Timex, I checked out the site. It looks pretty cool and good prices. I will probably put some $ on there.

Seems BetOnline paid out Sanders and Buttieg, wonder if BM will do the same. I also noticed BM added tons of rules to all their bets now about what constitutes a win. Guess we got the lucky first caucus free roll

I'm officially dumping my Warren prediction for the nom and switching it to Bernie. I think he's taking it all the way. Hedging my Buttigieg equity while the getting is still good, and hitching the horse to Bernie.

Fervent base who's going to carry him. Has good minority support, etc.

As far as Warren goes: She was just too loony imo, she's changed a lot in just a few years. Got bogged down in stupid things and didn't keep the message on topic. She should have won but she took her eye off the ball and didn't convey a specific message to her constitutes. Too wishy-washy and it comes across as pandering. Also embodies identity politics at its worst (I am going to have my secretary of education approved by a trans person). I think identity politics is actually going to be an important tool for the nomination but the identity politics of Bernie seems much more targeted and useful than arbitrary things she is talking about.

I am officially on the Bernie Bandwagon. Let's do this.

Cody, you're a little late to the party. Warren's demise is tied to a single issue: Healthcare.

When the debates first started, i actually though Warren was smarter than Bernie for refusing to submit to the moderators framing of Medicare for All, "A middle-class tax hike". Which Republicans will surely use in a 30 second attack ad. Warren refused to give them their ad. I thought that was pretty shrewd. By the 3rd or 4th debate, the moderators flat-out asked, "will taxes go up? Yes or no?" I believe this was in the October debate. Right then and there, I paused the TV and said what Warren's response should be, "I understand you're framing that question so the Republicans can use it in a 30 second attack ad against me when i'm the nominee. I refuse to submit to that framing! The average family will pay far less on healthcare under a single-payer, Medicare for All plan."

This response gives her an out on the yes or no question. But this was the exact point in the campaign that started Warren's collapse and Bernie's rise. It was the consensus by even the other candidates on the stage that Warren was being weaselly and Bernie was being honest. This was when i knew that we were going to be in the position that we are today - with a chance to win this whole ****ing thing!

Not just a trans person...a high school student trans person.

(all from PredictIt)

Bernie currently around 77% to win NH (up a good amount in the last 48 hours) and about 64% to win NV (up, but not as much relatively in the last 48).

Buttigieg is ~17% to win NH, 15% in NV. Biden basically DOA in NH and ~10% in NV, where he has been tanking since right before Iowa.

Bernie-Buttigieg is by far the most likely outcome in NH, and slightly the most likely outcome in NV. I have to think if Bernie-Buttigieg go 1 2 in NH and Biden goes distant 3rd or even 4th (like he's polling) he (likely?) drops off more in NV. Buttigieg will def benefit from Biden dropping off in NV...

...but is currently at just 7% in SC, where Bernie is at 42% and Biden is 36%. If Biden is falling precipitously by here after losing NH & NV, some of that support re-directs to Buttigieg, but at least a little re-directs to Bernie, and even if it doesn't, some of it presumably re-directs to Steyer, Warren, or Klobuchar (depending on who is left in the race at that time). It's tough to see Bernie's coalition fading by SC, and currently very unlikely Biden's coalition turns around by then OR moves to Buttigieg enough to help him overtake Bernie in SC.

Am I wrong for thinking Bernie +140 or so to ship SC is a good play at this point in time? After writing it out it kinda feels like someone who would've talked themselves into the Ravens to win the AFC before the playoffs by going "well they're almost definitely going to beat the Titans and then they'll be solid home fave's over the Chiefs so +150 or w/e has value!" but idk these markets don't feel similarly stationary in terms of expected W% (like in modeling the NFL playoffs the Ravens their expected winning percentage in the AFC Title game is easy to forecast pretty accurately against either the Chiefs or Texans if you have their current team ratings, but w/ politics it's almost like if the Texans (Biden) lose a bunch of their good players can come play for the Ravens (Bernie) against the Chiefs (Buttigieg) instead).

IDK the of the above scenario is certainly priced into the market, I'm just not sure if it's priced in enough I guess?

Let it ride bro, all aboard the Bernie train.

Bernie is favored in SC now? LOL! I'm down at like 10/1.


Jablo, I don't really like betting 'after' the big move. You should have commiserated with me in early december and I would have smartened you up.

Like, how's that dumb Biden SC bet at -300 feeling?

BM still has Biden -158 and Sanders +127 for SC with 1k limit.

Lol yea I'm def late to the party here. Predictit comment section is all about Steyer being undervalued b/c he's been totally focused on SC and is polling relatively well there. Who knows.

Nice get vafongool, that's looking like a nice longshot atm

lol you bernie bros are the worst.

Also Id like to know how I get into this alternate reality where economists have all agreed that they were wrong about the minimum wage?

Also, a good beat: My sanders to win Iowa (which I got at +175 and closed at something like -150 I think) went from a loss to a push somehow. It even says "to get most votes"

yang is quitting, poor yang gang

Shoutout to Parttimepro for his Klobuchar dark horse pick. She has had far more viability than I could have imagined.

All the way with Amy K!

When your liberal friends ask you to join them at the range...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RvX9hSoGoY

If they would of said 'Lets go hit a bucket of balls" i would of had spikes on instead

KAG

Shoutout for this prediction I made on December 3rd.

I don't follow politics that much but is polling always this bad in the beginning or is there some weird manipulation thing going on? I know polling is hard and there's errors, but the results are not even close.

Seems pretty clear to me what's happening now. Bernie is just the Left's equivalent of Trump. Tail is going to wag the dog and his fervent base is going to force his nomination. Same thing happened with Trump in 2016. Dems will have to fall in line and most will but some will deflect to Trump.

I will be taking Bernie in most of the primary contests going forward, it's good spot to pick up a bunch of free money.

Also, brokered convention? - no, he is getting all the delegates he needs.

Well polling done before 2008 was more accurate in the sense that people's selections seemed to be more reflective of who they would actually vote for. But the polls were scattered and a bit of a mishmash, so they didn't give outstanding insight. More of just a general direction. In 2008 Nate Silver came along and added statistical analysis to the mix and crushed it in 2008 and 2012, but he was still playing the old game. Things changed in 2016. I picked up on this pretty early and sent him an email telling him his methodology was now flawed and that Trump was the inevitable nominee. It is kind of funny since I was delivering pizzas at the time. I intuitively picked up on something that his analysis couldn't get: the game had changed.

Polling still hasn't adjusted yet for the new ballgame, but the Predictit market seems to be pricing this stuff fairly well. Except for Bloomberg who is obviously pumping his shares. It seems that many Trump voters are either not polled or unwilling to admit that they support him.

It's interesting. I do my grocery shopping in Henderson and before the Iowa Caucus I saw a lot of Klobuchar bumper stickers and people out there canvasing for Pete, but all the polls said they had little to no chance. I thought they were just very vocal supporters like #yanggang. And then it turns out hey maybe they do have a chance. I wonder if it's smart to just sit out super tuesday

From arching predictit odds you see huge swings when some piece of news is released. I wonder if you end up seeing an overreaction as people jump on. This was definitely much easier in 2004/2008/2012/2016 when you could just blindly bet polling and cash

You give your own counterpoint with the Pete and Klob phenomenon though--Yang. None of the polls gave him a chance, but he seemed to have a lot of support if you just looked around. When I was in Vegas a couple months ago, the only guy I saw at the table with overt political gear on was a douche at Encore with a MATH hat and other Yang paraphernalia. And after the Vegas marathon I saw a slew of Yang supporters carrying signs walking from Caesar's to Rio. And I heard Yang when he was on Joe Rogan, and he was also on Ben Shapiro. He seemed to be all over Twitter and Reddit. It seemed like all the evidence you would need to conclude he was getting underrepped in traditional media and traditional polling was there.

Then he gets bodied in Iowa. And NH gives him the knockout blow. And he calculates the positive integral of zero delegates and quits. So I think it's really easy to come up with explanations in hindsight, but accurate prediction is a different animal. The fact there are so few Presidential elections and you can't get enough relevant data to model it like you can with MLB or whatever is why betting elections is so much fun and it offers so many potential exploits.

^agree

everyones an expert in hindsight. Plus you can just make a ton of predictions and then quote yourself on the ones that come true and look smart

Could be, but I don't think Bernie's a lock. You're right that he's the Left equivalent of Trump. All red meat all the time, fervent base of supporters, comes from outside the establishment.

But there's a critical difference between the GOP and Dem nominating process -- most GOP contests were winner-take-all with their delegates, but most (all?) Dem contests award delegates proportionately. If 2016 had been run with Democratic rules, Trump would have gotten a plurality, not a majority.

If you have a crowded field, getting a consistent plurality with 25% of the vote will win you the nomination if it's winner-take-all. If it's proportionate, and your ceiling is 35%, you're not getting a majority of the delegates. And if the party establishment hates you, and there are superdelegates who get to vote starting on the second ballot, you're not going to get the nomination.

NH was not a great showing for Bernie. In 2016 he got 60% of the vote. This year 26%, or if you combine him, Yang, Warren, and Gabbard, the Left/Outsider wing of the party got 41%.

I think NV and SC are both huge question marks. There hasn't been any good polling for a long time. NV is a machine state -- the casino unions are able to get their folks to the caucuses, and they dominate a fairly low-turnout affair. The Culinary Union put out an anti-Bernie flyer because under Medicare For All the union would lose its hard-fought healthcare benefits. No one has any idea how much that will resonate, or the Las Vegas Sun's endorsement of Biden and Klobuchar, or Steyer blanketing the airwaves.

And if you want to know more about NV, you should follow @RalstonReports on twitter, who is a super smart local who's been covering politics there for a long time. He says Bernie is probably the favorite, but it's a wide open field. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/polit...ers/index.html

This is the preferable option to taking Biden at -300 in South Carolina and making yourself look dumb.