Outsiders run for office all the time in major races, it's just rare for it to be for the Presidency.

i didnt really follow oversampleghazi but chris wrote a critique of it

Of course this latest incident will only move things a bit. This election is fundamentally about something that doesn't change: race and racism.

lol that ZH story made no sense top to bottom. Like for starters, as far as I'm aware there's no evidence that the premise is even true, i.e. that rigging polls for the Dems would suppress GOP turnout. The 2012 election was called for Obama at 8:15PM Eastern, some 4 hours before polls in Alaska closed, yet turnout there was in line with the rest of the country and Romney won by 14 points.

Then there's the disconnect between the fact that Podesta is apparently discussing polls that they control - i.e. internal polls - but the polls showing Trump getting demolished are from third party pollsters. So what exactly is being alleged here - that like 5-6 major pollsters, probably including Fox News, are in the tank for the Democrats? It's never spelled out exactly what polls were manipulated and how, because to spell it out makes it clear that it's a nonsense conspiracy theory.

That's before we get to the bit where "oversampling" and "media polls" do not imply what is alleged in the ZH article, that's covered in the post BAIDS linked.

It reminds me of the "pull it" comment about WTC7, or indeed the other Podesta email where a Clinton strategist says "we've all been quite content to... conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry". Whole stories get based on these soundbites which sound bad, but if you actually stop to think about them, the whole narrative falls apart.

so I found a bunch of right-wingers on facebook that are convinced that THIS TIME they really got the goods on Hildawg, one of them is quoting scripture at me about how I'm some sort of demon because I said the fact that Comey sent a vague email to congress doesn't prove that the FBI has actually re-opened the investigation.

How do I most effectively bait these bozos into putting money on an indictment?

You've grossly misinterpreted me.

My hypothesis is that the paradigm has shifted and there is a 'new normal', in which the standard polling methodology is no longer as accurate a reflection of reality as it used to be.

I'm also saying that there seems to be an incongruence between what I'm hearing and seeing, and that's usually the best sign that the market is off.

People have said this about elections since I've been paying close attention, 2004, with various new excuses each time. Polls aren't reflecting young people with cell phones, polls aren't including young people as "likely voters" and therefore the candidate young people like is going to win, voters for X candidate are lazy, people will stay home because of such and such, people won't ultimately vote for the black guy, etc.

It hasn't been true yet, and I'm guessing this has been a common meme in politics for decades prior to 2004.

Fair enough, I am pretty out of my element in when it comes to politics, so I am probably wrong. It just seems like everyone on a 'team' is very blinded, and that the independents, who are probably not as likely to be reached by the polls, will be turned off by Hillary's dismissive attitude and vote Trump for the sake of a backlash. That was my visceral reaction, at least.

I'm just a random fish who didn't read the rest of the thread and walked into an already developed discussion where I'm sure all these points have been argued exhaustively.

Carry on.

I would like to bet up to 250k more on Trump, or btc equivalent. I can escrow btc. I want online book lines which should be 11:4, but especially for large bets we can discuss as the lines are moving. I am also interested in a Trump >= 320 EV prop.

Please Skype: alexwice or PM.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

What's the minimum bet you're interested in?

alex wice, do you escrow?

He said he can escrow btc right in his post. I assume that means he can't escrow cash?

yeah that's what i'd like to know. i dont know anything about this bitcoin business

Alex,

Jason Mo / ****ycakes123 on twitter is looking for big Hillary action, is reputable, and also deals in bitcoin. You can also get better odds than that, so do not lowball yourself. I believe Dan Smith may also be looking for more action.

I would not bother with most in this forum who have been sweating and already assuming you were going to welsh on them (which is extremely poor form guys).

Does anyone take these sorts of things seriously:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-a-trump-win/


You want to bet 250k on Trump, really? You think he has more than 25% chance of winning (by those odds)?

He is an idiot with a bad hairpiece at a small university.

Just to make sure, I emailed him about early voting trends and he said it wasn't material lol.

If you can escrow cash Alex, I'd give you 3 to 1 on Hillary for serious money.

A bitcoin "Escrow" gotta be like >50% to be a scam.

There should be no reason why you cant escrow cash for a fair amount of money. The bitcoin statement is an lol and could be taken as a giveaway.

Will you do cash and for how much?

Alex, I sent you a skype.

Bitcoin has finality of contract and is essentially the same as cash except easier to deal with amounts > $10k.
I am replying to all PMs and skype right now

Can someone explain what happened to the betting at stars? Seems to be closed.

Next US President is still there for me on stars.

I might be interested for a piece if the escrow is in cash. Not interested in bitcoin.