|
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
https://electionbettingodds.com/ Amazing, Trump is almost at 17%.......... |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump16.8%
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 |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
"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 |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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" |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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? |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
|
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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 |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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/ |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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? |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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? |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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 |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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........ |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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? |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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 |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
OT : Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
OT : Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%,Trump 16.8%
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. |
OT : Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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/ |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump16.8%
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/ |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump16.8%
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/ |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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 |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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 |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump 16.8%
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. |
OT : Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%,Trump 16.8%
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. |
Election betting odds: 24 October 2016 - Clinton 82.3%, Trump16.8%
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 ;) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter