True. But also because high voter turnout in general usually benefits the Democrats.

What is the Swoop theory?
High turnout favors Democrats?
Hey, he stole it from me!!

My gut feeling is warren is value for VP at the +7xx range

Undecided if I'll actually fire it or not but she's taken the right steps if Biden wants to mend bridges with the progressive wing of the party and only the most diehard berniebros don't like warren on the left and they all hate the moderates more anyway and warren has shown to be more pragmatic mending fences with Biden and the moderates for the sake of beating trump than anyone else beloved by the left wing of the party

I don't by any means think she's the fav to be VP necessarily but I think she gets it more than 1 in 8 times

My gut is, she's at zero. As I said upthread, her age, her Pocahontas baggage, and her GOP replacement all make her a bad pick. Plus, who does she really bring in? Most progressives will be motivated to vote against Trump, and the rest either think Warren is a traitor for spoiling Bernie's chances, or won't vote anyway.

I think it's a 3-way race, with Harris, Klobuchar, and Cortez-Masto in that order.

I was high on Cortez masto too initially but we haven't been hearing a lot there

Klobuchar is the worst pick she doesn't add any value to the ticket. Harris is at least a sharp debater and black but she's still an ex prosecutor with likeability issues

I have no idea what Biden will do here really but if be surprised if it isn't warren 1 in 8 times. Biden really needs to mend fences with the progressive wing of the party tactically to boost turnout imo the main concern with warren is it temporarily costs the Dems a senate seat til the special election

Swoop, I think you're a good poster, but in this case you're letting your left politics get in the way of your prognostication. Why does Biden need to mend fences with progressives?

Take a step back: what is the Biden campaign's overall strategy? Broadly, it's trying to win the states Hillary won plus WI, MI, PA. These are states that are mostly older, and mostly white, but with large black populations in the larger cities. He needs a VP candidate that can either win moderate whites away from Trump, or can really motivate black turnout close to Obama levels. Klobuchar does the former, Harris does the latter. Warren does neither.

Now, there's an alternative strategy where Biden targets AZ and FL instead. In that case he needs to activate Latino voters, which would make Cortez-Masto a good choice.

Ultimately, it's Biden's call, and he will be intensely aware that whoever he picks has a very good chance of becoming President one day. There's not a hugely substantial difference in the electablity of those 3 choices. It'll probably come down to who he thinks will make the best President.

Wrote up a huge post but tl;dr Harris has too many liabilities compared to other black female VP possibilities, on tape implying Biden is racist and has a history of throwing black kids in jail for pot

Demings is at least from FL but is an ex cop too may be an issue

Cortez-Masto an ex prosecutor too.

Rice or Abrams may make more sense there - with Rice the right would yell Benghazi even though there's nothing there. Abrams in GA + may help in FL too and with black turnout in general may be decent but doesn't seem likely. While Abrams was a lawyer she wasn't a prosector and doesn't have the baggage that comes from law enforcement that Harris and maybe Demings have (not familiar enough with Demings but anyone who ran a police department is likely to have some dirt if the right looks hard enough)

Warren to mend fences and boost leftist turnout as opposed to some of them staying home. Yes, they'd lose a Senate seat but it's Massachussets so it'd only be temporary until the special election if the Senate majority is on the line in a special election there's zero chance MA is going red.

Whitmer to win Michigan and basically put the Dems electoral vote floor at 268 if they win Wisconsin where literally any other state wins or the Omaha or Maine district gets them to a tie at worst

If i'm Biden, i'm picking one of the three of Warren, Abrams or Whitmer and I think any other pick is bad except for Michelle Obama if she would accept it which is unlikely (Demings may be fine too if her past is squeaky-clean but would require an immense amount of vetting, same with Cortez-Masto but you'd have to go over her record as a prosecutor very closely). Maybe Rice if you think the Benghazi attacks fall flat.

The attack ads write themselves if Harris is VP and Klobuchar brings literally nothing to the ticket. Anyone but those two or obviously Hillary Clinton and Tulsi Gabbard are absolutely not viable as well.

I think Warren, Whitmer and Abrams are probably the GTO picks for Biden depending which path he wants to take. You can probably make a case for Cortez-Masto or Demings as well if their background checks are clean enough

I don't think any pick would auto-lose Biden the election though except for Hillary as it would undermine his entire campaign and make it all about her. Klob and Harris don't bring anything to the table that someone else can't do better though. Whitmer is a better Klob and Abrams/Demings/Michelle Obama are all a better Harris and Cortez-Masto and Warren both have different upsides as well.

What you're missing with Warren there ptp is that she can boost leftist turnout. If turnout is 57-58%+ it's VERY hard for Trump to win as long as the increase in turnout is somewhat equally distributed. Also, there are a few paths to winning for Biden, the Midwest which you said, but he can also win if he wins PA and MI or WI, loses the other but wins AZ, or he can win if he takes AZ and FL (or FL an NC even) and loses WI/MI/PA etc

Obviously going after the Midwest makes sense, but you can lose the midwest and win some combo of Florida and Arizona and NC and win too and that's a totally different path demographically where boosting the base and minority turnout is more important than swinging white voters. In general it's probably best not to put all his eggs in one basket so he has other paths to win beyond 'win Wisconsin and sweep the midwest'

I still think the election's going to be won or lost by both what Trump does between now and the election and what turnout is like though. 53% and Trump's gonna win easily and 58% and Biden's gonna win easily and anything inbetween and it could go either way

If Whitmer can lock Michigan 100% she's probably a good pick for that alone, otherwise i'd say you go with whoever is going to boost Democratic turnout the most. If the VP can boost turnout by say 3% she's done her job regardless of whether it's with Hispanic or Black voters or progressives or whoever else.

If turnout was 57.9% instead of 54.9% last time out, Hillary would almost certainly be President today and she was a historically hated candidate plus there are more moderates firmly in the never Trump camp today than in 2016 so his ceiling is lower this time around, it's basically 'win in the same fashion he won in 2016 by edging all the swing states'

There's next to no chance Trump in a landslide, and while both sides can win a close election if it's a landslide (5%+ margin) it's going to be Biden 99% of the time, Trump's ceiling is just too low. He can absolutely win but it has to be a close low turnout election for Trump to win. Biden could easily get 360+ electoral votes if he wins easily and Trump runs a poor campaign, Trump's ceiling is more like 320 if everything goes perfectly for him - on that note if anyone wants to give me +500 on 'Biden wins 333 or more electoral votes' or +1000 on 'Biden wins 350 or more electoral votes' I would be happy to load up

I'm still not involved myself, but will have at least five figs in play by election day, we'll have a lot more complete info the month of the election and there will be plenty of value to be found by then even though there are a few spots I like today I don't think i'll be tying up money for half a year or anything yet when so much can change between now and election day. If I had to guess i'd say Trump is about 40% to be reelected right now but he could easily be less than 20% or more the 80% by election day and I really, really doubt either side is going to be a bigger than -2xx fav a few weeks out. Betfair has him at 2.13 novig atm. I think that's slightly off given the economy will be in the toilet on election day but if Covid tanks turnout it could go the other way, it's way too soon to fire anything.

Abrams -- absolutely not. She's famous for having lost the GA governor race and then claiming fraud. She might be right, but that's not the resume of someone who could step in and become President in an emergency. She'll be alienating to the white moderates Biden needs in the Rust Belt. She has even less chance than Warren.

Re: MA special election, don't be so sure a Democrat will win. In 2009 after Ted Kennedy died, Scott Brown won the special. Democrats lost their 60-vote majority, and had to drag Obamacare across the finish line. I'm sure Biden will keep that closely in mind. Getting a Senate majority is SO important, especially in getting judges confirmed, and the races are so close, I think that factor alone would eliminate her. Plus, she, too, will be alienating to a lot of Rust Belt moderates.

What you're missing with Klobuchar is that she has a fantastic record as a Senator. She's passed more legislation than any other sitting Senator. Somehow, she manages to pull together coalitions to pass laws despite the overwhelming partisanship of the era. People in MN love her. She has one of the highest approval ratings of any Senator.

By picking Klobuchar and doubling down on moderation, Biden could run on a message of basic, non-partisan competence, which had been in very short supply lately.

Whitmer is a possibility, but she's gotten a pretty average sized bump from the pandemic (all governors' approval ratings are up). If she leaves the state to go campaign, she loses a lot of that. And she only has 2 years experience, and prior to the pandemic, she was failing pretty hard on her signature Fix The Damn Roads initiative.

Finally, on turnout. It was certainly true, in the pre-Trump era, that higher turnout favored the Democrats. But now with Trump's popularity among white voters without a college education (a group with a low propensity to vote), it's not clear that higher turnout in general is good for Democrats. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...s-in-2020/amp/

The analysis here is so horrific lately, that I must set the record straight once and for all. The amount of overanalyzing of if variables that have close to zero importance is, quite frankly, stunning. You must recognize the situation, while also understanding history. And If you don't have an understanding of the levers being pulled behind the scenes, you will never understand what is going on, because as bad as some of the recent posts have been, they are still better than most incredibly moronic hot takes by those whom are putting out articles or offering views in "mainstream media".

This will be the master class in the selection of Biden's Vice President.


1) Where are we in history? Fast forward ten to fifteen years. Which scenario below can possibly happen?

Former presidents.

Obama, Trump, Biden, Kamala Harris.
Obama, Trump, Biden, Stacy Abrams.
Obama, Trump, Biden, Amy Klobucher.
Obama, Trump, Biden, Elizabeth Warren.


Barrack Obama represented an earthquake of movement for numerous reasons. Donald Trump was a tsunami of movement the other way. But the most important thing to understand in this election is that Biden's pick for vice president has roughly a 25 percent chance of being the next president of the United States. If Biden wins, those odds go to 50 to 60 percent.

Neither Kamala Harris, Stacy Abrahms, nor Amy Klobucher have any business being on the selection shortlist, and I am telling you that those three collectively have essentially zero chance. The current narrative is way out of line with the true odds of these three candidates.


2) Big picture. Understanding the power structure. Barrack Obama is unquestionably the most important national political figure, period. He has the most influence. His legacy is important to him, and he has also suffered a huge setback during the last four years. The last thing that will ever happen is for history to include Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams as a black female president shortly after Barrack Obama. They are not transformational candidates in any shape or form. They do not o
move the needle in any way at all.

3) History shows that the vice presidential candidate has essentially zero affect on the voting totals. All this talk about swing states is totally off-base. Once again, study history, and you will be back again staring at the Big Picture, which is all that matters with Biden's choice.

4) Kamala Harris and Stacy Abrams have zero chance. Demmings or Rice would be picked before Harris or Abrams were ever picked.

5) Amy Klobucher has zero chance. Though her odds have headed lower in the last few days, from 4 or 5 to 1, down to 3 to 1, her true odds have gone from 1 or 2 percent, to the current zero. There is no reality on this earth where Biden chooses Klobucher over Elizabeth Warren. None.

6) Bernie Sanders has proven that there is a real movement. Elizabeth Warren, more than any other candidate, represents that movement, when you look at the historical context of the movement.

7) Elizabeth Warren is always the first or second choice by Biden here. She is the one who is near the top of every serious influential person's shortlist. In context, her so-called "Pocahontas" baggage means zero at this point. We are far past that. She has overcome it.

8) Gretchen Whitmer has a fighting chance, but still a long shot. Her narrative is quite easy to understand, but is that really enough for history. Does her story really deserve a 25 percent chance of being president of the United States of America? That is the reality. Still, Gretchen Whitmer will get chosen before Harris, Abrams, or Klobucher ever are. The later three having zero chance, in the context of history, which is the only factor that matter's with Biden's pick.

9) If you hadn't read a single opinion piece during the last three months, or watched pundits on television, you would never even mention Kamala Harris, Stacy Abrams, or Amy Klobucher. Elizabeth Warren would always be there. There was, and is, zero water cooler talk about Harris, Abrams, or Klobucher. They simply don't capture ones imagination. There is no "movement", no excitement. Think of it as a relay race in the 4 by 100 in the Olympics. Harris, Abrams, and Klobucher offer no prospects of reaching the finish line, let alone Gold. Elizabeth Warren is the only one not out of place in the race.

Once again, ask yourself which of these scenarios are realistic. Former presidents. Passing the baton through history.

Obama, Trump, Biden, Kamala Harris.
Obama, Trump, Biden, Stacy Abrams.
Obama, Trump, Biden, Amy Klobucher.
Obama, Trump, Biden, Elizabeth Warren.


10) Zero chance that in ten or fifteen years, looking back, you will have two of the last four presidents being black, with one of those being Kamala Harris or Stacy Abrams.

Barrack Obama followed by Kamala Harris.
Barrack Obama followed by Stacy Abrams.

It just isn't happening ever. It is outrageous to even believe it is being talked about, yet Kamala Harris has the lowest odds at +150, while Stacy Abrams is 10 to 15 to 1. You can bet No Harris right now at -185. Kamala Harris has zero chance, as does Stacy Abrams....and as does Amy Klobucher. There is even a prop bet at a top sportsbook where you can bet against the group of Harris, Abrams, and Klobucher. The "No" is currently +150. This is close to 100 percent. Of course, in life, anything is possible, so let's call it 99 percent. But playing against Kamala Harris alone at -185 is 100 percent. She knows she is not being selected, so she has stepped into overdrive with outrageous actions and tweets, going low with race-baiting, as well.

Further cementing her zero percent odds are her privileged life, horrific record as a prosecutor against minorities, wrong side of history decisions on many movements like legalized marijuana, with a final bonus being her white privileged husband. As Joe Biden (and Espn) would say: "C'mon, man". Kamala Harris, the betting favorite, has zero chance


I could add more, but will summarize, then be done.


1) Elizabeth Warren has, by far, the mostly likely chance of being selected.

2) Kamala Harris, Stacy Abrams, and Amy Klobucher have a collective zero chance.

3) Val Demmings or Rice would be picked before Harris or Abrahms ever were.

4) In no world would Klobucher ever be chosen over Warren.

5) Gretchen Whither has a fighting chance, but does her life history really warrant having a 25 percent chance of being the president of the United States within 5 years?

6) Even Cortez Mastro and Grisham have a better chance than Harris, Abrahms, or Klobucher.


Final/Current odds. True odds.

Elizabeth Warren 1to1 ....50 percent
Val Demmings 5 to 1......20 percent
Gretchen Whitmer 20 to 1.....5 percent
Susan Rice ...20 to 1 ....5 percent
Cortez Mastro 40 to 1 .....2.5 percent
Grisham 40 to 1 .....2.5 percent
Wild card 10 to 1 ...10 percent
Longshots who are sometimes mentioned....combined odds...20 to 1......5 percent

Kamala Harris 0 percent
Stacy Abrams 0 percent
Amy Klobucher 0 percent
Michelle Obama 0 percent

Typos, misspellings, or slight contradictions in any argument are deemed immaterial to the master class thesis above.

And with that, you have the complete roadmap.


Charlie Munger: "I'm right, and you are smart, and sooner or later you will see that I am right".

Foster Dulles, when asked if he had ever been wrong. Dulles paused, then stated "Yes, once. Many many years ago I made a decision that I thought might be wrong. Of course, as it turned out I was right all along, but I was wrong to have thought I was wrong".

Hedgie gets it. I stand to punt ~$850 if Trump gets destroyed in November. I could get bottle service at a second tier club in Vegas for about that amount. Any guesses which would make me happier (my profession depends on a stable government, so it's more than simple happiness)?
If Trump wins, I'm cleaning up with my local, and hoping I can hang on until retirement and take my retirement money overseas, assuming it'll still be allowed, to escape the deepening hellhole that is the USA. If Biden wins a close one, I'm out roughly a hundred bucks, and will sweat the transition of power, given I could easily see Trump calling for a revolt to keep him in power.
Honestly, now that I'm thinking carefully about it, my ranked preference of outcomes is something like;
1.) Biden wins in a landslide (flipping states like AZ, FL and/or OH).
2.) Trump wins by any margin of EV
3.) Biden wins by a narrow Electoral College margin.
#2 sucks, but I'm afraid #3 will honestly trigger a civil war when Trump refuses to yield power.

What about the massive tax increase when Biden wins?

He might roll back the trump tax cuts but that's about it it's Joe Biden not Bernie Sanders he's literally running on being another 4 years of Obama.

Unless you're pretty wealthy you'll be financially better off under Biden because of the introduction of a public option lowering health premiums over time

After with above post number 3 is the most dangerous short term outcome for America but number 2 is more dangerous long-term

what's that guy doing to keep getting banned?

I have no idea, Microbob isn't even here to ban people for no reason or trivial power tripping

I think the bolded is extremely politically biased and I think the opposite is true. I also believe the unemployed are likelier to get a job sooner under trump than biden.

What do you pay for your private health insurance now? I've been on private and public options in Australia at various points.

There are real data points to test this and it's just a fact that if private insurance has to compete with a public option prices will come down and poor people who don't want private insurance will be covered. Poor people pay very little in tax but pay for private insurance in full

It's just a fact that having a public option helps poor people

The case that trump may be better than Biden for jobs and that may help poor can certainly be made. I disagree personally but it's a valid case that can be made

Arguing that a public option doesn't help poor people is just disingenuous lying. Look at the results in countries that have it.

I could argue that Elizabeth Warren would be better economically for billionaires than trump too but I'd also be wrong or lying. Some things are just true or false. Other things are debatable.

Anyway enough politarding

I'm going to take a look and see if any of my locals do state by state correlated parlays now that most of them have state lines, will report back to the thread

With all due respect Mickey, swoop is spot on about you politarding.
Your Fox news talking points don't belong here and add nothing of value to the thread.

You mean like ObamaCare that raised premiums 600%>

You said you'll be better off unless you're "pretty wealthy", then proceeded to just talk about poor people while making a straw man out of his post. Well done.

my health insurance is $793/month

5k max out of pocket per year

no prescription pill plan (they don't offer it)

pre obamacare same plan was $319 with a prescription pill plan and they threw in vision for free.

plus i get to pay 2.9% uncapped medicare tax which works out to way more than $793/month

https://usnews.com/opinion/policy-do...-not-obamacare

The purposefull repeal of the individual mandate by Republican's is what's caused premiums to sky rocket.

And then blame it on the Democrats

I thought you guys were Sharp

If you want to make this political

Ith

I agree that when rich people pay for (some or all of) poor people's health insurance that poor people pay less for health insurance.

I was saying that I think the poor and middle class are better off financially under trump and the fact that biden supports a public option doesn't change my mind. I was not saying that a public option doesn't save poor people money for the amount they spend on healthcare. Sorry for not making myself more clear.

Disagreeing with someone posts means either both posts are political or neither is, but saying one is and one isn't is just silliness.

As a hypothetical, if person 1 says "Politician A is so great he can actually fly." and then person 2 says, "no, that's ridiculous", it's fair enough to say person 1 is being political, whereas person 2 isn't (for example person 2 might also be a voter of Politician A).

What you say is right if it is a genuinely debatable issue and not a true/false issue, in Swoop's terminology.

I don't know American politics well enough to say if the people above are arguing about a true/false issue or a debatable issue.

Swoops posts also get a political tinge. But I think he unconsciously lets his political bias into his attempted explanations as to why he's leaning one way or the other as far as political wagers go. Not to promote his political views.

I'm guilty of it too. I guess all of our betting strategies are inadvertently influenced by our political biases. And that's obviously the wrong way to go about it.

Now that I'm here and not doing my work( life is so wonderful, if only I got paid more),
I want to touch on something that was said about politics in Massachusetts and the idea the Mass Senate seat turning Republican. And this is not political, just an insider's point of view.

Mass voters would never let the sea go Republican as long as Trump is in office.
That a Republican is gov is a Massachusetts anomaly and a testament to the people of this state. After all, the license plates say "spirit of America" .

In 2016, HC beat Trump by about 1,900,000 to 1,000,000 votes. By most standards, that's a landslide but if you think about it, it also shows that there are quite a few republicans in such a blue state after all.
Massachusetts has had only one Democrat Gov. Since Dukakis.
Weld, Celucci, Romney Swift, Patrick, Baker. Except for Patrick, all Republicans.
So why is that? Mass republicans aren't the same as Alabama republicans.
More of the John McCain, Jeff Flake mold than Sessions, McConnell, Trump mold.
Checks and balances. Does anyone still remember that old founding Democratic concept? The mass state Senate and house are overwhelming Democrat.

So it's a false assumption to think a reason why Biden might hesitate to pick Warren is for fear of losing a Senate seat.

Having said that. I personally don't like her and I don't think Biden needs her to appeal to the left. Not as long he has the continued public backing of Sanders, which HC did not have.