Democrat voting procession...
Posted on 10/19/2016 8:18:12 AM PDT by bobsunshine
Despite the constant drubbing by the corrupt media betting markets are predicting a Trump victory in November.
The Independent reported: It is news that will strike fear into the hearts of perhaps half of America and large chunks of the world outside of it.
Despite a calamitous week of campaigning, betting markets on the US election are almost a mirror image of those on Britain’s EU referendum at this stage. And they could be pointing to a victory for Donald Trump. Bookmaker William Hill says 71 per cent of the money so far staked is for Democrat Hillary Clinton. But 65 per cent of the bets by number are for the controversial Republican.
That means a lot more punters are putting smaller bets on Trump, almost exactly the same pattern as was seen in the run up to the Brexit vote when the money was for Remain but the majority of bets were for Leave.
The bookie has cut the odds on a Trump victory from 11-2 to 4-1 over the past two days in response to a surge in bets for the reality TV star and businessman turned politician.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
The polls are bogus. Trump is heading to victory and the underhanded sleazy Democrats know this.
Erick Erickson said GA, TX, and Arizona will flip and it’s over. I’ll still show up and vote trump.
Have to figure out how many buses it will take to bus welfare recipients to the polls....and how many hearses....
To review:
That means that more people placed a bet on the correct outcome. A smaller number of people bet on the incorrect outcome, but placed larger bets.
And, that same pattern is being repeated now, with Trump getting the majority of bets.
That means a lot more punters are putting smaller bets on Trump,....
Punters ?
1. British informal
a person who gambles, places a bet, or makes a risky investment.
synonyms: gambler, backer, staker, speculator;
Erick Erickson is a faggot drama queen that says things to get attention.
A person who bets...
Texas? Georgia? Even Arizona I doubt. I read BJ got AZ in 96 or whatever but Hillary? I am skeptical.
The UK punters don’t vote in the US election, so I don’t see how this is relevant. With Brexit, the voting market showed that individual voters favored Brexit, even though they were outweighed by the big money. That argument does not work when applied to the US election, for the reason stated above.
It's going to take a lot of bottles of Thunderbird and cartons of Kool cigarettes.
I always take the points and bet on the underdog in the Super Bowl. I think I have won four out of the last five (the bad play call by Pete Carroll late in the fourth quarter cost me that bet in February 2015. Pete Carroll is not calling plays for Trump.)
Guess you missed the words "betting markets"
It’s relevant because the British punters were among the few people who correctly handicapped the outcome of the Brexit vote. Therefore their assessment methodologies are proven to be more accurate than other assessment methodologies.
Whether or not they vote is irrelevant to their ability to handicap the race based upon their selected criteria.
bookmark
I do not want to come across as arrogant; but based on 60+ years of fighting for traditional American values, including hours of using live TV to advantage, I want to share some experience driven suggestions, both for our candidate, and all of us who will be actively promoting a Trump victory in just 20 days.
While speaking in anger can sometimes help rally those who share your beliefs and priorities, it is not the most effective way to convert those who dissent from our purpose. When there is a real problem to be addressed, it is almost always better to speak in sorrow than in anger.
In the present ideological conflict, there is great reason for sorrow. We need to interject, in every possible exchange, those contemporary phenomena that are not only unfortunate from our stand point; but which are likely to be understood as sad by anyone listening to us.
Putting this understanding to work in a situation such as tonight's Presidential debate; Trump needs to intertwine his response to essential policy issues, by sadly lamenting the background social climate, which certainly impacts all aspects of contemporary American life, including the problem reflected in the issue. For example:
The decline in pride in heritage, openly encouraged by Obama's repeated apologies to others for America's traditions & achievement--leading to Americans kneeling through the Star Spangled Banner;--his & Mrs. Clinton's siding with Soros financed thugs against the Police--leading to the cold blooded assassination of American cops;--their refusal to protect the border, leading to job losses among rooted Americans, brutal crimes against American women, and the despicable riots in California, where aliens who do not share our values, or honor our heritage, intimidate local officials into not celebrating the achievements of the Founding Fathers and their posterity.
It was only last week, when anti-American culturalists advocated not celebrating Columbus Day! The Obama/Clinton cabal seem intent on denying that our values & achievements, under uniquely American cultural values, grew directly out of the experience driven values of particular European settlers. That is fact. It takes nothing away from the achievements or values of any other people; but it is our fact, and we are entitled to honor that fact and the rich cultural heritage it reflects.
To the extent that the Obama/Clinton cabal would deny us pride in our history, they are truly bigoted enemies. But we do best, again, when we lament the success of our enemies, as we explain, again quietly and sadly, how totally despicable is this ongoing attack, coming indeed from those who have benefited so much, while gaming our system.
Some may think that this approach is going soft. It is precisely the opposite. In place of venting our wrath at the Obama/Clinton betrayal, we begin to instill wrath in some of those who otherwise would simply go along with the enemy, "to get along."
There is nothing the least bit new in these tactics. Anyone familiar with Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar," is quite familiar with the technique. It worked in the play because it reflects a true understanding of the psychological factors involved.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
That’s not it at all. They had no particular methodology. But they were voters in the relevant election, so they knew how they and their family and friends were going to vote. None of that is true when we are talking about the US election.
Because the big money is on Hillary, the “market” is saying she will win. If we are talking markets, there is no reason to exclude the big money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.