Except what it took to make GA-06 competitive was a massive, unprecedented, influx of money. Which you cannot repeat everywhere. It was an enormous election money sinkhole for Democrats.
Dem party also put in $275K into SC election vs. $100K from Republican party. Again, can’t do that in every election.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that your average bet nearly quadruples your money. For that to even be possible, you must have a strong preference for betting on the underdog-- Is that correct? As well, of course, as having a very good sense for which underdogs are actually undervalued.
I must find myself wondering what your secret is. If there were a significant number of people making their bets on the same basis you are, there’d be no way you could find that many underdogs who are that favorable-- They’d all be arbitraged away.
I suppose that some share of those bets must be against overconfident amateurs, such as other posters here, rather than on open betting markets. But that still doesn’t account for it, because while overconfident amateurs are a consistent source of income for savvy gamblers, such amateurs are also less likely to offer the sort of long odds you’re getting.
Democrats have to snag a net gain of 24 seats to get a House majority after the midterms. At GA-6 race spending rates, that would be $1.2 billion in spending.
And they lost GA-6. We don’t know how much spending it would’ve required for them to win GA-6, but we know it was more than what they did spend.
Right. And they have to hold serve in their own blue seats as well. And then there’s the 33 Senate races and the governorships. Mayhaps we’re looking at a $3 billion campaigning tab for the midterms.
It’ll be ok. They’re enthused, haven’t you heard? They’ve got this.
Thanks Velocity. After reading your post I projectile vomited, with strained dry heaving, all over my computer screen, ceiling, walls, floor, cat, etc.
And how much would Republicans have to spend to hold onto those seats?
Whenever there’s a special election, or a few of them, they always draw in more money per seat from both sides, simply because there’s nowhere else to spend it at that time. Come general election time, nobody’s going to be spending 435 times as much as they spent on a single special.
Sad, but not a big surprise, from the district that elected Sessions.
I have to wonder, though, if the president has any coat tails whatsoever, for bad or for good. It occurs to me so far that he’s been so out there, he’s almost been like his own entity, and that his unpopularity may not either drag down or lift up Congressional Republicans (except maybe those who have directly supported him).
I haven’t followed this race closely but was a 30-year old documentary maker really the best candidate the Democrats had to offer ? Wasn’t there someone with greater local stature and experience available?
I don’t think Democrats need to be overly discouraged by this result and I think they still have a good chance of retaking the House next year but they do need to focus on selecting the best possible candidates in the 30-odd seats that will be competitive even if they have moderate-conservative positions on some issues. I also think they need a national policy message focused on economic issues targeted towards working class voters.
Well the commentary i saw earlier from some dems said he veered more to the right than Handel…but it highlights the schism, i might say in the democratic party now.
And i’m not sure Pelosi, et al are who the dems need to hang their hats on anymore.
I think Enten’s analysis is spot on. I think the fact that Ossoff lost by less than 5% is a pretty accurate indicator of where the country is at. I never really expected Handel or any Republican to lose that district, so that was never really a realistic goal. The real objectives in 2017 for Democrats is to wake progressives up, to shake out their apathy, start working on a real message that they can sell to a broad cross section of voters, and then go out and start selling it.
The obvious downside is that it’s still a loss. This might also make it a little harder for Republicans to turn against Trump in the short run because however unpopular he might be perceived to be, there’s really no hard evidence yet that he’s pushing away his most ardent supporters. And until that happens, I think the GOP will continue to defend him. I’m not sure that the GOP really won last night’s race, but Trump probably did.
On the bright side, though, Democrats know that the GOP is vulnerable in the House. The question is whether they can capitalize on that opportunity. They’ve blown these kinds of opportunities before, so we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. I agree with Bricker unfortunately that, at least for now, it’s difficult to put money on the Dems actually taking the House. The momentum is there but it’s a long shot at this point. But last night did prove that it’s certainly possible.
I would have been pleasantly surprised by a Democratic upset, but it wasn’t in the cards. Backward districts in backward states aren’t going to start voting Democratic overnight. When McConnellcare passes and the shit hits the fan, any district that isn’t blood red is going to be up for grabs and that gavel will be back in Nancy Pelosi’s hands where it belongs.
I think the Democrats need to be a little less whiny. I think they’ve got a lot of good activism from Millennials but not every Millennial is a barista or graphics designer. They need to go out and sell a message to the construction worker or the guy who owns his own 3 or 4-employee plumbing business, too. In fact I think Democrats would get a lot of mileage out of explaining how things like universal healthcare would help people go out and become self-employed contractors or how it would help them stay as employees of small companies they like rather than having to go work for some big business they hate just to keep their health insurance. But whenever they talk about these things they seem to always focus on the hard-luck people, which is why I think of them (as I’m sure a lot of others do) as a party of wimps. Americans don’t like the optics of supporting a wimp party.
That might be something you and I could say privately over a couple of beers and snicker about but it’s not a good idea to toss around that characterization. I hope the Democrats will see this result not in terms of winning and losing, but in terms of the opportunities. In fact, last night’s result proved that your characterization may be wrong: flyover country, white suburbia might not be as out of reach as everyone assumes. The sad part is it’s not white conservatives who are the only ones making those assumptions that these people are a waste of time; white liberals are also making those same assumptions. I think that’s a big reason why Clinton’s blue wall crumbled last November, though she alone is not to blame. The entire party has had this attitude for a long time. Gotta change this, I’m afraid.
You do understand that the GOP also spent unprecedented amounts, right? Neither side’s spending is sustainable. Besides which, SC shows it probably was the environment, not the money.
My open betting market winning record is more modest, to be sure. I win about 1.5 dollars for every dollar on PredictIt. But even that market contains people betting with their hopes and not their brains. Indeed, this thread is the child of the Gianforte wager on Predictit, where I publicly announced my prediction ahead of time, bought shares at .62 and added to it after the “body slam,” incident caused the price to drop to .50. When that market closed with a win, I started this thread with a buy on Handel at .42.
In more informal markets, with real-life acquaintances, it’s even more the case that people are willing to bet on what they wish would happen without as much regard for what WILL happen. And it’s in these markets where I tend to do very well.
Here on the SDMB I have a winning record too. Here, of course, many of the most confident talkers are those most piously opposed to gambling. And more annoyingly, the most confident offerers of SDMB predictions are utterly unfazed by their past poor records. The Harold Campings on this board don’t appear to be bothered in the least with the string of failed predictions that they trail in their wake, and continue to confidently assert future predictions. But as confident as they are, they won’t hear of wagering here, or even registering on PredictIt where they could make money by being right.
So if I offered you a conditional wager, saying that if the Senate AHCA passes, Pelosi becomes the Speaker in January 2019, would you accept? I’d give you 4:1 odds. Bet me $20 and you’ll win $80.
I would never bet on outcomes that I do not wish to occur. McConnellcare is so odious that I would not want to gain monetarily by its passage.
Oh, Bob, you big, perpetually overoptimistic softie. Don’t ever change. Except maybe to reconsider how you view red state voters.
People in “backwards” districts don’t vote right-wing because of some weird genetic quirk; they live in bubbles of mutually-reinforcing views just like everyone else. And bubbles can be very resistant to permeation by facts. There are already plenty of studies and articles indicating that even Republican voters severely disadvantaged by Republican policies will still pull the R lever the next time around.
Regrettably, AHCA will only really bite if there are suddenly a spate of healthcare horror stories clearly directly connected to it AND those voters actually hear about them (which, given their choice of media, is not a given).
Why, Mr. Bricker, whatever are you insinuating here?