The War Room Bet Thread V3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also looks like Silver's over/under was spot on, maybe slightly underestimated Democrats. Even if that one isn't official, wai was *willing* to bet against that outcome, indicating that he thought it was highly improbable. I wonder if that's led to some reconsideration.
Using whatever site it was he mentioned as the basis for his predictions lead him pretty far astray this time, it would seem. He would have been better off following his pasty vampire nemesis.
 
Anbody seen @waiguoren lately?
Seems kinda weird that he hasn't been around for a few.
Indeed.

It's a pretty shameful duck. He must feel bad about himself and the bad choices that he made. He'll probably come back in pretending that he was really busy.
 
Indeed.

It's a pretty shameful duck. He must feel bad about himself and the bad choices that he made. He'll probably come back in pretending that he was really busy.
Hey now
That proprietary model aint gonna recalibrate itself
 
Also looks like Silver's over/under was spot on, maybe slightly underestimated Democrats. Even if that one isn't official, wai was *willing* to bet against that outcome, indicating that he thought it was highly improbable. I wonder if that's led to some reconsideration.

It has.

Nationally, the thing I missed was the independent surge + hard swing of independents against the GOP.

My confidence that Silver was wrong on this particular matter came primarily from early vote data, which Silver deliberately ignores (that's why I beat him 2x in 2016) and which I was keeping fairly close tabs on, e.g., via these spreadsheets. These data showed serious GOP-voter enthusiasm across many states. In particular, AZ+NC+FL+CA all showed strong GOP enthusiasm---with GOP voters outperforming 2016 as a percentage of the electorate---and strongly suggested the absence of a "blue wave". In my estimation, this enthusiasm is best attributed to the Kavanaugh debacle and Trump's sui generis ability to keep himself in the media spotlight.

I think my approach was sound for the most part, but I should have compared the percentage of the early voting electorate which was unaffiliated (independent) to historical rates. I don't have time to dig into it now, but I suspect that independents constituted roughly the same percentage of the electorate as in past midterms, or perhaps even exceeded those levels. If that's correct, the astonishing ramp up of GOP enthusiasm to 9/10 in an off-year still wouldn't have been enough to limit GOP losses. In this sense, the national generic ballot's D swing was a key bit of evidence pointing to a blue wave. Silver loves the generic ballot, but for the wrong reasons---distribution of the vote is key, and the generic ballot ignores it. But the generic ballot is super-useful for telling us what independents are thinking, and it appears independents played an out-sized role here.

On a different note, what does it say about independents that they shift reliably against the party in power two years after a presidential election? Would it be fair to characterize these people as perpetually unsatisfied and lacking a coherent worldview? In 2010, they joined the Tea Party people to oppose MOOSLEM Obammer. Eight years later they were eager to #resist the orange man. Independents get a lot of praise, and it's fun to criticize partisans/tribalists from any camp, but at least those partisans appear to have a consistent world-view?
 
In my estimation, this enthusiasm is best attributed to the Kavanaugh debacle and Trump's sui generis ability to keep himself in the media spotlight.

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking (and it contradicts polling that shows the GOP's defense and confirmation of Kavanaugh was a net negative for them, but I appreciate the effort in spelling out your thinking. Interesting stuff.

On a different note, what does it say about independents that they shift reliably against the party in power two years after a presidential election? Would it be fair to characterize these people as perpetually unsatisfied and lacking a coherent worldview? In 2010, they joined the Tea Party people to oppose MOOSLEM Obammer. Eight years later they were eager to #resist the orange man. Independents get a lot of praise, and it's fun to criticize partisans/tribalists from any camp, but at least those partisans appear to have a consistent world-view?

Yeah, independents tend to be the least-informed bloc (and it's not like everyone else is particularly well-informed). It's a definite flaw in the system, though as long as both parties resist populism, it needn't be that harmful. But you're conflating partisans (another very ignorant group) with people with a coherent ideology. Only the most-informed fifth can even identify what the "right" and "left" positions on issues are consistently. Most non-independents also lack a consistent worldview and simply pick up cues from influential figures on the side they identify with. Coulter said that Hannity would support communism if Trump did. That's typical of partisans. She's an awful person with a sick ideology, but she's not a partisan and she shows an understanding of the difference with that comment. Conversely, SBJJ attempted to refute the observation that he's a partisan by discussing ideological disagreements with his party, which shows that he doesn't understand what partisanship even is.

This also shows why it's folly to try to learn any lessons about policy from election results. The public doesn't know much of anything about policy, and they're often even badly wrong about what's happening (for example, a majority of Republicans thought that deficits rose under Clinton's presidency, and while I haven't seen a poll on it, I'd bet that they have the same misunderstanding about Obama--and you still see Republicans say that he personally doubled the debt or something).
 
This also shows why it's folly to try to learn any lessons about policy from election results. The public doesn't know much of anything about policy, and they're often even badly wrong about what's happening (for example, a majority of Republicans thought that deficits rose under Clinton's presidency, and while I haven't seen a poll on it, I'd bet that they have the same misunderstanding about Obama--and you still see Republicans say that he personally doubled the debt or something).

Best to start with agreement. I agree with this entirely.

But you're conflating partisans (another very ignorant group) with people with a coherent ideology.

Fair. I should have been clearer.

I think this is a bit of wishful thinking (and it contradicts polling that shows the GOP's defense and confirmation of Kavanaugh was a net negative for them

I think if you were to look at the average generic ballot polling starting on September 27 (the date of the Ford testimony) and compare to the average from 7 to 10 days later (when polling would have taken the Ford hearing into account), you would find that the Republicans gained a bit, if anything. More importantly, it's clear from the actual vote counts that Republican turnout was high this time around. I suspect that's very different from the last "blue wave" (2006), when I think Republican voters probably had their tails between their legs as war fatigue set in.
 
The documents can be reviewed here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michael-flynn-interview-documents

The documents include then-FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe’s notes after talking with Flynn to arrange his interview with the FBI. It also includes a so-called "302" report documenting what Flynn told anti-Trump agent Peter Strzok and one other agent during their conversation at the White House. That July 2017 report, though, specifically came from an interview with Strzok in which the Flynn encounter was discussed -- and not the original Flynn interview. It is a 6 month old 302, meaning the original 302 is MISSING!

Perjury trap: Yates, Comey, Strzok need to be indicted.
Flynn is not in jail, will not be going to jail, and will likely have the judge completely toss his case and crush the FBI for their bullshit. It is the same Clinton appointed judge that did this in the Ted Stevens case.

1. The courts will "completely toss Flynn's case" (ie, vacate Flynn's conviction) as stated in that thread.
2. For: Whippy McGee. Against: Quipling
3. On the date that Flynn's conviction+sentence becomes final. (If Flynn does not appeal his conviction, it becomes final when the time to appeal expires. If he does appeal his conviction, it becomes final when his appeal is resolved. If he only appeals the length of his sentence, he has not appealed his conviction)
4. Signature (open to negotiation)
5. 6 months (open to negotiation)

Alternative bet:
1. Comey, Strzok, and/or Yates will be indicted because of how they conducted the Flynn interview and subsequent report.
2. For: Whippy McGee. Against: Quipling
3. One year from the acceptance of the bet (open to negotiation)
4. Avatar (open to negotiation)
5. 4 months per person indicted (open to negotiation)


Note: I'm not interested in betting on how much time Flynn will serve. The prosecutor requested a minimal sentence, including "no time"
 
Last edited:
Alternative bet:
1. Comey, Strzok, and/or Yates will be indicted because of how they conducted the Flynn interview and subsequent report.
2. For: Whippy McGee. Against: Quipling
3. One year from the acceptance of the bet (open to negotiation)
4. Avatar (open to negotiation)
5. 4 months per person indicted (open to negotiation)
For looks like a terrible bet in that case.
 
On a different note, what does it say about independents that they shift reliably against the party in power two years after a presidential election? Would it be fair to characterize these people as perpetually unsatisfied and lacking a coherent worldview? In 2010, they joined the Tea Party people to oppose MOOSLEM Obammer. Eight years later they were eager to #resist the orange man. Independents get a lot of praise, and it's fun to criticize partisans/tribalists from any camp, but at least those partisans appear to have a consistent world-view?
Do you have data that it shows they're the same people? I can't see somebody that opposed Obammer to vote against Orange man is bad.
 
Let’s bet

After trump wins again in 2020, he will get America into a surplus is my bet. Your bet is that won’t happen.

Put your account on it if you are so sure pussy

The United States will run a budget surplus in 2019, 2020, or 2021 (if Trump is reelected).
For: DIDM, Against: Trotsky
Signature bet
6 months
 
The United States will run a budget surplus in 2019, 2020, or 2021 (if Trump is reelected).
For: DIDM, Against: Trotsky
Signature bet
6 months
I told you after 6 years
And for your account
 
I very clearly quoted your offer. And account bets aren't an option here.
You didn’t clearly quot me, or you would have quoted after 6 more years and for your account
 
You didn’t clearly quot me, or you would have quoted after 6 more years and for your account

So you want to make an account bet that would be resolved in 2026?
 
Obama was like a disgusting cockroach that laid his eggs inside the wall. We need to fumigate. I suspect he has many loyalists in DHS and DNI unfortunately. CIA and DNI were controlled by Clapper and Brennan, and those cockroaches are especially dirty.

Tomorrow could blow it all open if the judge rejects the plea. The 302 shows that Flynn is innocent of the charge (lying) so he just might.

1. The judge will reject Flynn's guilty plea at the hearing today (or whenever, pending a continuance).
2. For: JamesRussler. Against: Quipling.
3. Resolved: When the court enters judgment.
4. Signature Bet
5. 6 months

@Lead
 
Last edited:
Also looks like Silver's over/under was spot on, maybe slightly underestimated Democrats. Even if that one isn't official, wai was *willing* to bet against that outcome, indicating that he thought it was highly improbable. I wonder if that's led to some reconsideration.

Even though I won I should have asked for more aggressive terms. Feel like he probably would've bit on +30.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Replies
734
Views
30K
Back
Top