The War Room Bet Thread V3

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, read it again. I never said "Republicans will get 60 seats," I merely pointed out that it's possible. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on that.

I'll wager they gain at least 2 seats though, ok? That would put Republicans at 53 seats. How's that?
No bet. I spelled it out in the thread, before you agreed. Now you're backing down. Only 2 seats is no bet considering the make up of the Senate races.
 
No bet. I spelled it out in the thread, before you agreed. Now you're backing down. Only 2 seats is no bet considering the make up of the Senate races.

What would be an acceptable number for you? 60 seats is running the table on red states, so it's just a bit too bullish if I'm being realistic.

Awww what the hell... 2 months isn't very long, and we pulled off the "blue wall" upset before. I guess there's no reason we can't do it again. Sign me up for 60 seats in November. You bastard.
 
What would be an acceptable number for you? 60 seats is running the table on red states, so it's just a bit too bullish if I'm being realistic.

Awww what the hell... 2 months isn't very long, and we pulled off the "blue wall" upset before. I guess there's no reason we can't do it again. Sign me up for 60 seats in November. You bastard.
Word.

@Lead
 

Ok, so here are the final terms of our signature bet:
  • I WIN if (1) Republicans keep the House and (2) gain net 9 seats in the Senate (i.e. 60 seats total)
  • YOU WIN if (1) Democrats win the House and (2) have a net loss of 8 seats or less in the Senate.
If we split, then we both lose. Duration of the signature is 2 months.
 
Ok, so here are the final terms of our signature bet:
  • I WIN if (1) Republicans keep the House and (2) gain net 9 seats in the Senate (i.e. 60 seats total)
  • YOU WIN if (1) Democrats win the House and (2) have a net loss of 8 seats or less in the Senate.
If we split, then we both lose. Duration of the signature is 2 months.
Agreed.
 
Can we agree winning the house is 218 seats and that we count independents to whichever party they would caucus with? Same rules with Senate?

@HomerThompson v. @JamesRussler
1 & 2. 2018 Midterm Election results- James wins if (1) Republicans retain at least 218 seats in the House and (2) gain net 9 seats in the Senate (i.e. 60 seats total). Homer wins if (1) Democrats reach 218 seats or more in the House and (2) lose under 8 seats in the Senate.
3. 11/07/2018 (tentative, races could take longer to call)
4. Signature bet
5. 2 months (tentatively 11/07/18-01/06/19)
6. In the situation, neither of the two events happen, the bet is null

I need both of you to quote this and give an okay.
 
Can we agree winning the house is 218 seats and that we count independents to whichever party they would caucus with? Same rules with Senate?

@HomerThompson v. @JamesRussler
1 & 2. 2018 Midterm Election results- James wins if (1) Republicans retain at least 218 seats in the House and (2) gain net 9 seats in the Senate (i.e. 60 seats total). Homer wins if (1) Democrats reach 218 seats or more in the House and (2) lose under 8 seats in the Senate.
3. 11/07/2018 (tentative, races could take longer to call)
4. Signature bet
5. 2 months (tentatively 11/07/18-01/06/19)
6. In the situation, neither of the two events happen, the bet is null

I need both of you to quote this and give an okay.

Agreed.
 
Can we agree winning the house is 218 seats and that we count independents to whichever party they would caucus with? Same rules with Senate?

@HomerThompson v. @JamesRussler
1 & 2. 2018 Midterm Election results- James wins if (1) Republicans retain at least 218 seats in the House and (2) gain net 9 seats in the Senate (i.e. 60 seats total). Homer wins if (1) Democrats reach 218 seats or more in the House and (2) lose under 8 seats in the Senate.
3. 11/07/2018 (tentative, races could take longer to call)
4. Signature bet
5. 2 months (tentatively 11/07/18-01/06/19)
6. In the situation, neither of the two events happen, the bet is null

I need both of you to quote this and give an okay.
Okay.
 
I don't want to wait that long either. What if we swapped Trump winning in 2020 for 1,2, and 6? Just a suggestion. I'm fine with you broadening 7, but what do you mean by her past position on illegal immigration? Obviously opposition to illegal immigration is still a universally held view in American politics.

For 3, I read you as saying that the finding would be a specific concession, which I think is good from your perspective (so it requires something like, "in the sixth, my ass goes down," rather than a more general, "Are you my n___?" "It certainly appears so.").


1 Trump will not lose the 2020 Republican primary contest.
2 Trump will not be indicted for any crimes while in office.
3 Robert Mueller's investigation will not conclude that Trump attempted to offer US policy concessions to Russia in exchange for access to the hacked DNC e-mails.
4 Cory Booker will not be the Democratic nominee in 2020.
5 The Republicans will hold the Senate in the 2018 election.
6 Trump will not be removed from office via political means (e.g., 25th Amendment, impeachment+removal)
7 (Note: this item is void in the event that Gillibrand does not run) During the Democratic primary race for the 2020 US presidential election, one of the other Democratic candidates or their respective political campaigns will mention publicly one of the following:
  1. Kirsten Gillibrand's opposition to comprehensive immigration reform
  2. Gillibrand's support for legislation making English the official language of the USA
  3. Gillibrand's opposition to "sanctuary" jurisdictions
  4. Gillibrand's opposition to giving government contracts to firms that hire illegal aliens
  5. Gillibrand's support for the SAVE Act
  6. Gillibrand's 100% positive rating with the NRA
  7. Gillibrand's previous claim that she keeps "two rifles under her bed"
  8. Gillibrand's opposition to giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens





I'm happy with this.

By the way, 3) is a narrow claim which I devised directly in response to one of your previous claims. Obviously, if Mueller finds that Trump offered policy concessions but cannot demonstrate a reason, that would be a win for me.
 
Last edited:
1 Trump will not lose the 2020 Republican primary contest.
2 Trump will not be indicted for any crimes while in office.
3 Robert Mueller's investigation will not conclude that Trump attempted to offer US policy concessions to Russia in exchange for access to the hacked DNC e-mails.
4 Cory Booker will not be the Democratic nominee in 2020.
5 The Republicans will hold the Senate in the 2018 election.
6 Trump will not be removed from office via political means (e.g., 25th Amendment, impeachment+removal)
7 During the Democratic primary race for the 2020 US presidential election, one of the other Democratic candidates or their respective political campaigns will mention publicly one of the following:
  1. Kirsten Gillibrand's opposition to comprehensive immigration reform
  2. Gillibrand's support for legislation making English the official language of the USA
  3. Gillibrand's opposition to "sanctuary" jurisdictions
  4. Gillibrand's opposition to giving government contracts to firms that hire illegal aliens
  5. Gillibrand's support for the SAVE Act
  6. Gillibrand's 100% positive rating with the NRA
  7. Gillibrand's previous claim that she keeps "two rifles under her bed"
  8. Gillibrand's opposition to giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens

Note: this item is void in the event that Gillibrand does not run




I'm happy with this.

By the way, 3) is a narrow claim which I devised directly in response to one of your previous claims. Obviously, if Mueller finds that Trump offered policy concessions but cannot demonstrate a reason, that would be a win for me.

tl;dr: Marriage contract?

:eek:
 
1 Trump will not lose the 2020 Republican primary contest.
2 Trump will not be indicted for any crimes while in office.
3 Robert Mueller's investigation will not conclude that Trump attempted to offer US policy concessions to Russia in exchange for access to the hacked DNC e-mails.
4 Cory Booker will not be the Democratic nominee in 2020.
5 The Republicans will hold the Senate in the 2018 election.
6 Trump will not be removed from office via political means (e.g., 25th Amendment, impeachment+removal)
7 During the Democratic primary race for the 2020 US presidential election, one of the other Democratic candidates or their respective political campaigns will mention publicly one of the following:
  1. Kirsten Gillibrand's opposition to comprehensive immigration reform
  2. Gillibrand's support for legislation making English the official language of the USA
  3. Gillibrand's opposition to "sanctuary" jurisdictions
  4. Gillibrand's opposition to giving government contracts to firms that hire illegal aliens
  5. Gillibrand's support for the SAVE Act
  6. Gillibrand's 100% positive rating with the NRA
  7. Gillibrand's previous claim that she keeps "two rifles under her bed"
  8. Gillibrand's opposition to giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens

Note: this item is void in the event that Gillibrand does not run




I'm happy with this.

By the way, 3) is a narrow claim which I devised directly in response to one of your previous claims. Obviously, if Mueller finds that Trump offered policy concessions but cannot demonstrate a reason, that would be a win for me.

Waiting on Jack but this will be a nightmare to iron out
 
Can we agree winning the house is 218 seats and that we count independents to whichever party they would caucus with? Same rules with Senate?

@HomerThompson v. @JamesRussler
1 & 2. 2018 Midterm Election results- James wins if (1) Republicans retain at least 218 seats in the House and (2) gain net 9 seats in the Senate (i.e. 60 seats total). Homer wins if (1) Democrats reach 218 seats or more in the House and (2) lose under 8 seats in the Senate.
3. 11/07/2018 (tentative, races could take longer to call)
4. Signature bet
5. 2 months (tentatively 11/07/18-01/06/19)
6. In the situation, neither of the two events happen, the bet is null

I need both of you to quote this and give an okay.



It's on
 
@Lead

@konagold has not logged in for almost eight months. Is there anything that can be done?

I know we can change a users title but idk about signatures. I can ask the higher ups but in the case we can't, the punishment is still valid if he ever chooses to log back in. Also, the win still counts towards your record/ ranking/ e-cred/ etc.

Some of these bets are so far in the future, I kinda expect these issues to arise.
 
tl;dr: Marriage contract?

:eek:

Bunch of issues where individually his odds are pretty good or are unknown, but collectively they aren't.

1 Trump will not lose the 2020 Republican primary contest.
2 Trump will not be indicted for any crimes while in office.
3 Robert Mueller's investigation will not conclude that Trump attempted to offer US policy concessions to Russia in exchange for access to the hacked DNC e-mails.
4 Cory Booker will not be the Democratic nominee in 2020.
5 The Republicans will hold the Senate in the 2018 election.
6 Trump will not be removed from office via political means (e.g., 25th Amendment, impeachment+removal)
7 (Note: this item is void in the event that Gillibrand does not run) During the Democratic primary race for the 2020 US presidential election, one of the other Democratic candidates or their respective political campaigns will mention publicly one of the following:
  1. Kirsten Gillibrand's opposition to comprehensive immigration reform
  2. Gillibrand's support for legislation making English the official language of the USA
  3. Gillibrand's opposition to "sanctuary" jurisdictions
  4. Gillibrand's opposition to giving government contracts to firms that hire illegal aliens
  5. Gillibrand's support for the SAVE Act
  6. Gillibrand's 100% positive rating with the NRA
  7. Gillibrand's previous claim that she keeps "two rifles under her bed"
  8. Gillibrand's opposition to giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens
I'm happy with this.

By the way, 3) is a narrow claim which I devised directly in response to one of your previous claims. Obviously, if Mueller finds that Trump offered policy concessions but cannot demonstrate a reason, that would be a win for me.

I don't get the inclusion of the NRA and gun stuff in 7. That's totally against the spirit of that item. Doesn't really matter, but on principle, I can't accept that.

3 is a key one. 3, 4, and 5 are the ones I'm interested in. 1 and 6 don't move the needle on your chances materially, for example (Republicans will never convict Trump). 7 is trivia. 4 and 5 are likely wins for you individually and collectively (maybe a hair under two-thirds). But 3 shifts it. To be clear, my view is that the hacks were the most obvious offer that Russia could have (they also could be enriching Trump personally and funneling campaign money through the NRA), and we know that they met directly with the campaign and with campaign-connected people to discuss the hacks before they released them. The question is just whether it was anything specific or just a general, "yes, we're your bitches," and I don't think anyone can reliably handicap that.

Not interested in betting on Trump winning the general?
 
@Jack V Savage

Ok, then we can simplify things for us and @Lead :

1 Robert Mueller's investigation will not conclude that Trump attempted to offer US policy concessions to Russia in exchange for access to the hacked DNC e-mails.

2 Cory Booker will not be the Democratic nominee in 2020.

3 The Republicans will hold the Senate in the 2018 election.
 
@Jack V Savage

let's get rolling

BTW I did not intend to be sneaky by throwing the two gun items into the Gillibrand part. I felt that by enumerating the ways in which other Democrats might criticize Gillibrand on immigration, I was lowering my chances compared to the previous wording. I added the gun stuff to try to balance that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Replies
734
Views
30K
Back
Top