Bet Accepted

Can I get some of that action? I think the political world is more random than that.

Should the bet be inflation-adjusted?

@RL:

it’s you, I think. Eric is saying that had the bet started in 1901, 1921, or 1933-1937, it would have won. In all other years it would have lost.

This leads into my question: Arnold, shouldn’t you get more than even odds on this bet that would only have won in 7 of the last 106 years? Seems like Bryan should be taking this bet simply on principle at even odds.

I am one who sneers at all this betting and do not do it, but the obvious time when Bryan might win would be Congressional election of 2014. Historically, when a party controls both the White House and Congress, and the prez gets reelected, the ruling party becomes very vulnerable in the Congress in that mid-term election in the second term. See 2006, for that matter, 1986.

As for the prez change bet, Obama is very charismatic and historic and playing the middle skillfully. Probably the best bet for the GOP is Romney, but he does not look like the man to beat Obama without some catastrophe that can be clearly pinned to Obama. I do not bet, but I would not bet on that one. Look to 2014, by when many of the things on Arnold’s list could have changed in unforeseeable ways, and the electorate could be very tired of the Dems.

The 2008 voting statistics by ethnicity are somewhat anomalous in that the Democrats had a candidate who excited minorities to turn out who might often have not bothered, while the GOP candidate didn’t excite whites (other than fellow Scots-Irish who liked his pugnacious foreign policy) because of his Kennedy-McCain amnesty bill in 2006.

I would not bet on the Presidency; it can be used an electoral figurehead for the direction voters wish to signal the country to go. But Republicans will never again control the House or the Senate. Demography is destiny, and the arrow is pointing firmly towards political stagnation.

@RL- Bryan said “I predict that Republicans will regain control of at least one branch of the federal government at some point between now and January 20, 2017 (two inaugurations from now). So Eric is right in his understanding.

@Bill Mill- If I were Arnold, I’d want much more than even odds, and probably better than 7-3, considering the last time you would have won the bet is in the 1930s. Personally I think Arnold is quite overconfident and, like commenter paul, wish I could get in on some of the action. At even odds, I’d bet my entire net worth.

I understand Arnold’s reasons for expecting a lot of democratic victories, and its admirable for him to put his money where his mouth is, but Bryan has already won the gamble. Or more precisely, he can make other bets such that he will not lose money no matter what the outcome.

For simplicity let’s say the democrats are guaranteed to control the house and senate until 2017, and only the presidency will be contested. Obama is currently getting 4-5 on major online books for 2012, and assuming he does carry, its still hard to imagine the democratic nominee for 2016 will have better odds. If Bryan bets $99 on Obama and Obama wins, Bryan makes $70 (if Obama loses, the bet is over, and Bryan makes $1). If we go to 2016 and Bryan stakes his $70 on the dem nominee who also has 4-5 odds, he makes another $50 for a total of $120 with a dem victory, only $100 of which he must pay to Arnold. With a dem loss, he still makes $1. Of course, the fact that the bet also includes house/senate control can only help Bryan.

So if Arnold is really confident in what he’s saying, he’s playing the books in addition to taking this bet, since to offer Bryan even odds for democratic victories across the board, he must think he knows something that the prediction markets don’t in a major way.

I think there’s a lot of people who’d pay $100 to get divided government back.

“Look to 2014, by when many of the things on Arnold’s list could have changed in unforeseeable ways, and the electorate could be very tired of the Dems.”

By that time the damage will have been done.

A correlation of the value of money with outcome affects the interpretation of the bet. At the extreme, suppose that Dem dominance will destroy America and reduce the value of the dollar to nothing, and suppose that a Rep victory will perfectly preserve the current value of the dollar. Then regardless of the probabilities, one side has already won the bet, because the person who votes against Dem dominance is assured of never losing anything of value (from the bet itself, that is).

In reviewing your points as to why you will win the bet I find agreement with some and disagreement with others.

I agree with your first three points, especially number 1. Hispanics should be more attuned to the Republicans if the republican message were more focused on growth and opportunities along with tradtional values. Most Hispanics coming to this country want opportunity (much as all of the other waves of immigration that we have faced).

I’m not quite in agreement with point 4. Many of those fleeing the blue states to the red states is because they are fed up with high taxes and overburdensome government. I suspect that what will happen is that the blue states will become more blue and the red states more red.

No argument with point 5 except that it looks much the same as the Democrats during the 80’s.

Point 6 is reminisent of the Democrats during the 80’s and 90’s. Even with a Democrat in the White House there was continued debate over the purity of the party. The Democrats drove out a number of prominent traditional conservative and blue dog democrats because they just didn’t fit with the leftist elements of the party. Even Bill Clinton had difficulty with his “new Democrat” approach to try to bring in more moderates. Today though there are conservative elements of democrats in the congress the overwhelming voice of the party is leftist/socialist.

Each party has gone through the process of redefining its principles and identity as it has struggled through the wilderness of defeat and minority status. The current debates within the Republican party are well grounded in each parties history.

With regard to point 8 – lets not confuse the young voter with the college student vote. Since the 70’s we have had a tendency to define the young voter by what we see on the college campuses. Despite all of the programs to increase college enrollments they are still the minority of all potential voters for that age group. What has made them a more potent vote than before is the total disregard for the voter laws in most states. As an example, during the 2004 election, the Kerry campaign in conjunction with democrat front groups sponsored an outdoor concert in Madison Wisconsin to attract large numbers of students. During that concert the city government registered students and provided them with absentee ballots despite the fact that an absentee ballot can only be cast when a voter certifies that they cannot cast their vote at their polling place on the day of election for specific reasons that do not include sleeping late or attending class.

Where the Republicans are failing in this regard is working to attract the large portion of the middle class young voters who are working for a living while their counterparts are in college classses (paid for with the working groups taxes). Ultimately a portion of this group becomes voters and are as likely to vote Republican as Democrat depending on the election.

In the meantime I hope you don’t take this personally but I hope you lose the bet.

At even odds, this seems like a walkaway win for Bryan. I’m not sure why you would agree to take up a bet like this (even if, admittedly, $100 is no big amount).

The points that are valid indicators that the Democrats are likely to do well in the next ten years. But to expect them to actually go 10 for 10, is just way too much.

Then again, it’s a bet that you really don’t mind losing. So I guess that’s justification enough, since like I said, it isn’t a big pot at stake.