My wagers

This is a hybrid thread.

The thread(s) in which I made wagers concerning this year’s election were mostly GD, and are old enough that I’m not going to bump them back into life.

I would ask that if I now owe you money (or goods) you post a link here to the thread in which we made the bet. I had a separate list, but it has unfortunately suffered an accidental deletion. I know I owe Fear Itself $200 – should have arranged for that escrow, Fear!! You could have been rolling in the dough.

(Of course, $200 ain’t chicken feed either.) And if by chance I’m mis-remembering, please set me straight. And others that took my action – please remind me with a linky-link, and I’ll get you paid. If you’d like to e-mail me, it’s Bricker on the left of the “at” sign, and “cox.net” on the right.

And subject for debate – was I crazy to offer those wagers? I thought that Pelosi and Dean would not add anything to the Dem’s efforts, and I – generally – stand by that. I think the GOP did more to lose these seats than the Democrats did to win them.

If only there were a way to kick the Republicans out of office without putting Democrats into office. Vote for a third party? Go ahead, throw your vote away.

I voted for Kodos.

I thought you were crazy to offer those wagers only because you did it so far ahead of time and left yourself so little room for error. A hell of a lot can happen in a year or so, especially in politics. And especially in the sixth year of a two-term presidency.

Hear, hear!

What do you mean by especially in the sixth year of a two-term presidency? By and large, there is little change in the 6th year of a two-term presidency.

And Bricker, I believe we had agreed on $500 per seat. I’ll take a cashier’s check.

Of course I’m kidding. I still wouldn’t wager on elections.

And that’s why I love New York’s ability for people to run as more than one party. Wish more states had it.

I thought I’d remembered otherwise, but if I’m wrong, my mistake.

The wagers were still made wayyyyy ahead of time, especially relative to the amount of confidence Bricker appeared to have in his predictions.

I’ll try and track down a cite later, but I’m pretty sure that the president’s opposition party almost always picks up seats in the midterm elections of that president’s 2nd term.

YOu should nver bet for “your team”, IMO, whether that be sports or politics. You aren’t objective enough, no matter how much you wish to be.

It’s not that bad, as I recall, we never officially pressed the bet, so it’s only $100. I’ll email you with my PayPal details if that is OK with you.

I don’t care what anybody says, Bricker, you are an honorable guy.

Here’s the record from Talking Points Memo:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011008.php

1958: Eisenhower–Republicans lost 48 seats
1986: Reagan–Republicans lost 5 seats
1998: Clinton–Democrats gained 5 seats

Note that he leaves out the midterm elections after Nixon resigned, where the Republicans lost 48 seats.

Republicans keep saying that the opposition party always makes huge gains in the midterm of the second term, but it just isn’t so. It’s Republican spin, and it is very sad that it rarely goes unchallenged. (See also this Daily Kos review of the “conservative” new Democrats.)

So, the opposition party picks up seats most of the time-- 75% if we include Nixon. And if we include 1966, the Pubbies won 47 seats. Who are the Republicans that are trying to spin it to say that “huge gains” always happen in these types of elections? It’s probably more accurate to look at generic midterm elections, though, since there haven’t been that many 6th year elections.

Here’s what we have for the House since 1970:

1970: opposition picks up 12 seats
1974: opposition picks up 49 seats
1978: opposition picks up 15 seats
1982: opposition picks of 27 seats
1986: opposition picks up 5 seats
1990: opposition picks up 7 seats
1994: opposition picks up 54 seats
1998: opposition loses 5 seats
2002: oppostion loses 6 seats
2006: oppostion icks up 28 (tentative)

Looks like a clear indication that midterm elections are not good for the president’s party.

It’s good he’s paying up, but honoring one’s wagers hardly calls for kudos, nor does it indicate anything specially virtuous about the loser. It’s like not stealing or spitting on people – just part of normal civilized behavior.

Man, I knew I should’ve gotten a piece of that action! :wink:

But I’ve been enjoying Bricker’s posts for a while now (though we don’t agree on too much) so I would’ve felt bad taking his $. Yesterday’s results beat any payday.

Please send your details, but – I think we DID press to $200. We talked about a further press of $100 PER SEAT, but that never was settled. (A development for which I am now duly grateful :slight_smile: ).

How is betting on the SDMB remotely legal?

I proposed the $100 per seat, you declined without escrow, and countered with $200, which I don’t believe I ever accepted. C’est la vie.

Bricker can provide facts better than I can, but my understanding is that a bet between two individuals is not illegal; it’s nothing more than a contract based on a future outcome. If the SDMB took a cut, that would be another story.

Hmmm.

Well, I was all set to bleed $200, so tell you what – $100 to you, $100 to the charity of your choice.

Note: the DNC is NOT a charity!!! :slight_smile: