Welcome.

Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

Surreal Advantage Podcast No. 23: Presidential Race Betting

Craig Posts: 698Administrator
Daliman discusses his take on the Political markets as well as where and why you can find solid value betting in them.

Episode posts at 11 AM PT.

http://www.crushlivepoker.com/podcasts/presidential-race-betting
«1

Comments

  • PocketAceTrader782 Posts: 439Subscriber
    edited January 2016
    Excellent Podcast Daliman!. Really great stuff.

    The only thing I respectfully disagree with you with is that Trump is doing this for publicity. I think that narrative made sense in the Summer time, but it does not now. I think the fact that he is spending $2 million a week on TV ads this month should put an end to that theory. He doesn't need to spend that money to gain anymore publicity if that was his goal. He is spending it because he wants to win. As I said before, I am not a Trump supporter, I am just calling it like I see it.

    Dark Horse: I agree 100% on Chris Christie has being a good dark horse, but he falls into the same category as establishment and I will talk about what I think has to happen for him to have a chance below.

    Establishment Candidates: The only way any of the establishment candidate can be competitive against Trump or Cruz is if we see some people drop out of the race. I have told many people this when they have asked me. People who support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz will only flip flop between the two of them, but never go to an establishment candidate. If Bush, Christie, and Kasich drop out and endorse Rubio, he could be a challenger to Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. However, a recent NBC WSJ poll conducted a theoretical 3 way match up between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio. Donald Trump wins, with Ted Cruz in second, and Rubio in third. That is a strong piece of evidence that is nearly impossible for any establishment candidate to break to the top. Again, I find it very hard to believe that Donald Trump or Ted Cruz supporters will switch to Rubio or any other establishment candidate.

    Ben Carson: I Agree with you on him. Whats interesting is he still at 9%. Where does his 9% go? I think Cruz is most likely, followed by Trump.

    Turnout: A strong turnout benefits Donald Trump. No Doubt about it. An interesting side factor will be weather in Iowa that day. If he's a relatively warm day with no snow expected, Donald Trump's chances go up. NYTimes did a study recently that a lot of Trump supporters are registered democrats. If that is the case, the polls are undercounting him. Actually, you see this concept in a lot of the polls. The wider the base of people you poll, the stronger Trump is.

    The latest numbers I saw from Bovada as follows:

    +150 Marco Rubio
    +200 Donald Trump
    +290 Ted Cruz
    +800 Jeb Bush

    I would take a bet on Trump or Cruz levels of 250-350. I fact, I already have took bets on Trump & Cruz on numbers better than that. I think Rubio's number should be around 450-550.

    I think if Trump wins Iowa, its over. He is the nominee. Even if Cruz wins Iowa. I think Trump can take NH and then it heads south where it will be a battle between Trump and Cruz because they will both be strong in that part of the country.

    For Next President of the US. I took Hillary Clinton at -150. I also took Ted Cruz at +1000 (He actually ties or beats Clinton in the real clear politics average). I think Donald Trump's figure should be +1500, so I would not bet on him at +600.

    -150 Hillary Clinton
    +600 Donald Trump
    +600 Marco Rubio
    +1000 Ted Cruz

    Any comments or thoughts are welcome by anyone.
    Carmine
  • Johnny_UtahJohnny_Utah Posts: 402Subscriber
    edited January 2016
    Ted Cruz at +1000 for President is a good take. I like that line for an actual sweat with good payoff and not a ridiculous idea he wins.

    And to be political (a little I guess), this crop of "Presidential Nominee's" has to be the best representation of the U.S. right now. What. A. Disaster.
  • Krista Posts: 166Subscriber
    What sites can you bet on the presidential race from Nevada?
  • Krista Posts: 166Subscriber
    edited January 2016
    Despite your suggestion that Ted Cruz's mother may have been a Canadian citizen, there is no evidence of that. She was born in Delaware, lived her childhood in the US, attended Rice University and only moved to Canada for a job in 1969. Cruz was born in 1970. Even if his mother had applied for permanent residence in Canada, she would not have been eligible to be a citizen until 1975. Moving to Canada doesn't eliminate American citizenship so there is no debate that his mother was American and American only at the time of his birth.
  • DalimanDaliman Posts: 149Pro
    edited January 2016
    A bit busy on Vacation right now, so I may not be able to address much of this until I get back Wednesday night, but this articles elucidates some of the problem Trump would have in a general election. The amount of registered democrats that are Trump supporters is tiny, so I'm not sure how the NYT got that idea. Independents and Democrats HATE Trump, at a rate I believe to be among the worst ever in presidential polling history. Also, he is spending FAR less than he said he would on ads, and that wouldn't prove he isn't only running for publicity anyway, because ads still raise his profile, and I'm guessing he will have few attacks against other GOP candidates in his ads. You've gotta remember, this man has had BILLIONS of dollars worth of free publicity over the last 6 months, dropping a few million here and there is no big deal, and I'm sure he'll figure out some way to write it off too. Plus, if he DIDN'T spend ANY $ on ads, his ruse would be far too transparent.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/
    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-falls-short-2m-weekly-ad-spending-goal-latest-buy-n496021
  • PocketAceTrader782 Posts: 439Subscriber
    edited January 2016
    NBC corrected that story, he is spending $2 million :). And my bets are only on him getting the GOP nomination

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-makes-new-tv-ad-buy-boosting-weekly-total-n496581
  • BartBart Posts: 5,887AdministratorLeadPro
    edited January 2016
    I have to give some feedback here and say that I loved Dali's last show. I think he's put out consistent quality material on CLP and this was some of his best work.

    I just eat alive this political cycle and enjoyed the way that he broke down every candidate's chance of winning.

    I feel like I am somehow losing out, however that I continue to DVR Meet the Press as my only Sunday morning political show. With Chuck Todd as the host there has to be a better alternative on another network. Please get me out of the doldrums of NBC. Suggestions?

    Bart
    by 1Daliman
  • PocketAceTrader782 Posts: 439Subscriber
    Bart said:
    I have to give some feedback here and say that I loved Dali's last show. I think he's put out consistent quality material on CLP and this was some of his best work.

    I just eat alive this political cycle and enjoyed the way that he broke down every candidate's chance of winning.

    I feel like I am somehow losing out, however that I continue to DVR Meet the Press as my only Sunday morning political show. With Chuck Todd as the host there has to be a better alternative on another network. Please get me out of the doldrums of NBC. Suggestions?

    Bart
    I listen to Morning Joe on my way into work on XM Radio. (also obviously on MSNBC 6-9 ET). They do a good job keeping everyone updated on all the polls. Probably way to long of a show to digest, but they have highlights and certain segments of note on the Internet. As fas a Sunday shows, they are all pretty much the same. It just depends if they have a guest that you want to hear more from or not.

    I also would like to reiterate the point that this was an excellent podcast!

    Carmine.
    by 1Daliman
  • DalimanDaliman Posts: 149Pro
    Appreciate the appreciation. Personally, I watch next to nothing on TV when it comes to politics. I read fivethirtyeight.com like it's my job, (it kinda is), and don't even watch ANY of the debates, but read analysis on all of them. I like Slate's info and commentary, and have Listened to the Slate Political podcast religiously for over 8 years now. Also currently reading "The Wilderness" by McKay Coppins, which is amazingly even-handed for the subject matter, (the GOP primaries). It elucidates on the point I made that he isn't running for president in that he had no real political weight with the Democrats, and when he went after Obama in 2012 and 2014, he STILL didn't from the GOP, so he decided instead of taking his ball and going home that he was going go get the hottest cheerleaders possible to ruin/distract the game so they HAVE to listen to him. BTW, this week's endorsements by Sarah Palin and one of the Duck Dynasty clan (Apparently the Dad endorsed Cruz...after previously endorsing Jindal) just increases the side-show level. I wish I hadn't bet so much against Trump at worse #'s than I can get right now.
  • PocketAceTrader782 Posts: 439Subscriber
    edited January 2016
    Lol Daliman sorry, but you are getting desperate here. You and me might be turned off by that, but his supporters will not. If he wanted to sabotage his Campaign, all he has to do this... Real simple:

    1) Take money from a special interest
    2) Say he supports legalizing undocumented immigrants now.

    Every one of your points from the 1st podcast (in December) as to why Trump is doing this for publicity have been proven incorrect.

    Your point at the time: He is not spending any money. Two weeks later: He started spending $2 million/week. You even posted an article that NBC had to correct in this thread.

    Your point at the time: Trump hasn't gotten any endorsements: proven wrong again. Whatever you think of Palin, she is very popular among conservatives. Also there is he Governor of Iowa coming out against Cruz. Bob Dole saying he would pick Trump over Cruz (I know while endorsing Bush). Chuck Grassley spoke at Trumps Iowa rally while Cruz was 10 miles away.

    Your Point at the time: Polls in 2008 showed other people besides Romney winning. Neither Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, or Rick Santorum were leading the polls (95% of the time) for 7 months and none of them got nearly the amount of attention.

    Carmine
  • DalimanDaliman Posts: 149Pro
    edited January 2016
    Ok, I'll take these one at a time:

    1. It wasn't 2 million a week, it was 2 million for ONE week. His total overall ad spending for the ENTIRE campaign thus far is $4 million. Only Fiorina and O'Malley are lower, and neither of them are anywhere near the lead in the polls. My point at the time was correct; he spent zero dollars on ads last year, and he is still not spending much. His limited ad spending is unprecedented in modern politics for a leading candidate with competition going into Iowa.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bush-rubio-have-spent-combined-91m-ads-vs-trump-cruz-n500456

    2. I said Trump hasn't gotten any endorsements from sitting major politicians, which is STILL correct. I specifically said at the time I was using fivethirtyeight.com's criteria for endorsements, which is sitting Representatives, Senators and Governors. Palin brings next to nothing to Trump's campaign, as all the crazies that liked her already liked Trump, and obviously she is a net negative overall, just as she was on McCain's campaign. Nobody gives a shit if a West Virginia State Delegate endorses Trump, so while it IS an endorsement, it's not one that "counts".

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

    3. All 4 of them combined (sub Perry for Bachmann; she only led a straw poll) led for 1 month short of same time as Trump has,(and for just as much time when I made the initial statement in December) and some of them were actually leading DURING the primaries, which means FAR more. What should REALLY give you pause about giving Trump too much credit though is that Romney was nominated with about 75% of the delegates, yet from late August of 2011 to Late February of 2012, he only led for about 1 month total, while the unelectable crazies swapped the lead between them. See any parallel there? Anyway, I'm not sure what point you think you're disproving here, as I never said they got near the attention.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

    My point about the "self-sabotage" is that at some point in time, the semi-sensible Republicans who wouldn't normally vote for Trump but WOULD vote for him over Clinton were he nominated are going to get to the point where they simply won't vote for anyone rather than vote for a racist, classist, ignorant, bullying rich asshole like Trump. The straw is building up on the camel's back, and it won't be too long now before the last one falls for many. Also, Trump IS a special interest, and no matter how much he says it, he IS being supported by a SuperPac. He may yet actively do both things you mentioned however.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-ties-emerge-between-trump-operation-and-super-pac/2015/10/20/80e7450a-7753-11e5-bc80-9091021aeb69_story.html
  • PocketAceTrader782 Posts: 439Subscriber
    We have 8 days and we shall see. My bets are on Trump getting the nomination and losing in the general. Unless Mike Bloomberg runs and takes votes away from the Democratic nominee. You have your theory and I respect that. Time will tell which one of us is right.

    Carmine.
  • Krista Posts: 166Subscriber
    No matter how Trump has been portrayed by the media as a racist bully, I don't see evidence of that in reality. If you look at his business' policies regarding discrimination, this is what you find as official policy:

    "All persons shall have the opportunity to be considered for employment without regard to their race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, alienage or citizenship status, age, disability, sex, marital status, veteran status, sexual orientation, arrest record, or any other characteristic protected by applicable federal, state or local laws.”

    Most of the human rights groups who have looked at Trump have found that he is likely the best of the entire GOP field. I will leave discussion of the Democrats for another time. The fact is that Trump has raised a family that seems remarkably well adjusted and they seem to have tremendous respect for him. If you find a man whose grown children respect him and want to work with him on a daily basis, I would say that you have to give that man some credit for some good qualities. Further, his employees seem to have similar respect for the man.

    As far as Trump not being serious about being president, I honestly don't see how a billionaire chooses to spend the kind of time and effort that he has spent without being serious about the venture. Once you are a billionaire, the most valuable commodity that you have is time. To waste 12 hours/day for 8 to 12 months on a venture just to get publicity would be lunacy. Further, his campaign has hurt his businesses since he has been painted as a bigot and a racist.

    The last point about Trump is that if you are a poker player, you should be rooting for and voting for Trump. Trump is the only candidate who has spoken publicly as an advocate for legalizing online poker - and all online gaming for that matter. If you want to play on Pokerstars again as an American in America, Trump is the right candidate. Not only is he a casino magnate, but he is the only candidate who won't be bought by Sheldon Adelson.

    So the point is that although Trump has been portrayed as some kind of loony candidate by the media, when you look at the facts, as I believe voters will do especially as time grows shorter, there is lots to like about Trump.
  • Krista Posts: 166Subscriber
    Well, Daliman, you might be right after all. Trump backing out of the debate gives your theory a lot more credence. I will certainly concede that I was wrong if in fact Trump does sabotage this.
  • DalimanDaliman Posts: 149Pro
    Trump is being "portrayed" as a racist bully because he is acting like a racist bully.

    - Racism: Wants to deport all illegal immigrants, not allow in any Syrian refugees, wants to register AMerican Muslims like jews, etc.
    - Bullying: Sexist comments about Megyn Kelly because she had the temerity to press him on his sexist statements, mocking the movements of a disabled Journalist who has written critically of him. Attacking literally every single person that says something negative about him in any way in the most puerile terms possible, etc.

    These are the actions of a racist and a bully. His official corporate policy was written by lawyers, not him, although likely by bad lawyers, as a few of those things definitely can and do make a difference in his companies, as well as many others, (for example, unless you think Donald Jr, Ivanka and Eric Trump were the best candidates for the job of Executive Vice President for The Trump Organization, ancestry certainly helps).

    If you think his family is "remarkably well adjusted", well, I'm not quite sure what to tell you. No, they're not running around committing crimes like Conrad Hilton, but otherwise they are quintessential rich kids you consider themselves better than the rest of us plebians, and they all toe the Trump line, parroting Pop's views at every turn. Oh, his sons are big Game hunters in Africa too, just like most kids out there, killing cheetahs, lions, elephants and the like for the sport. VERY well adjusted, indeed. I don't understand why you think their respect for their dad is so impressive. They HAVE to respect him, or they lose their jobs of doing very little for millions of dollars per year, plus inheritance. His employees do the same because their paychecks depend on it as well, ( a friend of mine works for Trump, says he's a great guy). But that's the point, as long as you don't criticize Trump in any way, you get glad-handed by him, but say ANYTHING critical of him, and you are automatically and always the worst person on the planet; that is, until he needs something from you, then you're the best again. I can't respect someone who can't take criticism in any way, and the job of President certainly isn't roses and kisses all day.

    His record on LGBT issues is fairly solid, but his stance on refugees and Muslims gives him a VERY poor human rights record. As I have said on my podcast, Trump likely doesn't care about ANY of these issues, and isn't very racist himself, but he is just saying the things that poll well with Republicans

    As I have said before, Trump is elevating the exposure, if not the status, of his brand by billions of dollars with his campaign, so that is the reason why he is running. You give the answer yourself: "Once you are a billionaire, the most valuable commodity that you have is time. To waste 12 hours/day for 8 to 12 months on a venture just to get publicity would be lunacy." So why would a billionaire want to spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the next 4-8 years in one of the most stressful jobs on the planet? They would need a pretty large dedication to public service and the public to do that, and as we have often seen, Trump doesn't even LIKE a large part of the American public. EVERYTHING he does "for the public" is really just another opportunity for him to toot his own horn and get more publicity. Not a single thing he has done in this campaign is contrary to that.

    Yes, Trump would be helpful to online poker, if he actually cared enough to overturn UIGEA, or even had the political currency to do so. Obama is in favor of legalizing online poker, but it wasn't anything he wanted to use his political currency on.

    Really, I don't see what there is to like about Trump he is President Camacho with lighter skin, less muscles and more ridiculous hair. But at least you are staring to see that I may be on to something with my theories. A leading candidate backing out of a debate at this point in time is unprecedented in American politics, and to do it mostly because Megyn Kelly is mean to him certainly doesn't bode well for his ability to handle Putin, Democrats, or any of the other entities that will take issue with him. If he follows through with this, Fox and many other conservative outlets will no longer support him and may even stop covering him, if not actively work against him. Every single one of his major actions over the last week are net negatives in a sane campaign.

    Something else to think about. Let's look at the current overall polling, rounded to the nearest %:

    Trump: 36
    Cruz: 19
    Rubio 11
    Carson 8
    Bush 5
    Christie 4
    Huckabee 3
    Kasich 3
    Fiorina 2
    Paul 2
    (Adds up to 93%, not sure if that means 7% undecided)
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

    Now, typically, in a primary season, When a lower-tier candidate drops out, their support gets distributed somewhat proportionally, somewhat ideologically, to the other candidates. In 2012, if you liked Gingrich, Santorum, Cain or Perry, Romney was a perfectly acceptable alternative. I don't see that happening with Trump. The people who already would vote for him are already doing so, and a large % of people who support a candidate like Christie, Bush, or Huckabee would simply NEVER for for Trump. Upwards of 20% of GOP voters would not vote for Trump, and obviously with his historically high negatives with Democrats, that would lead to disaster in the General Election. So while he has a solid lead now, as the field winnows down, I expect the establishment candidate, (likely Rubio) to pick up far more of the delegate flotsam than Trump, as well as the people who are currently polling for Trump that just want to "shake things up" that finally come to their senses.

    Here I thought I had done enough political race coverage on my Podcast for a while, and yet It seems I'm going to have to talk more on it in this next podcast...
  • Krista Posts: 166Subscriber
    " I can't respect someone who can't take criticism in any way."

    Hmmm, the angry tone of your post suggests that maybe it is worth taking a look in the mirror?

    I am willing to examine Trump and the political race without having an emotional reaction to it. Can you say the same? Trump pushes buttons - that has been his strategy in order to get millions (perhaps billions) in free media coverage. Are you going to let Trump push your buttons?
  • Krista Posts: 166Subscriber
    Oh, and I am aware of his son's African hunting ventures and I am horrified by it. But Donald Jr. is also married and raising young children - and Ivanka seems like the best of them all in every sense. Donald J. Trump is not a hunter and has not advocated for his son's hunting, stating that he doesn't understand it. If we discount every presidential candidate because his or her son/daughter does something with which we disagree, how many candidates do we have left?

    It is an easy fall back to suggest Trump's children need their jobs with him in order to inherit money. Take a look at many other billionaires whose children have no desire to work for them or to even see them regularly. There are plenty.

    Ivanka started a successful jewelry and shoe business. She doesn't need to see her father daily if she doesn't want to. She is married to a successful husband, raising small children, and running a successful business of her own. If she didn't want to work with her father, she wouldn't have to.

    Take it from a woman who knows. My father was a hunter - and an abuser - and the times that I see him can be counted by years, not days. I wouldn't work with him on a daily basis for all the money in the world.
  • DalimanDaliman Posts: 149Pro
    edited January 2016
    I'm not sure where you see anger in my post, as I was, and am, not angry at all about your comments. I find it quite refreshing to get additional insight into how others think about issues on which we disagree. All I did was provide evidence of why Trump IS campaigning as a racist bully, and why he doesn't stand for the things many seem to think he does. Feel free to disagree. As I have said, I stand to profit quite nicely if I am correct about Trump, so the perception of people who like and support him only makes me more $, so I'm happy with that. There are people who like to play 7-2 suited under the gun and win sometimes with it, and while I disagree and they are provably wrong to do so, I am all too happy to have them continue in their mindset. If they ask me my opinion, I will tell it, which is what I did here.

    Hell, I just put another 11 units against Trump.

    P.S. I have no problem with people who hunt and eat their kills. I have a huge problem with big game hunters who just do it to prove how awesome, powerful, and rich they are.
  • AdministratorAdministrator Posts: 747Administrator
    Gonna have to agree with Bart... I've been enjoying your podcasts quite a bit, Daliman... and I honestly didn't think I would. Keep it up!
Sign In or Register to comment.