Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Trump slips even further in the WH2024 nomination betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 13 in General
imageTrump slips even further in the WH2024 nomination betting – politicalbetting.com

The big news in American politics this week looks set to be the announcement promised by Donald Trump on Tuesday about his intentions. The widespread belief is that he will announce that he’s running for the 2024 nomination – something that many senior figures in his party are very much opposed to.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,248
    Evening all!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,593
    edited November 13
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    T20 cricket has the potential to be easily the world's biggest sport, after football

    1. It is non-stop compulsive viewing, between competitive teams
    2. It has an ENORMOUS fan base in the subcontinent - 1.6bn people
    3. It is also worldwide, England to Oz to SA to the Windies
    4. It is perfectly aimed at humans who nowadays have less patience with long form of anything
    5. The Asian diaspora will spread it globally
    6. It has a natural glamour, the nightgames, the personalities, plus the easiness of understanding

    Cons:

    It is not a flawless product (the advantage to toss winning teams is an example). It needs to recruit a couple more rich nations to take off? And more

    But I can see it overtaking Basketball and NFL, which remain hard to export for the USA (esp the latter)

    Cons:

    It’s cricket.

    Case rests.
    Go to Karachi or Delhi or Colombo and say that

    And that is 1.8bn people. The future superpower and a quarter of humanity. And they are OBSESSED with cricket

    The IPL is arguably the richest league in all global sports already, and will only grow as India surges
    Dude, forget Amritsar, and blowing people from cannons after the "Mutiny", and the Bengal Famine and all that.

    No, for me the single worst, egregious, cruel, barbaric aspect of British rule in the Subcontinent was the foisting of boring, dull, tedious Cricket on the native populace, rather than a PROPER sport like football.

    Imagine if football had been introduced say 120 years ago, India would be the Brazil of Asia, and Pakistan, perhaps, the Argentina.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,160
    ….
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    I still worry DeSantis lacks the courage to take on Trump directly. Time to step up.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,957
    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920
    FPT:

    Vikings v Buffalos - game of the year.

    Vikings win % swings:

    2%

    70%

    1%

    78%!!!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920
    Just jail Trump and get him out the system.....
  • Slip Slidin' Away - Paul Simon

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC-ZaUDUiwc
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,974
    kle4 said:

    I still worry DeSantis lacks the courage to take on Trump directly. Time to step up.

    A major part of Trumps success is the collection of minor weirdos and freaks that constitute the alternative to him in the Republican Party.

    DeSantis is the best of the bunch. Think about that for a second.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,974
    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 8,502

    Alistair said:

    Heathener said:

    Barnesian said:

    Like other PBers who are not watching the cricket, I've been analysing the 21 remaining House races to try to find betting opportunities.

    If all 21 end up with the current leaders the result is 214/221 D/R.

    However if one introduces the possibility of surprises by identifying those six races that can be swung if 55% of outstanding votes go the other way from the current leader you end up with 6 Hung, 211D, 218R.

    My conclusion is that the 1.2 on Betfair for a Republican House majority is good value. So is the 2.24 on the GOP getting 220-229 seats.

    You may be statistically right but this is where UK residents can come a cropper. It's not about statistical probabilities, it's about the nitty gritty of the voting demographic in all of the remaining counties. I don't have that info and unless you do, you are introducing more risk.

    We've already seen people on here come a cropper over Laxalt.

    On the other hand, CNN think the Republicans are probably just about going to sneak a slim majority. I trust their judgement and they are certainly not calling this yet.
    It was extremely painful to see people go against my call for Masto.

    It felt like a personal insult.
    “It was extremely painful to see people go against my call for Masto. It felt like a personal insult.”

    If you got all that upset about my bet and race analysis, can’t imagine how you’ll react to my new Senator Laxhalt tattoo.

    Yes! I placed NV bet on GOP here after 74% count. Some others were ooooh and ahhhh about this one too mid count. when the lead in the count was that and awful lot of clark counted at 75% overall, and could still get 12, Kinabalu said why don’t you? so I did. Not that I’m blaming anyone, but I’ve already spent the hoped for winnings. I can’t take back because I’ve eaten and drunk most of it.

    Let’s come back on the same page here if we can. I did it because closing polls were not good for the Senator. Many Latinos do actually like the Conservative message on things like abortion, can we say it was never too obvious how they would turn out here? So This is how the polling looked to me, from the battles wiki site. The levels she was posting in all polls in the closing weeks clearly pointed to defeat - of the last 14 polls she hit the height of 47 just once. In the last month she lost more polls than won, but when she did win it was by no more than 2, whereas opponent recorded 1x3 1x4 4x5 1x6. Laxalt led in nearly all the late polls and by 6 percent in the InsiderAdvantage poll in November and was ahead in the real clear average by 3.4 percent.

    In my concluding opinion It was a great win in tight race for the Senator. Now it’s over it’s an interesting result to analyse as it throws much polling into question, and it has a red mirage element during this count to tempt bets.
    When elections are REAL close, then any damn thing can - and maybe even did - make the difference.

    Here is ethnic/gender breakdown, according to CNN exit polling:

    White men (32% of voters) Cortez Masto 36%, Laxalt 64%

    White women (36%) Cortez Masto 43%, Laxalt 54%

    Black men (4%) Cortez Masto 72%, Laxalt 25%

    Black women (7%) Cortez Masto 89%, Laxalt 8%

    Latino men (6%) Cortez Masto 62%, Laxalt 29%

    Latina women (7%) Cortez Masto 61%, Laxalt 37%

    All other races (9%) Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 43%

    Pro-CCM gender gap among White and Black voters, but NOT among Latinos & Latinas.

    On balance, seems that repeal of Roe v Wade played a role in saving Cortez Masto from being swamped by cost of living issue, which is of particular salience in Nevada, a state with lots of debtors (more from mortgages than casinos, though many mortgage-holders work for casinos!) and young families.

    Note also that Latinos comprise 13% of electorate according to exit poll sample, compared to 68% Whites, 11% Blacks and 9% other races.

    At least for THIS election. By 2024, yet more changes for America's most demographically dynamic state.

    Brilliant analysis. My take outs from your post. Yes - she got less Latino ladies voting for her than Latino men. And white women at 43 and black women 89 is what won it.

    Considering The Donald created such a Conservative Supreme Court, they done him and Conservative America no favours announcing last June not next February?
  • Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    T20 cricket has the potential to be easily the world's biggest sport, after football

    1. It is non-stop compulsive viewing, between competitive teams
    2. It has an ENORMOUS fan base in the subcontinent - 1.6bn people
    3. It is also worldwide, England to Oz to SA to the Windies
    4. It is perfectly aimed at humans who nowadays have less patience with long form of anything
    5. The Asian diaspora will spread it globally
    6. It has a natural glamour, the nightgames, the personalities, plus the easiness of understanding

    Cons:

    It is not a flawless product (the advantage to toss winning teams is an example). It needs to recruit a couple more rich nations to take off? And more

    But I can see it overtaking Basketball and NFL, which remain hard to export for the USA (esp the latter)

    Cons:

    It’s cricket.

    Case rests.
    Go to Karachi or Delhi or Colombo and say that

    And that is 1.8bn people. The future superpower and a quarter of humanity. And they are OBSESSED with cricket

    The IPL is arguably the richest league in all global sports already, and will only grow as India surges
    Dude, forget Amritsar, and blowing people from cannons after the "Mutiny", and the Bengal Famine and all that.

    No, for me the single worst, egregious, cruel, barbaric aspect of British rule in the Subcontinent was the foisting of boring, dull, tedious Cricket on the native populace, rather than a PROPER sport like football.

    Imagine if football had been introduced say 120 years ago, India would be the Brazil of Asia, and Pakistan, perhaps, the Argentina.
    Your trouble is, your ancestors had no native games beyond horseplay and blood sport?

    Whereas the Micks had been bashing each other with sticks for eons, just for the fun of the thing!

    Thus Irish Nationalists will willing AND able to proscribe English "garrison games" (with some albeit varying degree of success) such as soccer, rugby and esp. cricket.

    But Indians did NOT have hurling or similar to fall back on, in the native tradition.

    A theory, anyway.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    T20 cricket has the potential to be easily the world's biggest sport, after football

    1. It is non-stop compulsive viewing, between competitive teams
    2. It has an ENORMOUS fan base in the subcontinent - 1.6bn people
    3. It is also worldwide, England to Oz to SA to the Windies
    4. It is perfectly aimed at humans who nowadays have less patience with long form of anything
    5. The Asian diaspora will spread it globally
    6. It has a natural glamour, the nightgames, the personalities, plus the easiness of understanding

    Cons:

    It is not a flawless product (the advantage to toss winning teams is an example). It needs to recruit a couple more rich nations to take off? And more

    But I can see it overtaking Basketball and NFL, which remain hard to export for the USA (esp the latter)

    Cons:

    It’s cricket.

    Case rests.
    Go to Karachi or Delhi or Colombo and say that

    And that is 1.8bn people. The future superpower and a quarter of humanity. And they are OBSESSED with cricket

    The IPL is arguably the richest league in all global sports already, and will only grow as India surges
    Dude, forget Amritsar, and blowing people from cannons after the "Mutiny", and the Bengal Famine and all that.

    No, for me the single worst, egregious, cruel, barbaric aspect of British rule in the Subcontinent was the foisting of boring, dull, tedious Cricket on the native populace, rather than a PROPER sport like football.

    Imagine if football had been introduced say 120 years ago, India would be the Brazil of Asia, and Pakistan, perhaps, the Argentina.
    Er. Kolkata?
    As big a football city as many European or South American.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 13

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    Demonstrating to the country that it was shaped by his petty whims, whether he wins or loses? He might be tempted.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,926
    Some votes just came in from Pima.

    Hobbs lead up to 36,186.

    AZ6 - Rep lead 1,617.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,861
    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    In white blue collar and rural areas the vote is more for Trump than the broader GOP. Much as Boris was the only Tory leader ever to win the redwall seats.

    He could well be a 2020s Perot and enable the Democrats to win the next 2 Presidential elections with under 50% of the vote as Clinton did in 1992 and 1996
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609
    This thread is not appearing on PB.com for some reason.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267

    This thread is not appearing on PB.com for some reason.

    Would explain the lack of comments. And their quality. Vanilla only.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,334
    dixiedean said:

    This thread is not appearing on PB.com for some reason.

    Would explain the lack of comments. And their quality. Vanilla only.
    Bland even
  • Third-Party Candidates for POTUS

    1892 - James Weaver, Populist = 8.5% of popular vote = 22 Electoral Votes (from Great Plains & West)

    1912 - Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive (aka Bull Moose) = 27.4% (2nd place) = 88 EV (ditto)
    1912 - Eugene Debs, Socialist = 6.0%

    1924 - Robert LaFollette, Progressive = 16.6% = 13 EV (Wisconsin)

    1948 - Strom Thurmond, States Rights (aka Dixiecrat) = 2.4% = 39 EV (Deep South)
    1948 - Henry Wallace (Progressive) = 2.4% (over half from CA & NY)

    1968 - George Wallace, American Independent = 13.5% = 46 EV (Deep South)

    1980 - John Anderson, Independent = 6.6%

    1992 - Ross Perot, Independent = 18.9%

    1996 - Ross Perot, Reform = 8.6%

    2000 - Ralph Nader, Green = 2.2%
    2000 - Pat Buchanan, Reform = 0.4%

    2016 - Gary Johnson, Libertarian = 3.3%
    2016 - Jill Stein, Green = 1.1%

    2020 - Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian = 1.2%

    SSI - my guess is that a Trump 3-Party candidacy in 2024 would be on order of Perot 1992 or even Teddy 1912.

    As with these two examples, would crack the GOP like a coconut. Or whatever kind of nut you prefer cracking.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609
    Two threads now running - this one only on Vanilla.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    Alistair said:

    Heathener said:

    Barnesian said:

    Like other PBers who are not watching the cricket, I've been analysing the 21 remaining House races to try to find betting opportunities.

    If all 21 end up with the current leaders the result is 214/221 D/R.

    However if one introduces the possibility of surprises by identifying those six races that can be swung if 55% of outstanding votes go the other way from the current leader you end up with 6 Hung, 211D, 218R.

    My conclusion is that the 1.2 on Betfair for a Republican House majority is good value. So is the 2.24 on the GOP getting 220-229 seats.

    You may be statistically right but this is where UK residents can come a cropper. It's not about statistical probabilities, it's about the nitty gritty of the voting demographic in all of the remaining counties. I don't have that info and unless you do, you are introducing more risk.

    We've already seen people on here come a cropper over Laxalt.

    On the other hand, CNN think the Republicans are probably just about going to sneak a slim majority. I trust their judgement and they are certainly not calling this yet.
    It was extremely painful to see people go against my call for Masto.

    It felt like a personal insult.
    “It was extremely painful to see people go against my call for Masto. It felt like a personal insult.”

    If you got all that upset about my bet and race analysis, can’t imagine how you’ll react to my new Senator Laxhalt tattoo.

    Yes! I placed NV bet on GOP here after 74% count. Some others were ooooh and ahhhh about this one too mid count. when the lead in the count was that and awful lot of clark counted at 75% overall, and could still get 12, Kinabalu said why don’t you? so I did. Not that I’m blaming anyone, but I’ve already spent the hoped for winnings. I can’t take back because I’ve eaten and drunk most of it.

    Let’s come back on the same page here if we can. I did it because closing polls were not good for the Senator. Many Latinos do actually like the Conservative message on things like abortion, can we say it was never too obvious how they would turn out here? So This is how the polling looked to me, from the battles wiki site. The levels she was posting in all polls in the closing weeks clearly pointed to defeat - of the last 14 polls she hit the height of 47 just once. In the last month she lost more polls than won, but when she did win it was by no more than 2, whereas opponent recorded 1x3 1x4 4x5 1x6. Laxalt led in nearly all the late polls and by 6 percent in the InsiderAdvantage poll in November and was ahead in the real clear average by 3.4 percent.

    In my concluding opinion It was a great win in tight race for the Senator. Now it’s over it’s an interesting result to analyse as it throws much polling into question, and it has a red mirage element during this count to tempt bets.
    When elections are REAL close, then any damn thing can - and maybe even did - make the difference.

    Here is ethnic/gender breakdown, according to CNN exit polling:

    White men (32% of voters) Cortez Masto 36%, Laxalt 64%

    White women (36%) Cortez Masto 43%, Laxalt 54%

    Black men (4%) Cortez Masto 72%, Laxalt 25%

    Black women (7%) Cortez Masto 89%, Laxalt 8%

    Latino men (6%) Cortez Masto 62%, Laxalt 29%

    Latina women (7%) Cortez Masto 61%, Laxalt 37%

    All other races (9%) Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 43%

    Pro-CCM gender gap among White and Black voters, but NOT among Latinos & Latinas.

    On balance, seems that repeal of Roe v Wade played a role in saving Cortez Masto from being swamped by cost of living issue, which is of particular salience in Nevada, a state with lots of debtors (more from mortgages than casinos, though many mortgage-holders work for casinos!) and young families.

    Note also that Latinos comprise 13% of electorate according to exit poll sample, compared to 68% Whites, 11% Blacks and 9% other races.

    At least for THIS election. By 2024, yet more changes for America's most demographically dynamic state.

    Brilliant analysis. My take outs from your post. Yes - she got less Latino ladies voting for her than Latino men. And white women at 43 and black women 89 is what won it.

    Considering The Donald created such a Conservative Supreme Court, they done him and Conservative America no favours announcing last June not next February?
    One of the reasons I considered Nevada a Dem hold was that the only High quality poll that showed her losing by any degree was a Emerson Poll and that had Laxalt winning the Latino vote (this was a feature of low quality polls) by a significant margin.

    This is a garbage result and completely convinced me that once again pollsters had failed to find enough Dem voting Latinos as they have failed to do over the last decade.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,527
    If T20 is the short form of Cricket, is there space for a long form of other games? A game of tennis, rugby or football played out over five days could be interesting.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Heathener said:

    Barnesian said:

    Like other PBers who are not watching the cricket, I've been analysing the 21 remaining House races to try to find betting opportunities.

    If all 21 end up with the current leaders the result is 214/221 D/R.

    However if one introduces the possibility of surprises by identifying those six races that can be swung if 55% of outstanding votes go the other way from the current leader you end up with 6 Hung, 211D, 218R.

    My conclusion is that the 1.2 on Betfair for a Republican House majority is good value. So is the 2.24 on the GOP getting 220-229 seats.

    You may be statistically right but this is where UK residents can come a cropper. It's not about statistical probabilities, it's about the nitty gritty of the voting demographic in all of the remaining counties. I don't have that info and unless you do, you are introducing more risk.

    We've already seen people on here come a cropper over Laxalt.

    On the other hand, CNN think the Republicans are probably just about going to sneak a slim majority. I trust their judgement and they are certainly not calling this yet.
    It was extremely painful to see people go against my call for Masto.

    It felt like a personal insult.
    “It was extremely painful to see people go against my call for Masto. It felt like a personal insult.”

    If you got all that upset about my bet and race analysis, can’t imagine how you’ll react to my new Senator Laxhalt tattoo.

    Yes! I placed NV bet on GOP here after 74% count. Some others were ooooh and ahhhh about this one too mid count. when the lead in the count was that and awful lot of clark counted at 75% overall, and could still get 12, Kinabalu said why don’t you? so I did. Not that I’m blaming anyone, but I’ve already spent the hoped for winnings. I can’t take back because I’ve eaten and drunk most of it.

    Let’s come back on the same page here if we can. I did it because closing polls were not good for the Senator. Many Latinos do actually like the Conservative message on things like abortion, can we say it was never too obvious how they would turn out here? So This is how the polling looked to me, from the battles wiki site. The levels she was posting in all polls in the closing weeks clearly pointed to defeat - of the last 14 polls she hit the height of 47 just once. In the last month she lost more polls than won, but when she did win it was by no more than 2, whereas opponent recorded 1x3 1x4 4x5 1x6. Laxalt led in nearly all the late polls and by 6 percent in the InsiderAdvantage poll in November and was ahead in the real clear average by 3.4 percent.

    In my concluding opinion It was a great win in tight race for the Senator. Now it’s over it’s an interesting result to analyse as it throws much polling into question, and it has a red mirage element during this count to tempt bets.
    When elections are REAL close, then any damn thing can - and maybe even did - make the difference.

    Here is ethnic/gender breakdown, according to CNN exit polling:

    White men (32% of voters) Cortez Masto 36%, Laxalt 64%

    White women (36%) Cortez Masto 43%, Laxalt 54%

    Black men (4%) Cortez Masto 72%, Laxalt 25%

    Black women (7%) Cortez Masto 89%, Laxalt 8%

    Latino men (6%) Cortez Masto 62%, Laxalt 29%

    Latina women (7%) Cortez Masto 61%, Laxalt 37%

    All other races (9%) Cortez Masto 52%, Laxalt 43%

    Pro-CCM gender gap among White and Black voters, but NOT among Latinos & Latinas.

    On balance, seems that repeal of Roe v Wade played a role in saving Cortez Masto from being swamped by cost of living issue, which is of particular salience in Nevada, a state with lots of debtors (more from mortgages than casinos, though many mortgage-holders work for casinos!) and young families.

    Note also that Latinos comprise 13% of electorate according to exit poll sample, compared to 68% Whites, 11% Blacks and 9% other races.

    At least for THIS election. By 2024, yet more changes for America's most demographically dynamic state.

    Brilliant analysis. My take outs from your post. Yes - she got less Latino ladies voting for her than Latino men. And white women at 43 and black women 89 is what won it.

    Considering The Donald created such a Conservative Supreme Court, they done him and Conservative America no favours announcing last June not next February?
    One of the reasons I considered Nevada a Dem hold was that the only High quality poll that showed her losing by any degree was a Emerson Poll and that had Laxalt winning the Latino vote (this was a feature of low quality polls) by a significant margin.

    This is a garbage result and completely convinced me that once again pollsters had failed to find enough Dem voting Latinos as they have failed to do over the last decade.
    They want to look in the casino kitchens.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    Jonathan said:

    If T20 is the short form of Cricket, is there space for a long form of other games? A game of tennis, rugby or football played out over five days could be interesting.

    One of the things that has led to the decline of Rugby Union. Both as a spectacle and financially, is the size of the subs bench. Almost no big player plays 80 minutes anymore. So it becomes a contest of sheer size.
    Play 80 minutes of playing time, with subs for genuine injury only. Stop the clock to set scrums and line outs with a "shot clock" limit leading to a penalty for not getting on with it. You'd see the size of players fall. Along with the drug use. And head injuries.
    And the cost of bloated squads. Which might make it a little more financially viable.
  • Jonathan said:

    If T20 is the short form of Cricket, is there space for a long form of other games? A game of tennis, rugby or football played out over five days could be interesting.

    The thing about Test Cricket is its the only game in the universe that could be played over five days and end up in a thrilling draw. Football could never pull that off.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,974
    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 13
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    The worry is other Republicans fear exactly that, and so won't call his bluff, but instead take a knee.

    Clearly some are fighting that, and others don't want him to lead them, but will they succeed?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,408
    edited November 13
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
  • kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    The worry is other Republicans fear exactly that, and so won't call his bluff, but instead take a knee.

    Clearly some are fighting that, and others don't want him to lead them, but will they succeed?
    The thing to remember about Trump is that grifters gonna grift.

    If he thinks a run will cost him his own money, he won't do it.

    If he thinks a run can see money embezzled redirected into his family bank accounts, he'll go.

    His run last time started as a grift. His hotels and golf clubs etc charging top dollar liable to the expense accounts of the campaign.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    edited November 13
    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    The worry is other Republicans fear exactly that, and so won't call his bluff, but instead take a knee.

    Clearly some are fighting that, and others don't want him to lead them, but will they succeed?
    Yeah. But they haven't called his bluff ever since he was soundly beaten on the popular vote twice. By two poor candidates. At some point they need to wise up. Or else they'll won't win again in the near future.
    They keep losing. 7 out of 8 on PV.
    There needs to come a point when they make peace with the electorate.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,850
    edited November 13
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    The worry is other Republicans fear exactly that, and so won't call his bluff, but instead take a knee.

    Clearly some are fighting that, and others don't want him to lead them, but will they succeed?
    Yeah. But they haven't called his bluff ever since he was soundly beaten on the popular vote twice. By two poor candidates. At some point they need to wise up. Or else they'll won't win again in the near future.
    They keep losing. 7 out of 8 on PV.
    There needs to come a point when they make peace with the electorate.
    But PV isn't how the elections are determined.

    The only reason the GOP lose the PV but win the EC is because the GOP are more ruthless at targeting the electorate where it matters, in states across the country rather than driving up by extra millions their margin of victory in California like the Democrats do.

    I want the Democrats to win more, but they need to make their own peace with the electorate. Realise that the Midwest which they could and should win, does not have the same priorities as California.

    Biden was good at that, Clinton was bad at that. That's why Biden won, and Clinton lost.

    Trump didn't lose versus Hillary, and nor did he steal the election. He won it fair and square. Unpleasant as that may be, the Democrats need to make peace with that and Biden did and didn't repeat Clinton's mistakes. The Democrats need to be more, not less, like Biden.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,025
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    The worry is other Republicans fear exactly that, and so won't call his bluff, but instead take a knee.

    Clearly some are fighting that, and others don't want him to lead them, but will they succeed?
    Yeah. But they haven't called his bluff ever since he was soundly beaten on the popular vote twice. By two poor candidates. At some point they need to wise up. Or else they'll won't win again in the near future.
    They keep losing. 7 out of 8 on PV.
    There needs to come a point when they make peace with the electorate.
    By "7 out of 8 on PV" you mean "5 out of 8 on the rules the elections are actually contested under", right?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,974
    Dura_Ace said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
    A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.

    But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?

    Not sure I see that as being his thing.

    Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...

    Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 9,850
    edited November 13
    Driver said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    The worry is other Republicans fear exactly that, and so won't call his bluff, but instead take a knee.

    Clearly some are fighting that, and others don't want him to lead them, but will they succeed?
    Yeah. But they haven't called his bluff ever since he was soundly beaten on the popular vote twice. By two poor candidates. At some point they need to wise up. Or else they'll won't win again in the near future.
    They keep losing. 7 out of 8 on PV.
    There needs to come a point when they make peace with the electorate.
    By "7 out of 8 on PV" you mean "5 out of 8 on the rules the elections are actually contested under", right?
    Which becomes "5 out of 11" if you alter the start date.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,549
    MikeL said:

    Some votes just came in from Pima.

    Hobbs lead up to 36,186.

    AZ6 - Rep lead 1,617.

    The AZ6 was a surprise as the Rep increased his lead . Have seen it suggested is that most of the votes counted must have been more from the A7 part of Pima county .

    Maricopa county are expected to release results of approx 90,000 votes around 1am UK time .
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Witmer getting some recognition as a contender for 2024.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3731647-ranking-the-democrats-who-could-run-for-president-in-2024/

    I still think, if it’s not Biden, then it’s likely to be Buttigieg.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Nigelb said:

    Witmer getting some recognition as a contender for 2024.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3731647-ranking-the-democrats-who-could-run-for-president-in-2024/

    I still think, if it’s not Biden, then it’s likely to be Buttigieg.

    And apologies to her for the typo.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Sinema likely to face a competitive primary challenge.

    Gallego: We fought as a team in Arizona and we won. Senator Sinema was nowhere to be found, at all. We did not see her at one public event for anybody… she did nothing. Because she only cares about herself..
    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1591941285757452288
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    edited November 14
    Jonathan said:

    If T20 is the short form of Cricket, is there space for a long form of other games? A game of tennis, rugby or football played out over five days could be interesting.

    We’ve already got that. They’re called the Davis and Billie Jean King Cups.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,729

    Dura_Ace said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
    A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.

    But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?

    Not sure I see that as being his thing.

    Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...

    Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
    But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.

    He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,248
    If I was a Republican strategist, I'd figure that if Biden runs, his chief weakness is his age. That attack line is undermined if they run Trump. If Biden doesn't run, one of Trump's weaknesses becomes his age. Either way, they need a younger candidate.

    By younger, of course, I'm talking in relative US politics terms. They could be 65.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,363
    WillG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Chris said:

    Elon Musk responds to a senator complaining about Twitter Blue:

    @SenMarkey
    A @washingtonpost reporter was able to create a verified account impersonating me—I’m asking for answers from @elonmusk who is putting profits over people and his debt over stopping disinformation. Twitter must explain how this happened and how to prevent it from happening again.


    @elonmusk
    Perhaps it is because your real account sounds like a parody?


    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591813228119855104

    Is that an Elon Musk parody account, or is Elon Musk beyond parody?
    These websites need to decide if they are publishers or platforms. If they are publishers, they should be liable for information published on them. If they are platforms, they should be regulated as public utilities once they get above a certain size.
    It's not that simple.

    Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments.

    And, ultimately, as a publisher, that's what you'd have to do.

    Which means that everyone is a platform.

    Which brings us to point two: platforms work because they surface stuff that keeps people coming back. It's why Netflix, Twitter, Facebook, Tiktok, etc. spend gazillions of dollars trying to optimize algorithms so you see stuff that keeps you coming back.

    If they are platforms, then do they have the right to act in their own economic best interests by working on algorithms to ensure you see stuff that will keep you coming back?

    That seems pretty fucking crazy: if lots of people come onto your platform, you're no longer allowed to run the service for shareholders, by algorithmically curating content.
    "Firstly, it is not really possible for a website (even one as small as PB) to monitor all comments to ensure that they are nobody is posting stuff that is libelous (or worse). No website could profitably vet all comments."

    AI says Hi! ?
    If AI can understand libel can we make a few lawyers redundant?
    We are in a completely new situation - like when writing, printing, mass media, telecomms etc were first invented. In each case society had to adjust.

    What is not tolerable is that if the BBC, Mail or Grauniad libels person X they can be liable for zillions; but if the same number of readers see an anonymous libellous post on Facetwit (or a post by someone not worth powder and shot) the libelled person has no remedy.

    It means among other things that Facetwit has a commercial advantage over the Mail - it can make billions by salacious libels without accountability.

    It also means that Facetwit has no reason to value truth for its own sake or even for commercial reasons.

    At the moment the Facetwits are saying (1) yes we can make billions by unaccountable libellous lies (2) we can't possibly afford to moderate our content. One side has to go.

    What's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

    If we're holding Facebook/Twitter responsible for anonymous libels, then you need to hold Politicalbetting's owners responsible too. Because people are (broadly) anonymous on here. And they can post libel. And we probably won't get it taken down that quickly.

    And what are you going to do about 4Chan/8Chan: they are nothing but anonymous libel. Should the FBI be allowed to seize the domains and shut them down?
    Websites should decide whether they are publishers or platforms. If they are platforms, at a certain size threshold they should be regulated as a public utilities, with the government being able to require certain fair standards for moderation.
    With all due respect, that's bullshit.

    Nobody can be a publisher, because that requires vetting of all comments to check for their legality, etc., because you are making the publisher responsible for the veracity of everything on their site/app.

    So, people need to be platforms.

    Except there's a fundamental difference between YouTube and BT.

    You don't pick up your phone and thing, you know what, I'll pick it up and have an interesting conversation with whoever the phone company's algorithm picks. You choose who you want to talk to.

    YouTube/Twitter/TikTok/Facebook/etc., their whole business model is showing you content you might want to watch/read/engage with.

    Are you saying that - because lots of people came to them because of their algorithm - that they can no longer use their algorithms to decide what to show you?

    Twitter is not a platform. It's a website and an app. No one is forced to use Twitter. It has no special power. Fuck me, it only does a couple of billion in revenue. My little insurance company will probably do as much revenue as Twitter does now in a couple of years time.

    Regulation should exist to protect consumers where they have no choice. That is unequivocally not the case with Twitter.

    But even if it was, you can't apply different rules because someone has 50m users not 50k users. If Twitter must be responsible for anonymous posters, then so must PB.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,363
    Nigelb said:

    Sinema likely to face a competitive primary challenge.

    Gallego: We fought as a team in Arizona and we won. Senator Sinema was nowhere to be found, at all. We did not see her at one public event for anybody… she did nothing. Because she only cares about herself..
    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1591941285757452288

    Sinema was rather foolish.

    She should have thrown herself fully behind Kelly. She should have been at every rally. She should have been on the trail campaigning for him. (Kelly is not, after, all a Bernie Sanders. He's about as moderate as they come.)

    But she did not. And I think that means a primary challenge, and a damaged Sisnema, and a Republican win in AZ in 2024.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sinema likely to face a competitive primary challenge.

    Gallego: We fought as a team in Arizona and we won. Senator Sinema was nowhere to be found, at all. We did not see her at one public event for anybody… she did nothing. Because she only cares about herself..
    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1591941285757452288

    Sinema was rather foolish.

    She should have thrown herself fully behind Kelly. She should have been at every rally. She should have been on the trail campaigning for him. (Kelly is not, after, all a Bernie Sanders. He's about as moderate as they come.)

    But she did not. And I think that means a primary challenge, and a damaged Sisnema, and a Republican win in AZ in 2024.
    Sinema needs to watch out?
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,842
    edited November 14
    Morning all.

    There was a big hint from the White House at the weekend that Joe Biden will be running again in 2024. Which he should. A proven winner.

    As for Ron de Santis, let's see how he fares under the scrutiny of primaries and the attack dogs of Donald Trump. The GOP are in a very bad place right now, making Biden's task easier.
  • pingping Posts: 3,175
    Oh dear oh dear. OBR now recons Hunt needs to find 100bn a year by 2026/7 if he’s to actually balance the budget;

    https://www.ft.com/content/133589fd-ba37-4963-9113-e1c47c28d4d7
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 3,842
    edited November 14
    ping said:

    Oh dear oh dear. OBR now recons Hunt needs to find 100bn a year by 2026/7 if he’s to actually balance the budget;

    https://www.ft.com/content/133589fd-ba37-4963-9113-e1c47c28d4d7

    Blimey.

    Maggie would be turning in her grave that a Conservative administration could have let this happen. An entire generation will be paying for this.

    Paradoxically I think Labour need to be careful here. They have to show that they can tackle the problem.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068
    I see Republican House seats 220-229 is now a very clear favourite and they're now down to 1.04 to take the majority this morning.

    Those were good bets I placed last night. I'm now looking at +£140 profit overall if it holds.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sinema likely to face a competitive primary challenge.

    Gallego: We fought as a team in Arizona and we won. Senator Sinema was nowhere to be found, at all. We did not see her at one public event for anybody… she did nothing. Because she only cares about herself..
    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1591941285757452288

    Sinema was rather foolish.

    She should have thrown herself fully behind Kelly. She should have been at every rally. She should have been on the trail campaigning for him. (Kelly is not, after, all a Bernie Sanders. He's about as moderate as they come.)

    But she did not. And I think that means a primary challenge, and a damaged Sisnema, and a Republican win in AZ in 2024.
    Or a different candidate.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Dura_Ace said:

    ping said:

    Oh dear oh dear. OBR now recons Hunt needs to find 100bn a year by 2026/7 if he’s to actually balance the budget;

    https://www.ft.com/content/133589fd-ba37-4963-9113-e1c47c28d4d7

    I don't think anybody involved has the slightest clue what's going and are just pulling random numbers out of their arses.
    Not entirely random.
    It's not as though we might be running a surplus next year, whatever we do.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,363

    I see Republican House seats 220-229 is now a very clear favourite and they're now down to 1.04 to take the majority this morning.

    Those were good bets I placed last night. I'm now looking at +£140 profit overall if it holds.

    Was the stress worth it?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sinema likely to face a competitive primary challenge.

    Gallego: We fought as a team in Arizona and we won. Senator Sinema was nowhere to be found, at all. We did not see her at one public event for anybody… she did nothing. Because she only cares about herself..
    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1591941285757452288

    Sinema was rather foolish.

    She should have thrown herself fully behind Kelly. She should have been at every rally. She should have been on the trail campaigning for him. (Kelly is not, after, all a Bernie Sanders. He's about as moderate as they come.)

    But she did not. And I think that means a primary challenge, and a damaged Sisnema, and a Republican win in AZ in 2024.
    Sinema needs to watch out?
    She ought to have realised silent Sinema just isn't popular these days.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920
    rcs1000 said:

    Mozambique LNG has just shipped its first cargo! (Not going to deny, I was skeptical that they'd get it done this year, but good for them. And, I suspect, bad for Putin)

    There is a massive amount of gas in that offshore Mozambique/Tanzania reserve.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068
    rcs1000 said:

    I see Republican House seats 220-229 is now a very clear favourite and they're now down to 1.04 to take the majority this morning.

    Those were good bets I placed last night. I'm now looking at +£140 profit overall if it holds.

    Was the stress worth it?
    It's a question of that or boredom.

    There are no other choices.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,838

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    The worry is other Republicans fear exactly that, and so won't call his bluff, but instead take a knee.

    Clearly some are fighting that, and others don't want him to lead them, but will they succeed?
    Yeah. But they haven't called his bluff ever since he was soundly beaten on the popular vote twice. By two poor candidates. At some point they need to wise up. Or else they'll won't win again in the near future.
    They keep losing. 7 out of 8 on PV.
    There needs to come a point when they make peace with the electorate.
    But PV isn't how the elections are determined.

    The only reason the GOP lose the PV but win the EC is because the GOP are more ruthless at targeting the electorate where it matters, in states across the country rather than driving up by extra millions their margin of victory in California like the Democrats do.

    I want the Democrats to win more, but they need to make their own peace with the electorate. Realise that the Midwest which they could and should win, does not have the same priorities as California.

    Biden was good at that, Clinton was bad at that. That's why Biden won, and Clinton lost.

    I'm not sure that's entirely true.
    Biden increased the D margin over R for the presidency nationally by 2.36%
    Pennsylvania he increased the margin by 1.88%
    Michigan by 3.01%
    Wisconsin by 1.4%

    Other states he flipped
    Georgia +5.37%
    Arizona +3.81%

    While he outperformed the D national House vote by 1.4%, he didn't outperform the D House vote in PA at all, in Wisconsin he underperformed the House vote by 2.3%. Michigan he outperformed by a similar % to nationally.

    Maybe there's all kinds of reasons for these figures, and you could argue that he at least reversed the trend towards R presidential candidates in the previous 2 elections in the 3 mid-west states he flipped, but the raw figures don't seem to support the idea that Biden was especially good at winning in the Midwest.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,874
    Dura_Ace said:

    ping said:

    Oh dear oh dear. OBR now recons Hunt needs to find 100bn a year by 2026/7 if he’s to actually balance the budget;

    https://www.ft.com/content/133589fd-ba37-4963-9113-e1c47c28d4d7

    I don't think anybody involved has the slightest clue what's going and are just pulling random numbers out of their arses.
    who believes experts, eh?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    If T20 is the short form of Cricket, is there space for a long form of other games? A game of tennis, rugby or football played out over five days could be interesting.

    We’ve already got that. They’re called the Davis and Billie Jean King Cups.
    Or just have John Isner against Nichols Mahut again.
  • Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.

    Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.

    It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?
  • LOL

    Yesterday in Melbourne


  • Morning all! I read this morning how Sunak says we have to smash taxes up and slash spending down to assuage the markets.

    Think about the optics for the Tories. Not only is this sacrifice to the markets required because of the Truss Experiment - their fault - but the markets are now demanding that we give up our Playstations and pay them a fee for doing so.

    It will be very difficult for the Tories to promote free market economics after this. And without the market as their big USP what is left?

    Woke immigrants putting Brexit in peril.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Crypto.com is next.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,322
    On topic - I think there is a better than zero chance they pass a constitutional amendment to let Liz Truss run, and win handsomely. This was always part of her long game.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,580
    Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Alistair said:

    Crypto.com is next.

    Interesting thread here, if you can make sense of the tech gibberish.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/vydamo_/status/1591969834283466752
    I believe as an ex-FTX employee I can offer some insight into how funds were succesfully comingled between customer, CHO and Alameda wallets without auditors noticing. The entire hack was possible due to the elx trapdoor SBF put in ~ 9 months ago which we can see in public test...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Trump Wanted I.R.S. Investigations of Foes, Top Aide Says
    John F. Kelly, who was White House chief of staff, said that as president, Donald J. Trump wanted investigations into perceived enemies like James Comey, the former F.B.I. director.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/13/us/politics/trump-irs-investigations.html
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411

    Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.

    Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.

    And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
  • DougSeal said:

    On topic - I think there is a better than zero chance they pass a constitutional amendment to let Liz Truss run, and win handsomely. This was always part of her long game.

    On the subject of unlikely comebacks by discredited Conservatives, Matt Hancock is joint-third in the betting for IACGMOOH.
  • pingping Posts: 3,175
    edited November 14

    Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.

    I expect the numbers will drop off from now, as we head into the depths of winter and the weather conditions worsen. The govt will probably try to claim credit for it.

    The test will come in the spring.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    ...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Oldest verified captured tank.

    Unless #Russia manages to dig up T-62 Obr. 1964s, this T-62 Obr. 1967 will for always be the first entry in the Russian list of losses.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1592068009941946369
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    Curious. Sunak has taken the A320 to Bali (which will make it a long flight) rather than the A330:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-gbni

    The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859
    Nigelb said:

    Oldest verified captured tank.

    Unless #Russia manages to dig up T-62 Obr. 1964s, this T-62 Obr. 1967 will for always be the first entry in the Russian list of losses.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1592068009941946369

    LOL. At some point they’re going to start pulling down T-34s from WWII memorials, and put some fuel and oil in them…
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,657
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,859

    Curious. Sunak has taken the A320 to Bali (which will make it a long flight) rather than the A330:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-gbni

    The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.

    The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.

    The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,469
    Following our debate last night on the alleged superiority of British over American sports, and the ascent of cricket. I made the point that cricket has the potential to be as big as or bigger than the NFL

    Just found this in the NYT

    “Both men, then, are quite familiar with what a billion-dollar business looks like. The sport where they see the biggest upside these days, though, might be a surprise.

    “When we first started looking at cricket, we were by no means experts,” Scheiner said. “But the more we studied it, the more we realized it felt like the N.F.L. did 20 years ago.””


  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411

    Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.

    Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.

    And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
    Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
    Looking at 2021, Germany (190K) and France (120K) certainly dwarf ours. I’d suggest Spain, Italy and oddly Austria are similar. Greece also. Spain, Italy and Greece are direct recipients you’d imagine, so yes people claiming asylum in the first Country. Germany, Austria and France not, so they could have the same gripes as us.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,761
    Leon said:

    Following our debate last night on the alleged superiority of British over American sports, and the ascent of cricket. I made the point that cricket has the potential to be as big as or bigger than the NFL

    Just found this in the NYT

    “Both men, then, are quite familiar with what a billion-dollar business looks like. The sport where they see the biggest upside these days, though, might be a surprise.

    “When we first started looking at cricket, we were by no means experts,” Scheiner said. “But the more we studied it, the more we realized it felt like the N.F.L. did 20 years ago.””


    Just as it wouldbe a shame if they titted about with the T20 blast to layer another, pointlessly tweaked and less good version on top of it, it would be a shame if American money came in and titted about with Indian cricket, or indeed cricket in general.
    Cricket is as close to perfect as any sport in the world. The only improvement I could make would be another handful of nations playing it.
    And another thing - look at that photo of cricketers. Smiling cheekily. Not glowering like footballers trying to suggest they're hard in a way which makes you want to wish both teams could lose.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,295

    I see Republican House seats 220-229 is now a very clear favourite and they're now down to 1.04 to take the majority this morning.

    Those were good bets I placed last night. I'm now looking at +£140 profit overall if it holds.

    NBC Estimate is 219 R to 216 D
    Plus or minus 4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anUOedg6M7s
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,408
    Sandpit said:

    Curious. Sunak has taken the A320 to Bali (which will make it a long flight) rather than the A330:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-gbni

    The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.

    The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.

    The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
    They don't move munitions in the A330 and only put C-17 into Rzeszow.

    It'll be moving people, probably for something nuclear related. NNPTC is at JB Charleston.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,046
    Sandpit said:

    Curious. Sunak has taken the A320 to Bali (which will make it a long flight) rather than the A330:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-gbni

    The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.

    The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.

    The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
    Couldn’t find any pics of the 320 interior - and I guess a few days before the Autumn statement wise not splashing the cash on the bigger jet. Doubt the press like it down the back though!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,469
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Following our debate last night on the alleged superiority of British over American sports, and the ascent of cricket. I made the point that cricket has the potential to be as big as or bigger than the NFL

    Just found this in the NYT

    “Both men, then, are quite familiar with what a billion-dollar business looks like. The sport where they see the biggest upside these days, though, might be a surprise.

    “When we first started looking at cricket, we were by no means experts,” Scheiner said. “But the more we studied it, the more we realized it felt like the N.F.L. did 20 years ago.””


    Just as it wouldbe a shame if they titted about with the T20 blast to layer another, pointlessly tweaked and less good version on top of it, it would be a shame if American money came in and titted about with Indian cricket, or indeed cricket in general.
    Cricket is as close to perfect as any sport in the world. The only improvement I could make would be another handful of nations playing it.
    And another thing - look at that photo of cricketers. Smiling cheekily. Not glowering like footballers trying to suggest they're hard in a way which makes you want to wish both teams could lose.
    American money can’t change Indian cricket because the IPL doesn’t need the money. As the whole article (££) makes clear, the IPL is already overflowing with cash, and it will only grow from here. The Americans are trying (and often failing) to get a foothold

    The sums are incredible. Billions. In 5 years IPL will probably overtake NFL as the richest sports league in the world. It might one day threaten EPL as the most-watched

    This money will, I am sure, attract other nations to play the game. It’s irresistible. Add in south Asian diasporas worldwide…

    Cricket’s future is rosy. It just won’t be Test cricket. Which is a shame, but hey Ho
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068
    DougSeal said:

    On topic - I think there is a better than zero chance they pass a constitutional amendment to let Liz Truss run, and win handsomely. This was always part of her long game.

    Arid.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Curious. Sunak has taken the A320 to Bali (which will make it a long flight) rather than the A330:

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-gbni

    The A330 is in the US, flew to Charleston yesterday.

    The 320 is a lot cheaper to operate, and IIRC has a much better cabin fitout (at the front) than the 330.

    The 330 is presumably on military duty in Charleston, picking up something important to deliver to Ukraine.
    They don't move munitions in the A330 and only put C-17 into Rzeszow.

    It'll be moving people, probably for something nuclear related. NNPTC is at JB Charleston.
    NNPTC is...?

    https://nnptc.org/about.php
    The National Network of STD Clinical Prevention Training Centers (NNPTC) is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to assist clinicians in the United States with …

    or possibly
    https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/NNPTC
    This is an official U.S. Navy Web site Naval Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC) 101 NNPTC Cir Goose Creek, SC, 29445 All information on...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068

    Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.

    It might nudge up interceptions from 45% to 55-60%, if we're lucky.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068

    I see Republican House seats 220-229 is now a very clear favourite and they're now down to 1.04 to take the majority this morning.

    Those were good bets I placed last night. I'm now looking at +£140 profit overall if it holds.

    NBC Estimate is 219 R to 216 D
    Plus or minus 4

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anUOedg6M7s
    That's not an "estimate" it's the bounds of all possible results under the sun with a virtual 100% probability.

    Do they expect to get plaudits for that?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,974
    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
    A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.

    But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?

    Not sure I see that as being his thing.

    Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...

    Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
    But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.

    He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
    That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.

    Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP

    Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up

    Make it make sense?????

    https://twitter.com/MattyWTF1/status/1591885623363014656

    Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver
    https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,705

    FPT:

    Vikings v Buffalos - game of the year.

    Vikings win % swings:

    2%

    70%

    1%

    78%!!!

    Allen taking a safety was an intriguing thought. Probably too much clock to run it though.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068

    Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.

    Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.

    And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
    Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
    The statistics in the huge increase in channel crossings since 2018 are not a lie.

    You can't make people feel comfortable that trending from a baseline of zero to a high number of 40,000+ is ok just because in Europe overall its at 200,000+
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068

    Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.

    Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.

    And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
    The problem is that anyone can claim asylum here who reaches our shores if their country of origin doesn't come up to our standards on human rights.

    I think that criteria should be changed.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,408
    Nigelb said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: great race at a very good circuit. My bets failed but one at least was clear misfortune (Ricciardo being a plank). Intriguing to think how Verstappen, Hamilton, and Sainz would have done without bad luck.

    Sergio Perez helped Max Verstappen win the world title last year by defending like a LION during the 2021 Abu Dhabi GP

    Verstappen refused to give up 6th place to Perez when both titles are wrapped up

    Make it make sense?????

    https://twitter.com/MattyWTF1/status/1591885623363014656

    Dear max verstappen fans.. If this incident with Perez is finally opening your eyes to what kind of person Max is. We’d like to tell you we’ve known this entire time. You were just too blind to see it. - sincerely, fans of literally every other driver
    https://twitter.com/Ichimaru_7/status/1591884595246813184
    Pas de cadeaux, as Lance always used to say.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 29,974

    Re. boat immigrants, is this deal with France likely to change anything? It does not seem likely to me.

    Seems unlikely. The government is terrified of providing genuine routes to claim asylum overseas as too many of the buggers will claim asylum. For instance, a processing centre in Calais would be seen as a huge draw for migrants and would just increase the problem. I suspect the money would be best spent hugely increasing the processing capacity so that no one waits more than a few weeks to be either granted refugee status and thus able to live, work and pay tax in the U.K. or gets removed. Coupled with some positive advertising of the genuine cases.

    And ultimately the globe needs to re-examine how refugee and asylum works in the modern world. It does not see right to many people that refugees/asylum seekers in Calais, an entirely safe country, do not claim asylum there. Or in Germany. Or Italy, or any of the other safe countries that they have crossed to get there. Now they have their reasons - language, family etc, but it diminishes the sympathy of people in the U.K.
    Of course in reality most *do* claim asylum in those other countries. Hence our number being so much smaller than theirs. People *think* we are swamped because the right wing media / certain MPs openly lie to them. Having voters ignorant and turned prejudiced suits their interests apparently.
    I would be interested to see numbers on the percentages of those who are actually claiming asylum if those who cross.

    The subject has become toxic - with the belief that asylum seeker is a nobler thing that economic migrant.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,408

    IanB2 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    stodge said:

    We come back to the question of what Trump will do if he loses (or looks like losing) the GOP nomination to DeSantis?

    I said last night he's not a party man - he has no specific loyalty to the Republicans so could easily choose to go it alone. Third party candidatures happen in US elections - they just aren't very successful - is Trump capable of being a Perot (19% and no EVs) or a Wallace (smaller but more concentrated vote)?

    What percentage of the 2016/2020 GOP vote was for Trump as much as for the Republicans? How many 2019 Conservative voters voted for Boris Johnson rather than for the Conservative Party?

    The Republicans will know a schism hands the keys to the White House for the Democrats but not necessarily in perpetuity - after the 1912 schism, the GOP won again in 1920 and held the Presidency for 12 years.

    IF Trump splits the GOP in 2024 and polls say 20%, that will be his zenith of his appeal and he will fade into obscurity. The bulk of the party would never forgive him.

    Trump might well get more than Perot as a third party candidate. He would, nearly inevitably, cause a wipeout for the Republican Party, with the Dems winning by unassailable margins.

    Not sure that he would want that as his legacy.
    But
    Is Trump invested in the Republican Party? It's all about him.
    I reckon bringing down the Party of Lincoln to prove Donald right would be just the legacy he's looking for
    Handing the Presidency to the Dems would not be the legacy he is looking for.

    If the Trumpet Party competed for the Senate and Congress, you could see the Dems getting 2/3rd of the Senate, as well. At which point they would have the power to do pretty much anything they felt like.
    I'm not convinced he'd give a monkey's.
    I'm not convinced he cares at all about owt other than his bank balance or ego.
    In fact. A 2/3 rd Dem Senate because they failed to nominate HIM he would see as just desserts.
    Ya soglasen. I think DJT likes that scenario very much. Destroy the GOP for spurning him. Very on brand.
    A longer term thinker would be into the idea of handing the whole political system to the Dems, to whip up his base to new heights.

    But to get there, he has to lose an election as a third party candidate. For most of his candidates to lose as well. To be a loser on a massive, massive scale. Then to slog along for 4-8 years as the Voice In The Wilderness?

    Not sure I see that as being his thing.

    Also, he would be 82 or 86 when his chance might come round again...

    Plus, by burning his boats with the Republicans so clearly, makes absolutely sure that there is no legal protection for him in the Federal System of government - Democrats and Republicans vs a slack handful of Trumpets?
    But he hates losing: hates it so much that when he actually lost he can only cope by denying it and forcing armies of his supporters to sing along in the denial.

    He may threaten all sorts of stuff to get his way, including running as an independent, but he won’t actually do anything that has loser inevitably written on the last page.
    That’s my belief - running as an independent means losing. And handing an epic victory to the “Libs”. I can’t see him getting past that.
    It wouldn't be a loss in DJT's propecia addled brain. 2020 wasn't a loss as far as he's concerned. He is easily capable of running as an independent then claiming he won no matter what the result.
Sign In or Register to comment.