|
5dimes currently has this up, no idea if they will add any other bets. 2016 US Presidential Election - Winner Republican wins Presidential Election +150 Democrat wins Presidential Election -170
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Pacific Standard had a great piece on the decline and fall of InTrade. I guess the CEO died on Mt Everest just as auditors were starting to descend on the outfit. But the most hilarious bit:Pacific Standard posted:With trading volume down, Intrade’s ability to predict winners waned in the 2012 election. (Perhaps reflecting the libertarian longings of the remaining Intrade betters, the market overrated Ron Paul’s chances of winning.) Now there is predictit.org, which is legal according to this Washington Post article. Seems like the crowd here skews academic and I wouldn't trust it to be as representative as InTrade was at its prime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
I think there are some goons who made upwards of 40k on intrade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Pong Daddy posted:I don't know about legitimate sites, but when I was looking I found this site. An 80:1 shot for Demolition Man coming true and an Amendment allowing naturalized citizens to run?  That's not half bad actual- wait what am I saying?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Haha PredictIt has a 7% chance of a third-party candidate winning, which is utterly ridiculous and I now regret bringing the site's existence to the attention of this thread. Of course, it's only in Beta now, so it's possible that over time it would gain sufficient scale to iron out idiocies like that, but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Haha PredictIt has a 7% chance of a third-party candidate winning, which is utterly ridiculous and I now regret bringing the site's existence to the attention of this thread. Yeah I just threw $20 at the site and I'm only betting on absolutely ridiculous scenarios that aren't being rated 99-1 edit: Also clearly the correct thing to do is spread this site to places like Freep or the Sean Hannity forums or whatever 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Rick Santorum visited Fort Campbell today to sign copies of his new book Bella's Gift. Of course they are all MP's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
I never heard Ted Cruz' speaking voice before, he sounds like he's a man suit piloted by weasels and the smartest weasel sits in the mouth with a mic
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Haha PredictIt has a 7% chance of a third-party candidate winning, which is utterly ridiculous and I now regret bringing the site's existence to the attention of this thread. So you could get an easy win by betting against a third party winning, is what you're saying. Guaranteed profit right there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I never heard Ted Cruz' speaking voice before, he sounds like he's a man suit piloted by weasels and the smartest weasel sits in the mouth with a mic He sounds like Nathan Lane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you could get an easy win by betting against a third party winning, is what you're saying. Guaranteed profit right there. Well- the 'No' shares are currently going at $.97 so if you're willing to throw a couple hundo at it you could make a couple of bucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Has anyone read Doug Henwood's anti-Hillary essay in Harper's? It's paywalled. I'm debating whether to make a voyage to the public library to give it a read. I can't imagine it could be more brutal than the Jackson Lears review of her book Hard Choices from the London Review in February. He eviscerated her tenure as Secretary of State (and also sheds some tears at the grave injustices perpetuated by 'identity politics'). Jackson Lears posted:Clinton started exploring ‘what it would take to stand up a carefully vetted and trained force of moderate Syrian rebels who could be trusted with American weapons’. She enlisted Petraeus, by then head of the CIA, in her campaign: encouraging the right sort of rebels, they argued, would get us in the game so we could be more effective in isolating the militants and empowering the moderates. The moderates were (or would be) mainly a creation of the CIA. The plan to arm them resembled the search for a mythic Third Force between communism and capitalism, the dream that animated Graham Greene’s Quiet American in Vietnam in the 1950s, and that has inspired counterinsurgency fantasists ever since. Obama was unpersuaded. He asked for ‘examples of instances when the US had backed an insurgency that could be considered a success’, Clinton recalls. She didn’t have an answer and Obama stood firm. It was one of the high points of his presidency: for once a pragmatic concern for consequences shaped policy. But last August Obama finally yielded to interventionist demands amid the hysteria over Isis, leaving us with the incoherent policy of opposing both the Assad regime and its main challengers (though the administration now seems to be inching towards tacit tolerance of Assad). Clinton can claim that she was urging this muddle on Obama long before he finally and reluctantly accepted it. That is cold comfort for anyone envisioning her in the White House. Of course, Hillary is only awful insofar as she resembles a Republican, so I'll still gleefully pull the lever for her in the general. But I hope O'Malley can articulate a foreign policy package that eases up on the Exceptionalism and charts a more practical course so I can feel decent about my primary vote. Edited to add: O'Malley sounded like poo poo this morning when Stephanopoulos asked him about national security threats. He mumbled that "nuclear Iran" was the greatest "man-made threat" and hastened to add that climate change was the greatest "natural threat." GalacticAcid fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Mar 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Of course they are all MP's. What's this mean? Genuinely curious EDIT: Not what MP means but the insinuation
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:Has anyone read Doug Henwood's anti-Hillary essay in Harper's? It's paywalled. I'm debating whether to make a voyage to the public library to give it a read. If you aren't primarying or caucusing for Sanders you're doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
register republican so you can vote in a primary that is not a foregone conclusion, increase the (unfortunately slim) chances that the GoP nominates a gratuitously unelectable idiot, leading to a landslide loss that will damage the republicans the way the Reagan landslides damaged the democrats
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Question: Has there been any polling data on the people who stayed home in 2012 because they thought Obama wasn't liberal enough vs. those who stayed home in 2012 because they thought Romney wasn't conservative enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:Question: Has there been any polling data on the people who stayed home in 2012 because they thought Obama wasn't liberal enough vs. those who stayed home in 2012 because they thought Romney wasn't conservative enough? I would think either number would be negligible compared to the amount of people who stayed home due to Apathy or general disengagement. It is easy to find data backing this up, though I've never seen a survey with the kind of specific ideological splits you're looking for. In general the people who care a whole lot about liberal/conservative agendas also care a whole lot about combatting the opposite agendas, and (given the means to reach the polls) will bite the bullet and vote for The Lesser of Two Evils. We can say that this benefits republicans moreso than democrats, as it is well-known that the democratic coalition is larger and includes more low-turnout demographics. quote:Nonvoters are much more likely to say that they would have voted for Obama than Romney (44% vs. 26%). But I'd say this is less "Obama is not liberal enough" and more "democrats have failed to adequately impress upon people the importance of voting, in comparison with republicans who have repeatedly convinced their base that the world will immediately end in fire and blood if a democrat is elected", combined with potential democratic voters being more vulnerable to logistical problems (inability to get off work, lack of convenient transportation to polling sites) PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
The BPC has a decent report with party turnout on a by-state basis. I think the big takeaways are that less states were considered in contention (turnout did not decline much in battleground states, or even increased) and that there was no President Bush to repudiate. I guess that's only tangential to your question, but it's the best I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you could get an easy win by betting against a third party winning, is what you're saying. Guaranteed profit right there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:3% after 1½ year, you'd probably make as much just sticking it in a high interest bank account. Yep. And the real bet is whether or not the site will even exist when it's time to pay out
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
why would you bet on elections when you can bet on sports
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:why would you bet on elections when you can bet on sports If I'm going to be governed by psychopaths I'd at least like a return
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. I dunno, it seems like an interesting question to ask non-voters if they would have voted had Santorum gotten the nomination. I can see a few million thinking that Romney and Obama were basically the same and it wasn't worth bothering, but if the GOP had chosen the guy who called rape babies a gift from God, you bet your rear end they'd be at the polls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Malloreon posted:1. not letting a known terrorist come to the US as a diplomat To be fair, if you're apparently going to draw legislative inspiration from Batman comic books, the storyline where the Joker talks Iran into making him their ambassador so that he has diplomatic immunity isn't the worst place to start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Pong Daddy posted:I don't know about legitimate sites, but when I was looking I found this site. I remember them! They're the guys who sponsored Dennis Rodman's North Korea trip and violated UN sanctions by giving Kim Jong Un a bunch of fancy alcohol and other assorted "gifts."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
New CBS News poll.  The number of Republicans who know who Lindsey Graham is and hate him continues to surprise me. The negatives for Christie do not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Joementum posted:New CBS News poll. Where did those 2% no votes for Hillary go? EDIT: It's somehow unsurprising that the only movement since February on the Democratic side was in Biden's unfavorables.  He clearly knows how to speak to women voters. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:W She wiped them from the server.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you could get an easy win by betting against a third party winning, is what you're saying. Guaranteed profit right there. Once you count in the risk of the site going under with your money and the rate of return you get on the cash locked up for that long it's pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:New CBS News poll. It amazes me that Jindal is slightly gaining support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Where did those 2% no votes for Hillary go? Right next to Vince Foster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:It amazes me that Jindal is slightly gaining support. there are a nontrivial number of republican voters who think obama only won due to the mysical powers conferred by brown skin why wouldn't they want their own version?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
The Aardvark posted:It amazes me that Jindal is slightly gaining support. Nostalgia for Kenneth now that 30 Rock is over
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Joementum posted:New CBS News poll. Wanna meet the one percent of republicans who learned about Cruz in the past month and went gently caress that noise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Look at that O'Mentum: 3% to 12% in just one month!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Look at that O'Mentum: 3% to 12% in just one month! Its almost as if his name got mentioned on TV! So 12% is the baseline for "person has a name that appears more than once a week on tv" Which means things are looking up Biden
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
There hasn't been much discussion around the new anti-voting measures that a lot of states have pushed through. The American Prospect wrote about this at length in the Fall , drawing from research performed by the Brennan Center . I'm worried about the effects in the general and it will only get worse after the 2014 debacle. The American Prospect posted:North Carolina has the dubious distinction of having the nation’s harshest and most sweeping new voting law. Enacted immediately after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act last year, the law slashes seven early voting days, imposes a strict photo ID requirement, eliminates same-day registration, stops pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, prohibits the counting of provisional votes cast outside of voters’ home precincts, and more. Other than the photo ID requirement, which will be implemented in 2016, all of these changes are currently in effect. Fun fact: 3 states had ineligible felon populations larger than the margin of victory in 2012 ~ Florida, NC, and Georgia. Anyway, hopefully the courts mitigate some of the damage. Plus Hillary should do a little bit better with "likely voters" (read: whites) than Obama did. Still, these are real hurdles and I'm not sure the polling data or prediction markets are fully taking them into account.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Once you count in the risk of the site going under with your money and the rate of return you get on the cash locked up for that long it's pretty bad. You're not allowed to even have any appreciable amount of money in the site anyways. It's all just for play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
I follow a Ted Cruz supporter page on facebook for fun and it's, well, it's awful. But suddenly a tremendous thing is happening: the same stupidity that has hoisted him up as the imagined frontrunner in 2016 is cannibalizing itself over his citizenship and his fathers history. It's too good. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
You can't not post screenshots.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 10:16
|
|
