POTUS betting thread

[MicroBob]

Nai, interesting analysis. Disagree on you stating that third party injection hurts incumbent based on that sample. I think there is a greater chance for a 3rd party push to hurt Mitt than Obama here.

There really isn't a green or nader or left push this time (that I'm aware of) to draw votes from dems as has happened before. There is still a slight chance of libertarian or tea push impacting repubs a bit more although that still seems unlikely as best I can tell.

[Roger Clemens]

War BHO wins easy

[DodgerIrish]

Originally Posted by MicroBob

Nai, interesting analysis. Disagree on you stating that third party injection hurts incumbent based on that sample. I think there is a greater chance for a 3rd party push to hurt Mitt than Obama here.

There really isn't a green or nader or left push this time (that I'm aware of) to draw votes from dems as has happened before. There is still a slight chance of libertarian or tea push impacting repubs a bit more although that still seems unlikely as best I can tell.

Some who hate R and normally vote D would vote L.

Think MJ users, Obama is shutting down dispensaries - that Charlatan. Also, at this point, the 3rd parties are the only ones who are non-interventionist.

Most of the right is galvanized behind ABO while some on the left have been totally let down by Obama being basically a R on weed & war, the bulk of his support is the partisan hacks and special interests as opposed to the true liberal ideologues.

With that being said I still think it would prbly have a negligible impact, voter apathy is a much larger problem for BHO

[SwoopAE]

Originally Posted by NajdorfDefense

Comparing 2012 to 2008 instead of 2010 is a gross error, for any number of reasons as Nate Silver and other political experts can tell you. In addition to the electoral votes per state changed in some cases.

Mich is not above average. Neither is Nevada, Fla is terribad, etc. Every economic indicator shows that BHO will lose, using historic data for employment, job loss, GDP growth, et al.

BHO is behind/tied in WI and Mich so far. Of course, 5 months is a lifetime. Amusingly, in spring 1980 the leader in the national polls was....Ford.

But I bet you anything that no one in the WH thought those states would even be remotely close. If he loses PA or MI, that means he's already lost OH and Fla, and then it becomes almost mathematically impossible for him to win.

He's going to lose IN, NC, probably Fla, OH, NE2, and likely some of WI, CO, MI, NV, NH, VA, IA even Oregon [meaning 50% odds or more per state].

Romney ain't losing Ariz or MO. Tie [highly unlikely] goes to House which will go Romney. Almost be worth it just to see the heads explode.

Anyone who thinks Barry is a 3-1 fave at this point is a joke. The lines given by the book in OP looks pretty sharpish to me. +/-140 or so would be my given line at this point. If you're still wedded to 2008 instead of today, Mitt needs to win back only OH + FL which are red/trending red, VA and NH. He doesn't need WI, MI, NV, CO, OR, IA to win 270-268. {Or replace VA and NH with PA}

Once people start bailing on the incumbent, it won't be close though, see 1980 and 1992 for further details. Clinton, Booker, Carville are already bailing on him privately and some days publicly. Rahm packed up and went home a long time ago.

And any 3rd party entry like Johnson or Naderite kills the incumbent, again, see 1992, 1980 for more details.

If ACA gets overturned on Monday, it will simply confirm for millions more voters that Barry was a mistake - an inexperienced, floundering, over-his-head, buck-stops-elsewhere, 100 rounds of golf playing mistake.

Still, probably life-hedge on BHO ftl...

I'll stand behind my 13-3 politics betting record and simply disagree with you, then bump the post in November (assuming the status quo maintains and Obama is reelected as i'm currently predicting)

If you think Mitt Romney is going to be competitive in Oregon, you're on crack, basically. He'll probably get Florida, but Obama is going to take too much of the west and the demographics are changing in VA NM CO etc unless Obama runs a spectacularly bad campaign, he's going to get reelected.

There are plenty of things that can go wrong on both sides, but if I was forced to lay down my net worth on Romney at +200 or Obama at -200, i'm taking Obama there (obviously I can get a better price for an actual bet)

[MicroBob]

Did you read his post? Naj also thinks Obama is more likely to get reelected than not.

[NajdorfDefense]

Originally Posted by SwoopAE

I'll stand behind my 13-3 politics betting record and simply disagree with you,

Wow, you're running hot over a tiny sample size, but refuse to address the majority of the analysis WHAT ARE THE EFFING ODDS?

We have this rule in 2p2sb that unlisted bets don't count. By your own admission you were 2-1 in 2010, so not really amazing outcome there, is it?

but Obama is going to take too much of the west and the demographics are changing in VA NM CO etc unless Obama runs a spectacularly bad campaign

As noted, he doesn't need any of the in-play 'West states' to win 270-268.

You are saying Mitt is 3-1 against winning states like OH or VA which is lolwrong. Same for NH.


Srsly tho, nobody cares about your personal capping itt. Not one person.

[NajdorfDefense]

Originally Posted by MicroBob

Did you read his post? Naj also thinks Obama is more likely to get reelected than not.

Obvs he did not, didn't you read his? He's THIRTEEN AND THREE LIFETIME! Stats, how the hell do they work MB?!?!?!?

Anyone who disagrees with him 'is on crack' but he won't get into any details, numbers, actual evidence of anything. Just ad hominem attacks about how BHO is 75% against all available evidence, and you're a drug addled vat of meatspace if you dare to question him.

[NajdorfDefense]

ISI - Int'l Strategy and Investment is one of the most respected research firms on Wall St, having won the #1 ranking in Inst'l Investor something like 32 of past 33 years. They are utterly non-partisan [altho I'd guess the very wealthy founder, Ed, is a Dem]

They publish a lengthy daily Econ summary, and a shorter Washington Policy Report. Plus audio/video summaries.

Today's release, offered without comment:

'Giving the Edge to Romney'

We believe that Mitt should be considered the slight favorite for the WH, so we are raising our odds to 55/45 that Mitt defeats BHO.

The election is likely to be close and polls will fluctuate at least through the early fall. In 7/9 past elections the loser has led in Gallup in July or later...we believe the factors favoring Romney outweigh those favoring BHO.

Romney --

- most americans believe the economy is in bad shape.
- Obama's legislative accomplishments are unpopular.
- Romeny is a safe alternative. Few are likely to question his capabilities.
- Obama has focused on courting Dem constituencies, not centrist voters
- Obama's job-approval ratings aren't good, which is roughly 46%.

The main problem for obama is that there is not a lot he can do to improve his position. He can't control the economy, can't alter his record, and can't change his opponent. As a person who ran as a 'different kind of politician,' he has limits to attempting to disqualify Mitt as going negative is likely to backfire with many voters.

BHO --

- Obama has had foreign policy successes in Afghanistan/Pakistan
- Obama is more likable
- Obama has an EC advantage in that he could possibly win while losing the popular vote
- Romney may be seen as out-of-touch
- Romney is currently doing poorly with Latinos.

Finances are likely to be a draw. Intensity, however, is very important in elections and all polls suggest Rs have a slight edge here. This is worth monitoring closely.

If Romney wins, he is likely to have majorities in House and Senate. R's are likely to win the Senate, but it's a small edge. "

[DodgerIrish]

Originally Posted by NajdorfDefense

drug addled vat of meatspace

Hello new pet name for my member!

Originally Posted by NajdorfDefense

- Romney is currently doing poorly with Latinos.

Rubio FTW

[DodgerIrish]

Originally Posted by SwoopAE

I'll stand behind my 13-3 politics betting record and simply disagree with you

I'll stand behind your 34-40-0 -11.58 record in the best bet thread that you have a fondness for favorites and simply disregard your input

[NajdorfDefense]

Originally Posted by DodgerIrish

Hello new pet name for my member!



Rubio FTW

almost zero chance imo for various reasons. Rubio can still campaign for him around the country, as can Gov. Susanna Martinez.

Condi Rice could be a game-changer though. Fixes the foreign-policy inexperience, helps with the ladies, uber-bright, and puts an actual non-half-white person on the ticket....

She'd eviscerate Biden in any debate, it'd be painful to watch.

My bet is still on Portman, subject to change. Need OH more than Fla....

[DodgerIrish]

Don't you think she still has the stink of Bush on her for an ez Obama talking point?

I agree based on your points tho.

Haven't heard much buzz for Portman but I'm sure you're right

[HolidayInTheSun]

not trying to upset people but romney is a mormon. i know the us is a religious country but most people are not mormon. i would think it would scare the **** out of people that their president would actually believe all that stuff. i don't understand how this doesn't bother people?

[ProbablyRsigley]

sadly not black > mormon in a lot of peoples eyes

[just_mo]

Originally Posted by HolidayInTheSun

not trying to upset people but romney is a mormon. i know the us is a religious country but most people are not mormon. i would think it would scare the **** out of people that their president would actually believe all that stuff. i don't understand how this doesn't bother people?

That religion is even more of a joke than most.