Source: a gambling website aggregator lol
Still, according to electionbettingodds.com, which averages online betting sites, Kelly has a 34.9 percent chance of being the presumptive nominee’s vice-presidential pick.
Also according to that site, Kamala Harris has 0.8% odds to be Kamala Harris’s VP, slightly edging out Gavin Newsome.
Also according to that site, Kamala Harris has 0.8% odds to be Kamala Harris’s VP
Removed by mod
I’m thankful he thinks lemmy is a character on King of the Southpark, or some show like that, or he might get ideas.
You think he gets ideas?
Removed by mod
Reminds me of the episode of The Office where Jim tricks Dwight into being his own assistant.
It’s very hard for an established prediction market to go all the way to either 0% or 100%. There’ll always be someone who bought in earlier on the losing side and isn’t bothering to cash out for the handful of pennies they might be able to theoretically get back now because it there’s nobody who’s actually buying.
They predict trump’s chances to win the election to be 59.7%, harris is at 37%.
That honestly sounds right for right now. Harris has momentum but Trump is still leading in polls. I think it reflects the uncertainty of whether Harris will be able to capitalize on being the only candidate that doesn’t wear diapers and has a properly functioning brain.
You’re asking too much of America!
Don’t forget that Harris still hasn’t been officially nominated. There’s some % being left out there
slightly edging out Gavin Newsome.
She’s the only right-hand man she can trust
The Harris campaign is still vetting candidates and has not made its pick yet. Still, according to electionbettingodds.com, which averages online betting sites, Kelly has a 34.9 percent chance of being the presumptive nominee’s vice-presidential pick.
Jfc. Taking the odds from an aggregate of betting websites and using that as a verified source seems crazy to me.
I mean, it’s the closest thing you have to a futures market, and if you assume that markets are efficient, you can extract information there – people do use those.
So Wall St then. I never assume anything good from them.
I lost faith in 2008.
I mean, anyone. I remember when DARPA had a project to create a futures market to do geopolitical analysis (which was controversial and got shot down because a world where you can place money on a world leader being assassinated and also, you know, go out and assassinate them has certain dangerous misincentives).
They’re not using it as a “verified source”, except in that they’re saying “this is the source.”
It’s actually not a bad approach. Prediction markets (which betting sites are just a form of) are often very good at reflecting what the current well-informed belief on a subject is, because people who make bets on ill-informed beliefs quickly end up not having money any more and thus not betting any more. It’s just important to bear in mind that it’s not literally saying “this is what’s going to happen,” it’s saying “this is what well-informed people currently believe is going to happen based on current information.”
That’s not really true.
People that don’t make decisions on ill informed beliefs don’t bet at all as it’s just a money waste. People that make bad decisions tend to bet more and go into debt because of it.
Betting odds are not a prediction by any means. The betting houses don’t even try to predict anything because they know it is a fools game. Instead its just a sentiment tracker of very small subset of the population.
For example if tomorrow I would bet 100 Billion for Harris to win the election she would suddenly show up as the heavy favorite when nothing about her campaign has changed. Instead the bets for that particular site would be heavily skewed and they would increase odds for other options to reduce risk, while at the same time basically bullying any further bets on Harris.
Less crazy than you think. Those markets actually have a pretty good record as long as you pair it with more traditional data points.
I would suggest that it might be a significantly more accurate source than standard polling.
It’s not. People aren’t just coming into the bet as neutral computational machines trying to maximize odds. They’re betting on people they like. Some are spending money to intentionally warp the odds. The only population control is people with money willing to risk it in a process with <1.0 expected return. That’s a subpopulation already known for making bad choices.
Here’s a previous “betting odds” headline: Andrew Yang has the same 2020 odds as Elizabeth Warren
Arizona is not a solidly blue state, and Mark Kelly is unusually popular for a senator.
Arizona Democrats also don’t have that deep of a bench to pull out a candidate that’s a lock for a statewide race.
I’m not saying it’s impossible for any Democrat to win the election for Mark Kelly’s seat, I am saying it’s a significant risk that they probably won’t want to take.
And that’s before taking into account that Arizona Democrats already have a handful with the seat being left open by their current manic pixie dream senator.
Kelly’s seat would go to a Dem replacement. They wouldn’t have to run for reelection until 2026 in a special election. The seat would be safe for at least 2 years out. Arguably a gamble worth taking to make sure we still have elections come 2026.
Assuming Harris wins, the first midterm federal election is usually ugly for the president’s party, so it’d be a risk. Especially coming off of this election where dems will have to be extremely lucky just to hold onto the majority (even with the vp tiebreaker).
If Trump wins much of that is irrelevant by 2026 anyway though.
Of course, but I don’t think that him as the VP candidate changes the odds of that much relative to the other contenders who don’t come with that risk.
VP candidates don’t usually matter much in an election unless they’re freaks with a couch fetish or something weird like that.
As dumb and superficial as it sounds, my guess is a fighter pilot and astronaut plays better to swing state voters than governors of other states.
A 60-year-old? Running alongside a 59-year-old?? What is this, a fuckin’ crèche? Their mother’s milk is still wet on their faces! How can they compete against a worldly wisdom-haemorrhaging wise man in his 80s like Trump when they’re barely out of their baby diapers, while Trump is already well into his adult diapers phase?
Jesus, go back to your pogo sticks and bubblegum and stickerbooks and let a grown-up have a shot. Sheesh.
I hope that age in politics snaps back hard in the coming years. As I get older I’m really getting sick of old people
An yes the old “the village elders must be right! Look how old they are” angle.
I know it’s not about identity politics, but lady prez and spaceman veep? Yes please!
Nah, we shouldn’t be rewarding anyone who worked with Joe Manchin to attack the environment - https://web.archive.org/web/20240710182356/https://www.eenews.net/articles/manchin-kelly-urge-biden-to-open-new-gulf-oil-leasing/
Out of all the likely names I’ve seen, NC governor Roy Cooper seems like the strongest
Yeah that’s not the attack on the environment you say it is. He was looking for a mid term patch on supply chain greedflation and the crimp from banning Russian oil. Long term he’s all in on wind and solar. He’s been very open about this. Painting him as someone like Manchin who’s heavily financially invested in fossil fuels is just disingenuous.
Lady Prez and Spaceman Veep '24
I’ve never put out a yard sign in my life, but if Astronaut Mark Kelly is chosen, I’ll happily stake that one out front.
Without knowing more specific + or - details about the possible choices, I’d pick Shapiro over Kelly when you add up all the variables:
-
As a governor Shapiro has executive experience, which Kelly doesn’t. Cooper is also a governor but is already 67.
-
Pennsylvania is an absolute must-win state. Arizona is also very important but is not a must-win. Gotta get PA.
-
Shapiro is only 51 so would still be plenty young enough in 8 years to run for POTUS.
-
With Shapiro you’re not taking a current Senator off the field like with Kelly. Yes the Dem gov will appoint another Dem but will that person (or other Dem) be able to win again in 2 years vs. keeping Kelly in place who is highly likely to be re-elected. We really need to build up a bigger majority in the Senate over the next couple of cycles to be able to get important things done.
Well as of right now the Democrats have a solid lock on state wide elections. If they’re going to do it, now is the time. A 2 year incumbent that doesn’t leave the party is highly likely to get reelected.
Shapiro’s also got some baggage, his Israel position for example. Kelly however will be vulnerable to a swift boat attack. However as VP that will have less impact than as a candidate. Whereas the Israel issue will cause some of the left to stay home.
It’s all really complicated, I’m sure they’re putting a lot of thought into it.
Yeah TBH I haven’t read about all the details of the candidates’ vulnerabilities so I was just going by their stats and locations. I’m sure we’ll hear all about whatever downsides whoever gets picked has. I really don’t see what could be gained by picking Cooper from NC though. Everyone also assumes it can’t be Whitmer because you can’t have two women, which is pretty irritating. It would be nice if having a two-woman ticket would be thought of as normal or even possible but I’m too old to ever see that happen in my lifetime.
-
JD Vance can suck my dick
Suck my dick
Suck my dick
JD Vance can suck my dick
All the livelong daaaaay
I mean, he’d probably like that.
So in the scenario that he is the VP and they win, a democrat would be appointed to the senate, but instead of the seat being up in 2028 in a presidental general election year the seat would be up in an off election year with a democratic president (2026). I’m not sure this is wise in terms of keeping the senate.
I’m thinking about it like this.
Trump wins 2024 - the possibility of no 2026 elections is not insignificant.
Harris/Kelly win 2024 - Moderate risk the Dems lose 1 Senate seat in 2026.
If Kelly being on board helps Harris win swing states I think it’s worth it. I’d take the potential risk of a hostile Senate in the future over the impending risk of fascism in a few months.
Heavy favorite = 65% chance it will not be him.
MARK KELLY SLAMS JD VANCE FOR SAYING THE QUIET PART LOUD
deleted by creator
Arizona has a Dem governer, who gets to pick the replacement. The seat is safely theirs no matter what.
Because it might get them the Whitehouse
Really need to win Arizona.
Why not AOC? Really need some young blood and someone who is progressive. She also meets constitutional age requirements now.
I don’t think the country as a whole has made that much progress yet. She’ll probably have to choose a white guy unfortunately
Yeah. It saddened and annoyed me seeing that article “can Harris rebuild Obama’s coalition?”- like. Uhm. No? What’s past is gone and can never truly rebuilt. Yes, the ship of Theseus is a new ship. And this is the Ship of Harris, anyway.
We’ve made more than people think.
If you went back in time 100 years ago and told them who was president in 2008 and reelected again in 2012, they would put you in an insane asylum.
I think people really don’t care about race or gender in POTUS as much as the media puts out, people really just want to not go bankrupt from medical debt, or not have to pay $500,000 for their childrens college and other “bread and butter” personal issues.
99% of the US is progressive, they just don’t know it yet. Everyone benefits from improved policy, that message just needs to be communicated better in a way that even the most stubborn conservative will understand. Bernie Sanders was proof of that because he was capturing the working class and it terrified the 0.01%
Just like Obama needed Biden. Harris also needs a white guy to appeal to (sub)conscious biases. DNC will probably push her towards a moderate so unlikely to be someone like AOC. We’ll see.
I’d love AoC for pres, and consolation prize of VP. (Don’t tell the corpo dems this but the VP job is usually a political dead end…)
The reality is you need to pick VPs defensively. Some one who makes a good presidential candidate generally doesn’t make a good VP candidate.
As much as I like AoC… I don’t mind Kelly.
It used to be the setup job, you did VP before president.
Because they know AOC + Harris will be way too scary for the “pathetically insecure white dudes” demographic.
Which sadly means swing states. And is where the election is truly won. AOC isn’t going to help and potentially hurts.
Exactly. I’m not always the biggest fan of conventional political wisdom, but in this case I think it’s fair to say that getting most of America to vote for a black woman will already be a pretty big deal, and move the needle forward significantly.
And Kamala doesn’t need AOC to appeal to younger and more left wing voters. She’s already pretty far left of her party on most issues, and has the record to prove it.
I like AOC. But two women of color, one who is super progressive, sounds like a massive risk.
They’re going to pick someone who is popular in a purple state, and is going to help calm people who want to see someone more mainstream. I’d love a progressive, but it’s going to be a straight white male from a purple state. I’ll be super surprised if it’s anything else. And I get it: the #1 objective here is to win, and every decision has to be predicated on that.
And besides, AOC is really young and will have lots of opportunities.
AOC is the future, as long as Dementia Don the racist rapist with 34 felonies that can’t complete a coherent sentence doesn’t get in this time.
Because she was mind-numbingly insisting Biden was fine so we can’t trust her judgement.
There were a lot more rich people that had Biden’s back until they didn’t. It wasn’t like she was the only one.
Fuck yeah. I hope it’s him and Kamala. Harris Kelly 2024.
Is there a quick tldr of what Kelly wants to do regarding Ukraine?
TL;Dr: Something.
Seriously though, this was his official statement back in December: https://www.kelly.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/kelly-statement-after-senators-meeting-with-ukrainian-president-zelenskyy/
Thanks, it says
“… Abandoning Ukraine at this moment without the ammunition and weapons they need would be a massive gift to Putin and a strategic error for our own national security. Time is running out, and I will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to find the necessary agreement to move this critical aid package forward.”
Can I presume that Vance said basically the opposite?
I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.
-JD “Couch Cushion” Vance
Well it’s a question of how deeply the US should be involved, rather than Russia vs Ukraine per se.
Vance’s stance is that he doesn’t care. I can extrapolate that means he is against helping, so no involvement. Because even if he didn’t care but wanted to give Russia a black eye, he’d pretend to care.
Yeah that sounds about right. Thanks.
