what happens if HRC suffers a heart-attack, or god forbid, a stroke;within the next 72hrs (she's going on 70) do voters continue to support her? if elected, and she's in critical condition, do they swear the vice president in? do you see any advantages for Trump at this time based on hillary's potential health issues..because the only way Trump is going to WIN this election is if HRC has a heart attack, and dies.
I took HRC @ 5Dimes -320 (2 months ago) now it's up to over -800
now some books won't even accept HRC wagers, only Trump @ +700 so is your money on Trump? to late for HRC
0
bigvern, political_science 101 question?
what happens if HRC suffers a heart-attack, or god forbid, a stroke;within the next 72hrs (she's going on 70) do voters continue to support her? if elected, and she's in critical condition, do they swear the vice president in? do you see any advantages for Trump at this time based on hillary's potential health issues..because the only way Trump is going to WIN this election is if HRC has a heart attack, and dies.
I took HRC @ 5Dimes -320 (2 months ago) now it's up to over -800
now some books won't even accept HRC wagers, only Trump @ +700 so is your money on Trump? to late for HRC
sports- congrats on your HRC price...that isn't a bad play at -320.
Pretty sure that you are trolling me with your question, but look at it this way. person Cheney has an artificial heart and doesn't even have a pulse....and he is still alive and functioning.
There is no way that HRC's health keeps her from grandstanding (win or lose) on November 8.
But, do not kid yourself....IF the FBI and DOJ would have been eager to prosecute her over the email scandal, then health concerns were the most readily available explanation for her exiting the race. She could have saved face and punted without admitting guilt.....
Like I said earlier...kudos to the guys that got long HRC -200ish in May....political scandal, Sanders, and Clinton's health were very real risks at the time. As of now, none of those things figure into the equation.
Not sure where Trump +700 is available...highest I have seen with legit limits is +560.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
sports- congrats on your HRC price...that isn't a bad play at -320.
Pretty sure that you are trolling me with your question, but look at it this way. person Cheney has an artificial heart and doesn't even have a pulse....and he is still alive and functioning.
There is no way that HRC's health keeps her from grandstanding (win or lose) on November 8.
But, do not kid yourself....IF the FBI and DOJ would have been eager to prosecute her over the email scandal, then health concerns were the most readily available explanation for her exiting the race. She could have saved face and punted without admitting guilt.....
Like I said earlier...kudos to the guys that got long HRC -200ish in May....political scandal, Sanders, and Clinton's health were very real risks at the time. As of now, none of those things figure into the equation.
Not sure where Trump +700 is available...highest I have seen with legit limits is +560.
sports- congrats on your HRC price...that isn't a bad play at -320.
Pretty sure that you are trolling me with your question, but look at it this way. person Cheney has an artificial heart and doesn't even have a pulse....and he is still alive and functioning.
There is no way that HRC's health keeps her from grandstanding (win or lose) on November 8.
But, do not kid yourself....IF the FBI and DOJ would have been eager to prosecute her over the email scandal, then health concerns were the most readily available explanation for her exiting the race. She could have saved face and punted without admitting guilt.....
Like I said earlier...kudos to the guys that got long HRC -200ish in May....political scandal, Sanders, and Clinton's health were very real risks at the time. As of now, none of those things figure into the equation.
Not sure where Trump +700 is available...highest I have seen with legit limits is +560.
In may? I got -190 on Sept 19th and then even more at -220 and -230 on the 22nd of Sept.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bigvern1013:
sports- congrats on your HRC price...that isn't a bad play at -320.
Pretty sure that you are trolling me with your question, but look at it this way. person Cheney has an artificial heart and doesn't even have a pulse....and he is still alive and functioning.
There is no way that HRC's health keeps her from grandstanding (win or lose) on November 8.
But, do not kid yourself....IF the FBI and DOJ would have been eager to prosecute her over the email scandal, then health concerns were the most readily available explanation for her exiting the race. She could have saved face and punted without admitting guilt.....
Like I said earlier...kudos to the guys that got long HRC -200ish in May....political scandal, Sanders, and Clinton's health were very real risks at the time. As of now, none of those things figure into the equation.
Not sure where Trump +700 is available...highest I have seen with legit limits is +560.
In may? I got -190 on Sept 19th and then even more at -220 and -230 on the 22nd of Sept.
I was wondering how long it was going to take for you to weigh in on this thread.
The main objective was to point out that after all of the press that Trump was only 4 points behind in the polling data as of 10/16....and that any fool who was laying -600 to -750 on Clinton to win was way too exposed, and should be worried. No shame at all in that.
Now, as for guys like Vanzack and a few others who grabbed Clinton in May at prices around -200, I have ZERO issue with them. They assumed many risks, including the Sanders factor, and Hillary's health.
For the record, I can not agree more with Van's assertion that democrats start with 242 electoral votes, literally assuring them the victory.
My position is that we will be looking at voter turnout levels higher than we have seen in a long while.....and they are going to vote against the establishment candidate in droves. So, we will see if it is enough.
Couple of fallacies I see with your argument here. First you say Trump was only behind by 4 points. While this would be true for some polling, its definitely not for the real clear politics average of polls (On Oct 16th Clinton was up by 7, not 4). You find a poll where Clinton was up by only 4, and I can find one where Clinton was up 6 (Foxnews) and even 9 (Bloomberg). My point is you can find any polling information you want to fit your argument.
Secondly, we are looking at national polling which doesn't mean squat. You have to get in the dirt and look into individual state as well as county information to get an accurate depiction. Also, as it stands now, if Clinton wins the solid democrats, and the strongly leaning democrats, these in itself put her over the top. She doesn't have to win the toss-up states this year.
Trump is too far behind at this point and he cannot win without the women vote or the Latino vote, both of which he has burned bridges.
The answer to who will win the election is quite elementary; its just simple electoral math.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bigvern1013:
I was wondering how long it was going to take for you to weigh in on this thread.
The main objective was to point out that after all of the press that Trump was only 4 points behind in the polling data as of 10/16....and that any fool who was laying -600 to -750 on Clinton to win was way too exposed, and should be worried. No shame at all in that.
Now, as for guys like Vanzack and a few others who grabbed Clinton in May at prices around -200, I have ZERO issue with them. They assumed many risks, including the Sanders factor, and Hillary's health.
For the record, I can not agree more with Van's assertion that democrats start with 242 electoral votes, literally assuring them the victory.
My position is that we will be looking at voter turnout levels higher than we have seen in a long while.....and they are going to vote against the establishment candidate in droves. So, we will see if it is enough.
Couple of fallacies I see with your argument here. First you say Trump was only behind by 4 points. While this would be true for some polling, its definitely not for the real clear politics average of polls (On Oct 16th Clinton was up by 7, not 4). You find a poll where Clinton was up by only 4, and I can find one where Clinton was up 6 (Foxnews) and even 9 (Bloomberg). My point is you can find any polling information you want to fit your argument.
Secondly, we are looking at national polling which doesn't mean squat. You have to get in the dirt and look into individual state as well as county information to get an accurate depiction. Also, as it stands now, if Clinton wins the solid democrats, and the strongly leaning democrats, these in itself put her over the top. She doesn't have to win the toss-up states this year.
Trump is too far behind at this point and he cannot win without the women vote or the Latino vote, both of which he has burned bridges.
The answer to who will win the election is quite elementary; its just simple electoral math.
Couple of fallacies I see with your argument here. First you say Trump was only behind by 4 points. While this would be true for some polling, its definitely not for the real clear politics average of polls (On Oct 16th Clinton was up by 7, not 4). You find a poll where Clinton was up by only 4, and I can find one where Clinton was up 6 (Foxnews) and even 9 (Bloomberg). My point is you can find any polling information you want to fit your argument.
Secondly, we are looking at national polling which doesn't mean squat. You have to get in the dirt and look into individual state as well as county information to get an accurate depiction. Also, as it stands now, if Clinton wins the solid democrats, and the strongly leaning democrats, these in itself put her over the top. She doesn't have to win the toss-up states this year.
Trump is too far behind at this point and he cannot win without the women vote or the Latino vote, both of which he has burned bridges.
The answer to who will win the election is quite elementary; its just simple electoral math.
Congrats on your price -190.....it didn't last long.
Agreed on the polling data, and national polls not meaning much. I laid out the scenario for a Trump win and which states have to go his way earlier in the thread.
At this point it has all been said. HRC backers are confident and Trump backers are on an island. I am the latter, and that is just fine with me. This thing is far from a lock or a foregone conclusion.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
Quote Originally Posted by incognegro:
Couple of fallacies I see with your argument here. First you say Trump was only behind by 4 points. While this would be true for some polling, its definitely not for the real clear politics average of polls (On Oct 16th Clinton was up by 7, not 4). You find a poll where Clinton was up by only 4, and I can find one where Clinton was up 6 (Foxnews) and even 9 (Bloomberg). My point is you can find any polling information you want to fit your argument.
Secondly, we are looking at national polling which doesn't mean squat. You have to get in the dirt and look into individual state as well as county information to get an accurate depiction. Also, as it stands now, if Clinton wins the solid democrats, and the strongly leaning democrats, these in itself put her over the top. She doesn't have to win the toss-up states this year.
Trump is too far behind at this point and he cannot win without the women vote or the Latino vote, both of which he has burned bridges.
The answer to who will win the election is quite elementary; its just simple electoral math.
Congrats on your price -190.....it didn't last long.
Agreed on the polling data, and national polls not meaning much. I laid out the scenario for a Trump win and which states have to go his way earlier in the thread.
At this point it has all been said. HRC backers are confident and Trump backers are on an island. I am the latter, and that is just fine with me. This thing is far from a lock or a foregone conclusion.
This notion of "too far behind" is an interesting one to me. If you mean Trump has to walk an electoral tightrope to win, then I tend to agree. If you are citing polling data to declare a winner, then that rational is flawed.
But, who cares? We will all find out in the next month.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
This notion of "too far behind" is an interesting one to me. If you mean Trump has to walk an electoral tightrope to win, then I tend to agree. If you are citing polling data to declare a winner, then that rational is flawed.
But, who cares? We will all find out in the next month.
Vern, I am not of the opinion that Trump can win, but i was not of the opinion that he could get the GOP nod either.
Trumps only chance, barring a late arriving indictment for HRC, is that there is a sh!t ton of people who will vote for him, but they have not, and will not acknowledge it to others.
bigreds daddy
0
Vern, I am not of the opinion that Trump can win, but i was not of the opinion that he could get the GOP nod either.
Trumps only chance, barring a late arriving indictment for HRC, is that there is a sh!t ton of people who will vote for him, but they have not, and will not acknowledge it to others.
Congrats on your price -190.....it didn't last long.
Agreed on the polling data, and national polls not meaning much. I laid out the scenario for a Trump win and which states have to go his way earlier in the thread.
At this point it has all been said. HRC backers are confident and Trump backers are on an island. I am the latter, and that is just fine with me. This thing is far from a lock or a foregone conclusion.
When online books use to have the prop "team to receive the opening kickoff" and you knew one team always deferred (e.g patriots) and one team always received (e.g. Saints). I would rack up on those bets. Those were a lock and I think Clinton winning is even more of a foregone conclusion.
Even Clinton herself is now focusing on Senate and house races. Her campaign knows internally its over:
Congrats on your price -190.....it didn't last long.
Agreed on the polling data, and national polls not meaning much. I laid out the scenario for a Trump win and which states have to go his way earlier in the thread.
At this point it has all been said. HRC backers are confident and Trump backers are on an island. I am the latter, and that is just fine with me. This thing is far from a lock or a foregone conclusion.
When online books use to have the prop "team to receive the opening kickoff" and you knew one team always deferred (e.g patriots) and one team always received (e.g. Saints). I would rack up on those bets. Those were a lock and I think Clinton winning is even more of a foregone conclusion.
Even Clinton herself is now focusing on Senate and house races. Her campaign knows internally its over:
window.post_1477361656638_10 = function(win,msg){
win.postMessage(msg,"*");
}window.post_1477361658763_30 = function(win,msg){
win.postMessage(msg,"*");
}Sounds good. But, you weren't laying upwards of -190, -230, or -710 to win the wager. Glad you won though...anytime you can beat books on stupid props that they hang then good for you.
For the record, be careful quoting anything you see on MSNBC as a fact. I am not interested in arguing about sources, already did it in depth above. But, if you put stock in MSNBC then know that they are Clinton leaning. And that is fine.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
window.post_1477361656638_10 = function(win,msg){
win.postMessage(msg,"*");
}window.post_1477361658763_30 = function(win,msg){
win.postMessage(msg,"*");
}Sounds good. But, you weren't laying upwards of -190, -230, or -710 to win the wager. Glad you won though...anytime you can beat books on stupid props that they hang then good for you.
For the record, be careful quoting anything you see on MSNBC as a fact. I am not interested in arguing about sources, already did it in depth above. But, if you put stock in MSNBC then know that they are Clinton leaning. And that is fine.
window.post_1477361656638_10 = function(win,msg){
win.postMessage(msg,"*");
}window.post_1477361658763_30 = function(win,msg){
win.postMessage(msg,"*");
}Sounds good. But, you weren't laying upwards of -190, -230, or -710 to win the wager. Glad you won though...anytime you can beat books on stupid props that they hang then good for you.
For the record, be careful quoting anything you see on MSNBC as a fact. I am not interested in arguing about sources, already did it in depth above. But, if you put stock in MSNBC then know that they are Clinton leaning. And that is fine.
Not trying to argue, but I guess I just don't understand how anyone doesn't see that it is game, set, match (and I'm a "never Trump" Republican, so certainly not a Clinton fan). Again, its simple math.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bigvern1013:
window.post_1477361656638_10 = function(win,msg){
win.postMessage(msg,"*");
}window.post_1477361658763_30 = function(win,msg){
win.postMessage(msg,"*");
}Sounds good. But, you weren't laying upwards of -190, -230, or -710 to win the wager. Glad you won though...anytime you can beat books on stupid props that they hang then good for you.
For the record, be careful quoting anything you see on MSNBC as a fact. I am not interested in arguing about sources, already did it in depth above. But, if you put stock in MSNBC then know that they are Clinton leaning. And that is fine.
Not trying to argue, but I guess I just don't understand how anyone doesn't see that it is game, set, match (and I'm a "never Trump" Republican, so certainly not a Clinton fan). Again, its simple math.
All 3 major indexes will take a swan dive in December when Yellen and the Fed finally raise interest rates like they should have started back in August.
One of the reasons that stupid Dem didn't was that she knew it would hurt Hillary.
The Donald made a great point during the first debate that the Liberal media decided to ignore; any mention of a rate increase sends the markets in to a free-fall. When it starts to happen, the sh!t will hit the fan.
Not sure why either one of these candidates want to inherit this soon-to-be sh!t show.
0
Search,
All 3 major indexes will take a swan dive in December when Yellen and the Fed finally raise interest rates like they should have started back in August.
One of the reasons that stupid Dem didn't was that she knew it would hurt Hillary.
The Donald made a great point during the first debate that the Liberal media decided to ignore; any mention of a rate increase sends the markets in to a free-fall. When it starts to happen, the sh!t will hit the fan.
Not sure why either one of these candidates want to inherit this soon-to-be sh!t show.
All 3 major indexes will take a swan dive in December when Yellen and the Fed finally raise interest rates like they should have started back in August.
One of the reasons that stupid Dem didn't was that she knew it would hurt Hillary.
The Donald made a great point during the first debate that the Liberal media decided to ignore; any mention of a rate increase sends the markets in to a free-fall. When it starts to happen, the sh!t will hit the fan.
Not sure why either one of these candidates want to inherit this soon-to-be sh!t show.
I agree.
The alarming thing is that institutions are bidding crude @ 50$....for this time of year, that is not encouraging. Pull a monthly chart for Dec CL (and take a look at the compression between 50-52 and take a look at the commonality with the 38% retracement of the entire selloff from 92 and the current wave: https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/crude-oil/light-sweet-crude.html
Big money is looking to get long crude in anticipation of Clinton/Putin showdown.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Slobbasaurus:
Search,
All 3 major indexes will take a swan dive in December when Yellen and the Fed finally raise interest rates like they should have started back in August.
One of the reasons that stupid Dem didn't was that she knew it would hurt Hillary.
The Donald made a great point during the first debate that the Liberal media decided to ignore; any mention of a rate increase sends the markets in to a free-fall. When it starts to happen, the sh!t will hit the fan.
Not sure why either one of these candidates want to inherit this soon-to-be sh!t show.
I agree.
The alarming thing is that institutions are bidding crude @ 50$....for this time of year, that is not encouraging. Pull a monthly chart for Dec CL (and take a look at the compression between 50-52 and take a look at the commonality with the 38% retracement of the entire selloff from 92 and the current wave: https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/crude-oil/light-sweet-crude.html
Big money is looking to get long crude in anticipation of Clinton/Putin showdown.
Not trying to argue, but I guess I just don't understand how anyone doesn't see that it is game, set, match (and I'm a "never Trump" Republican, so certainly not a Clinton fan). Again, its simple math.
Ok, I will bite. Washington Post, CNN, Salon, and Huffington?
There is simply no way that we are going to be able to agree on polling data and media bias.
Not trying to argue, but I guess I just don't understand how anyone doesn't see that it is game, set, match (and I'm a "never Trump" Republican, so certainly not a Clinton fan). Again, its simple math.
Ok, I will bite. Washington Post, CNN, Salon, and Huffington?
There is simply no way that we are going to be able to agree on polling data and media bias.
Ok, I will bite. Washington Post, CNN, Salon, and Huffington?
There is simply no way that we are going to be able to agree on polling data and media bias.
There's no bias as it relate to this issue. If you would actually read the articles, they quote Clinton herself in her attempt to help those running for Senate an House elections, so these aren't opinion pieces.
The Clinton Campaign has also pouring 1 million dollars in Missouri and Indiana (solidly red states in which she cannot win). Why is she doing this? B/c she believes the Democrats running for Senate and the Governors office can win with the extra money. Why would her campaign waste 1 million there if they didn't already have internal polling that says they are winning, and by a comfortable margin?
And yes, I do believe in media bias. I even gave you Foxnews polling that obviously slants right in an above post.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bigvern1013:
Ok, I will bite. Washington Post, CNN, Salon, and Huffington?
There is simply no way that we are going to be able to agree on polling data and media bias.
There's no bias as it relate to this issue. If you would actually read the articles, they quote Clinton herself in her attempt to help those running for Senate an House elections, so these aren't opinion pieces.
The Clinton Campaign has also pouring 1 million dollars in Missouri and Indiana (solidly red states in which she cannot win). Why is she doing this? B/c she believes the Democrats running for Senate and the Governors office can win with the extra money. Why would her campaign waste 1 million there if they didn't already have internal polling that says they are winning, and by a comfortable margin?
And yes, I do believe in media bias. I even gave you Foxnews polling that obviously slants right in an above post.
It is a show of force....right now the media narrative is that Clinton being elected president is a foregone conclusion. Extending her campaign efforts into Red states and throwing money at democratic challengers is a show of force designed to further the landslide narrative.
She may very well be way ahead as most data shows her to be...but 1 million here and there doesn't mean much to the DNC machine. It isn't like it is her cash...it is DNC cash.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
It is a show of force....right now the media narrative is that Clinton being elected president is a foregone conclusion. Extending her campaign efforts into Red states and throwing money at democratic challengers is a show of force designed to further the landslide narrative.
She may very well be way ahead as most data shows her to be...but 1 million here and there doesn't mean much to the DNC machine. It isn't like it is her cash...it is DNC cash.
1) Odds haven't changed much.... +500ish for Trump, -600-800 Clinton
2) Here is the electoral map with no "toss up" states. Current poll leaders get the state: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
3) According to the map, the most likely scenario for a Trump win is to keep all of the reds and carry FL, NC, CO and AZ. If Clinton carries FL and barring a major upset elsewhere, then it is pretty much ballgame.
4) Current polls (RCP aggregate averages, not cherry picked) for these states are: FL Clinton +1.6, NC Clinton +2, CO Clinton +6.2, AZ Clinton +1.5.
5) FWIW, PA Clinton +4.4, and in NV Clinton +2
These numbers are why the American public and bettors believe the race to be over.
Personally, I think the polls are largely useless. When we start getting under the 3-4% margin of error, anything can happen. This is likely to help Trump in some places and hurt him in others.
Walking the electorate tight rope is a daunting task for republicans, but not impossible. However, as we move forward, and the voting base continues to evolve, it will be impossible for a republican candidate to win a general election.
In many ways, this election is the end of an era, and the last legitimate chance that the GOP will have at the White House.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
2 Weeks out, here is the situation:
1) Odds haven't changed much.... +500ish for Trump, -600-800 Clinton
2) Here is the electoral map with no "toss up" states. Current poll leaders get the state: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html
3) According to the map, the most likely scenario for a Trump win is to keep all of the reds and carry FL, NC, CO and AZ. If Clinton carries FL and barring a major upset elsewhere, then it is pretty much ballgame.
4) Current polls (RCP aggregate averages, not cherry picked) for these states are: FL Clinton +1.6, NC Clinton +2, CO Clinton +6.2, AZ Clinton +1.5.
5) FWIW, PA Clinton +4.4, and in NV Clinton +2
These numbers are why the American public and bettors believe the race to be over.
Personally, I think the polls are largely useless. When we start getting under the 3-4% margin of error, anything can happen. This is likely to help Trump in some places and hurt him in others.
Walking the electorate tight rope is a daunting task for republicans, but not impossible. However, as we move forward, and the voting base continues to evolve, it will be impossible for a republican candidate to win a general election.
In many ways, this election is the end of an era, and the last legitimate chance that the GOP will have at the White House.
For the sake of argument, lets say that the scenario in number 3 above comes to fruition. That means it is 269/269...an electoral tie.
Then we go to the House of Reps....each state gets one vote, majority (26) needed to win. Senators elect the Vice president, majority (51) needed to win.
Take a look at the tie scenario...while improbable, not impossible. Something like that could bring the US into total chaos.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
For the sake of argument, lets say that the scenario in number 3 above comes to fruition. That means it is 269/269...an electoral tie.
Then we go to the House of Reps....each state gets one vote, majority (26) needed to win. Senators elect the Vice president, majority (51) needed to win.
so desperate that the idiots are now wanting a tie.
Missing out an apostrophe or two does not make you an idiot. But equating party allegiance with nationhood certainly makes you a thug. And thugs don't often notice that they're thugs, usually because they're also idiots.
-Robert Webb
Mainman11111 is a thug
-Hugh Jorgan
bigreds daddy
0
Quote Originally Posted by mainman11111:
so desperate that the idiots are now wanting a tie.
Missing out an apostrophe or two does not make you an idiot. But equating party allegiance with nationhood certainly makes you a thug. And thugs don't often notice that they're thugs, usually because they're also idiots.
Missing out an apostrophe or two does not make you an idiot. But equating party allegiance with nationhood certainly makes you a thug. And thugs don't often notice that they're thugs, usually because they're also idiots.
-Robert Webb
Mainman11111 is a thug
-Hugh Jorgan
Well done Hugh.
Never Make A Winner A Loser. Never.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Missing out an apostrophe or two does not make you an idiot. But equating party allegiance with nationhood certainly makes you a thug. And thugs don't often notice that they're thugs, usually because they're also idiots.
Hot Forum Topics
