Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Amazing, Trump is almost at 17%..........

On 10/24/2016 09:59 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Amazing, Trump is almost at 17%..........



PT Barnum covered this

on 10.24.2016, philo supposed :
On 10/24/2016 09:59 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Amazing, Trump is almost at 17%..........



PT Barnum covered this

Would you mind elaborating? I am very familiar with PT Barnum but do
not understand the point you are trying to convey.

"Sterling Archer" writes:
on 10.24.2016, philo supposed :
On 10/24/2016 09:59 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Amazing, Trump is almost at 17%..........



PT Barnum covered this

Would you mind elaborating? I am very familiar with PT Barnum but do
not understand the point you are trying to convey.

"There is a sucker born every minute."
- ascribed (sans evidence) to P.T. Barnum

Scott Lurndal wrote :
"Sterling Archer" writes:
on 10.24.2016, philo supposed :
On 10/24/2016 09:59 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Amazing, Trump is almost at 17%..........



PT Barnum covered this

Would you mind elaborating? I am very familiar with PT Barnum but do
not understand the point you are trying to convey.

"There is a sucker born every minute."
- ascribed (sans evidence) to P.T. Barnum

Thanks, I am familiar with the aphorism. However, I would appreciate
if Philo would explain his point.

On 10/24/2016 12:59 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote :
"Sterling Archer" writes:
on 10.24.2016, philo supposed :
On 10/24/2016 09:59 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Amazing, Trump is almost at 17%..........



PT Barnum covered this

Would you mind elaborating? I am very familiar with PT Barnum but do
not understand the point you are trying to convey.

"There is a sucker born every minute."
- ascribed (sans evidence) to P.T. Barnum

Thanks, I am familiar with the aphorism. However, I would appreciate if
Philo would explain his point.

I think Trump has the better chance of winning and this is just another
dem tactic to discourage voting for him.

on 10.24.2016, Frank supposed :
On 10/24/2016 12:59 PM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Scott Lurndal wrote :
"Sterling Archer" writes:
on 10.24.2016, philo supposed :
On 10/24/2016 09:59 AM, Sterling Archer wrote:
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%

https://electionbettingodds.com/

Amazing, Trump is almost at 17%..........



PT Barnum covered this

Would you mind elaborating? I am very familiar with PT Barnum but do
not understand the point you are trying to convey.

"There is a sucker born every minute."
- ascribed (sans evidence) to P.T. Barnum

Thanks, I am familiar with the aphorism. However, I would appreciate if
Philo would explain his point.

I think Trump has the better chance of winning and this is just another dem
tactic to discourage voting for him.

The odds have nothing to do with the Democrats. Go to the site and
read the explanation of the origin. These odds are calculated and used
by folks who are wagering real money and a significant amount of it.

I fear your perspective has more to do with wishful thinking than with
reality and math.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:07:48 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

I think Trump has the better chance of winning and this is just another
dem tactic to discourage voting for him.

Maybe the gamblers are using faulty over sampled polls for facts.

This professor is 5 for 5.

http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

"87%-99% Certain Trump Will Be President

Primaries Predict Election Winner -- Cycle Also Favors GOP —

Forecast Model Batting 5 for 5 (since 1996)

by Helmut Norpoth"

Oren writes:

http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

"87%-99% Certain Trump Will Be President

A cycle model. What a joke - what is this guy, a high-school dropout?

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:39:09 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:

http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

"87%-99% Certain Trump Will Be President

A cycle model. What a joke - what is this guy, a high-school dropout?

Refute his model, get back to me or write him an e-mail.

Oren writes:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:39:09 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:

http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

"87%-99% Certain Trump Will Be President

A cycle model. What a joke - what is this guy, a high-school dropout?

Refute his model

Give me 14 days.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:32:59 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:39:09 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:

http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

"87%-99% Certain Trump Will Be President

A cycle model. What a joke - what is this guy, a high-school dropout?

Refute his model

Give me 14 days.

Hide and watch :-)

I think Trump has the better chance of winning and this is just another
dem tactic to discourage voting for him.

if you Really think the donald has a better chance,
you ought to put some money on it

you can get over 4x your money at various places

marc

Neill Massello presented the following explanation :
Sterling Archer wrote:

The odds have nothing to do with the Democrats. Go to the site and
read the explanation of the origin. These odds are calculated and used
by folks who are wagering real money and a significant amount of it.

But the folks who are wagering are not Americans, who are the ones with
the best information and who have "skin in the game" that is more than
just some spare cash they can afford to risk at the track. On the other
hand, foreigners might be less affected by their own emotions and
political opinions when predicting the outcome of an American election.

https://electionbettingodds.com/about.html

I fear your perspective has more to do with wishful thinking than with
reality and math.

And election wagering, like the stock market, is just an aggregate of
opinions. Granted, the people expressing an opinion are putting up some
money, so they presumably think a little before doing it; but they are
also susceptible to fads, delusions, and manipulations.

Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 7:29:03 PM UTC-4, Sterling Archer wrote:
Neill Massello presented the following explanation :
Sterling Archer wrote:

The odds have nothing to do with the Democrats. Go to the site and
read the explanation of the origin. These odds are calculated and used
by folks who are wagering real money and a significant amount of it.

But the folks who are wagering are not Americans, who are the ones with
the best information and who have "skin in the game" that is more than
just some spare cash they can afford to risk at the track. On the other
hand, foreigners might be less affected by their own emotions and
political opinions when predicting the outcome of an American election.

https://electionbettingodds.com/about.html

I fear your perspective has more to do with wishful thinking than with
reality and math.

And election wagering, like the stock market, is just an aggregate of
opinions. Granted, the people expressing an opinion are putting up some
money, so they presumably think a little before doing it; but they are
also susceptible to fads, delusions, and manipulations.

Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

The main hope Trump has is that people who will vote for him are not
saying that when polled. They may feel that in the environment today,
to say they will vote for him implies they are some low life or racist.
So, they may not be honest with the pollsters. Another hope is that
people will vote for him because they are fed up with the leftist
media and scoundrels like Gloria Allred running around with women
who now claim they were sexually assaulted by Trump. I have no use
for Trump, but I also am not dumb enough to believe the crying woman
act, that Allred puts on. A woman who met Trump at a tennis match
20 years ago, where she says he hugged her, put his arm around her,
and touched her breast, is so devastated by that she's crying at a
news conference today? It's crap like that which a lot of people
are fed up with. Could enough of them make the difference and
elect Trump? I doubt it, but it's possible.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:29:29 -0700, "Sterling Archer"
wrote:

Neill Massello presented the following explanation :
Sterling Archer wrote:

The odds have nothing to do with the Democrats. Go to the site and
read the explanation of the origin. These odds are calculated and used
by folks who are wagering real money and a significant amount of it.

But the folks who are wagering are not Americans, who are the ones with
the best information and who have "skin in the game" that is more than
just some spare cash they can afford to risk at the track. On the other
hand, foreigners might be less affected by their own emotions and
political opinions when predicting the outcome of an American election.

https://electionbettingodds.com/about.html

I fear your perspective has more to do with wishful thinking than with
reality and math.

And election wagering, like the stock market, is just an aggregate of
opinions. Granted, the people expressing an opinion are putting up some
money, so they presumably think a little before doing it; but they are
also susceptible to fads, delusions, and manipulations.

Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

I am not sure Trump ever wanted to win. He certainly could not do more
to throw the election now. He has a new TV station launch in the works
and if he was president he would have to throw away his biggest asset,
marketing the name "Trump".
I still would not be shocked if he quit before the election to avoid
losing. We would be voting for Pence (using the rules of secession)
and that might be why he is there in the first place.

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:07:57 -0400, wrote:


Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

I am not sure Trump ever wanted to win. He certainly could not do more
to throw the election now. He has a new TV station launch in the works
and if he was president he would have to throw away his biggest asset,
marketing the name "Trump".
I still would not be shocked if he quit before the election to avoid
losing. We would be voting for Pence (using the rules of secession)
and that might be why he is there in the first place.

You must have missed the story, all new Trump hotel properties will not bear his name, instead they will bear
the name of "Scion". Apparently his hotel census is down significantly since the nation learned what a dick
he is.

See:

Trump Hotels Drop Name for New Hotels

http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/trump-hotels-scion-brand/

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:32:59 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:39:09 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:

http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

"87%-99% Certain Trump Will Be President

A cycle model. What a joke - what is this guy, a high-school dropout?

Refute his model

Give me 14 days.

Hide and watch :-)

What does "Hide and watch" mean? Without an explanation it comes across to me as insulting or derogatory. I
would appreciate your clearing this up.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:35:26 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:05:04 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:32:59 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:39:09 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:

http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/

"87%-99% Certain Trump Will Be President

A cycle model. What a joke - what is this guy, a high-school dropout?

Refute his model

Give me 14 days.

Hide and watch :-)

What does "Hide and watch" mean? Without an explanation it comes across to me as insulting or derogatory. I
would appreciate your clearing this up.

Sure. Maybe you missed the humor and your feelings where hurt?

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:09:32 -0700, Oren wrote:

Hide and watch :-)

What does "Hide and watch" mean? Without an explanation it comes across to me as insulting or derogatory. I
would appreciate your clearing this up.

Sure. Maybe you missed the humor and your feelings where hurt?

My feelings aren't hurt in the least, the comment wasn't directed at me. I was simply hoping you would
explain what it means, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. "Hide and watch", sounds like you are
suggesting the person you responded to is cowardly or something to that affect.

You could easily explain your comment and clear things up.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 01:16:46 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:09:32 -0700, Oren wrote:

Hide and watch :-)

What does "Hide and watch" mean? Without an explanation it comes across to me as insulting or derogatory. I
would appreciate your clearing this up.

Sure. Maybe you missed the humor and your feelings where hurt?

My feelings aren't hurt in the least, the comment wasn't directed at me. I was simply hoping you would
explain what it means, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. "Hide and watch", sounds like you are
suggesting the person you responded to is cowardly or something to that affect.

You could easily explain your comment and clear things up.

Let me make it simple for you if I could. 'Wait and see' if Hide and
watch is not understandable. Comprende?

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:13:13 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:07:57 -0400, wrote:


Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

I am not sure Trump ever wanted to win. He certainly could not do more
to throw the election now. He has a new TV station launch in the works
and if he was president he would have to throw away his biggest asset,
marketing the name "Trump".
I still would not be shocked if he quit before the election to avoid
losing. We would be voting for Pence (using the rules of secession)
and that might be why he is there in the first place.

You must have missed the story, all new Trump hotel properties will not bear his name, instead they will bear
the name of "Scion". Apparently his hotel census is down significantly since the nation learned what a dick
he is.

See:

Trump Hotels Drop Name for New Hotels

http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/trump-hotels-scion-brand/

That may work on new hotels but the existing ones have his name
plastered everywhere from the dishes and linens to the marble in the
lobby.

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 01:16:46 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:09:32 -0700, Oren
wrote:

Hide and watch :-)

What does "Hide and watch" mean? Without an explanation
it comes
across to me as insulting or derogatory. I would
appreciate your
clearing this up.

Sure. Maybe you missed the humor and your feelings where
hurt?

My feelings aren't hurt in the least, the comment wasn't
directed at
me. I was simply hoping you would explain what it means,
which
doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. "Hide and
watch", sounds
like you are suggesting the person you responded to is
cowardly or
something to that affect.

You could easily explain your comment and clear things
up.

Let me make it simple for you if I could. 'Wait and see'
if Hide and
watch is not understandable. Comprende?

SMH........chuckle

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:38:11 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:13:13 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:07:57 -0400, wrote:


Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

I am not sure Trump ever wanted to win. He certainly could not do more
to throw the election now. He has a new TV station launch in the works
and if he was president he would have to throw away his biggest asset,
marketing the name "Trump".
I still would not be shocked if he quit before the election to avoid
losing. We would be voting for Pence (using the rules of secession)
and that might be why he is there in the first place.

You must have missed the story, all new Trump hotel properties will not bear his name, instead they will bear
the name of "Scion". Apparently his hotel census is down significantly since the nation learned what a dick
he is.

See:

Trump Hotels Drop Name for New Hotels

http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/trump-hotels-scion-brand/

That may work on new hotels but the existing ones have his name
plastered everywhere from the dishes and linens to the marble in the
lobby.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step........

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:42:48 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 01:16:46 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:09:32 -0700, Oren wrote:

Hide and watch :-)

What does "Hide and watch" mean? Without an explanation it comes across to me as insulting or derogatory. I
would appreciate your clearing this up.

Sure. Maybe you missed the humor and your feelings where hurt?

My feelings aren't hurt in the least, the comment wasn't directed at me. I was simply hoping you would
explain what it means, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. "Hide and watch", sounds like you are
suggesting the person you responded to is cowardly or something to that affect.

You could easily explain your comment and clear things up.

Let me make it simple for you if I could. 'Wait and see' if Hide and
watch is not understandable. Comprende?

Your explanation is lacking, resultantly I located the following definition for the colloquialism:

http://www.talklikeatexan.com/defini...ide-and-watch/

There is only one question which comes to mind; In general, do Trump supporters prefer their crow deep fried
with a KFC-like batter or marinated and grilled?

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 23:53:37 -0500, "ChairMan" wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 01:16:46 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 18:09:32 -0700, Oren
wrote:

Hide and watch :-)

What does "Hide and watch" mean? Without an explanation
it comes
across to me as insulting or derogatory. I would
appreciate your
clearing this up.

Sure. Maybe you missed the humor and your feelings where
hurt?

My feelings aren't hurt in the least, the comment wasn't
directed at
me. I was simply hoping you would explain what it means,
which
doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. "Hide and
watch", sounds
like you are suggesting the person you responded to is
cowardly or
something to that affect.

You could easily explain your comment and clear things
up.

Let me make it simple for you if I could. 'Wait and see'
if Hide and
watch is not understandable. Comprende?

SMH........chuckle


Not too vigorously, you might concuss your brain. :-P

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:12:40 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:07:57 -0400, wrote:


Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

I am not sure Trump ever wanted to win. He certainly could not do more
to throw the election now. He has a new TV station launch in the works
and if he was president he would have to throw away his biggest asset,
marketing the name "Trump".
I still would not be shocked if he quit before the election to avoid
losing. We would be voting for Pence (using the rules of secession)
and that might be why he is there in the first place.

You must have missed the story, all new Trump hotel properties will not bear his name, instead they will bear
the name of "Scion". Apparently his hotel census is down significantly since the nation learned what a dick
he is.

See:

Trump Hotels Drop Name for New Hotels

http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/trump-hotels-scion-brand/

Not unexpected. I said months ago that Trump was demonstrating
bizarre, destructive behavior by likely tarnishing the one thing
that makes his empire valuable, the Trump name. I haven't been
a Trump fan, lost respect for him a long time ago, but I would
have stayed at one of his properties or bought his products, but
would never now, that's for sure.

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:38:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:13:13 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:07:57 -0400, wrote:


Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

I am not sure Trump ever wanted to win. He certainly could not do more
to throw the election now. He has a new TV station launch in the works
and if he was president he would have to throw away his biggest asset,
marketing the name "Trump".
I still would not be shocked if he quit before the election to avoid
losing. We would be voting for Pence (using the rules of secession)
and that might be why he is there in the first place.

You must have missed the story, all new Trump hotel properties will not bear his name, instead they will bear
the name of "Scion". Apparently his hotel census is down significantly since the nation learned what a dick
he is.

See:

Trump Hotels Drop Name for New Hotels

http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/trump-hotels-scion-brand/

That may work on new hotels but the existing ones have his name
plastered everywhere from the dishes and linens to the marble in the
lobby.

It would be interesting to see what effect his circus has had on the
resale values of condos/apartments with the Trump name on them.
If the brand name is having trouble in the hotel markets, the same
should be happening there too.
You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

much snipped


It would be interesting to see what effect his circus has had on the
resale values of condos/apartments with the Trump name on them.
If the brand name is having trouble in the hotel markets, the same
should be happening there too.
You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.



The Donald even manages to alienate his fellow billionaires ..

http://tinyurl.com/zw5mq5f

.... perhaps because he has, so suddenly, become
a man of the people and a staunch advocate of the
everyday working stiff.
John T.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 10:38:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:13:13 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:07:57 -0400, wrote:


Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

I am not sure Trump ever wanted to win. He certainly could not do more
to throw the election now. He has a new TV station launch in the works
and if he was president he would have to throw away his biggest asset,
marketing the name "Trump".
I still would not be shocked if he quit before the election to avoid
losing. We would be voting for Pence (using the rules of secession)
and that might be why he is there in the first place.

You must have missed the story, all new Trump hotel properties will not bear his name, instead they will bear
the name of "Scion". Apparently his hotel census is down significantly since the nation learned what a dick
he is.

See:

Trump Hotels Drop Name for New Hotels

http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/trump-hotels-scion-brand/

That may work on new hotels but the existing ones have his name
plastered everywhere from the dishes and linens to the marble in the
lobby.

It would be interesting to see what effect his circus has had on the
resale values of condos/apartments with the Trump name on them.
If the brand name is having trouble in the hotel markets, the same
should be happening there too.
You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.

That comes across as a little too elitist for my tastes. Trump supporters might be a little gullible or
naive, but the vast majority of them are good Americans, good people who want the best for our country.

Unfortunately, Trump is a con man, a stereotypical carpetbagger. Because of his notoriety, brashness and
braggadocio, many people in the flyover states, who are not accustomed to dealing with such deceivers, have
allowed themselves to get too close to Trump's gravitational pull and have ended up in his orbit.

Negative things can also be said about those who support Clinton. However, many of those voting for Clinton
will do so because they are deathly afraid of Trump. If the alt-right had not been so artfully deceived by
Trump and if we conservatives had nominated any one of a number of other candidates, Mrs. Clinton would barely
be at 30% in the polls and our nation would be on the path to unification instead of further division.

Mrs. Clinton will be elected POTUS and this is a loss for all of America, not just for Trump and his
supporters. The same could be said if Trump were to become POTUS.

All the above is simply my humble opinion.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 10:12:49 AM UTC-4, wrote:
much snipped


It would be interesting to see what effect his circus has had on the
resale values of condos/apartments with the Trump name on them.
If the brand name is having trouble in the hotel markets, the same
should be happening there too.
You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.



The Donald even manages to alienate his fellow billionaires ..

http://tinyurl.com/zw5mq5f

... perhaps because he has, so suddenly, become
a man of the people and a staunch advocate of the
everyday working stiff.
John T.

More likely it's because Trump is a jerk. I've heard similar stories
about how he screws people he does business with and that was long
before he was running and it became a public issue.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

More likely
New Jersey, USA
Joined May 20, 2014



Frequented Communities

ABC News
TMZ
Politico
The Hill
The Washington Times

@disqus_9reYnilCVH

Sure looks like a surrogate/shill

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_9reYnilCVH/

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

You would think
New Jersey, USA
Joined May 20, 2014



Frequented Communities

ABC News
TMZ
Politico
The Hill
The Washington Times

@disqus_9reYnilCVH

Sure looks like a surrogate/shill

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_9reYnilCVH/

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 06:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

From: trader_4




New Jersey, USA
Joined May 20, 2014



Frequented Communities

ABC News
TMZ New Jersey, USA
Joined May 20, 2014



Frequented Communities

ABC News
TMZ
Politico
The Hill
The Washington Times

@disqus_9reYnilCVH

Sure looks like a surrogate/shill

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_9reYnilCVH/

Politico
The Hill
The Washington Times

@disqus_9reYnilCVH

Sure looks like a surrogate/shill

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_9reYnilCVH/

Sterling Archer wrote:

Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

A better track record is your best argument. The fact that money is
involved doesn't really mean that much. The millions wagered represent
the sum of many small bets rather than a few large ones placed by savvy
investors. The individuals placing those bets didn't necessarily parse
ad nauseam. If most people were rational about betting, especially with
small amounts, there would be no lotteries.

--
Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out: vote for Clinton.

Per Stormin' Norman:
... many people in the flyover states, who are not accustomed to dealing with such deceivers, have
allowed themselves to get too close to Trump's gravitational pull and have ended up in his orbit.

I like the imagery.
--
Pete Cresswell

Per trader_4:
I agree. I said from the beginning that I would have voted for any of the
other 16 GOP candidates if they were running against Hillary

Cruz ?
--
Pete Cresswell

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:50:10 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per trader_4:
I agree. I said from the beginning that I would have voted for any of the
other 16 GOP candidates if they were running against Hillary

Cruz ?

Cruz is a thumper but he is also very smart. If he was in a debate
with Hillary he would mop up the floor with her. Once he gets away
from his Texas base, I bet he would loosen up a bit on his dogma.
He would also be capable of presenting Hillary's indiscretions as a
prosecutor, using legal points not hyperbole like the orange one.

On 10/25/2016 10:14 AM, wrote:
much snipped


It would be interesting to see what effect his circus has had on the
resale values of condos/apartments with the Trump name on them.
If the brand name is having trouble in the hotel markets, the same
should be happening there too.
You would think alienating so many people, especially college
educated, wealthier people and women, while appealing to red necks,
can't help sell $2 mil properties.



The Donald even manages to alienate his fellow billionaires ..

http://tinyurl.com/zw5mq5f

... perhaps because he has, so suddenly, become
a man of the people and a staunch advocate of the
everyday working stiff.
John T.


The Clinton's are multimillionaires who made their fortune off the
government selling government influence at the stake of the taxpayers
yet are supported by the have nots and other millionaires.

Trump made all his money in the private section yet is not supported by
the have nots and millionaires.

Trump is obviously advocating more for the common working man.

On 10/25/2016 9:57 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 8:12:40 PM UTC-4, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:07:57 -0400, wrote:


Not sure what your point(s) is / are. The people calculating these
odds are taking tens of millions of dollars in wagers on this and
numerous other issues. There is little doubt they are going to parse,
ad nauseam, all available, relevant data to maximize their return on
investment.

In the end, they are attempting to predict the future which is never a
sure thing. However, in my humble opinion, they have a far better
record of accuracy than any other soothsayers.

Even without these odds I am confident Trump is toast. He screwed the
pooch with far to many women and as most men know, women have long,
long memories.

Unfortunately, I suspect Clinton's smack down of Trump will be epic.

I am not sure Trump ever wanted to win. He certainly could not do more
to throw the election now. He has a new TV station launch in the works
and if he was president he would have to throw away his biggest asset,
marketing the name "Trump".
I still would not be shocked if he quit before the election to avoid
losing. We would be voting for Pence (using the rules of secession)
and that might be why he is there in the first place.

You must have missed the story, all new Trump hotel properties will not bear his name, instead they will bear
the name of "Scion". Apparently his hotel census is down significantly since the nation learned what a dick
he is.

See:

Trump Hotels Drop Name for New Hotels

http://fortune.com/2016/10/22/trump-hotels-scion-brand/

Not unexpected. I said months ago that Trump was demonstrating
bizarre, destructive behavior by likely tarnishing the one thing
that makes his empire valuable, the Trump name. I haven't been
a Trump fan, lost respect for him a long time ago, but I would
have stayed at one of his properties or bought his products, but
would never now, that's for sure.


I'm sure this bothers him