If bookies were so confident about their ability to predict winners they would quit their day job and become gamblers. The return on investment would be much higher than a 5% vig. And yet they don’t. I wonder why?
My response is still that bookies don’t predict winners. They predict at what point 50% will bet one way and 50% will bet the other. Of course they use information that all the gamblers have like if one team sucks or not. They look at what the conventional wisdom of the betting public is then adjust off of that. Other factors come into play such as popularity especially during big events. They predict what betters will do not the teams.
Repealing ACA would be very destructive — even if you think ACA was a bad idea overall (in part becuase of switchover snags and expenses), reversing it now would cause still greater expense. Actually repealing Obamacare would become such a boondoggle that many voters — even those not benefiting from the subsidies — would turn against the GOP.
The GOP knows this — repealing the ACA is much like reversing Roe-v-Wade: The right makes it a big selling point, not expecting it to happen, indeed not wanting it to happen. — if abortion were outlawed, the GOP would lose its big wedge issue (as well as getting huge resentment from those adversely affected). Repeal Obamacare is something the GOP has pushed with a Democratic President (to veto the repeal if necessary). Would they dare do this with a GOP President? Especially one as unpredictable as Trump?
How will Trump respond when reporters ask him about any Congressional reluctance to repeal ACA? The man has a reputation to preserve and might be faced with a dilemma. His bluster may have painted himself into a corner.
If he dawdles on one of the major issues he’s pushed — whether it be the stringent anti-immigration or whatever — "That h f** is just another liar! :mad: "*
If instead he plays the strong man he’s blustered, daring Congress to heed their mandate, no good will come. Either intra-GOP feuding will lead to a political impasse bad for American economy, prestige and even national security. Or, Trump could lead the GOP forth, conquering Obamacare and the Wall, with results that will be bad for the Republican Party and for America.
I’m not sure it would help if Trump got a brain transplant and suddenly became a wise man rather than a voluptuary. The bombast and bluster has already been committed; there may be no turning back.
Now, I’m thinking even a Cruz or Rubio Presidency would have been less dangerous than Trump. Sorry if my advice to Repub voters to vote Trump and gum up their nomination caused this mess.
What are some good anagrams of President Donald J. Trump? Should someone start a Thread Games thread?
The Washington Examiner today reported the following:
Cite (Contains link to the WaPo poll, which jumps through a lot of hoops to focus on sidebar aspects that suggest Trump isn’t really doing that well despite being ahead with registered voters.)
I’m telling you guys, I’ve followed Trump for decades, and more and more I have the sinking feeling he’s going to get himself elected. He’s hella smart, knows exactly what he’s doing and what he can get away with and how he’ll come out ahead despite (or perhaps because of) all his flip-flops, belligerent rhetoric and ambiguity on the issues. He knows things about the American electorate that nobody else knows (and most would think impossible if they weren’t seeing it with their own eyes) and how to use it to his advantage. Harry Reid himself has warned about the danger of underestimating Donald Trump and I’d suggest to anyone convinced he’ll never win the presidency that they keep this in mind.
And every misstep, gaffe, loss of allies to the Russian Federation, ‘accidental’ nuclear launches, food riots (and the air-cav massacres to put them down) will be blamed on Obama.
The second amendment will be repealed because of ‘oh shit, bullets’.
(Have YOU ever seen Trump at a Range? Me Neither.)
That said, no matter the cost, I’m sure that Lord Farquaad will make America a Perfect Place.
[Entering US now!
(Its The Best US Around)
here we have some rules,
lets lay them down,
don’t make waves,
stay in line,
and we’ll get along fine,
US is a perfect place!!!
keep your feet off the grass,
shine your shoes,
wipe your…face!!!
US is,
US is,
US is… a per-fect place!!!](Shrek - Welcome to Duloc - YouTube)
I don’t think even Trump knows what his presidency will be like. Right now, in order to win he’s just saying whatever he thinks will get a reaction from the audience he has at the moment–like a chameleon.
Once he wins, there will be an on-going conflict between his ego/chronic bullshitting and whoever ends up advising him. He’ll probably end up making a lot of decisions based purely on how it affects his image–but Bush did that too, to a certain degree.
Putting aside all my concerns over foreign policy and a domestic legislative agenda, what about all the other symbolic duties a President should perform? Imagine Trump trying to offer solace to bereaved parents after the next inevitable mass school shooting, or trying to comfort people after they’ve lost their homes and businesses in a natural disaster. Those people are LOSERS to him! The guy doesn’t have an empathetic bone in his body, or even the ability to fake it. He would be a complete embarrassment in so many ways.
Hillary 67.8%
Trump 27.6%
Sanders 2.4%
Biden 1.4%
Ryan 0.3%
Jeb! 0.1%
Other 0.4% (force sum to 100%)
Predictwise shows GOP 33%. Lance Turbo studies these things; maybe he’ll show up.
But Loach’s misapprehensions have nothing to do with the specific number I posted.
Yes, yes, yes. We’ve been in agreement about that all along.
(Include me among the Dopers with wide areas of ignorance, and only a few areas of actual expertise. For me, believe it or don’t, gambling theory fits in the latter.)
And by the way: “Bookies”, at least in the general sense, need not predict anything at all — Betfair linked above simply introduces buyers to sellers much as the NYSE or NASDAQ does. Pari-mutuel is another well-known approach that sets odds automatically (i.e. without any “bookie” prediction).
The disagreement is about your refusal to accept the claim that such sports-books can provide good probability estimation. If you ask nicely I’ll even track down some of the papers I mentioned — though if your Google-fu is any good at all you could probably find them faster than I.
Yes, exclusion of U.S. players would degrade the sports-book “information” somewhat — as would the effect I mentioned earlier. (Though I’d be curious how many U.S. persons are criminally using such sites without detection.) I’ll stipulate that such effects make the figures increasingly fuzzy. Will you stipulate to my underlying point?
Let’s suppose that you consider the correct number to be 18% instead of Betfair’s 28%. Ignoring commissions (relatively modest for Betfair frequent fliers), risking $1000 laying GOP will net you 13% and tie up your money for less than 6 months. Beats stock market returns!
“We’re looking at a lot of things in regards to Obamacare. You have to have some kind of healthcare for the workers - I love the workers in this country. It should be up to the states. We’re gonna talk about a lot of options, we’ll put a deal together. I’m the best at making deals.”
I think Trump will do good in business and trade negotiations and issues because thats what he does.
I think he will adjust easily to the confines of living in the White House and the intense security, as will his family, because he’s familiar with it. His wife, being foreign born and well traveled, will be a great first lady.
Being that the Trumps are already rich they wont desire book deals or be looking to make money giving speeches. Michelle Obama is looking at a reported $6 million book deal.
While many will hate him right now, let us not forget that Bill and Hillary were at the Trumps wedding as were other celebrities so Trump is used to these people and I think he can bring them back as supporters.
Sorry, no reneging on contracts or loans, and no declaring bankruptcy or committing fraud.
Interesting how Republicans can’t deal with porn other than to try to censor it, but they could put up with a woman who’s modeled nude as their First Lady. Strange bedfellows, indeed. Most peculiar, Mama.
I’m assuming that’s some kind of criticism of Michelle, not that it has anything to do with the price of tea in China. (Don’t worry, the implied criticism of the Clintons is assumed.)
Yeah, weddings have long been known to change people’s political orientations.
I am disgusted by the man at a visceral level, but it was recently pointed out to me that he did once save a family’s home from foreclosure after the owner committed suicide. I also realize that he has made lots of lives miserable because of his antics, so I am not trying to suggest that he is worth your admiration. But facts are facts.
…
I think that Trump is interested in the trappings of power, but not in the hard work of governance. So, I expect that he will be happy to make public appearances and do the symbolic stuff when he isn’t taking long vacations. But I imagine that he would leave the nuts and bolts of his administration to people he’s brought in, who he trusts to handle things. Since they would run the show, I would anticipate lots of corruption and graft, even if Trump is not involved (reminiscent of Harding’s buffoonery while his Secretary of Interior took bribes in the Teapot Dome scandal). I mean, if the Mexican Wall is built, can you imagine the field day that congress will have investigating the awarding of construction contracts?
This is laughable. As Johnny Ace pointed out, his business dealings are marked by lawsuits, bankruptcies, and questionable practices. And his success since the 1990s has been as a showman, not a shrewd businessman.
The problem with a Trump presidency us that it’d weaken the establishment. The powers that be can’t have that. Hillary Clinton is flawed but very safe and acceptable to the ruling class. She’ll say just enough PC sound bites to get elected, not that the left has any choice, and then continue pushing globalization, open borders, and free trade.
But assuming Trump does win? He could be a net positive but without any concrete specifics it’s impossible to know.
You do realize that that’s all Trump is doing, too, don’t you? He says carefully measured PC sound bites, just for a different crowd–designed to appeal to their particular PC point of view.
In fact, he doesn’t give a shit about the middle class (let alone the working class), and even if he did, he wouldn’t know how to help them. He just knows how to provoke a response, to get attention. He’s a pathological troll, exploiting a political vacuum.
Trump will be a tough negotiator on trade deals that shouldn’t be reached, work tirelessly on issues about immigration that won’t help, and spend his time excoriating a Congress (Dem or Rep) that works to prevent him from doing things that are stupid and/or counter-productive.
Trump and Putin are birds of a feather in terms of their rhetoric. Putin is better at power politics, but is coming from a much weaker position. Putin at least has foreign policy objectives, which puts him at an advantage, but Trump’s objective in any foreign policy dispute will be to cater to his political base. Which he might be able to do - JFK’s popularity went up after Bay of Pigs, IIRC.
It won’t be pretty. It won’t be the end of the world, but it won’t be pretty.
No doubt much of this is true. We don’t know. But we do know that the safe, approved pick of Clinton will hopefully dampen the far left into meaninglessness for at least a generation. Trump’s presidency would inspire those who think an outsider has a chance.
