Categories
Trump v the Deep State: Who wins? – politicalbetting.com
Trump v the Deep State: Who wins? – politicalbetting.com
While the polls are still 50-50, there are signs the betting markets are moving towards Trump. I don’t have anything very useful to add to that, other than amazement that Harris is still in the game when consistently well over 60% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and under 30% think it’s on the right one.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Are these factors being taken fully into account:
Roe v Wade (Dobbs) - there are 10 States where measures to protect abortion rights on the ballot. This may drive a higher turnout of those in favour, who will be mainly Democrat.
There are more women voters than men, they vote at a higher rate and they favour Democrats
Nikki Haley voters - Republican voters chose to vote for Haley in the primaries even when she had dropped out will split, some for Harris.
Early voting is way up on what is usual, this may help Democrats.
The Republican trick of releasing many more partisan polls as the election approaches helps their party look better in the poll aggregators. They tried this in 2022 and it worked - remember the Red Wave - until the results showed only a red trickle. See also Polymarket, skewed by a French person betting $45m on Trump victory.
Are the polls right? They could be, within the margin of error, but still either candidate could win in a landside.
Haley has more money, but Trump has 'X' and Musk, which will be more important?
Georgian Dream have fairly clearly stolen yesterday’s election result, in a style reminiscent of Belarus.
Aside from the copious video evidence of ballot stuffing, voter and observer intimidation, double voting and the other usual tricks of the trade, this chart looks pretty compelling:
https://x.com/mari_nikuradze/status/1850432028568678432?s=46
It also suggests GD only started cheating at elections this time and were winning fair and square previously.
The opposition parties are not recognising the result. Expect major protests, and a crack down. Also expect plenty of labelling of these protests as a CIA-based colour revolution aimed at destabilising the country. Russian media is already doing so. As, it seems, are quite a lot of right wing US commentators.
He already has a corrupted Supreme Court that would rewrite the Constitution by bizarre interpretation to give him cover, as they have already done in the matter of Presidential Immunity.
He doesn't care about the consequences for anybody other than himself.
He would try and deal with the Federal Indictments against him by appointing a corrupt patsy as Attorney General - Aileen Cannon is on his list - who will just sack the Special Prosecutor.
Nixon tried to make his AG do that to get rid of the investigation into him, and his AG said "no can do" and resigned, then Nixon tried it with the Deputy AG, who also resigned. Then the third in line bowed to his will.
Another example is the intention to increase the number of posts regarded as "political" by about 10x, which means that as an incoming administration he can immediately sack 10s or 100s of thousand of civil service officers and replace them with MAGA-placemen/women.
One which has not really broken into the news widely yet is Scotus decisions which undermine the mechanism of federal regulation, that is the Federal USA version of UK bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive. That will create a community and industrial safety wild-west.
Obviously abortion is another one, where women have already died in numbers due to Doctors not being able to treat them because of legal liabilities imposed by Red States. But we are well aware of that.
If Trump gets in, the US is going down a very dark hole indeed, already thanks to Scotus decisions having started the journey.
Bloody hell, I know 24/7 royal PR is SOP for the Beeb, but it’s in fawning overdrive today. The doctors are looking after Chuck’s physical health but it’s his sense of duty that is keeping his mind and spirit in fine fettle apparently. It seems that we need to know this at the top of every news bulletin, on the hour.
The BBC has been inextricably infected by royal derangement syndrome for decades, and it’s getting worse.
If we are to keep a monarchy, we should have a retirement age so that we have monarchs who are well enough for the rigours of the role. It is done in other monarchies, so not a threat to the role.
They keep getting more sophisticated the more j travel. I’ve had ones with variable speed squirty nozzles and specially warmed seats and bespoke driers with special patting thingies and ones that open up as soon as you even look like you need to go - but this one in this posh hotel in Osaka actually senses mood. It detected I was in a serene yet slightly mystical mood as I walked in my hotel room and started playing an Arvo Part cantata
In fact, rather than hate him, I'm now starting to pity him.
https://x.com/dsmitheconomics/status/1850444189219078298?s=61
What’s he gonna be like in five years??!
I really wonder if he will stay the course. He looks miserable as well as obese
I agree the legacy and effects of slavery need to be addressed. However attempts to do this by a sole UK focus and demand for "cash - now!" are an unapologetic guilt-driven mugging by contemporary politicians. And such would get fully or partly pissed away on corruption and golden cows.
It needs something far more like a sovereign wealth fund devoted to development over decades or centuries.
The model the Church Commissioners are using on this is one reasonable (I suggest) way of addressing it; they agreed to put up about 1% of their assets (£100m) into a fund a number of years ago, and commissioned research looking for what they should be looking at given that part basis of their assets 2 or 3 centuries ago were slavery linked.
The research said this is not enough. So they will develop it over time and invite others (such as HNW individuals whose fortunes have come all or part from slavery linked businesses) to join their institutional structure. Importantly, they are moving cautiously and sustainably.
Betting PostF1: backed Leclerc to win at 6.5 each way:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/10/mexico-pre-race-2024.html
Since the next one in line seems to be a slightly dim middle manager with a pushy wife, perhaps that’ll do the finishing off anyway.
Some things I wouldn't have expected you to say, and various things I agree/disagree with of course, and some things you call for (eg emphasis on prevention) have already been put in place by the last Government - which is something for which I give them credit.
I need to take care not to mistake @MaxPB for @maxh when reading headers.
Not one of David Smith's best. Even though he's been shilling for Reeves for some time.
JD Vance criticizes “American leaders” who pick a side in the war in Ukraine: “Unfortunately, you got a lot of American leaders who like to beat their chest and say; this [Ukraine] is the good guy and this [Russia] is the bad guy.”
However he just comes over as totally unsuited to the role, just like like Sunak.
An over promoted middle Manager.
You seem broadly sympathetic with the idea of rolling back the administrative state, but doubt that a second Trump administration would have the capacity to achieve that.
Setting that question aside for a moment, the attempt would likely make it less efficient, as this suggests.
The risks of Schedule F for administrative capacity and government accountability
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-risks-of-schedule-f-for-administrative-capacity-and-government-accountability/
The Trump GOP is undoubtedly far better prepared than it was eight years ago for such an attempt. The team around him is fully committed to the idea, rather than being old style Washington insiders, and there has been a serious, years long effort to work out how they might go about it.
So I don't think you can look at Trump term one for serious guidance about how term two might unfold, were it to happen.
As you correctly note, one of the bigger hurdles might be legislative. But a GOP House is quite possible in the context of the polls being wrong in favour of Trump - and the Senate almost a certainty.
{picks up starting handle for the Covenanter}
It's a bit of a dud technology and yet to work with decidedly unclear economic benefits. I suspect it will prove a waste.
I'd far rather they focused investment on accelerating a clean energy transition, industrial strategy and onshoring and strategic transport links.
Countries can choose to retain Charles as King or not, but that is already a separate decision.
The British Empire ended for the most part ended over 50 years ago. We remain a regionally significant economic and military power, but not a global one. And the cultural, political and economic norms of Commonwealth nations are very diverse. South Africa, for example, seems more closely aligned with Russia than us.
Let's just wrap it up and move on. And end the opportunity for a talking shop about how we should pay for what our ancestors did.
If we succeed in getting more green energy we'll get far less bang from the carbon capture buck. If Miliband's a green zealot he can at least but one who isn't a complete moron. Throw the money into green energy production instead of a technology that only matters if we've got a load of older, dirtier forms of generation.
I suggest we all move on and pretend you didn’t say it. Is best
Now people are actually targeting the stuff he finds quite enjoyable, like his football matches and being able to use friend’s flats (to which his responses so far have exuded a sense of entitlement) I think it’s unsettled him.
It comes across as so weak and watery. It also immediately adds a layer of credence to the position the interviewer is taking.
1) Order a small nuclear reactor
2) Order a tidal pond
3) Subsidy for U.K. made storage for ZEVs. Pay for actual KWh delivered. Since this will be years in the future, no money needs to be paid now.
Starmer and Reeves knew exactly what they were walking into when they won. Starmer might look knackered at times, but I bet in his Puritan way he is relishing implementing his 'long term renewal project' or whatever he calls it.
Barring illness and/or failure at the next election, he's in this for 10 years. It's his mission, if you will.
Whether him sticking around is a good or bad thing will take at least a couple of years to become apparent, however much disgruntled posters are already seeking to write him off here.
The creators are almost a definition of the inhabitants of Golgafrincham Ark Fleet Ship B. They are right up there (sorry) with telephone sanitisers.
I'm sure there's another section in H2G2 which matches, which is about some kind of perfumed wipes and a planet that went extinct by obsessing about them.
Incidentally Youtube has been throwing adverts at me about plug in household deodourisers with tuneable smells. They walk amongst us.
* Youtube adverts are wonderful in their weird variability. Today's was about an App called Rover where you can book people to come in and look after your pooch baby, and watch it on video - presumably paying a big chunk to the middleman.
So long as there’s enough demand to give a return on investment it seems like an industry worth investing in. Most of the other green technologies have already been snaffled up by other countries. If you look on it as something that could make money rather than the solution to net zero then it makes sense.
That'll move the markets
Even some Commonwealth nations that are neutral on Putin eg India are sceptical of China due to border disputes.
It is the role of NATO to contain Russia anyway
nothing to do with the
Commonwealth most nations
of which are on other continents.
Leaders of developing nations wanting reparations
would also still ask for them whether in the
Commonwealth or not or whether the King was their head of state or not. For most Commonwealth nations he isn't
As in: nearly evens?
In principle, I'm not against it - we will eventually need to capture a lot of carbon to hit Net Zero because we'll never get emissions to zero - but novel technology needs to be incubated and demonstrated by the private sector. This will just create a self-serving bureaucracy IMHO.
A 47% chance he's not PM at the next election.
One on the way is using people carrying drones (think totally automated mini helicopters). Already used in Ukraine for casualty evacuation.
Another is atmospheric carbon capture to fuel, using solar. There is an interesting company that is looking at cracking hydrogen from water, catalytically, and then Sabatier to create methane. Some of the details are clever - no storage - just run when the sun shines. Another is no conversion electronics - put the power from the solar panels direct into the system.
It's based on woeful performance over the first 100 days, a collapse in his popularity, real results in by-elections, his terrible judgement and the fact he's aged 10 years and is already doing the thousand yard stare.
I don't think he fights for a second term.
In terms of geopolitical and economic common interests in the face of China and Trump 2.0 it’s not a patch on the EU. Different beast altogether.
The entire remainder of their civilisation was wiped out by a disease contracted from… a dirty telephone.
However, on reflection, I think many Democrats will feel that the country is on the wrong track because of the division and partisanship of Congress. It's not necessarily a reflection on the current administration but on politics as a whole. The prospect of a Trump victory would also seem like the wrong track to many Democrats.
I also note that 78% disapprove of the way that Congress is handling its job. But in answer to the question "Do voters want Republicans or Democrats in Congress?" the answer is Democrats by a small a margin.
So one should be careful how you interpret this finding.
And now you have the added imprimatur of @Roger’s disapproval, a man so stupid he cannot walk and eat crisps at the same time
Bad odds. But.you're certain to win
The thing that I draw tangentially from the exchange is to note that about 90% of the rhetoric the Conservative Opposition are coming up with is either:
a - Attacking the Labour Government for doing things that they did.
b - Attacking the Labour Government for not doing things that they did not do.
c - Attacking the Labour Government for doing things that they had promised to do.
d - Attacking the Labour Government for not doing things that they had promised to do, but not started doing and not made provision for funding.
To me that shrieks of Oppositionalism and a degree of self-distracted desperation, rather than even a smidgeon of thinking, coherent politics.
under 30% of the vote
His landslide majority is a chimera. What matters will be his polling, which I expect will become dire.
Ah. I see the problem
Give him back please.
(Aside: I once had an interview with Douglas Adams' company to be the web manager for the Hitch Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy. Interesting experience, but I'm glad it went nowhere; it was too much of a loose cannon operation.)
Compared to Starmer, Badenoch, Jenrick, Farage, Davey and Swinney Wills and Kate would be like the British JFK and Jackie.
The King is also younger than Biden and Trump
It doesn't matter if there are reductions in CO2 emissions (so far there aren't by the way). CO2 is going to carry on being emitted for the long term future. A complete turnaround isn't on any horizon.
This adds, at whatever speed, to the CO2 already there. It's like debt. Lowering the amount you borrow further sounds good but still increases the debt.
This means that unless carbon capture works, if we could be doomed, we are doomed.
The only chances we have are: actually we aren't doomed despite CO2; or the successful scaling up of carbon capture by a global hoover. There are no other options. (Obvs maximal greening is also essential - that's a given).
And now the rumours
On top of all this he looks utterly miserable. Even Sunak didn’t look this harassed and depressed and Starmer has just won a massive landslide
There is a good chance he goes before 2028
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4998593#Comment_4998593
If you see this as industrial strategy rather than the silver bullet for climate change then it makes sense, to me at least. Yes it’s picking winners, but let’s be honest the only cabinet minister who really seems to have come out of the blocks running after the election in implementing a properly radical industrial agenda is Ed Miliband. People may disagree with him or find him not to their taste, but he’s exhibiting something the rest of the front bench have not been: energy and drive in the job. And bravery. Look at all the criticism of Starmer’s timidity. Ed’s certainly not been timid.
Streeting is showing some signs of this, and Philipson just needs her time in the spotlight which hasn’t come yet, but Ed was right in there from day 1.
https://news.sky.com/story/mayors-to-score-wins-in-the-budget-after-pm-intervenes-but-fears-remain-over-councils-facing-bankruptcy-13242257
More cash...and power to roll out new / higher taxation.
In the US, you have a weird mixture of no regulation and turbo extreme regulation. The results are usually pretty disastrous. Regulatory capture, corrupt political deals to get projects through. It’s all there…
So Trump saying that he will tear the system down resonates. And under cover of that remove as much opposition to his power as possible.
An alternative approach is to unify and make coherent the multiple regulation sets. To make them focus on the actual goal, rather than creating paperwork to pleasure the Enquiry Industry. The success of the approach to planing off shore wind farms in the U.K. is an example of this rational approach regulation.
While Ms Rayner was promised oversight of the “devolution revolution”, The Telegraph understands that the most important meetings are happening behind her back with Mr McSweeney holding monthly calls with the mayors to which Ms Rayner is not invited.
Meanwhile, in a move that insiders see as an attempt to retain control of the devolution agenda, Ms Rayner has established a parallel gathering of mayors without the oversight of Sir Keir Starmer’s chief of staff.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/27/mcsweeney-power-struggle-rayner-sue-gray/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/26/reeves-my-budget-will-match-greatest-economic-moments-in-labour-history
There are nearly 20 million acres in Scotland so that's about 2,000 million tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere per year. The UK currently emits about 400 million tons of carbon a year. Job done. Thanks you Scotland.
Then, when the ballot boxes are stuffed, and their democracy is stolen from them, many people will be inclined to shrug their shoulders, mutter something about both sides doing it, twas ever thus, etc.
Dismissing the attempts by the people of Georgia to defend their democracy as a CIA plot would seem to fit into such a pattern of undermining democracy itself.
This is such a dangerous moment for the future of democracy, and the right wing in the US are on the wrong side.
I very much doubt that Plan A involved him becoming Prime Minister. More likely it was that he's just having cleaned up the party, moved them on a bit but lost. That he became PM is a function of the repeated pratfalls by the last lot.
He's not getting any younger, and the job takes it out of a man- look at Johnson or Sunak. I reckon his plan B is to win in 2028 and retire in 2030. Whether that works or not is not yet for ours to see.
Plan C would be to do a Biden in 2028 or so; step down with a medical chitty and hand over to someone younger and smiler.
50:50 chance that he goes early? I wouldn't put it that high, but it's certainly not a low chance. What really kills these odds for me is that the return might be more than four years away. You can get a decent lower-risk return in that time.
Next up is wind, solar, EVs and heat pumps, probably in that order. You'd get an awful lot more carbon out of the atmosphere over 50 years from 5GW of wind power than a speculative effort at CCS (I think 5GW is roughly equivalent to £20 billion).
The America is on the wrong track polling could to some extent reflect Trump/Maga. Individual candidate unfavourability has Harris polling lower than Trump. Trump is marmite and has a ceiling of 46-47%. This becomes all about getting the vote out.
The further you go downballot, the more polling favours the Democrats. Ratings changes have mostly been in favour of Democratic congressional candidates. In the senate WV and MT were always going to be tricky but who thought TX would be in play?
The money favours Harris, the significant numbers of Republicans who are refusing to endorse Trump, or even endorsing Harris, is an indicator those Haley voters are not all going to fall into line.
The early vote assessments, for instance in NV, are based on assumptions that registration with a party equals a vote for that party and that voting behaviour will be as previous cycles. This is a dangerous assumption. Democrats may be holding off to election day, cogniscent of how Trump will spin the election day vote. Reps may be voting earlier. Who knows?
I still see nothing to suggest Trump can improve on his loss in 2020. He’s older, madder and franly his campaign has been nowhere near as effective. There is clearly enthusiasm for Harris, it may be just the base but it rubs off. And there seems to be particular enthusiasm where it is needed, in PA and WI.
Harris wins, and afterwards the inquest into how junk polling skewed the media narrative will be brutal.
Tory and Labour governments fail us on basic economic self interest.
Biggest day this week was Thursday with 509 people landing, followed by Friday with 424. Last weekend there were zero because of the gales, and yesterday despite calm weather only 64. Perhaps a different gang is in the ascendancy.
Total since election day is 512 ahead of the same period in 2023, but 9,351 behind 2022.
Totals up to election day were 2,141 ahead of 2023 and 684 ahead of 2022, which really got going in the second half of the season.
Agreed on Reeves - an interview like that smacks of worry about how her budget will be received, not confidence. Unless she is trying to frame the narrative I suppose.