Wouldn’t it just have to pass the house to be considered? Or does it require the Senate to take action as well?

I read what the guy wrote. I read what Buttigieg said. And then I read that Buttigieg called this guy and had a conversation with him. I can't understand that. I can't understand who is paying this guy any mind. Buttigieg says we need to improve black schools and make black neighbourhoods better and he wants blacks to have better lives, and then he gets called racist for that and he's forced to apologise. I don't know what to make of that. I really don't.

Yes you do

Only has to pass the house

Impeachment is the House, conviction (which is obv way way less likely to happen) is the Senate

Problem for dems is how many will cross the aisle and vote against. That would not be good for Nancy and Adam.

IMO Pelosi needs about 225 in the pocket to move on a vote. It has worked to draw it out, but with the primaries in January sans impeachment votes they will vote on a censure or something meaningless.

How about this: you pick any polling firm you want, I'll take rasmussen. We'll use all the purple states for 2020 POTUS and whoever picks the pollster with the lowest aggregate error wins. The loser signs off this forum for good.

And we'll ignore this "5% bias" or whatever in the calculation.

I'd rather bet money than posting on a forum but i'm in if you want to make an actual bet for $ name the amount etc up to about 20k or so although if you want huge numbers pretty sure I could find you unlimited action on the prop

Do I have to pick the firm now, or closer to the election fine like around the conventions or whatever? Happy to escrow around that time, I haven't really tuned in from a betting perspective yet as the election is still so far away i'm not tying up money for a year etc on random even money props etc

and yeah obviously face value numbers on polling firms we're not doing any unskewing or whatever for betting purposes - i'm happy with those terms, lmk an amount and we can sort out an escrow sometime in mid-2020 or thereabouts if you want and ill pick a polling firm for my side.

Yeah, I'm not betting somebody on an internet forum.

You need to pick a polling firm by July 1.

Simple terms, winner stays on, loser signs off.

Create a market on Fairlay.

"Meet me at Matchbook"

Trump -450ish for Repub nominee seems soft if anyone is interested in dollar menu value. Considering his chances for removal from office are about 0 and we're basically hoping he doesn't die or have some weird spasm of humility, k.

Ya ok, no money at stake no real interest in it. Obv i'd escrow to HITS or someone suitable/neutral and you'd do the same but whatever if you don't want to that's fine. If you want to bet on it i'm happy to with those terms and I pick a polling firm by July 1 anything from like 50 bucks to about 20k or so. If you don't want to bet actual money then I don't have any interest in any other type of bet

We'll see how Rasmussen does on election day one way or the other

Just pick a pollster bro. I didn't know being able to post here meant so much to you. I gave you the initial terms, loser's out.

I'm not going to stop posting here, so there's no point in the wager if that's what you want to do. There is no value to me whatsoever in taking away your ability to post here.

I offered to bet actual money with you with an escrow and you have thus far declined. If you change your mind, i'm in and i'll name a pollster, anything from 50 bucks to 20k. Let me know if you're interested and we can agree on a suitable escrow and set up the bet. If not, I have no interest in pursuing a prop bet that has nothing on the line because once again I have no interest in wagering my twoplustwo account against yours. If you want to bet with money i've agreed to terms just name the amount, if not nevermind.

So you confirmed I am correct, it is important for you to post here.

You know my initial terms. I am even considering giving you the field just so you will take my offer.

Why would accept the word of someone who has already said he wouldn't post about politics after humiliating himself in the last cycle and lied about it?

Covered my short on Trump being impeached this year. In general it's a good bet that anything the government does will be late, but it's really looking like the Dems are trying hard to get this out the door by Christmas. Whether they'll succeed is another question, but I think the contract is fairly valued at 45% right now.

Also, lots of free money in the Will X Debate In December markets.

It appears that the Harris campaign is about to fold....crazy. It was just a handful of weeks ago that she was the unanimous first debate winner and rising rapidly in the polls. She has tanked dramatically ever since that Tulsi attack. I was never a big Harris fan but I will be kind of sad to see her go. An interesting politician that should have brought some more excitement into the race than she ended up doing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...gtype=Homepage

Harris' failure is my biggest surprise this cycle. A year ago, I thought she was a strong favorite to win. Basically Obama 2.0: a young, mixed-race Senator with some experience but not too much ideological baggage. Against a deeply flawed field, she was the most well-rounded and best positioned.

Unfortunately, like her hometown of Oakland, there wasn't any "there" there. Where Obama skillfully used the soaring oratory of Hope and Change, she talked mostly in cliches. She never really hit on any kind of resonating theme. A hit piece in the WaPo took down her record as CA Attorney General, making a very good case that she had intentionally kept innocent men in prison for life, among other abuses. That dampened enthusiasm among the kind of good-government liberals who were Obama's earliest supporters, and gave Tulsi Gabbard something to pound on in later debates.

The high point of her campaign was her moment attacking Joe Biden for supporting segregation in the first debate. This was both strategically critical (she needed to peel off black voters from Biden) and tactically perfect. In the space of a minute, she tied her personal life experience to public policy, and talked Biden into a corner. Democrats everywhere salivated at the thought of her doing the same to Trump.

Then, the next morning, she said, basically, "never mind" -- she didn't support mandatory busing, and actually had the same position as Biden.

And that was it -- she had one punch, which she threw perfectly, and then went on autopilot as her support dwindled for the remainder of the campaign.

This is a good writeup and I totally agree with pretty much all of it. Another interesting point of note was the rollout of her healthcare plan. If you recall she said that she wanted to abolish private insurance in what was akin to an off-the-cuff remark. It's pretty crazy to make a statement like that and seemingly not understand the major implications it would have. I remember being completely shocked by that. This is not to mention that it's an unpopular idea with both Republicans AND Democrats. I was surprised that she even went there. She seemed to be trading all of her moderate cred for a Progressive lane that she wasn't best suited for.

This is not to mention that she completely revamped her plan several weeks later. It seems like she just didn't have a great grasp of some of these issues. This is totally understandable given that she had probably had her hands full as a prosecutor and senator. But you would have to think at some point that she would have read up on the most salient issues.

I was pretty shocked to hear the allegations of prosecutoral misconduct. Gabbard's callout was the first that I heard them mentioned. They instantly seemed credible to me and the hypocrisy was jarring. She was bragging about smoking weed in interviews while locking people up for these same kinds of things? It's just an image that doesn't mix well for the Left. It painted her as a cold Machiavellian figure willing to do anything to further her status. It's an image that she couldn't shake off - perhaps because it was true.

Agreed.

With two months before Iowa, how do you see this playing out now?

Kamala had zero spontaneity. She could not answer any questions outside her comfort zone, essentially Hillary 2.0, which doesn't work unless you are in complete control of the process.

Because he either doesn't understand polling or is spouting hot air about it.

I've given this some thought and will start with the caveat that I believe myself to have no real predictive powers. IE, the honest answer is that I have no clue.

With that being said I think that Buttigieg will take Iowa and become the frontrunner out of the gate. Warren and Biden will both have mediocre results and the national media will laud him as in the driver seat. Though, as it has been pointed out by Swoop among others, he might not have enough support in the Southern states to see the entire campaign out. He has also handled his interactions with minorities poorly in my opinion. Because he tries to be the guy who "gets it" but he will never be accepted for that. That's probably a fair assessment by the voters quite frankly. He'll perform well early, particularly with white elites, but I don't know if he has the boots on the ground to get it done. Probably will be a good short after Iowa, I don’t know that I see him going all the way.

Biden is an interesting case study. I don’t know if it’s because I am in the conservative Twitter bubble or something, but it seems like every day he is doing something new and more stupid. This is not to mention the times where he looks just plain out of it. I am not even that much of a Biden hater, but it doesn’t seem like he has the mental stamina to make it through an entire presidential campaign. I think he will probably underperform in the early states with Buttigieg, Warren, and Sanders performing reasonably. He will have to take a stand in South Carolina. I have been bearish on Biden for a while and I don’t really think he’s going to be the nominee.

The most viable option left is Warren. She has been inexplicably tanking in the markets recently to the point where she now seems undervalued. She hasn’t done anything outlandishly stupid but perhaps this is in part due to initiative to abolish the electoral college and other such focuses that are kind of taking the eye off the ball. This seems like the same thing Harris did. Has a lane that seems pretty wide open and then proceeds to go completely off the map. I am not sure why she has dropped to 18c, but I would probably buy at this point. She’s going to be around for a while, and I don’t really feel like the markets are reflecting a fundamental shift. She just has just not grabbed the bull by the horns like she should have.

There is also the possibility of the dark-horse in this race, given the serious flaws with the favorites. I feel like I am more bullish on Bloomberg than Swoop is. I think he could turn out to have some viability. It will be interesting to see how he performs on the debate stage and what kind of treatment the media gives him. Yang is also interesting and fun to watch. I like what he has to say on a bunch of topics, seems smart and articulate. I hope he continues to stay around but is obviously a huge dog. I guess I have to put Sanders in the dark-horse category as well. Health problems really hurt him, and Yang is splitting much of his base.

At this point I guess still have to go Warren to win the nom.