins NH.
Jan 21: Gingrich wins SC.
Jan 31: Florida primary.
I may be biased but you have to give Ron Paul a great shot at Iowa. Not only are his numbers looking solid but, as Mr. Romney pointed out Saturday, his supporters are far more enthusiastic about him than those who support gingrich or Romney and more likely to brave a cold January night to spend an hour caucusing. He is a lock to win Iowa if it is snowing at caucus time.
Vote for Nobody 2020!
December 12th, 2011 at 6:27:36 PM
permalink
Honest question: Why would a party that want the richest 1% of the population to not pay a lot of taxes be upset that one of those rich people has $10,000 to bet?
December 12th, 2011 at 6:45:12 PM
permalink
Quote: FinsRuleHonest question: Why would a party that want the richest 1% of the population to not pay a lot of taxes be upset that one of those rich people has $10,000 to bet?
Because you can't win an election by just worrying about what 1% of the population thinks. You have to worry more about what the larger, voting population thinks. It makes you look like you don't understand how valuable $10K is to most people when you are willing to place a bet of that amount because you think somebody has made a mistake about what you wrote.
December 13th, 2011 at 7:58:57 AM
permalink
You can read my opinion about this at The Daily Beast.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 13th, 2011 at 8:20:50 AM
permalink
Quote: EnvyBonusIt makes you look like you don't understand how valuable $10K is to most people when you are willing to place a bet of that amount because you think somebody has made a mistake about what you wrote.
Since the whole point of making such a bet in a public televised debate is to underscore how confident you are that you are right, I hardly think any smaller amount would be appropriate.
While at that, just the minute of TV time they spent proposing and refusing the bet probably cost more than $10,000.
I don't have anywhere near their wealth, but even I wouldn't hesitate to plonk $10k on an even money bet with EV of +0.99. It's not a coin flip, but a winning proposition.
So the amount was very appropriate, being, in fact, even within the means of a comfortably off middle-class citizen. Same way as no one seems to consider $10,000 challenges for beating slots or winning with a betting system to be in bad taste. Your word should be worth at least as much.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
December 13th, 2011 at 11:49:14 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardYou can read my opinion about this at The Daily Beast.
This bet is for Romney what John Kerry was on the wind surfer. It shows
how out of touch he is with America. Plus its childish. The info Perry was
quoting was in Romney's first book, he can't deny it. So to shut Perry up,
he makes a stupid bet. This isn't going away, nor should it. A Mormon
betting an Evangelical, how embarrassing can you get..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
December 13th, 2011 at 12:22:29 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe info Perry was quoting was in Romney's first book, he can't deny it.
Can you prove it? If it is so simple, why didn't Perry show up to the debate with the book in hand?
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 13th, 2011 at 12:36:39 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardCan you prove it?
"We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country."
Thats what the quote was that was removed from the paperback
version. Perry said it means one thing, Romney said it means
something else. If its as innocent as Romney says, its curious as
to why it was removed.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
December 13th, 2011 at 2:04:18 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBob"We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country."
Romney would probably say that he meant the other 49 states could do the same thing Mass did, individually. Perry is saying it implies Romney favors a mandate on the national level, which I don't see. Romney probably removed it from the paperback to avoid reader misinterpretations of it.
If I had been asked to determine the winner of the bet I would have said Romney.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 13th, 2011 at 2:21:13 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardIf I had been asked to determine the winner of the bet I would have said Romney.
The actual winner is Perry and Gingrich. Romney put his foot
in it bigtime, like Dukakis wearing the helmet. This whole thing
is not going over well for Romney. Even his wife didn't like it.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
December 13th, 2011 at 2:43:24 PM
permalink
I'd have to see the exact context of the quote. Not that I really understand the whole debate about individual mandates etc. Romney came of better than Perry in the exchange I saw, with his expression of his ideas. But the bet was a bad move, and the details will probably be technicalities that are rather dull, and probably obscure the real point of what each candidate believes as their policy.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
December 13th, 2011 at 4:18:18 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardYou can read my opinion about this at The Daily Beast.
They have your URL wrong. You're losing out on a lot of web traffic right now...
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
December 14th, 2011 at 6:09:58 AM
permalink
Quote: MathExtremistThey have your URL wrong. You're losing out on a lot of web traffic right now...
Thanks. I asked them to fix it last night, which I see still has not happened.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
December 14th, 2011 at 6:54:58 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitI'd have to see the exact context of the quote. Not that I really understand the whole debate about individual mandates etc.
That's easy.
Would you expect any company to insure your car after you had an accident and pay for that accident? Would you expect any insurer to sell you life insurance for your spouse after he has died and pay off on his death? Would you expect any company to insure your house after it has burned down and pay for the fire damage?
I'll bet you a trillion dolalrs (he he) most people would answer "no" to such questions.
Then why do we expect health insurance to pay for conditions or diseases that developed before someone decided to buy insurance?
In any case, the reluctance of insurers to pay for pre-existing conidtions has been demonized to the maximum. Many attempts to "reform" healthcare include forcing companies to pay for such conditions. but if they did, the result would be obvious: no one would buy insurance until they got sick.
This would bankrupt the industry, anturally, ro raise premiums to the level of hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is the same thing.
So to avoid this and to make insurers cover pre-existing conditions, government will kindly force you to buy insurance whether you want it or not. This is called a n individual amndate, which is a polite way of saying "Do as we tell you, or suffer the consequences."
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
