Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2016 betting moves a notch back to Hillary on what’s now
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2016 betting moves a notch back to Hillary on what’s now certain to become the biggest political betting market of all time
We go into the final weekend with Clinton 74% Trump 25% on what's going to be the biggest political betting market of all time pic.twitter.com/FUZES7RDc3
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(joke)
Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
In the end, it will be the voters fault. If someone needs punishing it will indeed be the Tories, particularly since they are in government, but a cross party spectrum made it happen.
Enthusiasm at public meetings has not correlated well with electoral success for several decades now.
“He has a great mind, but he didn’t help himself by moaning at missing out,” one said. Another said:
“The last time I saw him, he was downing an awful lot of vodka. He looked bored.”
Sources claimed pals have been worried about his health for some time.
Colleagues said it made no sense that his resignation came 24 hours after the High Court’s Article 50 ruling – which means Parliament will have a say after all.....
...George Clark, the head of the Sleaford Conservative Association, said the local party was “disappointed” at his resignation and backed the “strong” PM to forge a “new positive role for the United Kingdom on the world stage as we leave the EU”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2116422/leave-supporting-tory-mp-stephen-phillips-sensationally-quits-over-the-governments-approach-to-brexit/
Neither group's opinions matter. Of those who could be bothered, a small but clear majority wanted to leave.
More people voted for Brexit than have voted for any winning party at a General election in British history. All you are really saying here is that every election in history has been invalid.
I was never that brave.
:-)
It's a semantic whinge. When people say majority of the country everyone knows it means ''of those that voted'. Yes it's not literally a majority of the country, but its ambiguously got more proven support than other options, or did at the time. Hear hear. I presume on the basis it went against something the public wants. Even though the judgement did not do that, even if the claimants hope to use it to do so, which as is right and proper was irrelevant to a question of law.
Huge respect to MD, but I feel he's gone a little overboard on the outrage of the judgement. If they're legally wrong, as threequidder and others say, fine, but nit even the government argued it was not a question that it was proper for the court to rule on, which means both outcomes are morally acceptable.
So it's always been comforting to know that at least with Europe being the final arbiter it at least it felt like we had a line of defense against this egregious 4th Estate.
Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and we're on our own. The press assume free rein to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in the expectation of cowering them into submission.
As dodgy as a Lib Dem bar chart.
The moral aspect is because this is a legalistic approach being used to delay on a technicality the referendum result with a view to preventing its implementation entirely (either by remaining in the EU or by departing but in name only). The weight of moral authority is entirely with the PM here.
Also, Lycurgus, the Spartan law-giver, told those who said democracy was a better system of governance that they should try it in their own families.
There are some prize fuckwits about, aren't there?
The Hispanic vote will be up, and much more Dem than usual. This is also a growing share of the population, as are Asian Americans who will also be more Dem than usual.
Tbe boost in women wanting a first female POTUS is potentially quite a source of shy Clintonites. Trumpists seem anything but shy!
Trump will outperform Romney in the Midwest, but do worse in the Sunbelt.
I am backing Hillary on Spin at 295, and think she will win. Trump offers some value on the state markets. I am on him at good odds in Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Overall on Betfair the value looks to be on Trump. The fact that Trump is so manifestly unfit for the post bothers bettors here more than voters across the pond.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-clintons-lead-stabilizing-state-polls-not-so-much/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
But as far as I can see, on average the state polls he quotes are very much in line with what would be expected (or maybe even a bit better for Clinton), considering that her national lead is down by nearly 3%. Silver's model suggests that Trump's vote is a bit more efficiently distributed than Clinton's, so surely it would be inconsistent to expect there still to be a dependable firewall when her national lead is only 3%?
In fact, based on the data on the accuracy of polls in the last 12 presidential elections, in another 538 article, I have trouble seeing why his model gives Trump a winning probability as high as 35%. On the historical data, his probability of winning the popular vote would be more like 12%. Part of the difference is accounted for by 538's 12% probability of Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college. Maybe the rest comes from uncertainty owing to the higher-than-usual number of undecideds and minor candidate supporters?
For all those who think we should accept judges' deliberations in hushed silence with caps doffed, here's an idea.
Why don't we adopt the American system where the ruling party gets to nominate judges for the supreme court?
The Americans are under no illusions that the legal profession is a profoundly political animal. And judges are nurtured and produced by the legal profession.
Personally I think its a ruse to concentrate minds. Especially labour minds.
Hodges has had a minor panic this morning.
I think May will go for a Hardish Brexit, but ultra hardcores will still no doubt claim she has ignored something vital and that is morally wrong. That would be incorrect.
In any case, I don't want judges who are ruling on a technical point of law to come to a different view because of the morality of this, moral questions are for politicians. You are seriously saying it's morally wrong the judges upheld the law? If the law itself is immoral, parliament can change that.
We would need a similar Constitution if we were to go down the routeof politically appointed judges.
Dems had a good day y'day w/ high turnout, but also happened in 2012. Relative to same day 2012:
Dem +0.2%
Rep +15.0%
Unaffiliated +44.6%
It's hard to see how judges can take anything other than a legalistic approach - that is after all what we employ them to do.
If there is any moral blame, it lies with the politicians who promise a decisive referendum, but failed to set up the legal structures to deliver it. Principally Cameron, then - but also perhaps May for what looks a lot like dithering.
@AlastairMeeks
'Incidentally, I cannot think of anything more calculated to get the Supreme Court starting from a predisposition of upholding the current judgment than a fullscale assault on three of their most respected colleagues by the tabloids without the government fulsomely defending the independence of the judiciary.'
So much for your claim about Judges not being biased.
But, if Hillary wins the popular vote by 2-3%, she'll win the Electoral College clearly enough.
https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/794628057713754112
Sorry to be uncouth at this time of the morning, but does anyone have a ball park figure for how much has traded hands during the ‘biggest political betting market of all time’ ?
"The polls also target the “wrong Latinos,” making their sample unrepresentative of eligible voters, said Sanchez. By not offering interviews in Spanish and relying on interviews via internet and fixed home phone lines, they end up with a biased sample of more assimilated, native-born, higher income and higher educated voters, according to internal poll research conducted by Latino Decisions."
http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/do-polls-underestimate-the-democratic-partys-latino-vote
Mr. B, it's akin to a celebrity whose lawyer gets them off a dangerous driving charge due to using a mobile telephone by claiming they were using its dictaphone or calculator function.
Legally, it's in order. Morally, it stinks.
We do agree that Cameron's cocked up just about every part of this referendum.
Mr. kle4, time will tell.
*plays Red Alert theme*
And few are saying we need to doff caps in silence. Free press and speech protects much that is worthless, and the headlines were over the top, but that's freedom for you. As a Lay person I found it convincing, but I'd likely find most judgements convincing. But it argued the government case was flawed at a fundamental level and in some ways actually bolstered the claimants case. So either the judges will have to be the ones to have got things wrong on a fundamental level, or the government needs new arguments, or both,
And a case this important really has to be ruled on by the Supreme Court. For one thing, if they uphold the judgement, they need to specify how exactly Parliament triggers the exercise of A 50.
Alistair Meeks argued that the judges in Britain are politically impartial and their decision should be accepted without question.
My point is that the American system assumes that judges are never politically impartial.
One of our American posters stated the real shame of a Clinton win was the effect on the US supreme court.
I hope that Hillary wins. But hope isn't enough.
Are there figures for first time/never voted before voters?
If there was a trump surge, I guess it would be found there.
Speaking of that - Trump's latest advert
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8&feature=youtu.be
And Scott Adams' analysis re persuasion factor - http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152747601271/trump-the-closer
The remedy for this is in the government's hands, and has been all along. Just show some spine and put a simple bill through parliament. May is clearly capable of telling hard truths (cf the Police Federation, for instance), but I get the impression that she is averse to taking part in difficult debates.
Shame depends on your perspective i guess
I think you could argue the US system assumes it is naive to expect a judge to be politically impartial, yet we are expected to believe just that notion and accept it without question.
Indeed but hispanics aren;t the only low propensity group, surely. Poor black and white voters must also be pretty low propensity. America had 94 million adults out of the work force FFS.
I also think (& hope) that Clinton is more likely than not to win, but I am also prepared for the polls to be out by more than 2% in key states, which is worrying.
The list of worrying consequences goes on. What power have ministers ever had to agree in Brussels to EU measures such as Directives that (as the High Court sees it) change the law in this country when adopted? It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes. The solution to this conundrum can’t be that Parliament later “cured” ministerial unlawfulness by confirming the changes they’d agreed; if that were the answer, then the government’s planned “great repeal bill” could cure the supposed unlawfulness of article 50 notification.
https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/
That's why it's called the Peloponnesian War. Usually, wars are named after the losers in histories written by the winners (hence, Gallic, Napoleonic, Samnite, Hannibalic Wars).
Well that's your view and you are entitled to it. The point is, are newspapers entitled to disagree, and disagree violently?
Some on here say they aren't, but other countries regard the assumption on which their reasoning rests (ie that judges can be politically impartial), as naive.