Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I'm sure he's taking the vast majority of the action for that future bet. For any non-Trump choice they have to win the nomination AND win the general. Trump already has a spot in the final two. Plus, if you're betting on a dem there are other ways in which to bet it.
I think you're vastly overestimating your own ability of prognostication. I'm the highlighted and I'm one of the biggest Sanders supporters on this board. Most of my friends are in that same bracket as well and have the same views. You cannot use your own bubble to extrapolate widely. Neither can I. That's why polling exists.Todem said:
While I agree I can't use my own bubble......It is a huge market and accounts for a lot of the votes in the state of Florida. The Tri-County area is historically heavy democratic. I simply don't see Sanders winning Florida.
So you agree that you can't use your own bubble... but then you point to your bubble immediately afterward? Unless you've personally asked several thousand people their political opinion on this, your logic is really flawed here.
I guess I don't believe that individuals using wealth managers make up a huge percentage of the electorate nor do I think they're representative of the electorate at large.
More critically, does that segment of he electorate represent the decisive segment of the electorate for the upcoming election? I don't think it does. I think the 70k votes in those midwest swing states that will determine everything come from a very different segment, and have gravely different concerns, than @Todem's clientele. And I think Sanders speaks to those people and their concerns in a very similar way Trump does. The question then becomes, does the socialism boogie man outweigh Trump's myriad failings in their consideration?
Also, for the record, I don't think I've ever discussed politics with my wealth manager.
I think he was a Kamala Harris supporter, though.
And if those people haven't seen a lot of change in their lives in 4 years after giving Trump a shot, they may be interested in trying something new in Sanders
Betting markets aren't books.Nipsey said:
Eh maybe, but I'd agree with Todem's general point that people with a lot of investments in stocks/bonds/funds whatever are going to be less inclined to vote for Sanders. He's explicitly advocating a tax that affects them (and me) directly. The difference I'd have in my opinion vs Todem's is that I don't think that chunk of people is a very representative voting block at all (and certainly not a monolith either, as I indicated with my own anecdotal counter example).
So Sanders isn't getting the one percenters' vote?Todem said:
No wonder the average return for a retail investor is less than 3%
The top 1% earn over 400K.
Is this supposed to be surprising - that people with this amount of wealth are not expected to vote for Bernie Sanders? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment.Todem said:
I haven’t been this shocked since I learned that ants were opposed to giving kids magnifying glasses.
Except fear mongering works. That's how we got Trump.Nipsey said:
These affluent folks don't have much voting power though, being a small number.Todem said:
Not only that, but the people who are going to decide this thing are in Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn and maybe Florida (though I'd give Florida to Trump right now). The rest will most likely fall where they did last election. I don't see either side picking up a huge set of new states they lost the last time around.
Yes if we are looking only at income a bit under 500K or so is one percent - for a household (a bit more than 300K for an individual). Your 125K clients are all at 10% based on income. But there are other ways of looking at it such as net wealth (about 1 million gets you to 10% and 10 million to 1%) and then there are hybrids. But in any case your clients are not representative of the rest of the 90% of the elective. And certainly not representative of the voters that would likely elect and support a Sanders presidency.
Oddsshark appears to be a book where bookmakers set odds.
Yes, obviously. (We're talking about the head-to-head matchups.)Gr00vus said:
It's actually a great bet (compared to most other bets) because it's guaranteed not to lose.
Free stuff for corporations is a message that is certainly strong with Trump supporters.
That's what I figured, but @Maurile Tremblay says differently upthread.
If you bet on Sanders to win the general election, you don't get a refund if he loses the primary. But that's not the kind of bet we're talking about. The kind of bet we're talking about is a bet on Sanders head-to-head against Trump.
oh, right. If it was specified as a head to head, sure. I didn't open the link, so I just assumed it was a bet to win the general.
The page shows both kinds of odds. Suffice it to say that at this stage in the contest, I don’t really see much relevance to the head to head markets, precisely because most of the “bets” placed are not bets at all.That's what I figured, but @Maurile Tremblay says differently upthread.
The site's blocked for me so I can't find out for myself.
The bet we were talking about is who will win the presidential election. Unless I missed something. Where are we talking about a head-to-head wager? Are where can I bet on Sanders and get my money back if he fails to get the nomination?
