Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on who will win the US Presidential race in 2020
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on who will win the US Presidential race in 2020
No, that headline wasn’t a typo, even before the winner of the 2016 race has been decided, Ladbrokes really do have a market up on who will win the 2020 White House race. I do wonder if both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, by choice, will be voluntary one term Presidents.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Ye Gods! – These US Presidential races appear to be getting longer and longer...
Still, as long as it's helping to maintain Shadsy in the manner to which he has grown accustomed then that's OK!
Then, in the General, they may be up against a very weak Clinton. Come 2020, the Dems will have had 12 years in the White House, so the "time for change" argument will be very powerful. Hillary will be 73 or so. And she will very likely be weakened after facing a primary challenge to her left (the Bernie supporters are far too motivated now to give her a free pass). Someone like Palin would have the charisma and shamelessness of Trump, but possibly without the extensive baggage.
Assuming they lose next week, the Republicans need to do a lot of thinking about how they stage the primaries next time. Personally I'd do them in 2018, and allow their pick to be "Shadow President" for a couple of years, with a clear policy programme ready to implement. After 12 years of Democrats most Americans will think it's time for a change.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/724642/Graham-Norton-slams-brexit-voters?utm_source=externaloutbrain&utm_medium=recommendations&utm_term=paid&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=2016&utm_term=5526078
The trouble with this market is that the choice of possible candidates is more or less infinite, so laying the favourites (which unfortunately one can't do with Ladbrokes) makes more sense then backing individuals - by 2020 who knows what Trumpish figure may emerge? I broadly agree with TSE's analysis, though. I don't think the email server will be an issue in 2020, though, unless Clinton has been prosecuted and convicted in the meantime.
http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/elections2016/
(hat-tip Andy JS)
The centrist social democratic party led the very successful coalition government 2009-2013 - it now has less than 6% of the vote.
I don't know if there was a last minute switch from radicals to centre right parties. The four centre left parties agreed prior to the vote to go in to a coalition which was seemingly being led by the anarchist pirate party, who at one point were polling 40%, although their actual result was 14.5%.
So what happened was that people got spooked (quite correctly, in my view), by the prospect of the pirate party being in government and switched from one of the other centre left parties to the independence party, the establishment right wing party which controls the main newspapers and protects the powerful interests in the fishing industry.
It looks like the government will have a right wing coalition although a breakaway party from the independence party (regeneration) will hold the balance of power. They are pro EU, liberal, free trade etc.
A common theme is that there is a 52% majority for establishment parties.
I suspect after four years of either Hillary or The Donald the country will want someone energetic and sane.
So she won't.
Craciun Research Alaska poll:
Clinton 47
Trump 43
Johnson 7
Oh my.
That can often be a bad idea when supporting England at cricket, but fingers crossed!
OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf
F1: just checked and was quite surprised to see that Vettel apparently has no penalty for blocking.
Weird qualifying. Anyway, shall start writing up the pre-race piece.
Not exactly a dazzling performance given she's up against the egregious Mr Trump.
Clinton 45 .. Trump 41
Note - 1 point move to Clinton since "Dickiegate"
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
Ultimately Baldwin managed to become leader and remained leader for 14 years, facing down two major challenges along the way - but he continues to be excoriated (sometimes unfairly) for his leadership or lack thereof.
Could Trump be Baldwin? No. Baldwin's temperament was wholly different. But Clinton's beginning to resemble Curzon, the experienced fixer with the big political heritage whom nobody trusts and whose judgment may be politely described as suspect.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
Anyway, back to the pre-race piece...
How can you be a landline only pollster in the US given there is no difference between the two types of number?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303467-trump-goes-after-puppet-evan-mcmullin
And McMullin hits back :
https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/792557975328227328
The issue is very simple.
FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.
Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.
If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
There's also this report
Emails Found on Huma & Weiner devices were in file titled 'Life Insurance'
https://t.co/VirycCAqnM
https://twitter.com/LauraLeslie23/status/792435713895698434
It might have been investigated if it had made a difference, but it didn't so there's no point.
If Vettel had qualified in front of Rosberg then Lewis would have very quickly asked them to drop it!
** I found your advertising articles on PB most interesting.
Either way he is misleading the public.
That said there is no Clinton upside to the latest revelations except perhaps it will drive out any potential complacency from her campaign and supporters.
1) Republicans were on his case for going too easy on Hillary
2) The wife of the number 2 guy in the investigation previously ran for the Virginia state legislature, and got a large donation from the (Clintonite) governor, Terry McAuliffe. This got a lot of play when it showed up in the Podesta leaks.
3) He'd (arguably foolishly) promised to update the committee investigating Hillary on any developments
4) The FBI New York office was investigating the Weiner issue, and even if Comey had kept quiet, they might have leaked it.
So it may be that Comey was scared that something would get leaked, then he'd be on the end of all kinds of crazy, some of it potentially homicidal, for not keeping the committee in the loop.
(1) Reopen the investigation, but tell no one, thereby allowing the voters to make their choice believing that it remains closed [and risking an even more damaging leak]
(2) Reopen the investigation and inform the public even though he hasn't seen the emails in question [the route chosen]
(3) Ignore the new evidence until after the election [which appears to be the DoJ preference]
There are no good options, but I personally believe he took the most honourable option open to him.
He's nearly equalled James Vince's highest Test score...
The Director is surely toast whoever wins though, he really doesn't want to be around for the aftermath of being used as a political football in a presidential election.
US voters have the unenviable choice of picking the least worst of two appalling candidates.
Right, work to do, much as I would love to watch the cricket all day!
Apologies if this has already been posted, but this article from Newsweek seems to sum up what has happened...
http://europe.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514918?rm=eu
Edit: I now see that you earlier used the phrase "FBI investigations are rarely formally closed".
However, the FBI needs a warrant to actually read them - the NYPD already has that power.
Why couldn't they have saved this performance for Australia so I could cheer them on uninhibitedly?
I am trying to avoid commenting on the utter farce going on in the USA at the moment. I have to say on this you, other supporters and the Democratic Party cannot have it both ways.
Last night on this very site Clinton fans were claiming even if she had used a private email / server then she never gave away " Americas Nuclear secrets" . She probably didn't however she knew full well the process in which she engaged was " against all accepted procedures" and having been around government for many years would have certainly known this ( despite her denial or saying she didn't understand in which case she is just completely incompetent ).
HRC's troubles are of her own making by "going against all accepted procedures" . It's not what's in the emails that an issue here its the fact that these emails even exist most importantly where they do. Any lesser person would be out of a job now and potentially facing a prison sentence. Of course there are some that are always above the laws that us plebs have to adhere to under threat of serious punishment. Like I say you either follow accepted procedure or you don't but if you don't then you do so at your own risk and must accept the consequences of your actions.
In saying that I have to agree the latest Comey letter intervention does seem quite extraordinary given that such a letter has been written without apparently viewing the evidence of email content. It might be when asked for full disclosure previously these string of emails were not mentioned? Or it could be something entirely different such as quite simply CYA.
Clinton 44.1 .. Trump 46.0
Note - Half point to Clinton over the past 24 hours.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/
He's a reputation for being absolutely straight, and I think he's tried to be equally fair to everyone. He doesn't know what's in the emails, and waiting 2 weeks would allow a vote on incorrect information.
Fundamentally the mistake he made - under pressure - was to make the announcement he did in July. But there was no criticism from the Democrats about that (arguably partisan) act
He'd previously been pushed into both saying that the investigation was closed AND that he would keep the committee in the loop for further developments.
To have the investigation reopened without honouring the commitment to keep the committee in the loop would have been a partisan act too.
I was very critical of the speed of the FBI investigation much earlier in the year, principally for the reasons were are seeing now. They have got themselves involved at a horribly politically sensitive time. Given the source of these e-mails and the closeness with Clinton it is truly remarkable that this has only come out now. To really turn the race though there is going to have to be a smoking gun in this material.
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
Which must be an almost incomprehensible sentence to an American.
I have a Teutonic affection for following agreed procedures so this is all quite alien to me, but it goes with the leader types to a degree that most people may not realise. I don't think it should be treated as a uniquely awful disqualifying trait. Trump's erratic behaviour seems much more objectively worrying.
I doubt if the latest developments will affect the polls much. People either care about shoddy server security or they don't. They understand that Hillary has a slipshod record in that regard, and have factored it in already.
sensibly - surely at least literary appreciation of the concept?
batted out - ??
the last over - still nothing
before tea - something to do with England, perhaps?
as a maiden - WTF?