Is there a way an american can gamble on the US election?

http://www.predictit.org/

i dont understand those cents, how much will i profit if i deposit 1k?

>>1067061
I have no idea.I just looked on this website:

http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner

And then saw the links to the betting websites

>>1067063
clearly looks too complicated to an avg folk to put down a bet, those sites can't survive long like that. if some top nasa scientist can figure out whats the outcome on clintons 1k bet then, please do.

>>1067072
I tried

>>1067043
European companies will take bets although you'll be paying exchange rates, try one of the gambling ops in london. I believe Hilary is favourate by a fairly large margin atm.

Clinton has 1.18 as a democratic nominee one one of the sites I use.
1.9 as the next president.

Betting on the presidential election is illegal in Clapistan. I hope you enjoy anal rape because I've reported this to the feds.

>>1067124

:C

File: 1420770336095.jpg (42KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x400px

>>1067102
Shillary's cucked & fucked. If she somehow avoids feeling the Bern she still deals with an entire hand of Trump cards.

>>1067043
If Trump wins, stocks will go up if he cuts taxes. If Sanders win, stocks will go down because of his tax hikes. Buy and short respectively.

File: 382.gif (162KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 600x399px

>>1067146
>mfw final election is Bernie vs Trump
>Stocks Gone Wild

>>1067124
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/predictit-online-politics-stock-market-112374

>Though PredictIt could easily be confused with online gambling, it is legal — a prediction or futures market for politics that uses the marketplace to forecast events.

>>1067146

What specific stocks would rise or fall if someone wins?

>>1067047
This is sick. Thanks anon, I'mma get rich :3

>>1067243
just remember, it's not actually gambling, its a prediction market

>>1067246
Yep, already bought a position on Hilary winning NH even though I know she's gonna lose. Faith in Bernie is going to plummet once he gets schlonged in Iowa.

>>1067047
Thats actual gambling. I want to make money from their reforms.

>>1067275
There will be no schlonging, though. Clinton and Sanders are neck and neck.

>>1067385
Yeah but popular vote doesn't matter in Iowa. Bernie's support is concentrated in the college towns which represent a low volume of the local delegates that actually determine the winner.

To win the Iowa cockus you need to get the delegates from the rural parts of the state, which Hillary will easily clean up.

>>1067447
Look at the polls. It's neck and neck, and people are pissed enough to get out and vote.

>>1067501
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/sanders-iowa-2016-strategy-hole-217997

Bernie will get cucked in Iowa, even if he gets the popular vote

>>1067146

Eurofag here, not keeping up with the republican side of things much. Is Trump really gonna win the nomination? From what I see, nobody's near him.

Also, doesn't the party have some sort of mechanism to prevent that? I was under the impression he's not very popular in higher party circles.

>>1067613
>Is Trump really gonna win the nomination?
Pretty much. They've tried everything they can to stop his ascendance, but it turns out he's somehow a political genius who can't be stumped.

>Also, doesn't the party have some sort of mechanism to prevent that? I was under the impression he's not very popular in higher party circles.

It's called a brokered convention, and it's certainly possible. However Trump's in the power position here. If the RNC uses a brokered convention to cuck Trump, they'll be openly betraying a huge segment of the party's loyalist base.

The Republican party would essentially be committing long-term suicide in order to field a candidate who would just lose to Clinton anyway.

>>1067613
While the RNC isn't actually under any obligation to choose the most popular candidate, it would be suicide if they didn't choose him.

Trump will get the highest percentage of votes in the nomination. If they don't make him the candidate, it proves him right about political corrupt and he runs as an independent getting flocks of voters who would otherwise be Republican. The Republican party is split between Neocons and Trump Fans, with Trump Fans winning because the majority of people vote Republican because the other side is even worse.

While he can easily beat Hillary if it's just one on one, it's a bit more debatable if he can beat her with some literally who running as the Republican.

>>1067630
>>1067649

Oh wow. So Trump it is, I guess.

I'm kinda hoping for a Sanders-Trump showdown. Hillary bores me to death.

>>1067688
Personally, I want Sanders to get the nom just because it confirms Bloomberg running as an Independent.

I'd be down with President Bloomberg

>>1067061
The cents are the percent chance out of 100 that said candidate will win. If you win, it goes up to and pays out at $1.

So you'd get (1.00 - price per share you purchased shares at) x 1000

>>1067701
>Bloomberg

That would create the same situation as Trump running independently, no? I mean, democratic votes would be split, and Republicans win? Unless Bloomberg could get bi-partisan votes and really have a chance of winning?

>>1067701

How obvious is the shilling in the New York Post though:

>http://nypost.com/2016/01/29/poll-shows-bloomberg-has-a-good-shot-at-becoming-president/

>Bloomberg 29%
>Hillary 33%
>Trump 37%
>Sanders isn't an option

lol

Augur will be released before the general election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yegyih591Jo

>>1067706
Bloomberg's base is primarily Dem, but he can get bipartisan votes from neocons. He only wants to run if both parties are fielding extremists (ideally Cruz vs Sanders, Trump may be too much of a wildcard).

Bloomberg ran and won Mayor as a Republican, then left the party a few years in. Of course, we're talking about NY, where the Republicans are so liberal that there's a separate Conservative Party for the actual right.

>>1067717
Eh, it was just weighing him against the parties' front runners.

The Post is a Murdoch rag, anyway -- so any shilling would be right wing.

>>1067613
>Is Trump really gonna win the nomination
No.

Never listen to 4chan. /pol/ is literally always wrong about this sort of shit. They've never accurately predicated an election. Trump has a plurality of GOP voters, and his supporters are fanatical. However, Trump also wins in polls asking GOP voters which candidate they hate most. He's simultatneously the most beloved and hated Republican candidate. What people here can't fathom, and I'm not sure why they can't, is that a plurality only wins in a situation where there are 3 or more people. If Trump starts winning primaries, the RNC will put all of its clout behind one single establishment candidate, either Rubio or Bush, and pressure everyone else to drop out. And they will. It will suddenly be Trump vs. Rubio or Bush, and every person who didn't support Trump will support one of them. Suddenly taht plurality of 40% will turn into a minority of 40% and he'll lose the nomination.

Just because a demagogue hasn't taken over the election season in recent history, it doesnt' mean it hasn't happen. It happened with George Wallace in the 70s, and it's happened here and there throughout our history. Demagogues always have a problem of maximizing their support. They simply can't appeal to broad audiences, and that's what hte presidential race is all about.

tl;dr: No. Despite what 4chan says, Trump will not win the nomination.

>>1067746

Are you becoming increasingly nervous?

>>1067750
Nope. Worst case scenario, Trump wins it and I get to enjoy the ride. It's not like the American president has half the power we pretend he does anyway.

But like I said, it's just not at all likely.

>>1067750
I'd like to add that you may recall when Huckabee was the most popular candidate at this point in the election and swept Iowa before floundering everywhere else because of his complete lack of party endorsements.

>>1067702
still don't understand. explain to me like i am 4 :/

>>1067746
You severely overestimate the GOP's ability to control its base. Trump is the grave they dug themselves over the last 10-20 years.

>>1067759
>because of his complete lack of party endorsements

I think you mean to say "because of his complete lack of appeal outside of rural America"

>>1067746
Anon, you're making the classical mistake of getting increasingly nervous leading to you severely underestimating Trump.

The man has been planning this since, at least, 2000. He's being backed by Sheldon Adelson.

You can get quite a bit of money if you bet on bernie, should i go for it?

>>1067805
Bet what you can lose.
I'd bet a maximum of 50$.

>>1067805
>http://www.predictit.org/

I'm gonna put $10 on Bernie just so I can brag about predicting it if it happens.

File: bet.png (10KB, 940x122px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 940x122px

>>1067805
>>1067814

I did it, guys.

>>1067822
>www.predictit.org

how many shares can someone buy or sell?

>>1067849
Where are you getting those dank odds?

>>1067851

I don't know. I ended up placing the bet on a regular gambling site because, while the market is a lot safer and you can check out at any point, the bet exchange gives you 12 to 1 while the market is currently at 5 to 1.

Not that I'm gonna put any significant amount of money on this.

>>1067859

Betfair. It's a bet exchange site, great concept if you like an occasional gamble.

Is there a way for americans to gamble bitcoins on this shit?

I'm paranoid about cashing it out if I win, though.

>>1067746
So what you're saying is that it'll be Trump vs Rubio vs Hillary vs Bloomberg. Maybe even Bernie would join in as a representative of the Socialist Party.

https://www.betmoose.com/bets

>>1067613
That's an interesting question. You shouldn't listen to /pol/ about this, they have a massive confirmation bias because they support Trump.

On one hand, Trump is leading the Republican primaries by a large margin. On the other hand, Trump is a complete political outsider. Every nominee, Republican or Democrat, has held either a Senator or mayor position for their parties. The RNC isn't obligated to nominate someone they don't trust. But their base would be very unhappy. However, as >>1067746 points out Trump is a very polarising candiate. He inspires a great deal of support in the Republicans, but also a lot of hatred. To win the presidency you don't have to have fanatical voters, you need to have the majority no matter how apathetic your voters are. Rubio and Cruz are doing better against Hillary in hypothetical matchups. The RNC can give this as a reason to not nominate Trump.

>>1067228
Large companies paying a shit load of taxes. Not those who tax dodge, like Facebook.

>>1068090

The biggest thing is that if the RNC DOESNT elect trump, it's like handing the presidency to the dems. It's either trumps nomination or GOP suicide.

Augur.net

>>1068049

everyone on here is broke as fuck

what's the point of betting a fucking dollar

>>1068204
Trump vs Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Cruz vs Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

Rubio vs Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html


I'm assuming you're talking about the Republican primary polls. You're forgetting the Republicans are only a part of the voter base, and Trump beats only Republican candidates. To win the candidacy you have to be more popular with everyone than the democratic candiate, it's entirety different. Cruz, Rubio have a decent chance of beating Clinton, more so than Trump. Although at this stage it's not a good indicator of who's going to win. But then how will the RNC decide? Trust, like always. The parties want someone they can control/aligned with them. Rubio and Cruz are Republican senators/representatives with history while Trump is an outsider.

Face it, you wouldn't stop voting for Republicans if Trump didn't get the nomination. You'd rather vote for a Republican than Clinton. The lesser of two evils, that's how the two party system survives.

>>1068226

>THE SYSTEM SURVIVES BY THE LAWS OF LESSER EVIL

oy vey my goy boy for shoy yoy knoy that the DETINU STATS OF ACIREMA
IS RUN BY THE DMC
(democratic mongrels of cucks)

THIS IS BIZ. THINK WITH YOUR WALLET.

investors like to predict the future, since they cant predict the future of the stock market, they 'predict' the 'democratic' 'election' by insuring that candidate X is going to be FOR SURE the next president. this gives them some comfort that they know candidate Y won't come in and wreck the tax system.

If they didn't know who the next president would be, they wouldn't know what taxes they're going to have to pay. The candidate that the elite have elected, has been elected, simply for the fact of security and comfort of their portfolios.

The U.S. is now, and forever will be, a monarchy.