I haven't been paying TOO much attention to politics this season, except what comes on BBC, Bloomberg and the Economist. The general consensus is that the landscape is in for a change. I know there are people here who care much more about these things than I do, so let's see how good yall are at understanding the political climate in the US. I'm a gambling man. As such, if I were betting on a sports game, I might consider taking the over/under line. Either you take the over, or you take the under. Here's the line: Over\Under: Republicans +47.5 in the House. Over\Under: Republicans +6.5 in the Senate. So, if you take the overs, you bet that the Republicans will take more than 47.5 seats. The unders, obviously, take the opposite position. And, of course, we can't split seats---47.5 is to ensure that there is an over or an under, and not a push. So, SciForums Political posters, put your money where your mouth is Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! This doesn't have to turn into a shit-slinging fest, the Good Lord knows there's plenty of that in other threads here. Take a position, if you're not scared of being wrong.
Here's a website I found handicapping the races: http://www.poker1.com/archives/11408 Mike Caro is a mathematician, and a famous poker player (in the movie "Rounders", Matt Damon has a large chunk of his stash in a hollowed out copy of the book "Caro's Tells").
A bit on the theory behind these odds: these lines predict that there's a 50% chance that Republicans take 7 seats or more in the Senate, and 48 seats or more in the house. If you think there's MORE than a 50% chance that Republicans take 48 seats in the House, or 7 seats in the Senate, then you should take the overs.
Going by this site: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...the-house-is-not-inevitable-just-very-likely/ which has a pretty good track record, one would take the over in general. But we see a 20% chance the Dems won't even lose the House. The problem is that the races are correlated - so whoever goes wrong will likely go dramatically wrong. So coward that I am, I'll hedge - over in the House, under in the Senate. That's probably the worst outcome for the long term future, also, so the pessimist in me is satisfied.
I'll bet over over. Mainly because Americans want a quick fix and this time there isn't going to be one so our 30 second infomercial brain will of course lean towards the person who says there is. That's exactly WHY we voted for Obama. Yes We Can! Could you imagine if someone ran under the slogan: Yes We Can, BUT, it's going to take a hell of a long time and a lot of sacrifice and work. Blood sweat and tears lady's Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Republicrats will win over 95% of the House and Senate. The snarly wing of the Republicrat party will win more than the whiny wing of the Republicrat party.
Indeed. Just thought some people might have some fun with it... Smart! I'd probably take the same position. Indeed, correlation is a problem, but can be exploited if the bookies aren't paying attention Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As I see it .... In truth, it's a hard call. Right now it's not a question of whether the Democrats will get flayed tomorrow, but, rather, how badly. I believe it was Chuck Todd who pointed out today that the tallest estimates in the conventional wisdom suggest the GOP can pick up as many as seventy seats in the House, but that's the extreme edge, and they need seventy-eight to have a majority comparable to the current Democratic advantage. The current balance for voting members in the House is 255-178, with two vacancies; advantage Democratic. The majority is established at 218 members in the caucus. The GOP needs forty seats to win a majority, and FiveThirtyEight currently estimates that the Republicans can expect a 232-202 advantage, a fifty-four seat gain. For the House, I think the over is the clear bet. The Senate is a curious affair, however. The current balance is 59-41, advantage Democratic (including two "independent" seats). This is a Class III election term, which puts thirty-seven seats in play. The current FiveThirtyEight outlook suggests a 52-48 result, advantage Democrats, which fits the over. But this year certain candidates have established themselves in a class all their own. A three-way race in Florida doesn't much change Marco Rubio's probable victory, but up in Alaska the divided right-wing ticket leaves a Republican seat vulnerable to Democratic upset. Additionally, what should have been a clear Republican victory in Delaware has become the Democrat's race to lose; Chris Coons was not expected to beat Mike Castle, but the latter did not survive the GOP primary. In Colorado, the Tea Party-backed Republican and rape advocate Ken Buck has seen his lead thin to the narrowest margin; in Nevada, Majority Leader Harry Reid has seen his political fortunes revive from certain death to a fighting chance because the Tea Party chose Sharron Angle for the Republican ticket, and the right wing ticket is so divided that Angle sought to persuade fellow conservative Scott Ashjian (listed as the Tea Party candidate) to drop out of the race. Meanwhile, the polls showing strong Republican trends are curious; the difference between registered and likely voters makes all the difference in the world. This is the so-called "enthusiasm gap" we've been hearing about. Steve Benen explains: Among registered voters... * On the generic ballot, Democrats lead Republicans by five points (49% to 44%). * On which party would do better coping with the nation's problems over the next few years, Democrats lead Republicans by five points (45% to 40%). * On which party is more trustworthy on the economy, Democrats lead Republicans by five points (47% to 42%). * On which party better represents your own personal values, Democrats lead Republicans by six points (48% to 42%). Among likely voters... * On the generic ballot, Republicans lead Democrats by four points (49% to 45%). * On which party would do better coping with the nation's problems over the next few years, Republicans lead Democrats by four points (45% to 41%). * On which party is more trustworthy on the economy, Republicans lead Democrats by four points (47% to 43%). * On which party better represents your own personal values, Republicans lead Democrats by four points (48% to 44%). This is the proverbial wildcard on which all the prognostication hangs. Will Democratic supporters turn out to vote? Estimates suggest that sixty-five percent of people expected to vote in this year's election will have cast their ballots before polls open on Tuesday (Maddow). How early voting and vote-by-mail affects the turnout numbers is always a murky argument, but this year it has become a very volatile question. The tropical storm affecting Florida right now probably won't affect the Senate race, which is almost inevitably Tea Party Republican Marco Rubio's; but it might affect the governor's race, in which the Democratic candidate Alex Sink holds a margin-of-error lead over her GOP opponent, Rick Scott, who once paid a record fine for Medicare fraud and has been unable to buy himself a lead with a self-financed push of $11.6 million in the last two weeks of the race. In the end, Scott's best chance is that the weather will keep enough voters at home. Sure, it hasn't much to do with the over/under directly, but it underscores the importance of voter turnout. Democrats in several states are hoping to rally voters to the polls and make up that gap between registered and likely voters. If they accomplish this, the close Senate races will see some shift toward Democratic favor. The question of whether it will be enough, however, remains. Still, though, as some have suggested, the under is a strong bet for the Senate. House: Over Senate: Under____________________ Notes: The New York Times. "FiveThirtyEight Forecasts". November 1, 2010. Elections.NYTimes.com. November 1. House: http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/house Senate: http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate Benen, Steve. "That Stubborn Gap". Political Animal. October 31, 2010. WashingtonMonthly.com. November 1, 2010. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026399.php Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. October 19, 2010. Transcript. Today.MSNBC.com. November 1, 2010. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/026399.php
BTW, you guys realize that you can literally bet real money on this question over at intrade.com, right?
It's the best magazine that you can buy. All I can say is fuck Time and Newsweek...they don't hold a candle to the Economist.
Hmm. I'm not familiar with this party. Maybe you mean that Republicans OR Democrats will control 95% of the legislative branch? I'd be interested to hear, who isn't a Republican OR Democrat? Independents don't really count, because (as Crist proves in Florida), they caucus with one party or the other. So it's like being in the party without the label.
