Arnold Kling, Noble in Defeat

The bets I've seen placed on this site are so small in value that they don't tell me much other than that none of the bloggers believe in anything with much certainty. A couple hundred dollars is nothing to upper-middle class academics; I'll know you're seriously convinced of something when you start placing bets of $25k or more--enough money to really hurt.

^^^
Oh really? Can I have a few hundred dollars? Let me know, I'll give you my Pay Pal account.

Did he actually lose? Republicans took control of the house but they didn't take control of a "branch of the federal government".

I'm with Scot. The house of reps isn't a branch of the federal government. It's half a branch. I say you should prove you're as noble as Arnold and give him back his money until you've actually won the bet.

At the time Bryan made the offer, I would have taken him up on it, too. It was only after the health care bill passed that it was a probable loser.

We should also honor David Henderson, who promptly paid off his bet with me after predicting the GOP would gain less than 55 seats. That bet followed his post on the subject here: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/political_predi.html

David reduced his losses when I took a second long shot (7 to 1) bet that the Republicans would top 70 seats.

Indeed, Bryan!

@John Goodman,
Thanks, John. I'm glad (kind of :-)) that the check arrived.
Best,
David

Surely the 2010 midterm election result was a draw in terms of your bet with Dr Kling. The GOP controls the House, while the Democrats retain control of the Senate. That's one half of the legisative branch each.

As no party controls both halves, you haven't won the bet and Dr Kling hasn't lost it. Your bet can only be decided by future elections.

We Aussies and our British cousins are familar with that sort of outcome. We call it a Hung Parliament.

John Goodman,

If you believe the CW, you would've also won your second bet if Michael Steele weren't such a profligate incompetent.