Of course. Doesn't change that most people are not like that and likely much more selfish than they let on in their everyday interactions.

we're talking in the context of doctors who hold abhorrently callous and detached right wing views tho

Ok. And most of them likely don't constantly and voluntarily offer their abhorrent views in everyday interactions either.

I don't really get your bewilderment about why people are nicer irl than on anonymous forums.

like, for sure i'll concede that doctors and their personal interactions are limited by the guidelines of professionalism and stuff, and on the whole, you won't see them getting aggro or up in your face about a political discussion...i just comment because i actually know a lot of doctors personally irl and i think every single one of them would be pretty appalled to read much of the spew that comes out the mouths of the vhawks and ikes of this forum. i thought that was pretty clear from the start, not sure what your point is tho

Tweet from of all people, Jonah Goldberg:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110110/Ga...oint-Lead.aspx

I am as anti Trump as any other college educated, halfway serious, open minded, living in a "mixed" marriage, white guy.

Two problems with your post, one trivial, the other pretty significant. First, you didn't realize that a multi day, message controlled, totally one sided, covered around the clock, wall to wall media event has great potential to sway minds and lead to a bounce in the polls? I mean come on, advertising works, or all those companies wouldn't spend so much money on it ever year.

As far as the vaunted "betting markets" and their accuracy are concerned, I mean we are mostly hard edged gamblers on here, lol sample size. Take Major League Baseball for instance. There are going to be around 100 independent trials this WEEK alone. Every week, every year. Where are all the trials for elections in general and POTUS contests specifically? How many have been modeled with the fashionable Nate Silver method? 3-5 in real time and 10-15 in some sort of optimized back test? That is a joke from a predictive standpoint. If a guy told who he was a pro bettor because he is 3-1 over a 4 event sample, you would laugh him out of your office, but now the press is falling all over these fake political modelers as some sort of Delphic Oracles.

It is all well and good to use the +315 you can get on Trump to calm your heart and give you a warm all over "No Trump" feeling, but I would expect most people on these forums to understand that 315 dogs win every week, in all sort of markets. If you think I am being unreasonable, just remember that "Leave" was slightly down in the polls, within the margin of error, yet the great seers, the "betting Markets" were offering +900 on the day of the vote. How well did that work out as a predictive model?

All that said, Go Hillary!!!!!

To be fair, you have DR. Ikes really skewing that curve

i for one will not be satisfied with the predictive power of der markt until all +315ers lose

That was a good one. I will be really liberal and state that I will be satisfied when the pricing of POTUS betting markets is shown to be efficient after the laughably small sample size of 100 trials. Hopefully by 2416 we will know how good they really are.

Sorry, I meant 2408, he has been right twice in a row already, weeeee, he can't lose.

They aren't, Putin and our newest example Erdogan are political masterminds who worked on their plans to take and increase their power since decades. And they did so in country's that at its best weren't real democracy's.

Trump is just a goof who inherited a lot of money and wanted to promote his business and since he now became a serious contender he is just rolling with the wave.

Oh no, they do. Get 'em around the country club crowd and feed 'em a couple drinks, and they let it rip.

If anyone is interested, these are the current, No Vig moneylines, based on Nate Silver's model. Based on a run done Monday 7-25.

Including post RNC bounce: Trump -132/HRC +132

RNC Skew stripped out: HRC -116/Trump +116

Extrapolated w/other factors to November: HRC -139/Trump +139

Right now the markets are being very "conventional" and are clearly shading their lines to the generally accepted viewpoint. They did the same thing with Brexit, perhaps wisely from their risk stand point. It is clear though that any emotionless gambler should be snapping up Trump at +315 as of today. Either as an outright position or in an effort to build a base to set up a future arb.

Truer words never spoken, and I have been around the country club world since I was 9. I once listened in detached amusement as a 30 year old WASP climber seriously asked an older member if marrying a Jewish girl (he was considering getting engaged) would compromise his chances of being club president one day. The question was pretty funny in 2011, but the answer was just plain hilarious.

It's very far from clear that is the case. Look at the snapshot of the 2008 election I posted earlier today. http://www.gallup.com/poll/110110/Ga...oint-Lead.aspx

There's an argument to be made that this represents Trump's high point, at least in polling. What group of voters do you think is poised to switch allegiance to Trump?

I agree with you, we very well may be near the Trump high point, and I also don't think Silver is some sort of prophet, but..............I doubt he is 200 cents off. That is all I was trying to get across. Even if you think HRC is going to win, she has to be a -ev play at these prices.

A lot of the doctors I worked with (in the Midwest, no less) were pretty kind liberal leaning people. Some of them were the worst people possible and scare me about going to see a doctor without knowing them as a person. So many surgeons especially that patients LOVE, but who say some of the most God-awful, flabbergasting bull**** possible.

You think the market is that far off ?

Also I've seen a handful of other math/stats based models and Silver's is the most optimistic of Trumps chances. Ask goofball

At work so might have missed it but did Gary Johnson not knowing who Harriet Tubman is get posted yet?

LOL ALL OF YOU WHO ARE VOTING FOR HIM

Outside of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, I think you would be amazed to find out how few Americans know the names of the people who show up on currency. I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of this forum couldn't name the guy on the $10 bill.

That's different than having to ask who Alexander Hamilton is. He's just not a very bright guy it seems. The article starts off why how he used marijuana heavily until very recently...not breaking down any stereotypes on that front.

SNL helped with that.

His last name is on the bill. There's a play named after him.

I doubt that it's that high.

I wonder if the percentage is higher for a $10 or a $50. I think Grant's recognition is probably slightly higher, but people encounter $50s a lot less.

lol. It was "we trusted you." It should have been obvious from the context (the sellout to Hillary).