Page 60 of 91 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270 ... LastLast
Results 1,181 to 1,200 of 1812
  1. #1181
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    that's funny...

  2. #1182
    We're not the only ones focusing on poll numbers:

    Some internal polls (see here) by President Trump's team were leaked to the media and show him behind in some key states; for example, down 10 points to Biden in Wisconsin. The President has responded by lying and stating the polls don't exist. The President's campaign manager has taken a more defensible position that the polls are simply outdated and not overly meaningful. The President's team is cutting ties with some of the pollsters as a result of all this (see here).

  3. #1183
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    We're not the only ones focusing on poll numbers:

    Some internal polls (see here) by President Trump's team were leaked to the media and show him behind in some key states; for example, down 10 points to Biden in Wisconsin. The President has responded by lying and stating the polls don't exist. The President's campaign manager has taken a more defensible position that the polls are simply outdated and not overly meaningful. The President's team is cutting ties with some of the pollsters as a result of all this (see here).
    “Don’t kill the messenger.”

    Oops, too late.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  4. #1184
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Interesting interviews in the NY Times getting all of the Democratic candidates thoughts on a variety of issues. Some of the topics are more meaningful than others and there are a lot of non-answers mixed in, but it is still a helpful resource. I did not have time to listen to everything so mainly read the summary comments and dug deeper if it made me more interested.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...gtype=Homepage

  5. #1185
    Some gambling odds, in case anybody's interested:
    election odds.jpg

  6. #1186
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Some gambling odds, in case anybody's interested:
    election odds.jpg
    Several of those seem absolutely insane. Gabbard and Yang's odds are waaaaay too high. given current polling, Warren seems waaay low. And can someone explain to me how Nikki Haley is so close to Mike Pence. I can think of ways it might go to Pence, but I have a hard time figuring out how Haley could be so close to him in the odds.
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  7. #1187
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    I completely ignore this kind of crap. No offense, Nick, honestly. It's kinda interesting, and a suitable post to the thread.

    Obviously, the vast majority of these people have no chance at all. It's just a way for these books to pry a few more dollars out of some stupid suckers.

    Ah, but you'll say 'Nobody thought Trump had a chance at this point 4 years ago'! That may prove my point even more. Think of all the money the books made on suckers who bet on Clinton, Bush, Rubio, etc. etc.

  8. #1188
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Some gambling odds, in case anybody's interested:
    election odds.jpg
    When Game of Thrones started, I would have pegged Bran at Ted Cruz level odds...and look where we are now.

  9. #1189
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    I wouldn't take any of those bets, heavy lean for the house on all of them it seems to me.

    Warren is clearly surging, and taking away Bernie's crowd. Bernie may have peaked but we will see. I just don't see a majority of the Dems getting behind someone who is not even a Democrat, and who some blame for hurting Clinton by challenging way past the realistic point of winning the nomination in 2016.

    I just don't get the solid Uncle Joe feeling yet although we will see how he does in the debates next week.

    I don't see why anyone would bet on another Republican, impeachment and then removal through trial in the Senate just isn't going to happen. Other than health issues, Trump is the Republican nominee. Nikki in 2024 may not be a bad bet though.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  10. #1190
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I wouldn't take any of those bets, heavy lean for the house on all of them it seems to me.

    Warren is clearly surging, and taking away Bernie's crowd. Bernie may have peaked but we will see. I just don't see a majority of the Dems getting behind someone who is not even a Democrat, and who some blame for hurting Clinton by challenging way past the realistic point of winning the nomination in 2016.

    I just don't get the solid Uncle Joe feeling yet although we will see how he does in the debates next week.
    Then, is Warren +2200 really a heavy lean for the house?

  11. #1191
    Quote Originally Posted by bundabergdevil View Post
    When Game of Thrones started, I would have pegged Bran at Ted Cruz level odds...and look where we are now.
    Bran is now crippled and a kingslayer's next target. IMO, rather similar to being POTUS.

  12. #1192
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Then, is Warren +2200 really a heavy lean for the house?
    Fair point.

    If I had to pick a bet right now, I still think that Kamala Harris has a big upside that is not showing up in the polls yet. I see Warren winning out the most progressive wing of the party over Bernie (they seem to be fighting over the same 30%-35% or so), but Bernie staying in forever and basically diluting Warren all the way through. Someone has to hope that Biden stumbles, and that they can ride right through the center of the party. Which leads me back to Kamala.

    Trump looks to be 99.9999999999% sure of getting his nomination, and then I would guess around 35%-40% of getting reelected. Which is still pretty high, but not pick-'em against the field.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  13. #1193
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Fair point.

    If I had to pick a bet right now, I still think that Kamala Harris has a big upside that is not showing up in the polls yet. I see Warren winning out the most progressive wing of the party over Bernie (they seem to be fighting over the same 30%-35% or so), but Bernie staying in forever and basically diluting Warren all the way through. Someone has to hope that Biden stumbles, and that they can ride right through the center of the party. Which leads me back to Kamala.
    I think the Biden stumble has begun. The segregationist senators thing is not a good look for him and will hurt him with AfAm voters. His people have really limited Biden's appearances thus far and kept him largely away from reporters. That will change at the debate and if he does not show well there, I suspect folks will look for a different option.

    -Jason "the debates are going to be HUGE for separation from the pack" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  14. #1194
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Someone has to hope that Biden stumbles, and that they can ride right through the center of the party.
    Do you think Biden will stumble? He has been around the game, and read winning playbooks, for a long time.

  15. #1195
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Trump looks to be 99.9999999999% sure of getting his nomination, and then I would guess around 35%-40% of getting reelected. Which is still pretty high, but not pick-'em against the field.
    I agree and think the D will win. At this juncture, I find Biden +425 appealing.

  16. #1196
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffrey View Post
    Do you think Biden will stumble? He has been around the game, and read winning playbooks, for a long time.
    Not sure, although history suggests that he may.
    1. He has a lot of folks gunning for him right now, including it seems most of MSNBC.
    2. He has given tons of speeches and taken tons of votes since the 1970's; not all of them have aged well.
    3. Like HRC, it is really hard for him to argue that he is going to bring change to Washington (always a popular theme) when he has been there forever.
    4. This is his third run for the White House IIRC. If he didn't have "it" before, has enough changed to make up for it?

    As Jason said, I think we'll know a bit more by next Friday.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I think the Biden stumble has begun. The segregationist senators thing is not a good look for him and will hurt him with AfAm voters. His people have really limited Biden's appearances thus far and kept him largely away from reporters.
    I think the Democrats have a sizeable chance of shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating candidates who are not "woke" enough. Without arguing the merits, look at the blowback Joe is getting on the left for his comment in relation to the pass AOC is getting from most of the left for what some may consider to be less defensible comments.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  17. #1197
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Fair point.

    If I had to pick a bet right now, I still think that Kamala Harris has a big upside that is not showing up in the polls yet. I see Warren winning out the most progressive wing of the party over Bernie (they seem to be fighting over the same 30%-35% or so), but Bernie staying in forever and basically diluting Warren all the way through. Someone has to hope that Biden stumbles, and that they can ride right through the center of the party. Which leads me back to Kamala.

    Trump looks to be 99.9999999999% sure of getting his nomination, and then I would guess around 35%-40% of getting reelected. Which is still pretty high, but not pick-'em against the field.
    I think your comment about Warren and Bernie is spot on. I think that if they both stay in, they prevent each other from winning. For the progressive wing, this basically means that they will lose. I think think there are quite a few that feel like Bernie had his shot, didn't win and brought Hillary down with him (with a little help from Russia). It's going to be interesting to see if anything changes after the first debates.

  18. #1198
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Trump looks to be 99.9999999999% sure of getting his nomination, and then I would guess around 35%-40% of getting reelected. Which is still pretty high, but not pick-'em against the field.
    Not to be too morbid nor partisan (the same applies to Biden, Sanders, and others), but the mortality rate for a 73 year old man, particularly an overweight 73 year old man, makes Trump much less of a sure thing than that - there is still a lot of time between now and the election and I would not be shocked if health becomes a meaningful issue for at least one major candidate. I could end up surprised and it also might end up being someone much younger.

  19. #1199
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    If I had to pick a bet right now, I still think that Kamala Harris has a big upside that is not showing up in the polls yet.

    I think the Democrats have a sizeable chance of shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating candidates who are not "woke" enough.
    Going to combine your comments from two separate posts and predict that Kamala gets the nomination. Purely from a horse race standpoint, she appears to me to be the best combination of tolerable by the progressive wing and mainstream enough in her views and history to win other voters (and third, enough name recognition to be at a good starting point/have the ability to win the general election).

  20. #1200
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    Not to be too morbid nor partisan (the same applies to Biden, Sanders, and others), but the mortality rate for a 73 year old man, particularly an overweight 73 year old man, makes Trump much less of a sure thing than that - there is still a lot of time between now and the election and I would not be shocked if health becomes a meaningful issue for at least one major candidate. I could end up surprised and it also might end up being someone much younger.
    Trump's dad lived to 94 FWIW. DJT's sister is 82 and only recently retired from the bench. But it's a fair point. He doesn't eat well, is overweight, and seems to have a lot of stress and anger. Flip side, he doesn't drink or smoke (although my doc says that teetotalers have a shorter life expectancy than those who have a glass of wine a night. So if that's the case, a whole bottle a night will add years to my life I reckon). He plays golf and was apparently a good athlete (at least, in sports where bone spurs do not impede play).
    Last edited by OldPhiKap; 06-20-2019 at 10:54 AM.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

Similar Threads

  1. 2020 Duke men's basketball recruiting
    By Duke95 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 674
    Last Post: Today, 12:36 PM
  2. One n dones and returning players. 2018-2020
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-18-2017, 10:03 AM
  3. Coming to the 2020 Olympics: 3-on-3 basketball!
    By JasonEvans in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2017, 11:44 AM
  4. Cutcliffe Extended Through 2020-21
    By BD80 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-01-2017, 04:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •