I meant bet against her winning the Democrat nomination, but without putting money on the 50 other Democrat candidates. I’m not about to bet against Trump.
Best coverage so far of last week’s Democrat debate is right here:
Those betting markets let you bet either way on a given candidate. You just take the other side of a bet by a Warren supporter.
Bloomberg looking like he’s going to join the field, promising $30M in ads, although his self funded campaign means we won’t see him in the debates.
…reflects his view that the field of Democratic contenders was not well positioned to win next year and that a candidate with his experience, political moderation and deep pockets would have a better chance of defeating President Trump in a general election.
Worth about $50B, he probably decided it was way cheaper to run than to chance letting Warren win and implement her wealth tax.
Senator Warren appears now to have “hit the wall” with her prospects and candidacy generally. This is a personal disappointment for me. I hope she is able somehow to regain her mojo.
Meanwhile, the rather late entry into the race of three very powerful candidates, Messrs. Bloomberg, Patrick, and Steyer, suggests to me these men do not find adequate the field as it existed back from when I opened this thread almost one year ago and through the first several debates. I found the following and lifted it from Real Clear Politics:
Former Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio have all apparently been approached by insiders or have otherwise considered jumping in.
One year ago I thought by now the field of Democrat candidates would be narrowing markedly. Like so much else, I certainly got that one wrong! So where are we headed now on the Democrat side? I honestly have no clue!
You can bet against her here: https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3633/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-presidential-nomination
Maximum $850. A week ago you could’ve bought NO for about 75 cents/share and now it’s worth 83 cents. 10% profit. PI takes 10% of your winnings and charges 5% to withdraw.
There is money to be made in this market, but I haven’t figured out the arbitrage opportunities. It may require a second account in a relative’s name.
Thank you for introducing me to my next time waster. Although I may lose money on it, it will still be more fun than lottery tickets, and has a heck-of-a-lot better odds.
Kamala Harris gave up.
The entry of Bloomberg into the race could be having an impact on the early contenders. I’ve heard Bloomberg has already spent more money on his campaign than all the other would-be nominees combined.
Bloomberg is so rich, Donald Trump is a pauper by comparison.
Bllomberg has probably donated philanthropically more than Trump’s entire net worth. Bloomberg has given $1.1 billion just to Johns Hopkins University. He’s given personally to charity about $5 billion. He also has a family foundation and corporate giving divisions that have given billions.
This Kamala dropout thing has really raised the hackles of some Democrats. Several points:
*Prior to suspending her campaign, Kamala had already qualified for the December Democrat debate
*With her nibs now out, only white people will be on that stage unless Booker somehow is able to qualify
*Bloomberg will NEVER qualify for any Democrat debate because he is not accepting campaign contributions
Christmas this year falls on a Wednesday. Less than one week prior, on Thursday, December 19th, the Democrats will debate in Los Angeles. So far only six active candidates have managed to qualify for that LA stage. They are:
Two more candidates are getting close. These candidates might, or might not, make it onto that stage:
You might be wondering about Cory Booker. Cory is not close right now to qualifying to be on that December stage. If Cory is unable to qualify it will be an all white (meaning no black or Hispanic contenders) candidate array up there. And that has many Democrats quite worked up.
So you see Kamala’s decision to suspend her campaign has implications beyond the obvious.
I have been mostly supportive on this thread of the DNC Chair, Tom Perez, for the past year. I found his debate rules fair. But now, especially with Mayor Bloomberg in the race, I have to question the rules. Assuming the Mayor’s massive ad campaign can get his poll numbers up, is it fair to exclude him because he is refusing contributions? I think not. Moreover, if Mayor Bloomberg’s polls rise significantly, do Democrat voters not deserve the right to hear from him in their debate process? I think they do.
And how can the party that champions aspirations of persons of color display an all-white December stage? I can understand such concerns among many Democrats today.
I’m surely nonplussed by the Drudge poll I’m seeing this morning for the first time.
Drudge is asking the same question asked right here in our thread title. But big difference: Drudge is offering just six choices. They are
That’s it!!! Those are the only choices. I don’t know for whom to vote. Drudge appears to believe those are the only candidates with a realistic shot. I dunno. He might be right, I guess.
Hillary did appear yesterday on the Howard Stern show. She coughed for three minutes, on air. Some are saying she will not enter the race until Biden drops out.
I find all this stuff quite confusing. A year ago I thought the Democrats had a very orderly process . . I mean . . it really was. The early debates were orderly and they made sense from a Democrat perspective.
Now there is so much turbulence in the process. What the hell is going on? Why is this happening?
Here is a link to an article about Hillary’s appearance yesterday on Stern:
If Hillary is going to enter the race she must act quickly. Ballot cutoff dates for a number of states are approaching rapidly. Or I suppose she could just skip all that and make her move at the convention.
Do you know the details of what happens if there’s no majority candidate after the primary? I thought the delagates could then vote for whoever they want, not their voters’ choice. They could just pick Hillary for example, even if she didn’t run.
I really don’t. There is talk this morning that the superdelegates will end up choosing the candidate. But you raise a good point, that’s for certain.
I think the Democrat convention next year will be must see TV.
Much like the electoral college, nominating convention delegates are not required to vote for anyone in particular. The selected delegates are ones who support their state’s primary winner, but they’re technically free to vote for whomever they see fit. I think they’ll typically stick through the first or second ballot, then (especially if their preferred candidate formally withdraws) it’s open season for recruiting votes. Including “write-in” nominees.
At least, that’s how it worked in The West Wing .
It’ll either be a glorious disaster to watch. Or, more likely, there will be a lot of back room deals made to subvert democracy and avoid a circus.
I thought perhaps that had changed for the non-super delegates in the reforms from last election, at least in the first round of the primary, but I’m not sure. Here are two summariesof the process, as well as a super detailed one if you really really care.
That’s just great … first it was the Cuban guy, and now the Stalinista. I hope that there is someone decent available when the primary finally rolls around.
In a CBS News interview yesterday, Mayor Mike Bloomberg spoke as follows:
BLOOMBERG: I looked at our national government getting worse, the way we’re behaving overseas and domestically, led by our president. I said back in 2016, “He is the wrong person for the job. He doesn’t have the temperament or the ethics or the intellect to do the job.” And I said, “We just can’t have another four years of this.”
And then I watched all the candidates. And I just thought to myself, "Donald Trump would eat 'em up."