Cory Booker- Does He Have A Chance?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2014
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Cory Booker- Does He Have A Chance?

Post by Jebus » Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:21 am
This article summarizes the issue pretty well: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... primaried/
It's a good summary but do you think this article support the suggestion that 3 to 1 is good odds or bad odds?
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:21 am
I wouldn't bet on odds that low. You should only bet what you can afford to lose, no matter how good the odds are, and the amount I could afford to lose wouldn't be worth the trouble of betting and collecting to get 3x back
That must suck. I mean to believe that an event is unlikely ( presumably a lot less than 50 percent) while having the option to triple your money on it if you only had the money.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:21 am
gambling is a negative sum game
"Gambling, " and I hate to use that term since it should be reserved for luck casino style games, is a negative sum game for most people. It is a positive sum game for people who understand statistics, mathematics, probabilities, who are self-disciplined and who do their home-work.
brimstoneSalad wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:21 am
, so I lean against it even with good odds unless I can be sure the person I'm taking money from is a really bad person.
Good point. However, these days the odds of some bookmakers are very close (and often better) to those of betting exchanges. Would you have a problem winning money from a big bookmaking company?

Would you at least concede that 3 to 1 on Trump not being the Republican nominee is a damn good odds for someone who has some money to invest? Personally I think it is and might put some money on it.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegetarian

Post by Jamie in Chile » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:56 pm

I think the odds are good. Now that you mention it.

Is it 3 to 1 as in bet $1 to get $4 (that's what 3-1 means when quoted in UK sporting events, you get your $1 stake back PLUS $3) or do you mean bet $1 to get $3 total ($2 profit). If it's the former, take the bet, if it's the latter, perhaps, but nothing to get excited about it.

I am not convinced by the 538 article.

I see 2 ways Trump doesn't get the nomination.
1. Something weakens his support - could be economic depression, a poor response to a major natural disaster or terrorist attack, or a badly handled war or entanglement in some foreign issue.
2. He DECIDES not to run. I am assuming you still win the bet in this case.

I think point 2 is much underrated. Either (and these can be combined)
2a He decides not to run because he sees he is going to lose and wants to go out a winner. (Of course, he will still claim he would have won.)
2b He decides not to run because he would rather do something else that be President. I mean, he has got some serious options now. Get paid millions giving talks in Saudi Arabia and Russia and Israel? Easy. Do another apprentice show (or a different show) and make millions if not tens of millions? Easy. Set up his own TV channel for his supporters and run it, own it or even host it? Doable. Did you know that Trump didn't run for President the time before because he chose the wealth of a TV show over the Presidency?

Maybe he wants to play golf and relax. A part of him is lazy. Presidency is tough.

He's scratched that itch. Proved everyone wrong. Going out an undefeated champion might appeal to him.

I asked myself why is Trump going so hard on the wall, shutting down the government, even though it is costing him support from the population. Is he dumb? Or has he already decided not to run?

Also, he now runs the risk of facing various criminal charges at some point. Could he cut a deal with someone – don’t prosecute me and I won’t run in 2020. Who does he make that deal with, informally or formally, implicitly or explicitly? I don’t know. That's tricky. But it could be possible.

If Trump says 100 times he's going to run, I don't feel that discounts my argument. He often lies, or changes his mind. I think if he were planning not to run, why say so at this stage? It just makes him into a lame duck. By keeping the announcement until later he retains power and influence, as well as being able to drop a dramatic announcement later, which could appeal to him.

I don't see how he justifies it to his hardcore support.

I put the odds of Trump not even running at 20%. Most people are not even considering it.

User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2014
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by Jebus » Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:02 pm

Jamie in Chile wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:56 pm
Is it 3 to 1 as in bet $1 to get $4 (that's what 3-1 means when quoted in UK sporting events, you get your $1 stake back PLUS $3) or do you mean bet $1 to get $3 total ($2 profit).
It would be $2 profit. I prefer to use decimal odds where it would be roughly 1.33 for Trump to get the nomination (or 3.0 for him not to get the nomination).
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:56 pm
He DECIDES not to run. I am assuming you still win the bet in this case.
Yes, you would. The only case where one would not win is in the case of assassination.

I agree that there is a good chance he decides not to run just to save face (and avoid being a loser). However, power is to many people highly addictive and hard to let go of.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9494
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:04 am

Jebus wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm
It's a good summary but do you think this article support the suggestion that 3 to 1 is good odds or bad odds?
Well, in theory you take a 3 to 1 bet if you think the probability is higher than 25% chance, so yeah.

By the article I would say it's more than a 50% chance he will be the nominee of probably means anything.

Personally I'd go as high to say 75% unless he's impeached or eats a baby (which is about what it'd take for the Republicans to abandon him, they're loyal to their tribe beyond reason).
Impeachment looks unlikely if the Democrats haven't moved on that by now... what are they waiting for?
Maybe they want to let him burn things down rather than give Pence a good chance to lead things (and a better chance of winning).
Unless they're waiting until the last minute so the Republicans have to scramble for a nominee. Or maybe they want to run against Trump? Too many variables. If they're waiting for that then Trump has no chance but I have no means to divine the psychology of the Democrats. Inside knowledge here would be very useful.

They're not offering a huge margin over what I'd guess. It's good odds, but not great odds.
Jebus wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm
That must suck. I mean to believe that an event is unlikely ( presumably a lot less than 50 percent) while having the option to triple your money on it if you only had the money.
Even if I had that money, I'd put it into other things that are more sure, like infrastructure investment that's also good for the environment.

There are a lot of things in your home or long term rental that you can do to save more money than that.
Think solar water heating, greywater system, vegetable garden with automatic irrigation... Things that will pay back in a year or two and give you multiple times what you spent over their lifetimes.

Also, a few of the meat alternatives look like they're gearing up for IPOs, and investing in those is good for veganism and a pretty good bet too.
Investing in small vegan businesses is also a good call ethically, although payoff is less likely.
Jebus wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm
"Gambling, " and I hate to use that term since it should be reserved for luck casino style games, is a negative sum game for most people. It is a positive sum game for people who understand statistics, mathematics, probabilities, who are self-disciplined and who do their home-work.
No, I mean a "negative sum game" in the sense that there's no value added, but net value lost. One person has to lose and then some for another person to win even less than that person lost.

Even if you reliably win, somebody else has to be losing.
Jebus wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm
Good point. However, these days the odds of some bookmakers are very close (and often better) to those of betting exchanges. Would you have a problem winning money from a big bookmaking company?
As I'm not a gambler, I don't know well enough how that works.
My understanding is that odds are generated based on the ratio of wagers people make minus a cut for the house, and the company running it never loses its own money nor participates in actual wagering. I could be wrong.

If you're really just taking money from an evil bookmaking company that's putting up its own cash, maybe that would be OK.
Jebus wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:40 pm
Would you at least concede that 3 to 1 on Trump not being the Republican nominee is a damn good odds for someone who has some money to invest? Personally I think it is and might put some money on it.
If you have spare money and nothing else to put it into, I suppose so.
But I'd really look into what you can invest in at home first.

Do you have a greywater system? Solar water heating? Irrigation system and vegetable garden?

Payoff for investment at home is likely to be better than gambling, and more sure of a thing... plus a lot better for the environment.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 9494
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:20 am

Jebus wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:02 pm
Jamie in Chile wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:56 pm
Is it 3 to 1 as in bet $1 to get $4 (that's what 3-1 means when quoted in UK sporting events, you get your $1 stake back PLUS $3) or do you mean bet $1 to get $3 total ($2 profit).
It would be $2 profit. I prefer to use decimal odds where it would be roughly 1.33 for Trump to get the nomination (or 3.0 for him not to get the nomination).
Isn't that called 3 for 1, not 3 to 1?

If we're talking risking a dollar for two dollars profit, that's not so great at all. Lots of things will give you those returns with less risk.
Jebus wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:02 pm
I agree that there is a good chance he decides not to run just to save face (and avoid being a loser). However, power is to many people highly addictive and hard to let go of.
I disagree, I think the odds of that are very low.
I think he would prefer to lose so he can complain about it and say actually he won but the vote was rigged. Not running would be seen as quitting and look very bad to his base.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:21 pm

I hope Will Beld gets the Republican nomination. I know he was Gary "What is Aleppo?" Johnson's running mate, but he is probably the most progressive Republican I have ever seen:
http://www.ontheissues.org/bill_weld.htm
(It doesn't mention it there, but he supports Nuclear and renewables, and I don't think he supports fossil fuels.)

His healthcare policy is questionable, but it seems he wants to expand it. Of course, I don't agree with everything he has, but if it comes down to him and a sensible Democrat, I wouldn't be too disturbed by the result of the election.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:18 pm

Red wrote:
Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:21 pm
I hope Will Beld gets the Republican nomination.
I agree, but that's very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely.
I know he was Gary "What is Aleppo?" Johnson's running mate, but he is probably the most progressive Republican I have ever seen:
http://www.ontheissues.org/bill_weld.htm
I don't think there's any progressive who would think that Weld would make a worse president than Trump purely because he was Johnson's running mate.
(It doesn't mention it there, but he supports Nuclear and renewables, and I don't think he supports fossil fuels.)
He ostensibly does not. He stated that Trump "has sided with the fossil fuel industry against clean air and clean water for all Americans".
His healthcare policy is questionable,
Well, duh. He is a Republican. I wasn't expecting Nye flipping Bevan.
but it seems he wants to expand it. Of course, I don't agree with everything he has, but if it comes down to him and a sensible Democrat, I wouldn't be too disturbed by the result of the election.
Agreed once again.

I don't think you'll have to do much to convince progressives that Bill Weld is the best possible outcome for Republican nomination, considering the fact that even though Weld is a right-winger, literally any one of his flaws is amplified to a thousand degrees with Trump.

That being said, Bill Weld won't be the Republican nominee. Sure, it would be nice if that were to happen, but I think it would also be nice if every single one of the Presidential candidates were to announce "We have been reading Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's posts on the Philosophical Vegan Forum and we now agree with him on every issue, so whoever you vote for, you will get the policies that he wants". Both scenarios are very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely, but I think the latter is nicer than the former, so if we're going to speculate about improbable scenarios, I'd rather we speculated about that one.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:33 am

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:18 pm
I don't think there's any progressive who would think that Weld would make a worse president than Trump purely because he was Johnson's running mate.
I meant that he was a libertarian, and libertarians aren't too progressive (Johnson is more progressive than most, but I don't think as progressive as Beld).
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:18 pm
He ostensibly does not. He stated that Trump "has sided with the fossil fuel industry against clean air and clean water for all Americans".
The term 'ostensibly' implies he supports it in trace amounts. If it's something like Natural gas, that isn't too bad, but it doesn't seem he supports it.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:18 pm
Well, duh. He is a Republican. I wasn't expecting Nye flipping Bevan.
Actually a slight majority of Republicans polled (in this survey, anyway) support Medicare for all, which is a Single Payer system.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/ ... r-all.html

Beld's healthcare policy is still more progressive than Republican politicians, I think.
but it seems he wants to expand it. Of course, I don't agree with everything he has, but if it comes down to him and a sensible Democrat, I wouldn't be too disturbed by the result of the election.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:18 pm

I don't think you'll have to do much to convince progressives that Bill Weld is the best possible outcome for Republican nomination, considering the fact that even though Weld is a right-winger, literally any one of his flaws is amplified to a thousand degrees with Trump.
He seems to be more centrist scum in the overton window than a right winger.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:18 pm
That being said, Bill Weld won't be the Republican nominee. Sure, it would be nice if that were to happen, but I think it would also be nice if every single one of the Presidential candidates were to announce "We have been reading Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's posts on the Philosophical Vegan Forum and we now agree with him on every issue, so whoever you vote for, you will get the policies that he wants". Both scenarios are very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very unlikely, but I think the latter is nicer than the former, so if we're going to speculate about improbable scenarios, I'd rather we speculated about that one.
cruz 2020!!
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

User avatar
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2016 5:57 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Ostrovegan
Location: The Matrix

Post by Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz » Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:03 pm

Red wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:33 am
I meant that he was a libertarian, and libertarians aren't too progressive (Johnson is more progressive than most, but I don't think as progressive as Beld).
Yes, but Johnson and most libertarians (with obvious exceptions, such as the likes of Arvin Vohra) are still clearly much more progressive than Trump.
The term 'ostensibly' implies he supports it in trace amounts. If it's something like Natural gas, that isn't too bad, but it doesn't seem he supports it.
My intention was not to imply that he supports it in trace amounts but to state that he claims to oppose it, but I don't know enough about him to say whether he actually does. Regardless, he's still better than Trump on this issue.
Actually a slight majority of Republicans polled (in this survey, anyway) support Medicare for all, which is a Single Payer system.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/ ... r-all.html

Beld's healthcare policy is still more progressive than Republican politicians, I think.
That survey is surprising, but I still would think it unreasonable to presume that a Republican running for President would have a progressive policy as regards healthcare. Just because the Republican Party's support base may be progressive in that area doesn't mean that Republican politicians will. The general position of Republican politicians tends to be "If you can't afford healthcare, you should just die lol".
He seems to be more centrist scum in the overton window than a right winger.
I know that the American political spectrum is skewed to the right, but would Weld really be considered a centrist?
cruz 2020!!
Naw. Vote Jet 2020.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2962
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:38 pm

Welp, any possibility of Warren receiving my vote has officially gone out the window.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poli ... lear-power
Is she still the most likely to get the nomination? If so, then Nuclear Energy is basically done for (unless the Republicans are able to run a more centrist candidate).
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests