US Election Week 2020

[Razgovory]

This is some of the weirdest shit I've ever seen.

Not really if you know Donald's history.  If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again.

Well, haven't seen Donald Trump's history.  Specifically I find it extremely weird that states are suing other states because they picked the wrong candidate.

[Darth Wagtaros]

This is some of the weirdest shit I've ever seen.

Not really if you know Donald's history.  If at first you don't succeed, sue, sue again.

Well, haven't seen Donald Trump's history.  Specifically I find it extremely weird that states are suing other states because they picked the wrong candidate.

They're run by states run by The Trump Party.  One of the basic planks is if Trump says blue is green, so do they.

[Habbaku]

Many of you have written to us to ask about the timeline for closing the remaining election markets, or to advise either that we take action or refrain from doing so. We want you to know we are listening to you and appreciate your input.

As you know, as of this moment, the outcome of the presidential election in several states still remains the subject of litigation in state and federal courts, including the US Supreme Court. This has created unprecedented uncertainty well beyond the time that election markets normally settle.

In light of these ongoing disputes, PredictIt currently anticipates that we will begin settling markets on individual state results in accordance with each market's rules only after electors have cast their votes on Dec. 14, unless in our view there is a conclusive outcome before then.

In the meantime, traders who wish to exit their positions should be able to sell their shares, as trading continues in most markets at this time.

Thank you for your patience.

PredictIt Team

[alfred russel]

Hopefully predictit doesn't piss off too many trumptards. I'll wait to get their money from this election in order to get more of it in future markets.

[Habbaku]

I'm hopeful their delays in calling the markets this time around will be enough to assuage them. Who knows, though. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they started their own Trump-branded betting markets, with blackjack. And hookers.

[alfred russel]

I'm hopeful their delays in calling the markets this time around will be enough to assuage them. Who knows, though. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they started their own Trump-branded betting markets, with blackjack. And hookers.

Trump has a 14% chance of winning, per the predictit markets. Which is of course insane, but presumably the people betting on Trump today would be pissed off if they closed while this is still being litigated.

[DGuller]

Hopefully predictit doesn't piss off too many trumptards. I'll wait to get their money from this election in order to get more of it in future markets.

You think there will still be some crumbs to pick up after Trump is done with them?

[Admiral Yi]

Trump has a 14% chance of winning, per the predictit markets. Which is of course insane, but presumably the people betting on Trump today would be pissed off if they closed while this is still being litigated.

That could just mean that was the last bet placed.

[alfred russel]

Trump has a 14% chance of winning, per the predictit markets. Which is of course insane, but presumably the people betting on Trump today would be pissed off if they closed while this is still being litigated.

That could just mean that was the last bet placed.

It is an active market--yesterday 47.9 thousand "shares" traded on it--and it is consistent with all the other markets. For example, that Bill Barr will be the Attorney General on Feb. 15, or that the republicans will be the winning party for president, or that the winner of the South Carolina democratic primary won't be elected president.

[Solmyr]

Those are some really specific bets. Can I bet that a person under 74 years old won't be elected president?

[The Minsky Moment]

Those are some really specific bets. Can I bet that a person under 74 years old won't be elected president?

Loopholes for getting around position limits I'm guessing.

[alfred russel]

Those are some really specific bets. Can I bet that a person under 74 years old won't be elected president?

No, they have to propose the markets.

I think Minsky is right though. To be legal the site agreed to some really specific limits: no one can bet more than $850 bet on any contract, and no more than 5,000 people can bet in any one market.

[Syt]

Apparently 106 GOP members of the House of Representatives have filed an amicus brief in support of Texas's case in front of the Supreme Court?

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/529717-100-house-republicans-sign-brief-backing-texas-suit-challenging-election

More than 100 House Republicans sign brief backing Texas lawsuit challenging election results

More than 100 House Republicans on Thursday signed an amicus brief in support of the Texas lawsuit aimed at overturning the election results in four swing states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that handed Democrat Joe Biden the White House.

"This brief presents [our] concern as Members of Congress, shared by untold millions of their constituents, that the unconstitutional irregularities involved in the 2020 presidential election cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections," states the brief signed by 106 GOP lawmakers.

Outgoing Republican Study Committee Chairman Mike Johnson (La.) — one of President Trump's closest allies in the House, having served on his impeachment defense team — helped lead the effort to garner support from his GOP colleagues for the brief. Johnson is joining the GOP leadership team in the new Congress.

"President Trump called me this morning to let me know how much he appreciates the amicus brief we are filing on behalf of Members of Congress. Indeed, 'this is the big one!' " Johnson tweeted Wednesday.

Other key Republicans who signed the brief include Minority Whip Steve Scalise (La.); Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee; Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), the chair of the conservative Freedom Caucus; and Rep. Jim Banks (Ind.), the incoming Republican Study Committee chairman.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), another top Trump ally, is not among the signatories. Neither is GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney (Wyo.). McCarthy twice declined to comment to reporters Thursday when directly asked if he supported the Texas lawsuit.

"The president has a right for every legal challenge to be heard. He has the right to go to the Supreme Court with it, yes," McCarthy said.

The Electoral College is scheduled to meet on Monday to cast their votes, with Congress slated to vote on certifying the results Jan. 6.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) on Tuesday filed a lawsuit to the Supreme Court aimed at blocking electors from Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia from certifying Biden's victory. Paxton alleges the states' mail-in voting efforts during the pandemic were unconstitutional. Attorneys general from 18 other red states have joined that lawsuit.

The Trump campaign has largely been unsuccessful in its legal efforts to challenge the election results; dozens of challenges filed by Trump or his allies have been rejected by the courts. Trump has asked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a former Texas solicitor general, to argue the latest case before the Supreme Court, The New York Times reported.

But the last-ditch Hail Mary has divided Republicans on Capitol Hill — and in the powerful Texas congressional delegation itself. For weeks, Rep. Kay Granger (Texas), the top Republican on the powerful Appropriations Committee, has been telling Trump it's time to "move on" and accept defeat. And Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a vocal Trump backer, voiced his concerns about the lawsuit on Twitter, opting not to sign on.

"Respectfully, I will not join because I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation of federalism & sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states," Roy said in a series of tweets.

Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), a member of the GOP leadership team, has also questioned the merit of the suit.

"You know, it's very unusual because when a state sues a state, the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction," Cornyn told CNN, "so you don't have to go through the ordinary procedure. I read just the summary of it, and I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it."

[Habbaku]

Yes, it's very important to those 106 that they be seen as out and front supporting Trump for when 2022/2024 comes around so they can say they never believed Biden won anyway.

[DGuller]

Seeing things like that just reinforces my belief that had the election been closer, there would be a definitive attempt to change the outcome by legal shenanigans at all levels.  Look at how much support there is for overturning an election that wasn't close at all, based on narratives that don't stand up to even a second of scrutiny.  I think a lot of Republicans who haven't joined that movement have abstained only because the hurdle to overturn the results is too high.