The Election Betting Markets Fell Short. They're Still the Most Flexible Predictor.

People with money on the line try harder than pundits to be right, and they adjust quickly when they've made a mistake.

The Good: We have divided government. Since Democrats no longer control Congress, they can't bankrupt America quite so fast!

The Bad: Prediction markets, which I touted as the best guide to elections, didn't do so well. Yes, they correctly said Republicans would take the House, but they'd also predicted Republicans would take the Senate. Polls and statistical modelers like Nate Silver did a bit better this time. They also said Republicans would win both, but they gave them only a slight edge.

As I write this Wednesday morning, Republicans have (according to ElectionBettingOdds.com, the site Maxim Lott created that tracks election betting around the world) a 19 percent chance of winning the Senate.

Nineteen percent isn't zero; they could still win the Senate, but Republicans don't have the 60 to 70 percent chance that bettors gave them in recent weeks.

The Good: Bettors at least adjust their predictions quickly.

Tuesday night, while clods on CBS still said "Democrats and Republicans battle for control of the House," those of us who follow the betting already knew that Republicans would win the House.

Historically, bettors have a great track record. Across 730 candidate chances we've tracked, when something is expected to happen 70 percent of the time, it actually happens about 70 percent of the time.

That's because people with money on the line try harder than pundits to be right. They also adjust quickly when they see they've made a mistake.

At 8:23 p.m., with just 12 percent of the New Hampshire vote counted, bettors gave Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan more than a 90 percent chance of winning the Senate seat, up from 63 percent earlier in the day. You wouldn't have noticed that shift watching TV. The AP didn't call the race until 11:39 p.m.

Bettors also failed to predict President Donald Trump's win in 2016. But they at least gave him a 20 percent chance, much higher than most "expert" statistical modelers, like the Princeton Election Consortium, which gave him an absurd 0.01 percent chance.

Big picture: Betting odds remain the single best and fastest-updating predictor.

The Good: Tuesday night, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' odds of becoming the Republican presidential nominee jumped from 16 percent to 27 percent, while Donald Trump's odds fell to 18 percent. That's probably because of DeSantis' nearly 20-point blowout win in a swing state. I put this in the "good" category because, watching Trump on TV Tuesday night, I'm reminded that he's an ignorant bully who only cares about himself. His mere presence on the public stage hurts America by creating more division and hate. His election "denier" candidates like Doug Mastriano, Doug Bolduc, Tudor Dixon, and John Gibbs all lost.

Also, if DeSantis is nominated in 2024, bettors give him a 74 percent chance of winning, whereas they give Trump just a 47 percent chance.

The Good: If Vice President Kamala Harris is nominated, bettors give her just a 36 percent chance of becoming president.

The Ugly: Long-term incumbents won again: Sens. Patty Murray (D–Wash.), Mike Crapo (R–Idaho), and Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.), who have spent 29 years in Congress; Sens. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) and Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) won, too (42 years).

The Good: Iowa passed an amendment protecting gun rights. Three states passed measures protecting reproductive freedom. Anti-abortion measures in two states lost. Maryland and Missouri legalized recreational weed.

Maybe Good: Ranked choice voting leads in Nevada.

The Bad: Recreational weed lost in Arkansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Sports gambling lost in California. California also banned e-cigarettes, which will create a new criminal black market and kill more cigarette smokers.

The Ugly: Schumer will probably be Senate Majority Leader again.

The Ugly: The Wall Street Journal reports: "Europe Doubles Down on Big Government" with "politicians adding hundreds of thousands of public-sector jobs, guaranteeing business loans."

Won't voters ever ask government to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE?

It's so sad. All around the world, we don't learn.

By the way, ElectionBettingOdds.com also tracks football odds. The Buffalo Bills, despite losing last Sunday, still lead the Super Bowl pack. The Eagles, Chiefs follow; 49ers, Ravens and Cowboys follow.

COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

Comments

[Don't look at me!]

Difficult to see, always in motion, the future is.

[Super Scary]

Only politicians deal in absolutes.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

This is not the electoral outcome you are looking for.

[Dillinger]

Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who votes for him?

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Chicago, Illinois…
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
We must be cautious.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Chewbacca is heading to a runoff in Alaska.

[evacasa]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply (ins-02) by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.

Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com

[DanaFowler]

Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

HERE====)> ???.????????.???

[ElvisIsReal]

Betting markets are still trying to factor in the cheating.

[VickyDPinson]

Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
🙂 GOOD LUCK.:)
More here>→→→→→ ­­­­­­­­­ https://www.pay.hiring9.com

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2]

Also, if DeSantis is nominated in 2024, bettors give him a 74 percent chance of winning, whereas they give Trump just a 47 percent chance.

The meme is building fast - GOP bigshits are pointing fingers at Fatass Donnie and blaming him for the GOP's bad performance.

And now Fatass is threatening to announce his 2024 run within the week to get preemptive.

And the GOP thinks it will hurt their retarded child in the Senate runoff.

Oh, so delicious.

I love party breakdowns.

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

Me, earlier: "You often do that thing white Democrats do where you're especially vicious to racial minority Republicans."

You, earlier: "That's not true."

You, now: "Walker is a retarded child."

And don't even pretend "retarded child" isn't far more insulting than "fatass."

As for the first point about DeSantis being a stronger 2024 bet than Trump, I've been saying that ever since I dropped character. 74% seems high though.

[JenniferTaylor9]

I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..

HERE====)> ???.????????????.???

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

"GOP bigshits are pointing fingers at Fatass Donnie"

No, pedo, this article is about bettors, not bigshits. You are as ignorant about reading this article as in everything else you do, including thinking people will ever forgive and forget your kiddie porn.

A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

I love it when child molesters are viciously tortured to death. Any chance you could be a lamb and help us out with that? You’re very torturable.

[NJ2AZ]

the not necessarily a conspiracy theory is that assuming Walker is the difference between 49 and 50, the establishment GOP is going to sell him up the river to try to further bury Trump.

[soldiermedic76]

That doesn't appear to be the case though. The Republican committee announced big investment in the runoff this afternoon. They're not going to repeat 2020. They aren't giving up on achieving a majority in both houses, even a slim one. We'll see if it enough but I am slightly hopeful. They need to overcome the disappointment and convince Georgia conservatives that it's important to get the majority even if Walker isn't the most desirable candidate. Maybe the Republicans can't pass anything that Biden will sign but it gives them control to stop any change to the number of justices or the filibuster, gives them control of the committees, more say in appointments. All of these are worth it. Like I said, for these things alone, party matters. Yes, Murkowski and Collins are not people I would vote for, but as long as they caucus with Republicans they're better than the alternative for these reasons alone.

[soldiermedic76]

I'm hoping Murkowski loses Alaska. Fingers crossed. Either way it's going Republican, but the question is how the second choice of the lower two candidates shake out. The lowest is a registered Republican, and Tshabika is closest to 50%. So I'm hopeful.

[Chas Rieu]

They aren’t giving up on achieving a majority in both houses

McConnell literally refused to provide party funds for anyone he didn't hand pick. Seriously dude, pack it the fuck in. You were above your IQ level as a fucking fry cook at Fort Retard. You have nothing to contribute to any discussion that doesn't involve sucking the nearest officer's cock and agitating for nuclear war with Russia. Nothing you say is even accidentally related to reality. Just cash your VA disability check, enjoy your free Starbucks with your military discount, and shut. the. fuck. up.

[Inquisitive Squirrel]

You are such a remarkable piece of shit.

It’s amazing to me how you leftists have absolutely no integrity, pride, or self respect. You show yourself to be lesser a human than someone like Trump, which is an impressive feat. You epitomize all that is wrong with humanity. And you strangely revel in it because intelligence and rationality have long since left your world, if they were ever there.

[Chas Rieu]

Hey shreek, remember how you got your original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography at Reason.com?

[Iwanna Newname]

Baby killing is reproductive freedom?

[Vernon Depner]

Killing babies remains illegal everywhere.

[JesseAz]

Ahh. The magic birth canal fairy theory.

[Vernon Depner]

Ahh. The publicly owned uterus theory.

[DesigNate]

More like fetal occupant owned uterus?

[perlmonger]

My personal philosophical line is the rather less magical "can be taken care of by any semicomptent preadolescent or older human" versus "is explicitly tied via umbilical cord and placenta to the bloodstream of a specific individual".

Also, I think that we should actively encourage the sort of women who are willing to kill their children to do so, rather than being forced to bear them and thence raise them in their own image.

[Nardz]

"Also, I think that we should actively encourage the sort of women who are willing to kill their children to do so, rather than being forced to bear them and thence raise them in their own image."

This is ultimately the most important factor to me.

[JesseAz]

The umbilical cord provides food from the mother. If the mother of a 5 day old fetus has the baby at home and doesn't feed it, it will die. She is still in charge of feeding it. So the cord as a standard doesn't make sense. The mother is still responsible in both cases unless the child is given away.

Likewise a child can survive outside of the womb before even 7 months. So it is capable of living.

The only scientific line is when there are two genetically different people where rights have to be balanced, and that happens at conceptions.

I'm willing to conced true viability, but 4 months is more than enough time to decide.

[Dillinger]

dead babies definitely lack reproductive freedom

[Nardz]

Not Montana

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather/status/1590643125479174145?t=D1rvE_N8uG_c3P1AI5m9DQ&s=19

The ppl of Montana voted to let infants die. Don’t @ me about your democracy!

[Link]

[soldiermedic76]

So, what do you propose when people don't vote the way you like? Come on let's hear it. Don't blame others, tell us what you will do.

[soldiermedic76]

I'm betting he doesn't. He'll try and turn it on me. Like he does down below. Note he never says how you will fix anything. Just attacks anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%. No solutions just blame.

[Nardz]

Stop crying. You are such a damn child. I just reposted a fucking LIBERTARIAN'S tweet, and after years of me formatting reports the exact same way, and explicitly explaining many times that the text following a link is copied straight from within the link unless contained within [brackets], you still can't figure it out because you're always up in your feelz. It's not that fucking complicated.
Like sarcasmic, though to a lesser extent, you take everything personally and invest way too much into "relationships" here. It's an anonymous message board, dude. It's not that important. People type shit, people read shit, and everybody goes about their lives.
If you make intelligent, true arguments, it doesn't matter if you get any updoots or validation.
Say your piece. If it has value, it has mass, and it will hit anybody who reads it whether they like it or not. Stop acting like a teen girl.

As for the tweet I reposted: take it up with Sal the Agorist. I don't give a shit about abortion. I have opinions on it, but I don't really care one way or the other. I'm fairly disgusted by what Montanans voted for here, but it is what it is.
You ask for a plan? I'll be honest here, I do have a "plan" regarding voting... but I'm going to tell you: no. Not going to give you a plan. Take that however you want. Maybe Susan Collins can help you figure it out.

[Chas Rieu]

LUB IT OR LEEB IT! Right "thank me for my service"? Want to have another 400 post discussion about how we need a new Saint Reagan to blow up the federal budget, capitulate to Democrats on entitlements, amnesty millions of illegal aliens, start multiple foreign wars, illegally coup several South American governments using money from illegal arms sales to Iran and strongarm states to raise the drinking age by withholding federal highway funding, you stupid fucking clown?

[ElvisIsReal]

Was about to mention Montana.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

I used to grow dental floss there.

[Dillinger]

raisin' it up, waxen it down

[soldiermedic76]

It surprised me but it looks at least some as if the initiative, like a lot, was poorly written. And it wasn't sold by it's proponents. I live in Montana and didn't even know about the initiative until I voted. But from what I read afterwards the opponents did a lot of campaigning in the major media areas of Missoula, Bozeman, Great Falls, Helena and Billings. In Eastern Montana, the most conservative area of the state, our media comes mainly from western North Dakota and little to no funding was spent on it in this market. I heard a lot about no on North Dakota ballot 2, but nothing about Montana ballot initiatives (as opposed to previous elections). Part of the problem I think is that many conservatives assume these policies sell themselves. Combined with some poor wording, a natural suspicion in Montana voters towards government mandates, and poor campaigning by proponents, I don't think the outcome was a rejection of the concept but due to bad persuasion. I'm not sure how you write exceptions without making them to loose (i.e. palliative care for infants born with uncorrectable conditions incompatible with life) and still protect infants born alive.

Maybe if the law says that physicians have a duty to provide care to an infant born alive that provides comfort and is appropriate to their condition in regards to mortality and morbidity, regardless if how they were delivered. The initiative instead required doctors to do everything possible to keep them alive.

This sounds appropriate but isn't as much as it sounds. I remember an infant we delivered that we ended up coding, losing pulse multiple times. We transferred to a NICU, but all indications was that the infant was brain dead and would never come off the ventilator. The mother, who also had complications, was transferred when she was stable enough to transfer (later) and they (the parents) made the decision to withdraw care. The way the ballot initiative was written (or at least how the description on the ballot, which actually quotes the initiative and how it changed the law) it made it questionable if the medical professionals would be protected or prosecuted in this case. And the opponents appear to have stressed this (even ENB parroted this argument yesterday). Possibly a clearer wording would, plus better campaigning, would have resulted in a different outcome.

I think Reason is reading to much into this and other abortion outcomes this year. I do think it's worth looking at conservatives messaging post Dobbs, but I don't see this as a full embrace of abortion without restriction. Nor that people voted to let people allow babies to die without medical care, but rather that voters feel care should be appropriate to the medical situation not the social issues. Plus, by mentioning specifically abortion, you lost the majority of progressives in the larger urban, college towns. So you started out with a built in no vote of 35-40%. The problem is too often organizers and consultants tend to over interpret the result. It would be worth attempting to reword it to address concerns regarding medical quality of life considerations, specifically issues of incompatibility with long term survival. But it's difficult to word it correctly without creating to much leeway.

Another thought is that it isn't that big an issue in Montana, there are only five abortion clinics in the whole state and around 1600 abortions max per year. Abortion is not really a major thing on the reservations (culturally, it's frowned on, Amerindians tend to be majority Catholic, followed by evangelical Christian, plus the tribes pay more benefits for each child born). Almost all the abortion clinics are in the larger metropolitan areas. And most struggle to stay open because of lack of business.

[soldiermedic76]

Thus abortion tends to be mainly white, and often affluent whites in Montana.

[perlmonger]

Abortion laws all being apparently proposed by people who haven't even the slightest fucking clue about medicine doesn't help anything either.

[Nardz]

Makes sense, and I figured there was more to it than the simple text in the screenshot.
But damn, that wording is pretty clear. Voting "no" is a really bad look, and in the same vein as the type of political tricks the Ds pull all the time - you voted to allow doctors to kill living, breathing babies in their cribs!". Only problem is it was a referendum, not a legislature vote so you can't really hang it around anybody's neck.

[Chas Rieu]

Hey congrats! You made it 5 paragraphs with only a dozen typos and grammatical errors. Good to see you're still LARPing as an APRN though.

[CE]

Except in California, where the state can now pass no laws against ending a pregnancy at any time.

[Chas Rieu]

Except Virginia. And New York. Where infanticide is legal and was practiced widely long before that anyway. But you knew that.

[Libertariantranslator]

George Wallace whack job malcontent detected. Ready photon torpedos... MUTED! (high-fives all around...)

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Go drunk, Hank, you're home.

[IceTrey]

You have to be born to be a baby.

[Chas Rieu]

The party of science that thinks C-sections result in a non-human zombie.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

If betting markets were always right, they wouldn't be betting markets. They'd be called something else.

[IceTrey]

Winning markets?

[Eeyore]

Odds on Fetterman becoming filthy rich in office?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

MSNBC floated a possible presidential nomination by The Party.

[Eeyore]

For the DNC machinery he is the perfect candidate.

[Dillinger]

how can you not vote for the disabled? jerk.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

He's more coherent than the current occupant.

[IceTrey]

He's already rich. Well his parents are.

[CE]

pretty low, he'll be replaced by Easter

[Eeyore]

I think they tend to fail, because people still tend to bet on who they want to win. Betters are inherently driven by emotion.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No, bettors are inherently driven by the idea of making money. Maybe you bet on which horse winked at you, but most people try to win.

[Eeyore]

Doesn't every side irrationally think they will win?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Bettors have real money at stake. It tends to focus their greed.

[mtrueman]

"Bettors have real money at stake."

Yet it's the house that comes out ahead, and the suckers lose their real money.

[Chas Rieu]

And yet every bet has a fucking loser you retarded clown.

[JesseAz]

I bet by the mascot or uniform color. If it works for the admin woman who wins March madness every year...

[SRG]

I think it depends on the market – that when it comes to sports most betters are betting on emotion, but prediction markets tend to attract more analytical traders.

[Chas Rieu]

The Oracle of Dogdick has spoken!

Hey shreek, remember how you got banned from Reason.com for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography?

[SRG]

Fuck off, I'm not shrike you ignorant peasant.

[CE]

Some people are, but then other people pile even more money on the better bet.

[Nardz]

Last weekend, UGA played Tennessee. #1 vs #1 (different polls).
Tennessee hasn't been good since winning national championships 20 years ago, but they're back this year. Exciting, high scoring team with a Heisman candidate QB. Beat Alabama (basically college football's Darth Vader for the past decade) in a thrilling game.
UGA, on the other hand, is kinda boring. Dominant defense, but has had a few games they didn't look great in against very inferior opponents. Defending national champs, but had 15 players (a record) drafted from that team and their QB is in his mid 20s and nicknamed "the mailman" because he delivers... and looks like a mailman (as opposed to a stud college athlete). They're also not the established year after year juggernaut that Alabama is (they are, but public perception hasn't quite caught up yet).

Anyhow, tl;dr- big time college football game last saturday, undefeated Tennessee at undefeated UGA.
UGA was a 9 or 10 point favorite, somewhere around there. That's a rather large spread for a match up between two top ranked teams.
All week, something like 90% of the public betting money was on Tennessee. Usually, that kind of lopsided action moves the line quite a bit.
In this case, it only budged half a point. Almost no movement. We see NFL games move 3 or 4 points (5-8 for college) throughout a week if one side is getting heavy action. Should be a BIG red flag for anyone considering a wager for Tennessee. The sharps (professional sports betting compacts, whose records are tracked by the books) weren't as unanimous or enthusiastic as the public was on Tennessee.
It's a good example of the difference between casual/emotional bettors and professionals/sharps. When the line didn't move, public money should've swung a bit toward UGA and become less lopsided by the end of the week. That lack of movement indicated that the pros were more balanced between the two teams, or even favored UGA. But by gametime, the vast majority (80-90%) of public money was still on Tennessee.
UGA won by 14.

[Libertariantranslator]

Betters with pockets stuffed with televangelism tithes have more money to bet on their emotions than people who earn money. Why not compare bets against outcomes where gambling is legal, like Ireland's referendum to overturn its Romanian girl-bullying Amendment?

[Libertariantranslator]

The social pressure effect measured by the Asch experiment is hard to evade--except by independent voters.

[mtrueman]

To hell with accurate outcome predictors. It's flexible outcome predictors what bring home the bacons.

[Dillinger]

>>The Bad: Prediction markets

you're saying the Moneymen aren't in on the fortification?

[DavidS-T]

"It's referendum day in Britain and, while the final polls indicate a tight contest, bettors are backing a vote to stay in the European Union. Remain is 1.13 (an 88% chance) and Leave is 8.0 (12%). " https://betting.betfair.com/politics/brexit/eu-referendum-betting-latest-polling-and-odds-june-23-2016-230616-204.html

[CE]

So who turned out to be right? Has Britain really left yet?

[IceTrey]

The bettors had Hillary at a 75% chance of winning until about 7pm election day. LOL.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

They thought the election had been more fortified than it had been.

[Nardz]

^

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

As delicious as it was watching Hillary get humiliated, isn't that a defensible analysis?

In a 2-person contest when you're giving the favorite a 75% chance of winning, you're not completely ruling out the underdog. You're just saying things need to line up in a certain way for the underdog to win. And that's what happened in 2016, where Trump won the Electoral College by carrying key swing states with margins in the tens of thousands of votes.

[SRG]

And that might well have been true, this being the nature of probabilistic forecasts. If I say that the chance of a fair die landing on anything other than 6 is 5/6ths, just because it lands on a 6 doesn’t mean I was wrong.

The only way you can conclude that someone’s estimate of probabilities is wrong is if after a long series of predictions based on those probabilities, the predictions didn’t stack up with the probabilities. For example, if he predicts for 20 pols that they all have an 80% chance of winning and only 10 win, that suggests his predictions are unreliable.

[IceTrey]

It wasn't one guy it was the British betting line. Thousands of people bet real money that Hillary was going to win.

[SRG]

And of those, a certain number - professionals - bet not because they thought Hillary was going to win, but because the odds offered made it a good bet.

And the pros don't expect to predict correctly every time, because they're not betting on an absolute outcome but on probability of outcome compared to the implied probability of the offered odds.

[Chas Rieu]

Holy fuck would I love to play poker against you shreek.

[SRG]

Fuck off, peasant.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/GraduatedBen/status/1590744548350709763?t=RHgbi4EU07N-S0OYj9Sepw&s=19

Mitch McConnell’s Senate Leadership Fund spent $9 million in Alaska against Republican nominee Kelly Tshibaka, but only $100k in Arizona against Democrat incumbent Mark Kelly.

[JasonAZ]

But its totally Trumps fault for pushing bad candidates.

[Chas Rieu]

"Thank me for my service" was just telling us how the Republicans are fighting to the death for every seat in the house and senate. That's mostly because "thank me for my service" is a high school dropout sub-average nearly illiterate fucking retard who had no prospects in life except to go become a doorknob polisher at Fort Retard.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1590802930491195392?t=c9yoafWrPswIfooBa5eQog&s=19

UPDATE: 50k ballots left in Clark County, Nevada and it will take 3 days to count them

Florida was able to count 8 million ballots before midnight on Tuesday

[ElvisIsReal]

No WIDESPREAD fraud!

[InsaneTrollLogic]

JFC, how much fortification do they need!?!

[DesigNate]

Couple hundred thousand. Pray they do not alter it further.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Next time, don't forget about the 14 point spread.

[soldiermedic76]

To expand and clarify my thoughts from yesterday I am posting this. When I ask for moderation, it's not necessarily policies I want moderation in but in messaging. The Democrats and their sycophantic media apparatus have the messaging down pat. What do most Americans want? Stability. Stability leads to economic growth and a higher standard of living. Americans are pissed, they feel the government and their daily lives are no longer stable. The Republicans failed to deliver a message about how their policies will lead to stability. Focusing on fighting is important but it's how you say it. Crying the elections were stolen or rules favor Democrats aren't winners when that is all the message. Instead, coalesce around how we still don't know the winners in a number of critical races. Point out how, Florida a generation ago was one of the worst ran elections,but now is one of the best and fastest. Georgia, Ohio, Texas also delivered. Contrast to Arizona, California, Washington and Oregon. Then highlight the differences. This will resonate with moderate voters who desire stability. Stability creates trust. Instability and chaos creates distrust.

On Dobbs, a message of pragmatic, well defined policies are key. On the economy, a message of work, fighting to make people prosperous through their own initiative, unhindered by government is key. Focusing on hearings is good for the base, but the defeat of January 6th committee members across the country this year shows it's not what people focus on. Hold hearings but don't make them central to your messaging. The legislature should assert oversight, but make the hearings about specific problem and how do we fix them. You can still expose corruption this way, but the message needs not to be about getting anyone, but about bringing stability. Polls show time and time again that people know the government is broken and chaotic and often corrupt. We don't need to litigate that, instead focus on identifying what needs to be fixed and how do we fix it. Entitlements, rather than stating you're going to reform or drastically change social security, make the message that it's broke and you're going to fix it. Yes, to libertarians and small government conservatives the ideal would be to eliminate it entirely, but be pragmatic, move the needle in the right direction. Emphasize solvency for the program for all who paid into it (one of the largest detriments to elimination is we've all paid most of our adult lives and often starting as teenagers into the system and we rightly expect to get that back, as that's what they promised). We've, in my generation, have long suspected we won't get it back, but many rightly believe that it should be.

On candidates, Obama was voted in because he promised stability (yes, hope and change was a message of stability). Iraq, Afghanistan and the recession was instability. In all three cases, to different extents, the chaos was related to the government. Obama failed to deliver,instead focusing on a divisive healthcare reform and mediocre, government driven recovery. The Tea Party emerged, and 2010 occurred, but instead of focusing oversight on identifying problems and fixing them, hearings turned into gotcha sessions that created more chaos. This played right into the hands of Democrats, and the media, by allowing them to frame Republicans as forces of chaos. Result, Obama was reelected.

In 2016, both parties nominated divisive, combative, nominees. Republicans and conservatives (not always the same) rejoiced to finally have a nominee that called out and fought back against the establishment. This was a mixed blessing. It got Trump elected but failed to deliver stability. The result is Trump's accomplishments were limited and too easily overturned. Add in COVID and the BLM/Antifa movement, and it led to a greater feeling of chaos. Thus, 2020.

Now what happened Tuesday? The Republicans failed to deliver how they will be better able to stem this chaos. When I say it's Trump's fault, it isn't necessarily his policies or even his personal actions but the fact that to many Americans Trump equals chaos. Yes, creative destruction and chaos can build stronger systems, but that's a hard message to make, especially as the media is largely hostile.

So, as the Republicans take the house and possibly the Senate, and they hold hearings, focus not on getting Biden but on what is broken and fixing it. Take the CDC, we all basically agree here that Fauci deserves punishment, but vengeance, while sweet should not be the end all goal. Make the hearings about how the government failed in COVID, what didn't work and why, and how do we move forward. This doesn't mean letting Fauci off the hook or granting amnesty like some will claim. It's about how you question them. Don't get combative first. Ask open ended questions without posturing. Take masks for example. Ask "Could you explain why your messaging on masks changed and why it was so different than previous policies and research?" On school closures ask why the CDC messaging was so different from Europe and the WHO, and why, even after research showed that schools were not a major vector why did the CDC not change? And what role did outside forces play into this. And then when he spins, ask him to square that with internal emails etc. Don't get combative, until he does. And when you get combative do it by being forceful and direct not by grandstanding or calling him a liar. Use your questioning to expose the problems and highlight your solutions. Expose that it was unelected bureaucrats who were unanswerable to the people but beholden to the establishment that created the chaos which they utilized to establish more power. And then offer a correction. Ask why, Georgia and Florida were successful but ignored the CDC, why Sweden and Denmark were successful while largely, especially in the former, avoiding the policies pushed by the CDC.

On elections, it's the same thing. The fact that it could take a month to know who won in Arizona is a major scandal. The base understands this, but the key is to highlight why this is happening, contrasting it with systems that work, but not making it solely about red states. That just makes it sounds partisan. Point out that France can count in a single day, that Brazil even can. And then show what is different in those areas and in states that are well ran vs the states with perennial problems.

Candidates and campaigns. I listened to Vance's victory speech. He stated he was going to fight, but what was he going to fight for? The workers, the state, for economic growth and to end chaos in DC. It was a message of stability. He identified the agents of chaos, DC, and what he is fighting for, stability and growth. People don't need to be convinced it's broken, the polls show it. What they want to be convinced is how are you going to fix it and bring stability? Rather fair or not, and yes much of it was unfair and biased, Trump represents chaos. His message tends to focus on fighting the establishment. That's needed, but people need to be convinced that the fight will result in stability. Rather you agree with Trump or don't, he wasn't able to successfully do this. He deserves credit for highlighting the importance of Republicans fighting back, and exposed the problem. Now, we need leadership that delivers a message of fixing the problems and delivering stability (stability doesn't equal status quo because the status quo is why we have the chaos). This is why I'm bullish on young successful governors, and especially De Santis, because he's delivered despite the media and Democrats attacks. His state and Texas are the fastest growing, businesses and middle class are fleeing blue states for these states, Georgia and Ohio also are growing. Gen X is now the most Republican voting block and we are fleeing blue urban areas and blue states for redder suburbs and red states, and they're voting that way as we saw Tuesday. It used to be this egress turned states purple and then blue but now these areas are becoming redder. It's because these areas offer a more fertile avenue for growth. The message should be why this is. It's because too much government creates opportunities for chaos and stifled growth.

Finally, Republicans need to do the work, even if Biden vetoes it. Use hearings to shape legislation to fix the problems identified. Hold oversight to question the Dept of Ed on why we spend so much per student, but educational ability is decreasing. Then form school choice legislation, force votes on it and if passed, (it's appropriation so reconciliation is on the table) force Biden to veto it. But make it about improving education by returning power to the local level, the parental level and rewarding systems that work while forcing systems that don't work to reform (or die but don't say this part out loud, and when accused, restate the goal is not destruction but reform). When confronted about "poor teachers" respond by saying, teachers aren't paid more, despite all the money we spend because administrative bloat. This works for higher education as well.

On tech companies and media, focus hearings not on controlling them, but how the government has used it's power to control them. And how this has created more divisiveness and lack of trust. Don't focus on the bias, people are aware of that. Don't make it about making them more fair for a partisan view, but how the relationship and control of the government has allowed the government to achieve censotship via a back door. Then offer bills to correct this. A federal law like the tech privacy law just passed in Montana. A law (I know the Constitution should be adequate) but specifically saying the government can't ask to censor information or use it's power in any means to influence editorial and curation decisions. As for the DoJ, I think here you do need to expose the bias, and the very Constitutional questionable procedures, because they are so blatant. Don't argue if crimes were committed on January 6th but why were people not even in DC arrested, why have they been held without bail when they're charged with non-violent crimes, why have their access to lawyers been curtailed, why are they on solitary confinement etc. Then show how this is largely the result of terrorism laws aimed at foreign terrorists directed against our own citizens. Then reform the Patriot act (you can gut it while reforming it).

Fight but fight smart. Make it a fight for stability over government created divisiveness and chaos.

[soldiermedic76]

This also works for the debt and budget. Stress that debt and unbalanced budget (or no budget) leads to chaos via continuing resolutions, debt ceiling hikes, and the constant threat of government shutdowns. Stress that the tax code creates chaos with it's complication. That government waste makes programs less stable and require higher taxes to maintain even a semblance of efficiency. Stress how crony capitalism through targeted taxes creates winners and losers and instability. That if these tax breaks are needed for growth, then they should apply to everyone, not the ones Washington favors.

Show how overregulation doesn't make nuclear power safer, but does make us more reliant on fossil fuels. And that solar and wind won't be enough to offset this. Highlight also how regulations stymie upgrading the grid and even constructing solar and wind plants where they make sense.

[soldiermedic76]

Highlight how regulations stymie domestic production of key materials, making us dependent on foreign suppliers that use slave labor and have far worse environmental policies. Show that domestic production is greenwr. Use their messaging to a degree.

[Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force]

Their media is the problem. We need to take away more of their toys.

[SRG]

1st Amendment.

There are few barriers to entry thanks to the internet. Set up your own media.

[soldiermedic76]

Nice solution except government and crony capitalism have made this extremely difficult. Did you miss Biden saying the government needs to investigate Musk acquiring Twitter as a possible "national security threat"? The problem isn't necessarily the media but that government has created monopolies that are easier to control through the threat of force. And this goes beyond just broadcasting rules. The SEC has been used to punish investing in alternatives the government seems undesirable. They've also, with their ESG/DIE declaration rules are shaping how investing can be conducted. You can label this fair but the impact is that it pushes a narrative that grants more power to the government at the expense of personal liberty and innovation. And don't expect the progressives to correct this. Their answer is more control by the government which creates this system in the first place.

And the answer isn't more regulations like fairness doctrine but deregulation, less power to central authority. The fact is that the depression wasn't due to to little regulations but due to government policies that pushed investing towards less reliable investing. The same in 2008. The same with today's economy. The answer isn't more government to fix government created problems, but less government, eliminating the systems that created the problems in the first place.

The problem is progressives, and left leaners, is that they think government creates stability and fairness. But history shows government creates chaos, instability, inequality. The more centralized the government, the slower the growth, the less freedom, the less stable the economy, the less fair and less competitive the market. Contrast growth between England and France and Spain during the 17-19th century. England had a far less centralized government than pre-revolution France and Spain. The US has historically been less centralized than Europe. But our economy began to stagnate in the 1970s. Why? Look at how much power the government began to accrue starting in the late 19th century, which coalesced with the explosion of cabinet level new agencies in the 1960s and 1970s. EPA, Department of Education, CDC, going of the gold standard (which granted more power to the Fed) etc. The Church commission identified problems, but instead of reducing the power of these agencies, they instead created more regulations and government power, which lead to the problems with intelligence that contributed to 9/11. And what was their answer, the creation of another bureaucracy and more power and regulations. To big to fail etc. The list goes on. These are what creates the problems. The solution is to take power away. A Republic if we can keep it, and we are not. The first step is identifying the problem, the second step is fixing the problem by taking the power away from the government.

[Chas Rieu]

Hey shreek, remember how you got banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography at Reason.com? That's not protected by the first amendment.

Also your boy Brandon is siccing the federal law enforcement apparatus on Elon Musk for buying Twitter. bUiLd yOuR oWn InTeRnEt!

[JesseAz]

Did you tell parlor how there were few barriers to entry shrike?

[soldiermedic76]

It's important how we frame it. Show collusion in messaging between the media and government. How government is controlling the media.

[Nardz]

LOL

[soldiermedic76]

More ridiculing still no solutions.

[soldiermedic76]

Change your username to lazy, because you are. Resorting to insults is lazy.

[Chas Rieu]

Laughing at your retardation is not a in insult, "thank me for my service". I know your IQ is quite literally in the low 80s, which is about average for an enlisted doorknob polisher, but see if you can find a parent or guardian to explain to you why a captured media probably isn't going to allow you to get out your message about how the media is captured. Then when you're done find somebody with access to Wikipedia to explain to you that Saint Reagan blew up the federal budget, bitched out to Tip O'Neil on social security, illegally couped several South American governments using money from illegal arms sales to Iran, supported gun control, amnestied 4 million illegal aliens and sat around in an Alzheimers-induced giggle fit while the Lebanese blew 80 of our Marines to smithereens before you tell us for the 47 thousandth time that we just need a bitch boy like Saint Reagan to save the republic. Better yet, just accept that you're a fucking nearly-retarded stupid piece of shit, cash your VA disability check, enjoy your free Starbucks with your military discount, and shut. the. fuck. up.

[Nardz]

"Trust the system!"

[soldiermedic76]

Obviously you can't read. I said highlight that the system is the problem and offer real solutions. Fuck, what is your plan? Really? What is it? You're great about complaining but rarely offer solutions except vague calls to end it all, by force it necessary. The majority are not accepting completely the change any of us want, is your solution to force them too? Rather than persuade? You aren't completely wrong about the problems, more right than wrong but it's not enough to point out the problems you also have to fix them. And for that, young need to persuade the people that your fixes will make it better. This is the problem with people like you and with Trump, you aren't good at showing people that your solutions are the best without creating chaos. Chaos is good for tyranny. The more chaos you create or the illusion of chaos, the more centralized power benefits. Because they tell people the only way to stop the chaos is by giving them more power. Yeah, preaching to the choir gets your base fired up, but doesn't actually achieve long lasting change. Your losing, because you refuse to change tactics. Learn what works and use that, don't double down on failure.

And I already can predict your response, that using the system is doubling down on failure. But I'm not saying preserve the system, but utilize what works to reform the system. The myth you have is that the Revolution was won by overthrowing the system. This is a myth. The Revolution succeeded by using the system. The continental Congress was already in place before the first shot, years before and was created from colonial systems in place since the founding of the colonies. The militia system was already a century old and had experience mobilizing troops and supplying them in numerous wars and indian uprisings, for a century and a half before Lexington green. Additionally, all of these systems had direct lineage from older institutions in England, back to the days of the Anglo-Saxon conquests in some cases. Now contrast with the French Revolution. They mostly lacked these systems. The result was the Reign of Terror and autocracy. The system can't be abandoned, but can be shaped and used to get the change you want. The problem is that it may not be as complete or as fast as you want. The alternative is to force your desired change on people. And how does that make you better? How did that work in France, in Russia, in Iraq, in Ukraine etc?

What is your plan? Instead of naysaying everyone else and bitching, what do you propose to change and how?

[soldiermedic76]

And saying voting laws, okay how are you going to get states to change voting laws? The media? How do you change it without ignoring the 1A? And how are these policies different than what you accuse the left of? I'm interested in hearing alternatives. I'm interested in hearing what you plan. What your answers are. Because from my view all you do is attack but offer nothing but problems not how to fix them, how to persuade people.

Burn it all down is catchy but rarely ever successful in history. We didn't burn it all down in the Revolution, we utilized a framework that had been developed for centuries and even millinnea before the first shot was fired. The militia was the direct descendant of the Anglo-Saxon fyrd. Continental Congress was the indirect heir of the Thing, the Witan, the Magna Carta, and directly the colonial founding charters. I've pointed this out to you before and all you respond is we can't trust the system therefore it needs to be destroyed. Destruction is easy, fixing it is much harder. Having a plan to replace it is important.

And as for a constitutional convention, that's also using the system. It is laid out in the Constitution and requires the states to call for one via the state legislatures. Then it has to be approved by the system. So what besides burning it all down, do you propose? And if burn it all down, what replaces it and how do you propose to enact it?

I'm betting you don't say anything except insults and mischaracterization and vagueness. It will be personal attacks, calling me a fool, weak, scared, part of the problem. Which is the exact same language the progressives use BTW. You will just ridicule without actually answering any questions, because you're lazy. Destruction is lazy. Violence is lazy. Whining is lazy. Complaining is lazy. Ridicule is lazy. Attacking others is lazy. I've pointed out how you have no idea what an actual revolution requires. That you have no plan. Your response was these are excuses. They aren't excuses, it's what's actually is needed for success. Planning is required. Depending on others to do the planning is a cop out and lazy. Which you are, lazy. As much as you accuse others of being a blind follower, it's you that are the follower because you require others to do the hard work. It's you that expect others to do what you insist is necessary without offering any plans of your own. Bitch and complain is all you do, and attack others.

[Nardz]

I'm not reading all that cope right now

[soldiermedic76]

Lazy. Like I said, you don't have a plan or solutions. Just bitch and complain and ridicule others. Just fucking lazy. Thanks for proving my point. You say won't read it, like it's my problem. No, it just shows how lazy you are.

[soldiermedic76]

Either lazy or lack reading skills. Probably both.

[Nardz]

Brevity is the soul of wit.

You speak of chaos, of combative personalities, of lasting accomplishments, of persuasion.
Cool.
Ultimately what you're trying to do is bargain with a thoroughly corrupt, broken system to not be so broken and corrupt anymore. You want the status quo, but you want the status quo to be good.
You want simple answers: better communication, better plans, better personalities, better voters.
You want to believe that's all that's needed, that there's a nice way to fix everything.
But that's not reality.
No government has ever diminished itself. No totalitarian faction has ever voluntarily reduced its ambition.
There is no polite fix here.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
You want to follow the rules, but you'll always lose to those who don't.

We have multiple issues:
-The left/globalists do not follow any rules, but they do set rules for others
-The left/globalists have spent decades gaining complete control over financial, educational, governmental, legal, media, tech, etc institutions. They control the means of production which, in the information age, is *influence*. The one area of influence they do not control is the family, which is why they're so intent upon breaking it down.
-The System cannot be relied upon to uphold the very rules you'd like to adhere to. Just think back to 2020. Covid + mostly peaceful mob violence + illegitimate election. The police, the courts, the military, the government, corporate America... all participated or stood aside, and there were no consequences for the bad actors.

There's a lot more to get to, including the Trump, but I'll leave it here for now.

There are no rules, only weapons.
Kill, or be killed.

[Chas Rieu]

He's totally not endorsing the Romney/Ryan plan, Nardz. He just thinks Republicans should do exactly the same things that Romney and Ryan did in perpetuity because it will totally work this time!

[Unicorn Abattoir]

A comment this long (that's not all SQRLSY'd up) deserves credit.

soldiermedic76 is a senior commenter at Reason.

[soldiermedic76]

I didn't mean for it to be this long, but as I typed it, I found it difficult to fully express myself and found that the answer was far more involved than a simple retort. The idea that you can destroy the system without a system is short sighted and ignores history. It also is based upon a misconception that the system created by our revolution was unique and created whole cloth, rather than utilizing existing institutions.

Additionally, the idea of how we created a military is something I find very interesting. I've recently spent a lot of time reading about the evolution of Europe post renaissance and the evolution of warfare during the religious and colonial wars. And the big lesson was contrary to popular belief, the American colonies actually had plenty of experience organizing, equipping, supporting and leading military forces. Even during the French-Indian War, the majority of forces during the colonial part were colonial militias. Basically this was the standard rather than the exception for the century before the revolution. The French-Indian/7 Years War was actually the exception, in that Britain deployed substantial regular troops. This was rare. Almost every continental war from 1650-1775 had colonial theaters, but the 7 Years War was the first time that the colonial theater became as important, if not more, than the continental theater.

[soldiermedic76]

God meant for this to be short, but got off onto the colonial and religious wars impact on America, and even then I have a lot more to say on this subject, comparing the difference between British, French and Spanish approaches. Short answer, France and Spain utilized more regular troops, and started with larger standing armies, while England left defense largely to militias and relied on their superiorly trained navy (the British Navy's biggest strength was it's training which I addressed in a long post this morning).

[Chas Rieu]

Only if you don't bother reading anything the drooling fucking retard actually says. A random text generator would produce a more cogent analysis on quite literally any topic. This guy should have been booted from the military when he misspelled his name on his ASVAB. He's lucky our military is so hard up for cannon fodder they'll take literally any high school dropout.

[Chas Rieu]

don’t double down on failure

The gibbering fucking retard said, with 3 feet of Mitch McConnell's cock down his throat while insisting that Republicans need to become more like Democrats, but he totally isn't endorsing the Romney/Ryan approach.

[Chas Rieu]

Lot of words to say "It's Trump's fault" and double down on the same retarded shit you spent all day spewing yesterday, "thank me for my service". Your 83 IQ has done admirable service getting you a minimum-wage-replacement VA disability check. Can't you just let that be enough and spare us all your middle school philosophizing? Jesus fucking Christ you're insufferable.

[Chas Rieu]

(yes, hope and change was a message of stability).

"We're 3 days away from fundamentally transforming America!"

Jesus fucking Christ dude. Seriously. You. Are. A. God. Damn. Fucking. Retard.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Cash your VA disability check, enjoy your free Starbucks with your military discount, tug your chode to the prospect of nuclear war with Russia to save the precious Ukrainians, and never, ever comment on any fucking thing else. Even for the military you are sub-average.

[JFree]

I wonder if the partisan differences in excess deaths over the last couple years made a difference? Yale researchers did a very well structured research project that indicated Excess death gap grew along partisan lines after launch of COVID vaccines. From the summary:
The study found that overall, the excess death rate for Republican voters was 5.4 percentage points, or 76%, higher than the excess death rate for Democratic voters. After COVID-19 vaccines became widely available, the excess death rate gap between Republicans and Democrats widened from 1.6 percentage points to 10.4 percentage points.
"The gap in excess death rates between Republicans and Democrats is concentrated in counties with low vaccination rates and only materializes after vaccines became widely available," the authors said in the study.

The survey is strong enough to strongly support the hypothesis that vaccine resistance caused a ton of deaths and along partisan lines. It is also structured well enough to refute the hypothesis that lockdowns caused the excess deaths or that vaccines themselves caused the excess deaths. I would have expected research like this (the researchers are clearly public health types so have an agenda) to look a lot like data mining to support a beg the question (assume the conclusion) outcome. But it was an honest study.

[Nardz]

Hahahahhahahahahahaha
?

[Chas Rieu]

Oh my, you're back to the COVID hysteria again? I guess now that you're done shilling for the Dems in the midterms you can return to your hobby horse.

[Nardz]

Judge Pfizer?

https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1590868771828531201?t=M7mVQJy22U8CCwipwwU5gw&s=19

BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt was unconstitutional and must be vacated.

[Unicorn Abattoir]

BREAKING: Judge Mark Pittman's home has been raided by the FBI looking for evidence tying him to January 6th.

/Since this is plausible, I'll say this is sarcasm.

[Nardz]

Nah, they never really planned the loan forgiveness. At least not until 2024. They were just bullshitting. And they were smart enough to convince the judge to delay his verdict to mere hours after polls closed.
Wouldn't want to discourage those zoomers from getting out the vote...

[JesseAz]

Going to post it in roundup... but guess who the number 2 Oath Keeper that helped plan j6 protests worked for...

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

This is a silly test I don't expect to work.

Wordle 509 3/6

⬛⬛??⬛
?⬛??⬛
?????

[Sandra (formerly OBL)]

Awesome!

No more daily Charles Koch net worth updates. From now on I'm spamming my Wordle scores. 🙂

[Don't look at me!]

Groan.

[Libertariantranslator]

Germany's Positive Christian bigots successfully painted all opposition as Jewish commie looters in 1933. Implicit was the suggestion that National Socialists weren't looters. By protecting Big Pharma from U.S. prohibitionism they netted huge contributions from people corporations who had folding money to put on the line. Illegal betting is also skewed toward those with more money and lawyers. Decriminalized betting will doubtless predict better than the looter-intimidated substitute we have today.

[Libertariantranslator]

Libertarian candidate donations are the best investment in law-changing votes per dollar. In Georgia just now, one dollar bought over 10 libertarian votes, roughly ten cents a vote. Grabber-Of-Pussy faithful had to put up $20 per vote, and Dems paid $63 per vote. Our LP spoiler candidate made sure the looters will have LP preferences in the front of their minds BEFORE the runoff votes are cast. This leverage in the wallets of LP donors is the only reason The Kleptocracy is toying with "preference" voting whereby the most totalitarian party wins--no chance to learn from LP spoiler votes and reconsider dumb planks.

[Azathoth!!]

When you've bet big on a fight, and you're watching it go down, and your guy is in there pounding away while the other guy just seems to stand there and that final bell rings and the ref reaches out and calls what is essentially a bloody hunk of meat the winner while your guy is standing there without a mark on him nobody's screaming because the bookies had it wrong.

They're screaming because the fix was in.

In every race where the Dems control of election boards had been removed the races went as the betting predicted.

I don't know how much plainer it can be.

[MilikusFlorium]

Betting is of course an interesting way to spend your free time and earn money online, but I am more attracted to online casinos where there is a jackpot, because there is nothing but luck and stubbornness. I advise you to read about Online Casinos Jackpots. There are the best casinos on that list for such purposes