Trump edges up the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com
Trump edges up the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com
The chart shows the changes in the WH2024 betting and as can be seen the money has been going on Trump following the latest developments with his various criminal cases.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Is an increase in the voting age a real thing in American political debate or just the wish-list of an individual?
In December of next year, the Supreme Court needs to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election, announce that Trump has been really President for the previous four years. And then say that -sadly- this means he's term limited.
1. If Biden stands for President again, there's no way that RFK will get the Democratic nomination. Ignoring the fact that his beliefs don't chime with any of the Democratic electorate, there won't be any debates. And the primary calendar does challengers no favours. It's South Carolina (where Biden hit it out the park in 2020) first and Nevada second.
2. And if Biden does step down, then Harris and Newsom are in pole position.
3. And even if lightning struck, and he beat out Harris and Newsom, then he'd still lose the General to Trump.
There are rich backers wasting money supporting his price. Make yourself some money and short him.
Meanwhile 45% of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for him if he was convicted of a felony
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-despite-indictments-trump-leads-primary-field-desantis-loses-support I guess some of them would go back to the tribe, but nevertheless, it seems like a bad basis to run for election.
Equally, as far as the primary polling goes, it looks like Trump is going to control most of the delegates at the GOP convention. So he gets to choose whether to run himself, or substitute someone else.
Even if he somehow does beat Biden under these conditions, it's not clear that he can pardon himself.
The move to make if he's not a complete and utter delusional moron would be to put up someone more popular as GOP nominee.
Is he a complete and utter delusional moron? I don't think it's clear either way. It's worth thinking about who he might choose.
So who might Trump choose? Someone who has not attacked him personally during the primary campaign, and who has agreed to pardon him. Anyone but DeSantis, so far.
https://www.science.org/content/article/changing-clouds-unforeseen-test-geoengineering-fueling-record-ocean-warmth
...Regulations imposed in 2020 by the United Nations’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) have cut ships’ sulfur pollution by more than 80% and improved air quality worldwide. The reduction has also lessened the effect of sulfate particles in seeding and brightening the distinctive low-lying, reflective clouds that follow in the wake of ships and help cool the planet. The 2020 IMO rule “is a big natural experiment,” says Duncan Watson-Parris, an atmospheric physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “We’re changing the clouds.” *
By dramatically reducing the number of ship tracks, the planet has warmed up faster, several new studies have found. That trend is magnified in the Atlantic, where maritime traffic is particularly dense. In the shipping corridors, the increased light represents a 50% boost to the warming effect of human carbon emissions. It’s as if the world suddenly lost the cooling effect from a fairly large volcanic eruption each year, says Michael Diamond, an atmospheric scientist at Florida State University.
The natural experiment created by the IMO rules is providing a rare opportunity for climate scientists to study a geoengineering scheme in action—although it is one that is working in the wrong direction. Indeed, one such strategy to slow global warming, called marine cloud brightening, would see ships inject salt particles back into the air, to make clouds more reflective. In Diamond’s view, the dramatic decline in ship tracks is clear evidence that humanity could cool off the planet significantly by brightening the clouds. “It suggests pretty strongly that if you wanted to do it on purpose, you could,” he says...
(*Actually it would be more accurate to say that we've stopped changing the clouds, by massively reducing SO2 emissions - in a very short space of time.)
Pretty well refutes the arguments against trying some geoengineering of climate.
Ramaswamy won’t say whether he would have done what Pence did on Jan. 6
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/04/ramaswamy-pence-jan-6-dodge-00109862
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy would not say if he would have certified the election results like former Vice President Mike Pence did on Jan. 6, 2021, sidestepping repeated questions on Thursday.
“I would have never let it get to that point,” Ramaswamy said in response to POLITICO’s questions. “I would have never put myself — or been part of an administration, if I was in a serious position of leadership — to ever have allowed us to have gotten to that doorstep.”..
WTF does that mean ?
I've been wondering if Sadiq Khan might have lost Labour its majority?
Mad ponderings? Perhaps. But the ulez rollout has been ill-conceived and chaotic. Is it possible that London might not deliver for Labour?
My Londoner brother, centre-left, is incandescent at the whole thing.
By your own admission, it's just a theory.
xx
Unfortunately, he did not seem to realise that would make large parts of the Black Sea open waters for Ukrainian action.
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 46% (+1)
CON: 26% (+1)
LDEM: 10% (-)
REF: 7% (-1)
GRN: 5% (-1)
via @techneUK, 03 - 02 Aug
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 47% (-1)
CON: 25% (-)
LDEM: 11% (+1)
REF: 7% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-1)
via @Omnisis, 03 - 04 Aug
No movement at all after all the fuss of the last fortnight.
The 90% of motorists who find out in August that they don't need to pay anything at all will just shrug. At the moment a lot think incorrectly that this is going to cost them.
In other news:
24% of New UK car registrations in July are either EV (16%) or PHEV (8%) so already meeting the 2030 criteria. Less than 8% are diesels of any form.
https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pllRW9wETzw
Looking into this, I just found the following wiki page on 'ship tracks' : clouds made by the exhaust of ships. I had no idea this happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_tracks
Also, an interesting article on the issue:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-low-sulphur-shipping-rules-are-affecting-global-warming/
Hand on heart, it was a moment of panic on my part. I guess by this time next year ulez will have been forgotten about.
Whilst I don't really think anti-trans or anti-migrant reactionary politics cuts through to most mainstream voters, a perceived attack on motorists just might? We are mostly all into the idea that we need to be helping the planet but a lot of people will baulk at the idea that their cars might be under attack.
3/4 of households own a car. If Sunak and his reactionary right can frame the election around Labour attacking the motorist, they might gain some traction with it?
I have tory friends who are now shrugging their shoulders at Starmer becoming PM. They're not worried.
That's a real turnaround from the Corbyn days.
With apologies to Steve Buscemi.
What he does have is pragmatism. He’s willing to compromise with the electorate to win power.
Blair and Brown were willing to do that too - the snag was they then never tried to make meaningful reforms with the opportunity they had. They spent so long rebranding and not frightening the horses that Brown in particular wasn’t willing to make radical changes. Meanwhile Blair, frustrated, took it out in misguided foreign policy ventures.
Unfortunately even if Starmer should prove not to have their timidity, it seems unlikely he will have a similar opportunity.
The problem at the moment is people falling for the Tory scare mongering and being too lazy to just find out if they’re effected .
Of course the Tories who have nothing to offer will jump on anything . It might make things a little difficult for Labour in certain target seats. I don’t see how though if you’re a Labour supporter you’re going to suddenly say I’ll vote Tory over this .
On the way trashing their economy, isolating themselves diplomatically, killing tens of thousands of young men, stripping their armed forces of equipment and undermining the prestige of the government.
The catch is not that they haven’t lost, but that the Ukrainians haven’t won. At least not yet. They may do but even with Russia’s difficulties progress is slow and painful for them. The question may become can their manpower reserves outlast the Russian economy?
“Amidst an out-of-control mob at Union Square NYC, a console giveaway attracts crowds, and the NYPD struggles to gain control”
Quite a nasty riot in NYC. The racial make up is hard to ignore
https://twitter.com/insanerealitys/status/1687699213553979392?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
If Trump wasn’t facing these prosecutions, I’d have him as favourite right now
That’s at best
But in the short-medium term Russia can *win* this war: by holding on to what it has gained, resisting further Ukrainian attacks, then wait for Ukraine to run out of men, and for the west to tire of supporting Ukraine
Polls in America are already ominous for the Ukes
Merz wouldn't have a comfortable majority with the AfD on that poll. Firstly you are forgetting the CSU who poll around 6%. Secondly there is no chance the CDU will have any kind of arrangement with the AfD in this or the next parliament. CDU rules prohibit it, the majority of the party is opposed to it, and they would lose a lot of voters if they started moving in that direction. Merz is no doubt a shit, but the CDU are not about to have any kind of arrangement with the AfD.
In an existential war that motivation is likely to be sustained. Fight or die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AfD_pro-Russia_movement
All from your pulpit in…. Leicester
Nothing is really happening poll-wise currently. But when was the last time the Tories hit 30 in any poll?
You what? American life expectancy is collapsing. Many of its cities are in steep decline. Addiction and overdose ravage the country. Migration is clearly out of control. Crime is resurgent and race/culture wars are everywhere
Does Trump have any real solutions to any of this? Almost certainly not. But the idea he doesn’t have any material to work with is palpable nonsense
Oh sorry, not that sort of Pole.
They know that, and worse, is what lies in wait for any new territory gained by the Russians. It is a war of existence for the Ukrainians.
Personally, I will continue to cheer the Ukrainians on for as long as they want to fight.
Science is always provisional - but it's a pretty completing theory.
The cost of seeding the atmosphere with salt water droplets (in place of SO2) is pretty low, and the associated risks, on the basis of this evidence, even lower.
The cost benefit of the experiment is therefore massively in favour of trying it out.
That is indeed a refutation of the arguments against trying. The proof will come - rapidly - from the results uf the experiment.
(Massively effective within a couple of years.)
Incentives.
In this case they could be positive incentives.
The key to this is, in my view, casualty ratios. When Russia was attacking the Ukrainians were achieving something like 4 or 5 to 1 in their favour. The ratio, as they struggle through the minefields, is now thought to be nearer 1:1. I am not sure Ukraine can sustain that indefinitely, probably not for more than another year. They need to change the means of engagement again. That means getting through the minefields and into open combat where their superior armour makes more of a difference.
ULEZ is politically poor implementation of a worthy goal. Because aside from screwing over a small number of people, everyone with an ICE thinks they are next.
Though whether they even had the competence to carry through effective reform is also an open question.
Russia is committing hideous crimes but it’s important we don’t go all “Belgian nun”
The dilemma for Ukraine is much more painful than the one you posit. Russia cannot be defeated - unlike Germany in WW1 and WW2 - because nukes. In the end Russia will use a nuke if it has to. Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun
So then it’s a question for Ukraine of how much territory it is willing to yield - for peace. Just Crimea? Donbass? All that Russia holds now?
Alternatively it can throw wave after wave of young men into the mangler and get almost nowhere - as we see now - and sacrifice 1m men. And possibly/probably end up where it is now, anyway
And then there are no young people left to rebuild what is left of the country
I would love to see Ukraine win. It’s not happening
The same goes for Russia too obviously. Are they as motivated to be where they are unwanted?
It looks like a grim attrition like WW1 for the foreseeable future.
Quite remarkable footage.
Because of WW1 Russia had a revolution, became communist, and atheist, and endured the absolute tragedy of Marxism. Tens of millions died, from Ukraine to the Gulags
So yes Russia as we knew it disappeared
Ditto Germany. It want from “civilised” European nation to Nazism. Because of WW1. The Germany we knew vanished
Your analysis is painfully ahistoric and illiterate
WW1 was a tragedy for humankind. I do not wish a version of it on Ukraine
As the Russians show no sign of seeking peace; at best, only a pause.
The question is rather what is required for Ukraine to be certain that Russia will give up on conquering them.
The Russians say different:
"https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moscow-says-700000-children-ukraine-conflict-zones-now-russia-2023-07-03/
"In the end Russia will use a nuke if it has to."
Russia will not use nukes, because that means disaster for them. There is no tactical or strategic benefit in using them over Ukraine. They *may* engineer an 'accident' at ZNPP, but even that is problematic.
UK GDP per capita growth 1993Q1-2008Q1: over 40%
UK GDP per capita growth 2008Q1-2023Q1: under 4%
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1687356178232160256
“Since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russian soldiers have forcibly taken an estimated 16,000 Ukrainian children to Russia. Over 300 children have since returned home, but it is not clear what happened to most of the rest.”
https://fortune.com/2023/07/07/why-is-russia-kidnapping-ukrainian-children-vladimir-putin-soviet-book-author/
As for nukes, of course Russia will in the end resort to nukes if it feels existentially threatened. The question is where is that existential line? That is much harder to say. I reckon it probably surrounds Crimea
Mr. B, the 1993 to 2008 period was right after a recession and right before a financial crisis, whereas the 2008 to 2023 period includes the financial crisis and the pandemic.
It's not exactly surprising the period with no recessions looks better.
While I don’t write nearly as well as the last member of this forum to make this journey, it’s not difficult to make out a sense of something slightly different here to other long-distance coach journeys, the likes of which I haven’t personally made in over two decades. We are 90% women and children, have been sitting in total silence for the past hour and a half since leaving Warsaw, and the feeling is that this group of people wouldn’t have chosen to be here right now. There’s a foreboding sense of how the next half day wil play out.
But at least there’s free wifi.
As for nukes: they won't use them over Ukraine, for that way leads them to all sorts of disasters. I know you love the extreme and the exciting, but it's pretty simple: a nuclear strike on Ukraine would lead to consequences that Russia cannot control, and lose them what little remaining international goodwill they have.
If Putin was going to use nukes, he would have used them in March or April last year when it first became clear he was losing, at about the time of the withdrawal from Kyiv. But he didn't use them, because he isn't actually mad. Evil, certainly, but not mad.
WW1 was a global disaster
With the benefit of hindsight, did the policies started by Brown and continued by the Coalition, of large scale deficits and extremely easy monetary conditions to offset the consequences of the crash do more harm than good? The GFC on the surface caused far less damage than, say, the Wall Street crash in 1929 but its effects have been far more insidious and long lasting.
It is of course for the Ukrainian to determine when or if they want to begin negotiations but it is for us to note that such conflicts often if not always end via negotiation.
The equivalent in the UK would be 1.3 million children forcibly taken to France
The rest of your comment continues in the same vein
WW1 was indeed a world wide disaster but it was particularly so for the UK who largely funded the winning side and never really recovered. It was, for all practical purposes, the end of the Empire system that had been built up over the preceding 200 years.
It is perhaps more evident in Scotland where the population has not grown the way it has in England but every Scottish village, where comparatively few people live, even today, there are war memorials where the casualties from WW1 are multiples of WW2.
He will be dead, because the next regime won’t take the political hit of sending him to The Hague. Throwing him out of a window will be easier.
What's your view on vaccines, anyway?
Although weatherwise here it doesn’t look very good.
Where is our new member today? Or are we doing the pro-Russian stuff ourselves?
The problem, for the Ukrainians, is that anything less than Russians admitting they lost guarantees another round.
Which in turn guarantees that Ukraine will acquire nuclear weapons.
Hungary (which disappeared) and most of all Russia and Germany - which as a direct result went on to communism and Nazism. And yet more horrors - even worse for much of Europe
A world without WW1 is one of the most haunting of counter factuals. What might have been
Russia was evolving towards democracy. Swiftly industrialising. Sad
If Britain can manage to end long term stagnation without a period of mass unemployment it will be regarded as a good trade. But how to do that?
Given the governments we've had for the last couple of decades, I'm surprised we've grown at all.
We are talking about global mobsters here. A regime that is amoral and positively evil, and perceives compromise as a sign of weakness. Ukraine has every right to chase them out of their country, and if our governments choke off their weapons supply then they are cowards and accessories.