Final tally 28, lol (assuming he’s done talking about that now). Got that slightly wrong. Assume I’m going to win on no crypto mention.
O/U on “cornpop” utterances?
“Listen, fat” +5000
Gotta imagine you’re in the clear now.
Did he just stumble over his words so badly on two unrelated words that he said crypto?
2 Likes
it really sounded like it to me, lol
I almost predicted it, too, but didn’t want to jinx Chris. I was thinking I could see him mixing up bit and coins or trying to say a word like cryptic or something if that was somehow in there and blowing it.
Or maybe someone at WH Comms had action on it and he’s Ron Burgundy with the teleprompter.
Looks like it resolved ‘no’ either way https://polymarket.com/market/will-president-biden-mention-cryptocurrency-in-the-2022-state-of-the-union-address
Ended up bailing on this early last night, because I went to a comedy show, so I was going to miss ~all of the SOTU and didn’t want to be trapped if it was clear to those watching live that it was going to be under.
Ended up with $8 profit LOL.
New indictment market offering decent bond yields.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7774/Will-Donald-Trump-be-indicted-by-Sept-1
No on 57+ SCOUTS votes seems like free money at 13 cents. I can’t envision a world where 7 R’s vote yes.
Devil’s advocate side
Obviously 0 R’s vote if it was the tiebreaker. But if R’s know that it is getting 50 D votes, do enough R’s vote yes to try to pretend like SCOTUS is still bipartisan?
this is a weird vote, literally doesn’t matter but it’s tough to see 57 in an election year
like graham might, that’s how fucked up this world is atm
sigh, I don’t want to do work over 13 cents
her previous vote was 53-44 (graham yes), with 3 abstains. not sure who the 57th vote would be but might not be as free as you’d originally think.
Collins at 95% yes seems high tho put a little on no there
edit–5 R senators are retiring they could just **** it and vote, though I doubt it
Graham, has indicated he’s a likely no. I guess there is still a shot, but seems small.
Retiring Senators I think are more likely to vote no as they want to be consultants/Fox news contributors and thus need to pander to that crowd.
I see no way R’s are willing to give Biden a win and signal he made a good SCOTUS choice.
One possibility is that the Rs would love to have the “undeserving, Affirmative Action” SC Justice to kick around for the next 30 years. They are going to have the SC votes anyway.
Is there still a Hillary indictment market? That’s better than ibonds!
She’s getting confirmed regardless - and that narrative is easier to make if she was affirmed without any R support. Won’t stop them from making the argument - but will blunt it a bit if she gets a decent number of R votes.
1 Like
They’re all gonna vote no except maybe Mittens, Murkowski and lol Collins.
They’re going to just hammer away at Biden picking a “radical left wing socialist” blah blah blah for the next several decades (wink wink). They’re just going to go full racism on KBJ, duh. The fact a bunch of them already voted to confirm her once before is completely irrelevant
Or they want to be lobbyists and Mitch wants them to cast the vote to increase the legitimacy of the court and to leverage to get Democrats to confirm the next lunatic right wing SCOTUS nominee. If they want to be establishment right wing McConnell type or Romney type lobbyists, or sit on a bunch of boards and collect paychecks, I could see it.
Agree that’s most likely. 2-5 is probably the range 95% of the time.
They didn’t though, right?
It was just Merk, Graham and Collins. (Unless you’re talking about a different vote)