Anyone want to bet?
I see a few people suggesting that the Dems could win the House next year. Any of you guys interested in a wager on the proposition?
Could is a far cry from will. You’d have to be looking at a massive landslide to make that kind of prediction this far out.
You really need to get some help for that…
I’m confused. It’s certainly possible, if very unlikely, that the Dems could win. It would certainly be better for the country, because the halfwits you vote for want to destroy the government.
But in what way do Republicans winning the House validate anything for you? It would simply mean that gerrymandered districts and the misinformation the GOP likes to sling worked.
It would have exactly zero reflection on which policies are correct or more reasonable or right for the country.
Before this whole shutdown thing, the question was coudl the Dems hang onto the Senate. Now it’s can they get the House … a REAL longshot. Things have changed drastically, but no guarantee they will stay that way with Big Liars and Big Money spewing crap as hard and fast as they can.
I’ll wait to see what Nate Silver says.
The shutdown isn’t, but a default might be.
So? The point of winning a bet is winning the bet.
I assumed that there was something other than a meaningless coin flip he was betting on.
That it’s just a coin flip makes it even sadder than I thought.
Consider a state that votes 70% yellow and there is one city that accounts for 30% of the population that votes orange. You chop that city into tiny little pieces and all of a sudden all your districts are pretty safely yellow.
I’d need odds to bet that the Dems will win 17 seats (although if the election were being held today, the odds wouldn’t have to be very large) but I’d be willing to bet that the dems pick up seats, even during an off year election like 2014.
Yes, but those districts would be even safer yellow if each one didn’t have a piece of the city in it.
Maybe the Powers That Be figure it’s worth it. Or demographics and election forecasting are sufficiently precise that you can do it with no real risk. Suppose you have a 60-40 district next to a 50-50 one. That twenty point margin is kinda going to waste; redraw the boundaries to shift some of your voters from the safe district into the other one. Maybe you only keep the first district by 55-45, but maybe a 10-point margin is considered a lock in this day and age.
When his famous logic fails…
No, I don’t. The moment I start talking about betting, the conversation loses some of the overtones of certainty and becomes (or returns to) reasonable statements about actual probabilities.
That’s almost as desirable an outcome as pocketing money.
My famous logic is in fine shape. The offer of a wager is used when members of the audience are impervious to logic.
Actually, that’s not true.
An audience truly impervious to logic would eagerly accept.
An audience willing to spout nonsense because they realize there are no true consequences to being wrong, however, is perfectly situated for this approach. Once there’s some kind of real-world consequence in play, outlandish predictions are often moderated with more careful disclaimers.
So Bricker - what can of odds are you laying? Generally when somebody says something “could, but probably won’t” happen, they’re willing to bet with odds. Myself, I’d put the odds of Dems winning the House at about 5-to-1 against.
ETA: I think it was more like 10-to-1 against before the shutdown.
Are we starting this again? I thought this had been hashed out already in another thread.
This is stupid. Willingness to wager or not has as much to do with one’s views on betting as it does one’s confidence in one’s position. I don’t happen to think the Democrats will take the House (although they may gain a seat or two) but even if I thought they were a shoo-in I wouldn’t bet simply because I don’t bet (the odd flutter on a lottery ticket or charity raffle notwithstanding). Your gambling proclivities add nothing to your argument.
The impact on the GOP depends on how much longer it takes for them to grow the fuck up, and how much more damage they cause in the meantime. The last time they pulled this shit, it took a month and cost them the House. Even with more gerrymandering this time, I’d still go with that as a most probable case.
Is there a single post in this thread that had overtones of certainty about the Democrats retaking the house? Or will you concede that your betting offer was unnecessary in this thread?
:mad: Bite your typing-fingers!
No, we are not. Bricker: I will put up with the endless wagering if people choose to play the game, but I will not allow it to hijack threads. That means you can’t taunt people. For instance:
That also goes for other posters griping about a wager or attacking Bricker because he’s raised the possibility.
Don’t insult other posters in this forum.