I think that this is not totally unrealistic. Pro-lifers may not be the majority, yet, but they are not a small fringe minority in the US. Plus, American pro-lifers seemed to be laser-focused, before, on reversing Roe-vs-Wade. I think, now that Roe-vs-Wade is overturned, they can shift their focus on changing minds and changing laws. I think the Democrats are gonna try to "codify Roe-vs-Wade", legalizing abortion, nationwide.
This will force pro-lifers to focus on banning abortion nationwide. Just change a few more minds and it is within reach.
Michael isn't even betting on a complete abortion ban, given that he specified surgical abortion only. Most abortions are done by pill in the US and abortions can be used up to approx 8 weeks, plenty of time to notice a missed period. This might be seen as a reasonable compromise by some very moderate "pro-choicers". Many pro-lifers might begrudgingly accept it as a temporary compromise given that it is relatively difficult to enforce a ban on abortion pills vs a ban on surgical abortion.
He is not even betting that the ban would last. Just that surgical abortions will be banned on June 1, 2034. Perhaps it will yo-yo back-and-forth and it will be re-legalized in 2036. Michael would still win the bet, in that case.
For anyone who agrees with Michael Crone: I will go on record that I would give 25 to 1 odds, and would be happy to arrange a bet.
The idea that there is even a 4% chance that all abortions will be banned in all 50 states in 10 years is absurd. It’s a bet that a total abortion ban would pass at the Fed level, and that the Supreme Court wouldn’t strike it down. You wanna say 1% or 2% I still think you’re wrong, but it wouldn’t be whack. Anything 5% or higher in a 10-year timeframe is just whack.
Tell you hwhat, Andy: I would take 20:1 odds if neither of us pre-pays. And just $50. Neither of us know each other that well. So, from my perspective there's a good risk that you won't actually pay up. I am willing to negotiate the odds ratio. But if you're offering 25 to 1 odds, hwhy settle for much less? :P
The terms of this bet changed slightly in our private conversation. I always wanted to make these revised terms public for the sake of accountability, but I hadn't got around to it.
Final terms: If surgical abortion is banned in all 50 states of the USA, except to save the life of the mother, by June 1st, 2034, Andy pays Jonas $2000 USD. If not, Jonas pays Andy $100 USD. No adjusting for inflation, interest or opportunity cost.
If there's any dispute regarding the nature of the bet outcome, we go with the outcome that the Caplan bet has, according to Dr Caplan.
Now I'm starting to imagine all sorts of convoluted scenarios where we disagree on the outcome of the bet and by then, Dr Caplan has taken down his "Complete Bet Wiki" Google docs, is no longer on substack, no longer works at GMU and is no longer reachable via any e-mail address that either of us know about. So, I fly to NoVa and hire a private investigator to track down Dr Caplan in person and get him to record a video stating the outcome of the bet. But Andy doesn't believe it. He thinks the video is a "deepfake" (to be fair, they're pretty common, realstic and convincing by 2034), so he flies to NoVa too and even upon meeting Dr Caplan in person, he INSISTs that he's an impersonator. He shows us his government ID and Andy says "so? Identity theft is pretty common!" Perhaps then, we'd have to get Dr Caplan to submit a blood sample for DNA analysis...
But I don't think it will come to that. Do you, Andy?
I would take Bryan's side of this bet as well. There has to be just one hold out state for Bryan to win. And it's also bet on the status quo and inertia. Political grid lock works in its favour.
Compare to how long the UK took to actually legally leave the EU.
Well, no, the only way it has ANY chance of occurring would be for it to pass at the federal level, and survive the court challenge. The idea that CA, NY, and HI would pass such a ban is not even 1 in 1,000 in the next 10 years.
Yes. And given the gridlock and possibility of filibuster by even a single.politician, something so controversial is unlikely to be passed and survive.in the next ten years.
Well… not exactly. The Senate could indeed change its rules in the future to pass anything it wanted with a simple majority, but under its current rules (as far back as the eye can see) that is simply not true.
And each side, knowing that at some point in the future it will return to minority status, has powerful incentives not to change those rules when they have a simple majority. Senators don’t want to be just like House members.
Well here's hoping you're wrong! I'd like to think so, being pro-life myself, but I don't consider it wise to try and make any solid predictions about what things might be like in 10 years. The world moves fast these days.
Ohio isn’t really a purple state any more, it’s pretty much a reliable red state; that a pro-life referendum loses even there by a healthy margin isn’t auspicious for that movement. Moreover, it much of the pro-choice side has not only their beliefs but also self interest to motivate, so the defense will be much more galvanized than the offense. This is a huge asset for democrats and most self interested Republicans, like Trump, realize this and thus would never support a ban.
I think you will win but make no mistake, this is the hellscape that MAGA, groypers, and Christian nationalists yearn for and seek to realize with all their might.
I think Bryan uses the graph as an explanation for why he likes betting. It's better to have skin in the game when commenting on policy, by putting your money where your mouth is.
I think that this is not totally unrealistic. Pro-lifers may not be the majority, yet, but they are not a small fringe minority in the US. Plus, American pro-lifers seemed to be laser-focused, before, on reversing Roe-vs-Wade. I think, now that Roe-vs-Wade is overturned, they can shift their focus on changing minds and changing laws. I think the Democrats are gonna try to "codify Roe-vs-Wade", legalizing abortion, nationwide.
This will force pro-lifers to focus on banning abortion nationwide. Just change a few more minds and it is within reach.
Michael isn't even betting on a complete abortion ban, given that he specified surgical abortion only. Most abortions are done by pill in the US and abortions can be used up to approx 8 weeks, plenty of time to notice a missed period. This might be seen as a reasonable compromise by some very moderate "pro-choicers". Many pro-lifers might begrudgingly accept it as a temporary compromise given that it is relatively difficult to enforce a ban on abortion pills vs a ban on surgical abortion.
He is not even betting that the ban would last. Just that surgical abortions will be banned on June 1, 2034. Perhaps it will yo-yo back-and-forth and it will be re-legalized in 2036. Michael would still win the bet, in that case.
If you believe what you wrote, I’d be happy to make the same bet with you…
1) I think you are going to lose, but I appreciate taking the pro-life position.
2) A assume that by using 50 states you are excluding DC.
I like you a lot, but I hope that this is a bet you are wrong about for the sake of the babies.
Go spend the c-note. You won.
For anyone who agrees with Michael Crone: I will go on record that I would give 25 to 1 odds, and would be happy to arrange a bet.
The idea that there is even a 4% chance that all abortions will be banned in all 50 states in 10 years is absurd. It’s a bet that a total abortion ban would pass at the Fed level, and that the Supreme Court wouldn’t strike it down. You wanna say 1% or 2% I still think you’re wrong, but it wouldn’t be whack. Anything 5% or higher in a 10-year timeframe is just whack.
Tell you hwhat, Andy: I would take 20:1 odds if neither of us pre-pays. And just $50. Neither of us know each other that well. So, from my perspective there's a good risk that you won't actually pay up. I am willing to negotiate the odds ratio. But if you're offering 25 to 1 odds, hwhy settle for much less? :P
Can we PM each other on Substack?
Just sent you a private message via Substack. 20-1 without prepayment it is. Adjusted for inflation as with Bryan’s bet.
So this means each of us is at risk that the other won’t pay up, but at least we can have a public record of it so long as Substack exists.
The terms of this bet changed slightly in our private conversation. I always wanted to make these revised terms public for the sake of accountability, but I hadn't got around to it.
Final terms: If surgical abortion is banned in all 50 states of the USA, except to save the life of the mother, by June 1st, 2034, Andy pays Jonas $2000 USD. If not, Jonas pays Andy $100 USD. No adjusting for inflation, interest or opportunity cost.
If there's any dispute regarding the nature of the bet outcome, we go with the outcome that the Caplan bet has, according to Dr Caplan.
This is #35 in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qShKedFJptpxfTHl9MBtHARAiurX-WK6ChrMgQRQz-0/edit (although I suppose Dr Caplan might change the location where he publishes his bet outcomes between now and then).
Andy, do you agree that this is what we agreed to?
Now I'm starting to imagine all sorts of convoluted scenarios where we disagree on the outcome of the bet and by then, Dr Caplan has taken down his "Complete Bet Wiki" Google docs, is no longer on substack, no longer works at GMU and is no longer reachable via any e-mail address that either of us know about. So, I fly to NoVa and hire a private investigator to track down Dr Caplan in person and get him to record a video stating the outcome of the bet. But Andy doesn't believe it. He thinks the video is a "deepfake" (to be fair, they're pretty common, realstic and convincing by 2034), so he flies to NoVa too and even upon meeting Dr Caplan in person, he INSISTs that he's an impersonator. He shows us his government ID and Andy says "so? Identity theft is pretty common!" Perhaps then, we'd have to get Dr Caplan to submit a blood sample for DNA analysis...
But I don't think it will come to that. Do you, Andy?
🤣🤣🤣
Good enough for me, yes. Agreed.
Let’s hope this Substack is still around in 8.5 years!
I would take Bryan's side of this bet as well. There has to be just one hold out state for Bryan to win. And it's also bet on the status quo and inertia. Political grid lock works in its favour.
Compare to how long the UK took to actually legally leave the EU.
Well, no, the only way it has ANY chance of occurring would be for it to pass at the federal level, and survive the court challenge. The idea that CA, NY, and HI would pass such a ban is not even 1 in 1,000 in the next 10 years.
Yes. And given the gridlock and possibility of filibuster by even a single.politician, something so controversial is unlikely to be passed and survive.in the next ten years.
“ possibility of filibuster by even a single.politician”
Well, no… it takes 41 Senators to filibuster a bill, not just one.
And even that is just Senate convention. The Senate can pass anything it wants with a simple majority.
Well… not exactly. The Senate could indeed change its rules in the future to pass anything it wanted with a simple majority, but under its current rules (as far back as the eye can see) that is simply not true.
And each side, knowing that at some point in the future it will return to minority status, has powerful incentives not to change those rules when they have a simple majority. Senators don’t want to be just like House members.
No. There are different filibusters in the US. Some only require a single politician.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate for details.
Not for *legislation*. Not today.
Nowhere in your link does it say anything to the contrary.
Have you read the thing?
It even has a section entitled 'Longest Solo Filibusters'.
selective abortion is not that practice among east asians anymore, it used to be a thing of the past specially among first geration migrants
As always, extremely virtuous. Thank you to both of you.
Well here's hoping you're wrong! I'd like to think so, being pro-life myself, but I don't consider it wise to try and make any solid predictions about what things might be like in 10 years. The world moves fast these days.
The single never married female demographic, which are overwhelmingly leftist, are surely doing a lot of heavy lifting on this issue
Ohio isn’t really a purple state any more, it’s pretty much a reliable red state; that a pro-life referendum loses even there by a healthy margin isn’t auspicious for that movement. Moreover, it much of the pro-choice side has not only their beliefs but also self interest to motivate, so the defense will be much more galvanized than the offense. This is a huge asset for democrats and most self interested Republicans, like Trump, realize this and thus would never support a ban.
10% odds on this seems reasonable, if anything low.
By the way, I don't know why you let Anatoly Karlin comment here, as you can see he's still the same common troll he's been for over a decade.
10 years is a long time. Things might be very different then.
I think you will win but make no mistake, this is the hellscape that MAGA, groypers, and Christian nationalists yearn for and seek to realize with all their might.
The graphic presented at the end is interesting, but not referred to in the text. Is it at all relevant?
I think Bryan uses the graph as an explanation for why he likes betting. It's better to have skin in the game when commenting on policy, by putting your money where your mouth is.
Huh? I think I need more brains. It's been getting worse. I'm Biden's age.