US Presidential Election 2020

Foxtrol

Melanchthon wrote: »

1- Reade's story changes, Ford didn't know when and where it happened

Reade also didn't know when or where it happened. She claimed a few year window and a vague location that didn't make sense to people that knew his office.

2- I agree with you on that one

3 - Ford's story was vague right? Agree about the changing nature but in this era can someone out someone else as being assaulted that way if they haven't themselves

Ford was very specific about what happened to her but was vague on certain location facts. One of Reade's witnesses specifically said 'it wasn't that bad. Biden never tried to kiss her directly. He never went for one of those touches.' You don't have to flat out lie to avoid outing someone.

4 - by more recent "evidence" the Biden stuff was raised earlier. Ford also didn't raise it all the time he was a senior judge right? It was only once it would have a political impact she brought it too that senator, like as a liberal woman of course taking out or hurting the democrats is beneficial to what she supports, AFAIK she never condemned the senator that held onto her letter.

Ford brought it out the first time he was put in a position for the highest office. Biden ran several times for president and was VP for two terms and there was nothing from Reade. None of the recent 'evidence' supports her new claim.

In general I think both are pretty vague and possibly driven by partisan politics*, my point is that the stories aren't that dissimilar and if the sexual assault part of the Reade's story is false the other complaints remain. That's my point that the Supreme court stuff might have been a mistep by the Democrats.
I don't see how it will not make any impact, if a Bernie supporter that is less than enthusiastic about Biden this is just another nudge to stay at home.

I presume Biden is going to have a female running mate though which if chosen right may mitigate against this, I don't think Harris or Warren are particularly charismatic and considering Bidens age the vice-president is presumably going to be more high profile than normal.

*On the Ford/Kavanaugh thing in Ireland/UK would it even have been able to be raised as it all occured as juveniles that get records wiped and identity protected

Again, any Bernie supporter or anyone else that uses this as an excuse was always going to find a reason not to vote for him. Whatever smear the republicans ran with would have been enough. We saw it with Clinton.

On Ireland/UK, he wasn't sentenced to the crime as a child so there is nothing to wipe. Judiciary appointments aren't a political show here so I would guess if a complaint was given to a TD they would pass it on to the Gardai and judiciary oversight/selection groups. The Irish/UK government wouldn't do what the republicans did and refuse to carry out a proper investigation and I don't think the media in either jurisdiction would run with story in the interim.

da_miser

Biden is dead man walking
More proof surfaces daily of him as a predator
He hides in bunker while USA fights Corona
https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article242527331.html
Dems are hoping on corona wreaking the country to derail a Trump win
Public see Dems for what they are, anti America, would rather see economy crash than a Trump win
Trump has plenty of time to get economy going again before election
Trumps wins BIG
Bet the farm!

StringerBell

But if it comes out conclusively that he is in fact an abhorrent predator won't he take away much of the vote from Trump?

Fair play for the optimism on the economy though.

Professor Moriarty

StringerBell wrote: »

But if it comes out conclusively that he is in fact an abhorrent predator won't he take away much of the vote from Trump?

Fair play for the optimism on the economy though.

There are reasons to be cheerful about the economy until November. Let's not forget that the undertakers will clean up.

peddlelies

She comes across very genuine to me.

Foxtrol

As expected, a very weak interview from Kelly, especially when compared to the one Biden did. Kelly allowed her to pivot away from any of the consistency/background questions and at times even pivoted away for her. Obviously a stressful situation to be under but the few times it looked like Kelly was going to ask a tough question or dig into specifics Reade looked in absolute panic.

From it the story changes once again. Biden now apparently included some very course language that hadn't been mentioned before. Now claims that she gave her story to the Warren and Harris campaigns but neither have any evidence of it. Also, states she has no lawyer or spokesperson when that isn't the case.

News coming out now that around the time Reade left Biden's office she was charged with check fraud.

kowloon

Why are they talking about polygraphs? Aren't they basically pseudoscience?

Thargor

kowloon wrote: »

Why are they talking about polygraphs? Aren't they basically pseudoscience?

They live on in the American psyche for some bizarre reason, tv shows are even too embarrassed to use them these days because they know its nonsense but for some reason journalists always ask if they'd be willing to do one or hold up an offer to do one as some kind of evidence.

hotmail.com

kowloon wrote: »

Why are they talking about polygraphs? Aren't they basically pseudoscience?

Americans love them!

kowloon

Thargor wrote: »

They live on in the American psyche for some bizarre reason, tv shows are even too embarrassed to use them these days because they know its nonsense but for some reason journalists always ask if they'd be willing to do one or hold up an offer to do one as some kind of evidence.

hotmail.com wrote: »

Americans love them!

Have they just watched too much CSI?

On a side note, I've seen that handwriting analysis (there's a proper name for it) applied to Trump's signature more than once by people who should know better.

Blueshoe

hotmail.com wrote: »

Americans love them!

Our version is an expensive tribunal

kowloon

Blueshoe wrote: »

Our version is an expensive tribunal

Pretty sure they also have expensive hearings that yield no actual results, but I can't for the life of me think of an example.

hotmail.com

kowloon wrote: »

Have they just watched too much CSI?

On a side note, I've seen that handwriting analysis (there's a proper name for it) applied to Trump's signature more than once by people who should know better.

Americans just love the drama.

Manic Moran

kowloon wrote: »

Why are they talking about polygraphs? Aren't they basically pseudoscience?

They are an indicator. Not enough to be used as evidence, but certainly enough that they are used to aid investigations. If you want a security clearance greater that a TS/SCI, you have to take one, for example.

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

They are an indicator. Not enough to be used as evidence, but certainly enough that they are used to aid investigations. If you want a security clearance greater that a TS/SCI, you have to take one, for example.

So if someone agreed to take a test would the result be considered good enough to launch an investigation but not to be used as evidence on any charges resulting from the investigation?

MadYaker

Manic Moran wrote: »

They are an indicator. Not enough to be used as evidence, but certainly enough that they are used to aid investigations. If you want a security clearance greater that a TS/SCI, you have to take one, for example.

And an orange reality tv star has the highest security clearance in the land. I’d love to see him take one. But really shouldn’t be used for anything.

Manic Moran

kowloon wrote: »

So if someone agreed to take a test would the result be considered good enough to launch an investigation but not to be used as evidence on any charges resulting from the investigation?

In the security world, it's used for two things. Firstly, as part of the investigation, the responses can be used to direct further routes of investigation. Secondly, as a 'negative' qualifier: If you fail the polygraph, you almost certainly won't get the clearance. Passing the polygraph won't guarantee that you get the clearance. If it's a 'false fail', it sucks. There is no right to a clearance.

In terms of criminal charges, a polygraph generally speaking may not be used as evidence in itself, unless for some reason both prosecution and defendant agree. However, they may be used in certain circumstances to validate the truthfulness of a witness, but those circumstances are fairly narrow. For example, the 11th Circuit has ruled for witness validation "the party seeking to introduce the polygraph results must provide adequate notice to the opposing party; the opposing party must be given adequate opportunity to have its own polygraph expert administer a test covering substantially the same questions; and the evidence must be admissible under the rules governing corroboration or impeachment." In other words, it's a tool the jurors can use to weigh the reputability of the witness, which is something that jurors are supposed to do anyway. It cannot, however be used as direct evidence against the defendant. Of interest, it also apparently cannot be relied upon as evidence by the defendant to prove innocence against a guilty verdict, per the Supreme Court in 1993 in an 8-1 ruling. (US v Scheffer) which, as far as I know, is still good precedent.

Foxtrol

Rjd2 wrote: »

Medium is cool. The authors of the article is from the Krassenstein brothers who have banned from twitter and have been investigated for fraud before. They have a history of breaking stories which never seem to come true.

Yashar Ali probably one of the very few online people who is not part of an echo chamber had a loathing of them.

Essentially they are grifters so best ignored ,,left wing version of Jacob Wohl.


https://twitter.com/yashar/status/989600222488690689

https://news.avclub.com/resistance-grifters-ed-and-brian-krassenstein-booted-f-1835007059
https://twitter.com/Ventuckyspaz/status/1044458455409418240

Politico did their own research and reporting on this and found several people Reade scammed money from over the last few years, many to whom she spoke highly about Biden and actually bragged about her time in his office and used it to open doors.

A few other reputable outlets have done other research, including interviewing 74 former staffers (some of which were there at the time and spoke about her being let go for cause) and walking the area where she claimed the incident occurred showing it doesnt match her story (so obviously she has once again changed it).

Hopefully the media stop giving her story any further air, it never should have seen the light of day in the first place.

Articles are summarized and linked here:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/tara-reade-joe-biden-allegation-reporting-vox-pbs-doubts.html

Water John

The Senate may now also be in play for the Dems. To control all three would be great, esp if they use the opportunity.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/18/us-senate-democrats-elections-2020

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

The Senate may now also be in play for the Dems. To control all three would be great, esp if they use the opportunity.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/18/us-senate-democrats-elections-2020

Well Maine, Colorado, and Arizona seem to be in play and it might be close but Kentucky will stay GOP. Did I imagine it or did I see a headline where Lindsay grahams seat in SC is now listed as "likely GOP." I mean that has to be worrying.

4068ac1elhodqr

When the markets are shortening on the odds for both Hilary and Michelle, you really have to worry about the chances of the Dems.
Whilst Joe isn't exactly drifting (out to 2.5) he's lost some ground in the last couple of weeks.
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/winner?selectionName=donald-trump

The sensible choice would be to keep begging Oprah (500/1) to stand in, Warren too (100/1), Cuomo (50/1) is perhaps the best of all candidates, but seems uninterested or vice-versa.

The Donald is now as short as 1.75, would expect him to stabalise around an 1.4 average, post-summer and closer in the approach to November (assuming Joe holds out).
If he should ever go out to 4.0 (unlikely) will stick on the end of a long-term acca.

Water John

That looks like an, anyone but Biden line. If someone thinks Hilary would have a chance of run, they're seriously delusional.
Biden is the Dems candidate. Personally would like a more radical but he's the man selected and possibly better suits the wider US voter, esp the non aligned.

marno21

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well Maine, Colorado, and Arizona seem to be in play and it might be close but Kentucky will stay GOP. Did I imagine it or did I see a headline where Lindsay grahams seat in SC is now listed as "likely GOP." I mean that has to be worrying.

Colorado and Arizona are lean Dem now. Colorado has even been written off by some within the GOP, Hickenlooper is outpolling Cory Gardner by 10%+ in some polls. It's not a dead cert but it's looking positive.

Maine is impressive that Susan Collins won by 37 points and it's now a tossup. North Carolina is looking very doable for the Dems too.

Forget Kentucky and South Carolina for now, there are interesting races ahead in Kansas and Montana (both were Likely/Safe R seats but if Kobach in Kansas runs it's in play and Gov. Bullock in Montana has made it a potential seat for the Dems).

If the Dems are able to flip Kentucky and SC then they're headed for a 2008 style majority. If Kentucky and SC are in play then you could assume the same for the 2 seats in Georgia, and Iowa, Texas and the small chance of retaining the seat in Alabama seeing as the GOP haven't put Roy Moore up again.

It's going to be interesting, far more interesting than 2018 with the GOP defending more seats and the car crash WH.

4068ac1elhodqr

Water John wrote: »

That looks like an, anyone but Biden line. If someone thinks Hilary would have a chance of run, they're seriously delusional.
Biden is the Dems candidate. Personally would like a more radical but he's the man selected and possibly better suits the wider US voter, esp the non aligned.

Biden is the (current) candidate but the niche live money market has a (very) small expectancy or indication of a late dump n' replace type scenario.

Hilary would be laughed at, Michelle would do great for a couple of weeks of clappy hands, and re-print of hope posters, but that's it.
Oprah could do a sterling job, she's a 'normal' afterall. Cuomo seems a very tolerable chap, other than those Warren went out too early.
Anyway still a long while to go.

Water John

Agree on Hilary but not on Michelle. She's far more popular and a heavier hitter than her husband, he knows that too.

Bookies don't decide, they react to money laid with them by a very small number of people. It's a poor metric.

Very good analysis by Marno.

pixelburp

I'm sorry, but I refuse to engage with a conversation that drops H. Clinton, Michelle Obama and Oprah as somehow legitimate candidates we should discuss as possibilities. Or that "niche" betting markets indicate anything other than how herd mentality causes rushes on edge-case celebrity names. Fools and their money are easily parted. There's as much a chance as me becoming the Democrat nominee as any of those three.

This persistent narrative that Biden is going to collapse as a viable candidate any minute now has failed to take off; and TBH on betrays a preexisting bias on the author trying to claim unsuitability of a Candidate In Waiting. Biden ain't any great shakes, that much is clear, but you'd think by now we might realise "suitability" has become a very abstract concept in light of the current President. Sure, the proper mudslinging from the right hasn't started either but you can see why Fox & co. are hoping to get CoVid in the rear-mirror so they can re-aim their vitriol at Biden.

Igotadose

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I refuse to engage with a conversation that drops H. Clinton, Michelle Obama and Oprah as somehow legitimate candidates we should discuss as possibilities. Or that "niche" betting markets indicate anything other than how herd mentality causes rushes on edge-case celebrity names. Fools and their money are easily parted. There's as much a chance as me becoming the Democrat nominee as any of those three.

A couple weeks ago, rags like TheHill started running all the right-wing toadies banging on "Not Biden, Hilary!" or "Michelle Obama to the rescue" and all that.
It's just the ripple through of the secret pro-Trump trash who write these things, to other outlets picking it up and running with the fantasy.

The candidate will be Joe Biden. He will run against Donald Trump. In my expectation, he will beat Trump handily, perhaps by a historic margin.


Trump, even before the Coronavirus pandemic, was facing a shrinking stock market (oil clash, anyone?) and unemployment uptick, beyond the endless corruption shenanigans he gets up to, so I thought his chance in January poor. Now, they're terrible.


What's of more interest is policy and plans for bringing the economy back from the depths it'll have reached by mid-January and the inauguration (Trump doesn't leave office until next January.) And, a cleanup in the DOJ is overdue, I expect a 'de-Trumpification' process to begin right after the inauguration, too, removing the stain that was this administration.

4068ac1elhodqr

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I refuse to engage with a conversation that drops H. Clinton, Michelle Obama and Oprah as somehow legitimate candidates we should discuss as possibilities.

Yet does engage.

To blame emmergence of potential alternatives soley on the bookies imagination is ignorant. These books are moved by the backing of real world cold cash {often routed via the US}, and not by some foolish anchor's opinion, vague polls, and snappy headlines.

Backing Joe might be a murky affair, so why the Dems are not, or will not, consider a 'fresh clean face' would likely become their own November downfall. I'd much rather see Donald at more generous odds anyway (as low as 1.75), against some better competition.

If Joe was to withdraw on e.g. health grounds or something, surely there would be some capacity or process to be able to replace, plenty of time left afterall, still somewhat early days.

pixelburp wrote: »

This persistent narrative that Biden is going to collapse as a viable candidate any minute now has failed to take off; and TBH on betrays a preexisting bias on the author trying to claim unsuitability of a Candidate In Waiting.

Any month now, not any minute (rather an exaggeration to be fair).

Fact is many Rep backers would likely favour him (Joe), as somewhat 'unsuitabe', bland and un-inspiring. If you were to throw an e.g. Oprah in the game, then they would actually be genuine concern from them.

pixelburp wrote: »

Biden ain't any great shakes, that much is clear,

This sounds like the thoughts of someone highlighting the unsuitability of a Candidate In Waiting?

Agree though, and this does seem to be persistent narrative with even the hardcore far left, Dem fans. Yet this inaction of any change, and apathy towards situation, won't help their cause. A self-fulfilling phrophecy perhaps.

Thus the Dems only hope now is to media grab any mistakes made by Don & Co (no doubt there will likely be plenty more minor afflictions to come) and roll them 24/7 on CNN and the like. If you can't beat someone when both standing, hack away at the taller lads shins with a big stick instead.

Water John

Up to convention the Dems can technically pick any candidate, esp if something happens the nominee. After it if something happens to the nominee then would the VP nominee be in pole position? Very hypotetical stuff.
Biden V Trump with Biden winning, as he would have in 2016 if he ran. Hopefully the Senate will be flipped too.

pixelburp

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Yet does engage.

To blame emmergence of potential alternatives soley on the bookies imagination is ignorant. These books are moved by the backing of real world cold cash {often routed via the US}, and not by some foolish anchor's opinion, vague polls, and snappy headlines.

I don't see either scenario as any less "ignorant" - or independent of each other: the blathering of a TV pundit or the quasi-mystery of some movement in odds hold equally shallow water. And not like markets aren't immune to emotion or rumour either. Show me a single insider source that even makes mention of (say) M. Obama running and I'll take your figures as serious.

Rather, not a single thing said by Obama has suggested she'd run for office. Quite the opposite: she has been vocally against the idea since pressed on the idea (again, open to correction). No movement of odds can or should take precedence over words to the effect of "f*ck no," when asked about running for office.

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Fact is many Rep backers would likely favour him (Joe), as somewhat 'unsuitabe', bland and un-inspiring. If you were to throw an e.g. Oprah in the game, then they would actually be genuine concern from them.

If we're talking "Facts", then by your own metric Hillary Clinton would be twice the disaster, her 2016 was a series of own-goals, headed by a singular absence of charisma. If your odds are to be believed, then replacing Biden with Clinton would be a boon to these backers - the DNC aren't that idiotic, despite their best efforts. And Oprah is just a fantasy - some antithesis of Trump that'd make handy headlines and like M. Obama, shows no quantifiable evidence the person is even interested.

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

This sounds like the thoughts of someone highlighting the unsuitability of a Candidate In Waiting?

No, I don't think Biden is unsuitable. I think he's a poor candidate, not an unsuitable one. Trump was an unsuitable candidate, and unsuited to the Presidency. I'd have preferred Warren, then Sanders & worry Biden is too much the Establishment figure - albeit having make some lip service towards Sanders' talking points - for some folks' blood. But not unsuitable.

Kermit.de.frog

I hope Biden does not choose an 'arch-democrat' for his running mate.

He needs to spread the net as wide as possible to voters who are still pondering backing Trump but open to alternative.

He won't get them if he brings on board a little Hillary.

Brian?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I hope Biden does not choose an 'arch-democrat' for his running mate.

He needs to spread the net as wide as possible to voters who are still pondering backing Trump but open to alternative.

He won't get them if he brings on board a little Hillary.

Who would you consider a "little Hilary"?

Quin_Dub

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I hope Biden does not choose an 'arch-democrat' for his running mate.

He needs to spread the net as wide as possible to voters who are still pondering backing Trump but open to alternative.

He won't get them if he brings on board a little Hillary.

Given that he's committed to picking a women , what realistically viable candidates would be seen as "arch democrat"?

Podge_irl

The odds on clearly ludicrous candidates such as Oprah are at such a level that it takes very little to move them. No bookie will realistically give odds greater than 500/1 no matter how unlikely the outcome. None of those people mentioned have the slightest chance of being the nominee.

Quin_Dub

Podge_irl wrote: »

The odds on clearly ludicrous candidates such as Oprah are at such a level that it takes very little to move them. No bookie will realistically give odds greater than 500/1 no matter how unlikely the outcome. None of those people mentioned have the slightest chance of being the nominee.

Exactly - They are the "Sure it's worth a fiver for a laugh" bets.

The Phantom Jipper

Biden is about a month away from wrapping up the nomination from a delegate perspective, it's lunacy to pay attention to somebody sticking a tenner on Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. She's literally the only person we know for a fact that Trump can beat.

Truthvader

Just joined recently and am struck by how focussed on "real issues" a lot of the comments are.

Unfortunately the "reward" for the long documented decline in trust in western democracies is the new reality where the issues and realities are now actually irrelevant. The American election is destined to become " Love Island X Factor Politicians on Ice in the Jungle" A carnival of lies, misinformation, and trickery on all sides. Sadly the only hope at the moment is a runaway Covid 19 in the US which reconnects the act of voting to real consequences - but even that appears to be capable of manipulation

Foxtrol

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I hope Biden does not choose an 'arch-democrat' for his running mate.

He needs to spread the net as wide as possible to voters who are still pondering backing Trump but open to alternative.

He won't get them if he brings on board a little Hillary.

Who are these people that are pondering backing Trump and will be swayed by Biden's VP choice?

It simply isn't credible to anyone on the Bernie side of the party to back Trump, they are either just looking for attention or they are in the 'I want to see the world burn because I can't have my way' bucket and will still find some excuse not to vote for Biden.

If anything a little Hillary type would be far more palatable to right leaning independents or moderate republicans that could still be pondering over the choice than most other types of choices for VP.

Biden's best bet is to pick whoever is best to help drive the African American turnout. Trump only won in 2016 because the black vote dropped. Another option could have been someone to drive the youth vote, but that voting block simply can't be trusted and what Trump has done over the last 4 years alone should be enough to energise them to get out the vote.

4068ac1elhodqr

Podge_irl wrote: »

The odds on clearly ludicrous candidates such as Oprah are at such a level that it takes very little to move them. No bookie will realistically give odds greater than 500/1 no matter how unlikely the outcome.

How much larger of a price would you want? lol.
500/1 is more than plenty...Actually just spotted 960/1 on an exchange.
So too is 50/1 for Cuomo, 100/1 for Michelle, 151 for Warren.

The only oddity is HC short at 25/1, you'd really want a zero on the end of that with VAT added, even then, would not touch with free money.

Admittedly I won't get that 10/1 election night live price for Donald ever again, but would like to see some real competition come in, for long-term 4/5 acca value (Labour across the water in their next GE would be a line multiplier also).

All it would take would be for Joe to start bleeding from the eyes again on live TV (really not a good luck), or more scandals. Someone such as Oprah (ok, a very unlikely candidate at this stage), ticks many boxes. The worst thing she's done is fluctuate the BMI.

Foxtrol

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

How much larger of a price would you want? lol.
500/1 is more than plenty...Actually just spotted 960/1 on an exchange.
So too is 50/1 for Cuomo, 100/1 for Michelle, 151 for Warren.

The only oddity is HC short at 25/1, you'd really want a zero on the end of that with VAT added, even then, would not touch with free money.

Admittedly I won't get that 10/1 election night live price for Donald ever again, but would like to see some real competition come in, for long-term 4/5 acca value (Labour across the water in their next GE would be a line multiplier also).

All it would take would be for Joe to start bleeding from the eyes again on live TV (really not a good luck), or more scandals. Someone such as Oprah (ok, a very unlikely candidate at this stage), ticks many boxes. The worst thing she's done is fluctuate the BMI.

You seem to be completely ignoring how difficult it would be for the Democrats to change the candidate at this point, even if there was broad support for it within the party. Barring Biden dropping out for some reason it is basically impossible. 50/1 on Cuomo is basically driven by eejits that see him on TV and think he could do a good job but don't understand how things work. You might as well be talking about the odds of someone else running for the republicans.

As for your win on Trump, it is same as betting on any team that is a few goals down in a game and they end up coming back. The Trump team themselves admitted that their internal numbers looked terrible on election night so they probably wouldn't even have bet on themselves at that point.

Podge_irl

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

How much larger of a price would you want? lol.
500/1 is more than plenty...Actually just spotted 960/1 on an exchange.
So too is 50/1 for Cuomo, 100/1 for Michelle, 151 for Warren.

The only oddity is HC short at 25/1, you'd really want a zero on the end of that with VAT added, even then, would not touch with free money.

An exchange is not a bookie. Those odds just reflect that the market is stupidly priced as there is no liquidity.

500/1 is the odds given to every scenario they think people will waste money on. The fact they are quoted at that level means literally nothing.

50/1, 100/1 is just the bookie bringing in the odds slightly cause people are putting some speculative cash behind it. But it takes very little to move it from 500/1 to 100/1.

They are utterly and completely irrelevant odds when it comes to the actual Dem nominee.

4068ac1elhodqr

Foxtrol wrote: »

You seem to be completely ignoring how difficult it would be for the Democrats to change the candidate at this point, even if there was broad support for it within the party. Barring Biden dropping out for some reason it is basically impossible. You might as well be talking about the odds of someone else running for the republicans.

Agree, it would have to be a health matter, or combination of scandals, or simply a loss of confidence between now and November (a long time in politics).

Foxtrol wrote: »

As for your win on Trump, it is same as betting on any team that is a few goals down in a game and they end up coming back. The Trump team themselves admitted that their internal numbers looked terrible on election night so they probably wouldn't even have bet on themselves at that point.

Confidence was high, support was high, backing was high. Don't think they (Rep) ever viewed themselves as even a single goal down. The only real doubt came in from the media, 'experts', pollsters and soundbites.

4068ac1elhodqr

Podge_irl wrote: »

An exchange is not a bookie. Those odds just reflect that the market is stupidly priced as there is no liquidity.

Functions the exact same way, bar small commission and lack of acca build.

Podge_irl wrote: »

500/1 ... means literally nothing.

Or it means 500/1, as displayed.

Podge_irl wrote: »

50/1, 100/1 is just the bookie bringing in the odds slightly cause people are putting some speculative cash behind it. But it takes very little to move it from 500/1 to 100/1.

Which can be tapped between now and November, across multiple vendors, at multiple points of time. Not saying would, nor even recommending such. It's an interesting novelty factor is all.

Podge_irl wrote: »

They are utterly and completely irrelevant odds when it comes to the actual Dem nominee.

This is an entirely seperate market event, a prequel as such, so yes of course not relevant. There can be a nominee, that is later replaced, through unforseen circumstances, in which case the outside alternative replacement is still considered a valid selection (not void result) for the penultimate market.

Anyway in summary, Oprah (or similar) might be a better ticket than Joe.

Foxtrol

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Agree, it would have to be a health matter, or combination of scandals, or simply a loss of confidence between now and November (a long time in politics).

No simple loss of confidence will have him out at this point, it is too late. Biden has been vetted multiple times and ran as VP twice, so some credible massive scandal is incredibly unlikely.

Again, it is as likely that Trump won't be the candidate for the Republicans as Biden for the Democrats.

Confidence was high, support was high, backing was high. Don't think they (Rep) ever viewed themselves as even a single goal down. The only real doubt came in from the media, 'experts', pollsters and soundbites.

That might have been the case by Trump supporters but it is revisionist if you're talking about the campaign itself, as confidence wasn't high early on in the election night. Sebastian Gorka, Trump's campaign adviser and one of his closest allies to this day, said that after seeing their initial exit polls that "I guess if I was honest with myself I was more than a little concerned." Same sort of comments were consistent from the campaign. Fair play for your winnings but their own data told a different story than how it turned out.

pixelburp

A "loss of confidence" would have to be pretty epic to dispense with a chosen candidate who has already run away with the Primaries thus far. The Sunk Cost Fallacy is a strong enough compulsion too to override; and even if - if - the DNC decided Biden wasn't the right choice, backing out at the 11th hour would be tantamount to political suicide.

Is there even any historical precedent? I'd be honestly very surprised if any Primary had an about turn after a chosen candidate was picked.

Oprah as President? As if one reality TV star wasn't salutary lesson enough as to the perils of gimmick Presidencies?

Water John

The VP pick TMK hasn't impacted any US election. Might be a bit diff this time as the VP has a good possibility of needing to become POTUS even for a period, considering the age of both candidates.

Podge_irl

Misael Bewildered Sobriety wrote: »

Functions the exact same way, bar small commission and lack of acca build.

It functions not even remotely the same way. It is the difference between buying something in Tesco and buying it off your neighbour. Without liquidity the price on the latter means absolutely nothing.

500/1 is the standard odds given by a bookie for an event that isn't going to happen but people want to put money on.

4068ac1elhodqr

Podge_irl wrote: »

It functions not even remotely the same way.

Similar enough (more variables) but actually It can function even better in some cases.

Someone takes the lol (backing) 'bait' of 1000/1, and lays the specific exchange market with (their) elevated risk exposure, between now and event.
The only variable is the capital availability (this can occur with traditional books {max stake} anyway), and the timing for an opposing market, to catch n' match.

Podge_irl wrote: »

500/1 is the standard odds given by a bookie for an event that isn't going to happen but people want to put money on.

Agree it's 'very, very highly unlikely' (hence reflection of price), but not impossible.

Better example is for Cuomo(@81) nearly 200% increase of average standard market (-5%comm), with a few small notes available as of now, for a 2.3k rtn.

Again also somewhat very unlikely, but all it might take is a couple of episodes of bleeding eyes (unfortunate subconjunctival hemorrhages) on live televsion screens and/or series of very poor performances.

The Nal

Water John wrote: »

The VP pick TMK hasn't impacted any US election.

## Mod Note##

No Memes please

Rjd2

Podge_irl wrote: »

An exchange is not a bookie. Those odds just reflect that the market is stupidly priced as there is no liquidity.

500/1 is the odds given to every scenario they think people will waste money on. The fact they are quoted at that level means literally nothing.

50/1, 100/1 is just the bookie bringing in the odds slightly cause people are putting some speculative cash behind it. But it takes very little to move it from 500/1 to 100/1.

They are utterly and completely irrelevant odds when it comes to the actual Dem nominee.

Can't say this enough as someone who used to work in betting,in novelty events it may only need 20 quid to move something from 500/1 to 100/1 and after 2016 where bookies got cleaned out with Trump and Brexit they are even more cautious than usual.

I have said Trump won't win in November and if you think otherwise please go the exchanges as the general bookie price of 10/11 is absolutely shambolic.

Either punt it on something else or if still on the Trump train wait because in the next seven months he is going to be a much bigger price.