Trump Will Win Second Term

[Starlight]

Even without looking, that would make absolutely no sense just based on the article Ronson linked to.

Just to be clear, when I was saying "At this point all the data says Sanders will win. It will take something major at this point for that not to happen." I was talking about Sanders winning the Democratic Nomination, not the Presidency.

While I think Sanders will almost certainly win the Presidency too, that's not what I was referring to, and that view is based on different things (more on my overall understanding of the political landscape rather than specific polling data that my view of the outcome of the primaries is based on).

I don't know what betting sites you're looking at, but every site I went to had Trump as the favorite. You might want to leave a link to wherever you got that info from

I was looking at this one.

This site has [Trump] at 53%, so maybe you're getting your numbers mixed up?

That one indeed gives better odds for Trump, yes.

Remember, though, Trump has different chances of winning depending on which Dem candidate he's up against - some might be easy to beat and some might be hard - and the odds listed for his chances remaining president are essentially a weighted combination of what they think his chances against all the different dem candidates are multiplied by what they think the chances of those dem candidates being the nominee are.

[seanD]

Just to be clear, when I was saying "At this point all the data says Sanders will win. It will take something major at this point for that not to happen." I was talking about Sanders winning the Democratic Nomination, not the Presidency.

While I think Sanders will almost certainly win the Presidency too, that's not what I was referring to, and that view is based on different things (more on my overall understanding of the political landscape rather than specific polling data that my view of the outcome of the primaries is based on).

I was looking at this one.

That one indeed gives better odds for Trump, yes.

Remember, though, Trump has different chances of winning depending on which Dem candidate he's up against - some might be easy to beat and some might be hard - and the odds listed for his chances remaining president are essentially a weighted combination of what they think his chances against all the different dem candidates are multiplied by what they think the chances of those dem candidates being the nominee are.

Well, just a quick glance at that site, I admittedly can't make heads or tails of those stats or how to read it. Obviously Trump requires a bigger cost to place the bet, which I'm interpreting as bigger odds in favor of. The site I linked to gets it's betting odds from betfair, which is a major gambling company in the UK. Every site I looked at, at least half a dozen on google search, had the odds in favor of Trump (currently around -120-135). So you obviously grossly misrepresented that ridiculous number. Not that it's important, it's just that it was such an absurd mistake.

[Starlight]

Well, just a quick glance at that site, I admittedly can't make heads or tails of those stats or how to read it.

The odds at predictit are directly equivalent to percentages.

As of the time I'm writing this posts, the odds it gives for who is the next president of the US are Trump 49%, Bernie 30%, Biden 17% etc. The odds it gives on who wins the Dem nomination are Bernie 42%, Biden 32%, Bloomberg 18% etc.

A basic statistical formula for finding conditional probabilities can be used to see what those odds are saying about the chances of Bernie winning the presidency were he to be the nominee:
P(Bernie wins presidency | Bernie wins nomination) = P(Bernie wins presidency) / P (Bernie wins nomination) = 30% / 42% = 71%
So as of right now, that betting site is saying, by virtue of the odds it's offering on those two related events, that the chances of Bernie winning the presidency if he becomes the nominee are 71%.

I would personally say I think that those odds of Bernie beating Trump in the general election strike me as being about right, though I think the site currently giving only a 42% chance to Bernie to be the nominee is unreasonably low.

Obviously not all betting sites offer the same odds. On the site you linked to, Bernie's conditional odds of winning the presidency given he wins the nomination, work out at 46%.

that would make absolutely no sense just based on the article Ronson linked to.

Did you miss the part of this thread where it was pointed out that Ronson had misread the article? The article was saying it was bizarre Dem voters didn't have much surety of victory given that the polling looked really good for the Dems and that Trump was polling at getting only 38% of the vote.

[seanD]

The odds at predictit are directly equivalent to percentages.

As of the time I'm writing this posts, the odds it gives for who is the next president of the US are Trump 49%, Bernie 30%, Biden 17% etc. The odds it gives on who wins the Dem nomination are Bernie 42%, Biden 32%, Bloomberg 18% etc.

A basic statistical formula for finding conditional probabilities can be used to see what those odds are saying about the chances of Bernie winning the presidency were he to be the nominee:
P(Bernie wins presidency | Bernie wins nomination) = P(Bernie wins presidency) / P (Bernie wins nomination) = 30% / 42% = 71%
So as of right now, that betting site is saying, by virtue of the odds it's offering on those two related events, that the chances of Bernie winning the presidency if he becomes the nominee are 71%.

I would personally say I think that those odds of Bernie beating Trump in the general election strike me as being about right, though I think the site currently giving only a 42% chance to Bernie to be the nominee is unreasonably low.

Obviously not all betting sites offer the same odds. On the site you linked to, Bernie's conditional odds of winning the presidency given he wins the nomination, work out at 46%.

Did you miss the part of this thread where it was pointed out that Ronson had misread the article? The article was saying it was bizarre Dem voters didn't have much surety of victory given that the polling looked really good for the Dems and that Trump was polling at getting only 38% of the vote.

No, dumbass, I'm perfectly aware of the article, and I'd thought I made that clear here:

The interesting question is still why less than half the Dems think Trump will lose, even in spite of all the negative media attention he's getting. Though the 38% in favor of a Trump vote is also strange.

If you'd stop fragmenting my posts out of context it might make more sense. You not only fragment my posts, but quote different pieces of my posts from different posts. What the heck is that? The article pointed out that the majority of people polled believe Trump would win. So how does it make sense people are betting against Trump? It makes zero sense. The odds makers of a betting event determine the odds based on who's voting for whom, which is why Trump is the clear favorite to win the generals. And that logically coincides with the article. So your percentages are just absurd.

[Ronson]

That would be weird. I know they support each other but that's more about having common enemies than having a shared platform. Gabbard is far more centrist than Bernie so I think he would choose someone further to the left.

But you're right that she could conceivably steal votes from Trump. Conservatives find her more palatable than the rest of the pack.

[seanD]

That would be weird. I know they support each other but that's more about having common enemies than having a shared platform. Gabbard is far more centrist than Bernie so I think he would choose someone further to the left.

But you're right that she could conceivably steal votes from Trump. Conservatives find her more palatable than the rest of the pack.

The problem for Sanders is getting moderate Dems to vote for a radical socialist progressive. I doubt he'll steal many Trump votes, but by choosing someone more moderate (and a woman of course to counter cnn/msnbc's/Warren's/Hillary's attacks against him that he's a sexist; and a woman of at least some color of course to satisfy the leftist intersectionality obsession) he can try and lure in voters for Biden, Pete, Klobuchar.

[Mountain Man]

That would be weird. I know they support each other but that's more about having common enemies than having a shared platform. Gabbard is far more centrist than Bernie so I think he would choose someone further to the left.

But you're right that she could conceivably steal votes from Trump. Conservatives find her more palatable than the rest of the pack.

I don't think vice president picks make a significant difference on who becomes president. Usually when people get excited about the vice president, it's because the campaign is already in trouble. I mean, look at McCain's campaign. He was sagging pretty badly, and choosing Palin certainly energized conservative voters, but not nearly enough. The McCain ticket still got trounced by Obama/Biden.

[rogue06]

I don't think vice president picks make a significant difference on who becomes president. Usually when people get excited about the vice president, it's because the campaign is already in trouble. I mean, look at McCain's campaign. He was sagging pretty badly, and choosing Palin certainly energized conservative voters, but not nearly enough. The McCain ticket still got trounced by Obama/Biden.

Biden certainly drew attention this week concerning remarks he made this week about what sort of running mate he would look for. He said that because he's an old man and might not make it through his term he needs to select someone who is young and healthy.

I can see the Biden campaign slogans based on that sort of thinking:

Vote for Biden
because he might not be
around in 4 years to try again




Vote for Biden
This is likely your last chance to do so

[Mountain Man]

"Vote for Biden (and hope he dies in office so the vice president who you really wanted can get a promotion)"

That's a winning slogan right there!

[rogue06]

As for the effect that the selection a VP candidate, historically the person picked was often chosen to help bring a state or region (RFK's choice of LBJ in 1960 bringing Texas with him is a classic case).

[Ronson]

As for the effect that the selection a VP candidate, historically the person picked was often chosen to help bring a state or region (RFK's choice of LBJ in 1960 bringing Texas with him is a classic case).

Which lets out Gabbard, since Hawaii isn't a swing state or carries much weight anyway.

I see him picking someone more like Bloomberg. That would help him (if Bloomberg would take it) because of his cash and because he might bring geriatric Democrats on board. Sanders already has the younger crowd.

[rogue06]

Which lets out Gabbard, since Hawaii isn't a swing state or carries much weight anyway.

I see him picking someone more like Bloomberg. That would help him (if Bloomberg would take it) because of his cash and because he might bring geriatric Democrats on board. Sanders already has the younger crowd.

Biden made some noise about picking Stacey Abrams, who ran for Governor of Georgia.

As for Bloomberg... If Biden comes in third, and especially if lower, in Iowa, I see Bloomberg picking up a good deal of support from Biden supporters. Biden's big claim is that he has the best shot of being able to beat Trump, but if he can't win in his own party...

[seanD]

Which lets out Gabbard, since Hawaii isn't a swing state or carries much weight anyway.

I see him picking someone more like Bloomberg. That would help him (if Bloomberg would take it) because of his cash and because he might bring geriatric Democrats on board. Sanders already has the younger crowd.

You honestly think Sanders would pick Bloomberg after basically calling him corrupt and buying the election?

[Mountain Man]

You honestly think Sanders would pick Bloomberg after basically calling him corrupt and buying the election?

Stranger things have happened. Obama picked Biden after Biden made racist remarks about how Obama was the first mainstream African-American who was clean, bright, articulate, and good looking.

[Terraceth]

Which lets out Gabbard, since Hawaii isn't a swing state or carries much weight anyway.

I see him picking someone more like Bloomberg. That would help him (if Bloomberg would take it) because of his cash and because he might bring geriatric Democrats on board. Sanders already has the younger crowd.

Bloomberg is extremely unlikely. Sanders promised that his vice presidential pick "will not be an old white guy."

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sand...te-man-1481893