|
If this was a professional sport, that would likely be one of the very longest losing streaks in history. That's more than double the longest nfl, nba, or mlb losing streaks. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Dec 15, 2020 |
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Well we know that early turnout like that favors the Dremorpublicats, so there are some clear clues we can take from this like: "Who the gently caress knows" and "We'll see I guess" https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/1338851223278116864 Apparently a lot of sportsbooks that gave action on this hadn't paid out as of yesterday so we'll see if they do after the, uh, INAUGURATION zoux fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Dec 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
zoux posted:Well we know that early turnout like that favors the Dremorpublicats, so there are some clear clues we can take from this like: "Who the gently caress knows" and "We'll see I guess" Are they owned by chuds or are they just getting in on a good grift off of said chuds?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
They're bookies man, not exactly moral paragons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:38
|
|
|
They're probably just holding onto the money as long as they can just to make a little extra on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:If this was a professional sport, that would likely be one of the very longest losing streaks in history. That's more than double the longest nfl, nba, or mlb losing streaks. Having read some of the judgments (that Twitter account has links), I get the impression that most of those cases were on a "if this weren't a political thing, you'd be getting censured by the bar association" level of frivolous. Even super-right-wing judges were absolutely scathing. There's a reason Trump struggled to find lawyers to even file the cases. It's sure going to feel different having a president who doesn't instinctively use his position to push the boundaries of every regulatory system he bumps up against to the breaking point and beyond.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:They're probably just holding onto the money as long as they can just to make a little extra on it. If Predictit markets are "true" then people can still buy Trump winning scenarios just they are long odds. So yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Are they owned by chuds or are they just getting in on a good grift off of said chuds? Surprisingly, predictit is owned by a New Zealand university (Victoria University of Wellington). The show runners could still be chuds, but they do data sharing with other academic institutions, so they’re probably some flavor of economist. The thing that confuses me is that the markets are supposedly limited to 5000 people per question, so I have no idea why they’ve entered the zeitgeist, it just sounds like too few to really make the argument that the betting markets unconsciously get risk assessment right. Especially on a popular question, where presumably the individual better limit would be met and the positions that betters take is driven largely by ideology. I don’t know how the limitations work with regards to ongoing bets, like if they expect to get significant fees from positions bought after the election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:Surprisingly, predictit is owned by a New Zealand university (Victoria University of Wellington). The show runners could still be chuds, but they do data sharing with other academic institutions, so they’re probably some flavor of economist. I think it was literally envisioned as a way to see if the betting markets knew things that polls etc. couldn't capture. That's why Nate Silver talks about them a lot in the context of polling. I think there was a lot of optimism about this as a way to gauge public perception until it became clearly overrun with cultists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
Don't want this to get lost on the last page. Looks like high turnout again. e: Also 538 article about the Warnock ads featuring his beagle. quote:These ads have been praised as cute, humorous and clever. And the two spots have gone viral, generating almost nine million views while Warnock’s dog–oriented tweets accumulated over half a million likes on Twitter in November. The campaign has even profited off the pooch by selling “Puppies for Warnock” merchandise. Pick fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Dec 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Having read some of the judgments (that Twitter account has links), I get the impression that most of those cases were on a "if this weren't a political thing, you'd be getting censured by the bar association" level of frivolous. Even super-right-wing judges were absolutely scathing. There's a reason Trump struggled to find lawyers to even file the cases. Opening Arguments (real lawyer) pontificated that the reason the big boy law firms all bailed was that their malpractice (or equivalent, IDK) insurance was about to go ballistic. If they put forth irreverent arguments for a case then it's highly likely they will start losing cases and being assessed damages and so the insurance companies may have told them to get their poo poo together and file real cases or see their premiums go through the roof.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Per our quick bookie conversation earlier: Betfair called the election and its userbase is extremely unhappy https://twitter.com/BetfairCS/status/1338836877131079680 Replies are absolutely unhinged.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 19:56
|
|
|
picking maga pockets was the highlight of my 2020
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
I'm guessing these betting markets are usually settled on Election Night, either when multiple big networks/AP etc. call the race, or when the loser concedes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:14
|
|
|
Pick posted:e: Also 538 article about the Warnock ads featuring his beagle. These are the two ads they are talking about : https://twitter.com/ReverendWarnock/status/1324321816102506497 https://twitter.com/ReverendWarnock/status/1331326729739243527 I find the second one especially brilliant for this moment: quote:“I think Georgians will see her ads for what they are — don’t you?” he asks as he throws the poop bag into the garbage. The beagle barks in agreement and licks his owner’s face.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:24
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I'm guessing these betting markets are usually settled on Election Night, either when multiple big networks/AP etc. call the race, or when the loser concedes? nah, they often sit on it for a long time for no good reason. If you check the comments on old election results you can find a lot of people bitching about having not gotten their money. EdiT: Trump v Clinton 2016 quote:Nathan InTheHallofRex ✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ • 4 years ago
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
They sit on it because the longer they hold onto it, the more money they can make off of the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:That's quite interesting. Regardless of how the campaign turns out, whoever came up with that second ad deserves a raise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:38
|
|
|
In all likelihood presidential races (in all the variety of forms that the bets take) almost certainly dwarf the scale of most other political things people bet on regularly and I'd be surprised if betting sites are actually run in such a way that they keep all the money to settle bets on hand at all times and aren't just waiting until they have enough new money come into the system to close stuff out. Plus if any idiots still want to put money into the markets after november 6th, why stop them
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:Regardless of how the campaign turns out, whoever came up with that second ad deserves a raise. Goddamn, that's a well-written and paced ad. Agreed that somebody deserves a raise there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 20:52
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:In all likelihood presidential races (in all the variety of forms that the bets take) almost certainly dwarf the scale of most other political things people bet on regularly and I'd be surprised if betting sites are actually run in such a way that they keep all the money to settle bets on hand at all times and aren't just waiting until they have enough new money come into the system to close stuff out. I thought the particular way the sites run (at least predictit) were such that each side of a "yes/no" question was already paid for. Like if you buy "yes" for $0.75 someone buys "no" for $0.25. So they already have all the money since it's zero-sum, and are ready to pay out since if you win you just get the $1 (minus fees) that the bet is worth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:15
|
|
|
I saw this somewhat dismaying article in the Guardian today. quote:While the world focused on the election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in November, some of the most consequential contests were in state legislative races between candidates many have never heard of. Now, I understand that this is pretty dire - losing an election during a redistricting year means that gerrymandering will make it a lot more difficult to win outside of a wave year like 2018. But on the other hand, I think I've read somewhere on these forums that the demographic changes that are happening in this country (or something?) are making Gerrymandering less relevant. Or perhaps it was increasing partisanship? There was some sort of analysis about how Gerrymandering is useful for securing elections in situations where the vote is marginal - getting that few extra percent over to win. But something about how the country has changed in recent years has eroded its power? Assume I'm a political naif who doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about. I'm just asking if it is really as dire a picture as this article leads me to believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I saw this somewhat dismaying article in the Guardian today. Gerrymandering tends to get less effective over time because populations move around. You can draw a district block-by-block to include or exclude a certain population in 2010 and it will be extremely effective in that moment. But over the next ten years people move. Somebody moves a block over and suddenly they're in a different district. Somebody else moves to another state and changes the populations of whatever district they move into. Different people move into the homes those two people left behind, and so on. As the years go by, gerrymandering gets a little less reliable because the populations you drew the districts around shift. The gerrymander drawn up in 2010 was less effective in 2018 and 2020 than it was in 2012 and that's one reason why. But since you get to re-gerrymander the districts every ten years, it's likely the Republicans will be able to put in place stronger gerrymandering for 2022 than they had in 2020, and then we'll have to wait another decade for that gerrymander to weaken again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I saw this somewhat dismaying article in the Guardian today. If anything the increasing urbanization will only make gerrymandering more effective as people continue to flock into cities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:I thought the particular way the sites run (at least predictit) were such that each side of a "yes/no" question was already paid for. Like if you buy "yes" for $0.75 someone buys "no" for $0.25. So they already have all the money since it's zero-sum, and are ready to pay out since if you win you just get the $1 (minus fees) that the bet is worth. In the accounting sense that the amount of money they need to pay out was indeed taken in, yes they are zero-sum (albeit not all politics betting sites operate like that). Whether or not they actually hold onto this money the entire time is a whole other question and whether or not you believe what they claim about their liquidity is still another. tldr, basically depends on how grey of a politics book you're looking at, the actual structure of the 'markets' and the local laws (and how strictly they're enforced) of where a specific bookmaker is. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Dec 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
The biggest challenge for Democrats that I don't see ever going away as long as economic trends hold is that Democratic voters are all clustering around the same areas and leaving lots of states with less and less voters who will help overturn local GOP dominance. Liberal kids move to where the jobs are, so you get tons and tons of blue voters moving from the south or the midwest to live in and around places like NYC or Boston or DC. You've seen states like Virginia become more reliably "blue" from the local level on up, but that also has meant other states becoming redder and redder as time goes by (and giving the GOP time to gerrymander districts to keep things that way). I don't know how to fix this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
It isn't really clear how to fix it. However, the flipside is the city governments can be more powerful than we expect, so maybe part of it is that you don't get the legislation at the state level, but you do get it at the county or the city level. Some new and fancy gerrymandering is coming, I'm curious whether they will base it off of 2016, 2018, or 2020. There are substantial risks in choosing any of them for those determinations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 21:58
|
|
|
Pick posted:It isn't really clear how to fix it. However, the flipside is the city governments can be more powerful than we expect, so maybe part of it is that you don't get the legislation at the state level, but you do get it at the county or the city level. There's been a lot of moves by lovely states to preempt any progressive legislation at the local level, like Ohio making it illegal for Cleveland to ban plastic bags
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:There's been a lot of moves by lovely states to preempt any progressive legislation at the local level, like Ohio making it illegal for Cleveland to ban plastic bags The state supreme court overruled Austin's ban. https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1338893959280676865 We are on a collision course between a 7+ million popular vote loss and an EC win and when that happens I don't know what is going to happen. In another country you'd expect violent riots but I don't know if that happens here. I had assumed there would be a bunch of protests in DC demanding that Trump concede but aside from Internet Worriers, no one seems to care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:06
|
|
|
I think that Trump primed the expectation pump that he would be a miserable little whiny rear end in a top hat about it. I mostly don't think that people thought it would be successful. We watch the stuff like hawks, but it does seem like the majority of people just accepted Joe Biden won and went about their day. Bear in mind that the first debate was disastrous for Trump because somehow a lot of people didn't realize that that's exactly what he was like, after four loving years!
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think that Trump primed the expectation pump that he would be a miserable little whiny rear end in a top hat about it. I mostly don't think that people thought it would be successful. We watch the stuff like hawks, but it does seem like the majority of people just accepted Joe Biden won and went about their day. Bear in mind that the first debate was disastrous for Trump because somehow a lot of people didn't realize that that's exactly what he was like, after four loving years! Normally I'd agree with you but, performative or not, the fact that a majority of the House Republican caucus endorsed making Donald Trump president-for-life does cause me some heartburn. Tangentially, is it absolutely bonkers to anyone else that they are doing all this for Donald loving Trump? Like if it was some successful general or conservative hero or something I could get that but it's the most ignorant, garish, venal, embarrassing person who's ever lived, and they all worship the ground he walks on. Especially after they got the 6-3 court, like what else do they think they can wring out of this guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
zoux posted:Normally I'd agree with you but, performative or not, the fact that a majority of the House Republican caucus endorsed making Donald Trump president-for-life does cause me some heartburn. To be fair, most of the Republican heroes of old would not have asked the party to do this. Not even Nixon. Trump brought big Boomer energy to the GOP and it's sticking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
zoux posted:Normally I'd agree with you but, performative or not, the fact that a majority of the House Republican caucus endorsed making Donald Trump president-for-life does cause me some heartburn. TBH I think the only chance the left (in general) has in the long term is for Trump to cause a schism within the Republican Party (probably via a rogue senator forcing an up-or-down vote on accepting the EC results). What are the chances of that happening? That McConnell has to order his party to not contest has to be some evidence of its possibility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Two things I never bank on 1. Turning out the youth vote 2. Republicans voting for anyone other than the Republican in the race
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:The biggest challenge for Democrats that I don't see ever going away as long as economic trends hold is that Democratic voters are all clustering around the same areas and leaving lots of states with less and less voters who will help overturn local GOP dominance. Liberal kids move to where the jobs are, so you get tons and tons of blue voters moving from the south or the midwest to live in and around places like NYC or Boston or DC. You've seen states like Virginia become more reliably "blue" from the local level on up, but that also has meant other states becoming redder and redder as time goes by (and giving the GOP time to gerrymander districts to keep things that way). Expand the number of Congressional seats. New York and Massachusetts both gained population but because they capped districts lost seats plus it makes gerrymanders harder for smaller districts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
zoux posted:Two things I never bank on I'm with you on these.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1338902872096956418 New Mexico back in play! I have a feeling that we're going to see Trump endorse Falun Gong in an official capacity before Jan 20, especially since the TRAITORS at Newsmax are RINOs now https://twitter.com/jeremymbarr/status/1338881828002861056
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Roluth posted:TBH I think the only chance the left (in general) has in the long term is for Trump to cause a schism within the Republican Party (probably via a rogue senator forcing an up-or-down vote on accepting the EC results). What are the chances of that happening? That McConnell has to order his party to not contest has to be some evidence of its possibility. I mean in that case does it have to be a republican senator forcing the up-or-down?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 23:03
|
|
|
zoux posted:Normally I'd agree with you but, performative or not, the fact that a majority of the House Republican caucus endorsed making Donald Trump president-for-life does cause me some heartburn. it's not them, it's the voters. hill republicans by and large despise him but more importantly are terrified that he sics the hungry jackals on them the problem is that it's hard to fake crazy, cornyn in particular sucks at it. this movement in the GOP has been going on for about eleven years now and more and more marjorie taylor greenes will gain power in the party
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 20:22 |
|
|
Numbers? We want numbers! https://twitter.com/lxeagle17/status/1338946439158747136 (Those are only the "Early In Person" Numbers) It will be very interesting to see if that Non-Hispanic Black number stays that high.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2020 23:39
|
|