Quote (Voyaging @ Sep 11 2014 09:34pm)
If you really think there's a 90% chance of Democrats winning then you really ought to place some bets, you'd make a killing if you're right (since Vegas is giving WAY less than 90% odds).
I myself have trouble getting people to agree to electoral bets since they know that through so many professional connections I obviously know many things that they don't know, or won't know until it's too late. What makes electoral betting risky is that elections very rarely play out on the neutral environment that most intelligent election forecasters use to determine how events *should* occur.
I have positively no issue with forecasting the 90% likelihood that the Democratic nominee wins a neutral election in 2016 because they have so many advantages, especially if that nominee is Clinton, but the issue remains that there are far too many points where some dynamic-shifting event occurs that shifts the environment from neutral to lock in early. That's why it's best to wait until 4-5 weeks before an Election Day to make bets.
Quote (bogie160 @ Sep 11 2014 10:19pm)
I thought the status quo view was that she is running. It seems pretty clear that she is preparing to run, and very unlikely that she would throw away an incredibly strong opportunity to become president.
Joe Biden is a bit of a joke and Warren is the Santorum of the left. I don't see much quality in the field aside from the giant shadow Clinton is throwing across the race.
The conventional wisdom holds that she's more likely to run than not, but few people (virtually no one outside of professional operatives) actually see what she has done and what's being done in her name/to her benefit. It shouldn't and won't surprise many people if/when she announces her candidacy in 7-odd months but some people will have known long before then what's coming.
Aside from that, comparing Warren to Santorum is silly and is totally and completely incorrect. Warren has a national network and is a prolific fundraiser, which is the exact opposite of what Santorum was before, during, and after the the nominating contest. Her operation is flush with cash as well as influential and critical allies (which he also lacked). She also comes with little baggage (and zero electoral baggage, unlike him who carried around an embarrassing landslide defeat) and has a direct appeal to the low-information and politically apathetic electorate that enjoys economic populism and outsider flare. She could easily run (and win) if necessary, but is not a likely bet even if Clinton passed. There are about 6 or 7 other Democrats who could ride the the Democratic advantage in the Electoral College, population growth/demographic change, and the Democratic national infrastructure to a nice-sized win in 2016 all else being equal.
This post was edited by Pollster on Sep 11 2014 11:32pm