The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
To rejoin after Brexit would require the UK to join the eurozone and Schengen, the UK may eventually join EFTA, which it was a member of before it joined the EU but I cannot see it joining the EU again once Article 50 has been invoked and the terms of departure agreed
It would not require Schengen. The treaties explicitly recognise the CTA. It would take a new Treaty - which requires the agreement of Ireland - to derecognise the CTA.
The EU is on an unstoppable mission to become the U.S.E. If we were ever to be so foolish as to get back in we'd be assimilated. Fully. The very grief and wailing and gnashing that is manifest in our Brexit decision is to me fairly solid evidence that we voted to get out at just about the last practical opportunity. A Remain vote would have sealed our future as part of a U.S.E. We'll never rejoin.
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
No surprise to see some on the right calling for "democratic" oversight of judges because a court decision has been handed down that they do not like. The far left believes in this too. Just another case of the two wings circling to join each other.
True. At the extremes, there ought to be some mechanism to ensure the a judge doesn't go completely rogue and start more-or-less making up the law, but as with all such checks, its virtue would lie in not being used.
In contrast to the US, parliament can always change legislation - and the constitution if necessary - to correct a situation they find objectionable. That should always be the remedy to adverse decisions.
Early voting was shorter in 2012. There were 4.5M early voters then, we look to be well over 6M now so it would be hard for the black vote in raw numbers to decrease over 2012 unless their vote had completely collapsed. However AA proportion of the vote has decreased, there are many more whites than 2012 too. So no, Hillary only just overtaking the 2012 vote in raw numbers is not good.
that wasnt counting sundays soul to the polls. I imagine that raw figure went up massively
I really doubt it, Souls to the Polls Sunday was last Sunday. Only a few counties were open this Sunday as it is not a mandatory voting day. Of the ones that were many are not high AA areas. The total early vote this Sunday will be much smaller than other days judging by previous elections. It's not going to have an impact on the proportion of vote.
black share is up to 12.7% now but it increases after today.
Clinton up to 322-332 (Spreadex much lower at 308-323)
The SPIN Clinton 330-up spread is now up to 20.5-26.5. That's a Sell according to all three of the models I've been tracking (538, NYT and HuffPost). But DYOR: you'd lose your shirt if Hillary somehow managed to nick Texas.
Wow, at its mid-point, Sporting's spread for Hillary is more than 30 ECVs ahead of 538.com..... there's brave! That said, America is still asleep, in the main. Maybe not in Maine, but in the main.
Well I'm told, despite all appearances to the contrary, that market is suspended.
The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
Disagree, think about the demographics.
Most of today's pensioners were enthusiasts for the EU in 1975.
NO they were enthusiasts for the single market ie the Common Market. They were lied to by successive Govts of both colours as to what it meant.
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
When I was campaigning for leave I got votes by the shedload from people who weren't even born in 1974, and plenty from people whose parents weren't even in this country then. A lot of people haven't twigged why the referendum happened in the first place. Which mainstream political party would want to saddle themselves with the headaches Major and Cameron had. Cam hoped put the Eurosceptics back in their box for a few years. Mrs May sees the chance to lance the boil once and for all. Consider the Euro. There was a project fear campaign to get us in when it launched. Even before the referendum that seemed plain loopy and unthinkable. We'll drift away and the EU will be like the USA, a faraway country we observe with detached amusement. And occasionally cut off by fog.
Clinton up to 322-332 (Spreadex much lower at 308-323)
The SPIN Clinton 330-up spread is now up to 20.5-26.5. That's a Sell according to all three of the models I've been tracking (538, NYT and HuffPost). But DYOR: you'd lose your shirt if Hillary somehow managed to nick Texas.
Wow, at its mid-point, Sporting's spread for Hillary is more than 30 ECVs ahead of 538.com..... there's brave! That said, America is still asleep, in the main. Maybe not in Maine, but in the main.
Well I'm told, despite all appearances to the contrary, that market is suspended.
Finally I've been able to place a sell for a slightly smaller stake than I would have liked.
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
Yes, judges standing for re-election is a problem. The way to elect judges would be for a single term only, after which they would have to sit out the next term.
I understand your reasoning, but there are severe personal career difficulties in asking people to sign up for a single term and then go away. What do they do next? As with former MPs, who have no obvious next move when they lose, they may well be in middle age and unable easily to take up a new profession. (I was a translator as well, which saved my bacon)
I think the British system of independent judges expected to rule according to the law and the facts works pretty well in practice, however annoyed we get when an individual decision goes against what we want, and we should oppose attempts to change it to a more populist approach.
I don't disagree with that, the British system works much better than more activist or political judicial environments. The assumption I made was that a judge would be a barrister of some experience to even be considered for the role, therefore they would not have too much of a problem going back to their chambers when their term finished.
Glad that you managed to find useful work after Parliament, I imagine that there must be a fair number of former MPs who are not so fortunate? Elections like those of 1997 or 2010 hand out a lot of P45s at the same time, although maybe the more professional politicians find it easier to head back to the wonk factory or bag carrying role from which they came?
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
Bullshit. We didn't support Lisbon. A referendum on it would have sunk in flames. Gordon Brown and your weasel party supported it - and ratified it in secret with no popular vote. It's precisely this sort of mendacity about the last 40 years that led us directly to Brexit.
It is made up at the final ECV figure less 330, or 0, whichever is the higher.
So if you sell at the current 20.5 you'd lose just half a point if she gets 351. You'd win 10.5 points if she gets 340 ECVs. You'd win a fixed 20.5 points if she gets 330 or any lower number.
Conversely, your potential losses if she does better than 350 are uncapped.
Thanks.
And to think they say that spread betting is confusing...
Having said that there are plenty of traditional bets with too many features for comfort.
There is a lot of talk about not giving our negotiating strategy with the EU27 away in advance. In India we are doing the opposite. The message is "Please, Please, Please do a deal with us. Any deal. Please." It's no surprise, of course. We do need a deal a whole lot more than the Indians do. So, if we are to get one, it will be pretty much on their terms. See Iceland and China.
Don't be ridiculous. You're becoming like a headless chicken. A trade deal with India of peripheral importance and India doesn't really want any trade deals given their addiction to tariff income.
Yes, as I say a trade deal with India would be on their terms. Watching Liam Fox and Theresa May walking together down the aeroplane steps to the tarmac in New Delhi, and reading and watching the coverage of the trip, does not indicate they see anything peripheral about a deal.
I wonder if India will ask Theresa if they could please have Vijay Malliya back? He's a shareholder in Kingfisher and the Force India F1 team among other interests, and is wanted in India - his business partner is already in jail for corruption. Malliya has been in the UK since India cancelled his passport a year ago.
The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
Disagree, think about the demographics.
Most of today's pensioners were enthusiasts for the EU in 1975.
NO they were enthusiasts for the single market ie the Common Market. They were lied to by successive Govts of both colours as to what it meant.
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We’ve had several elections for MEP’s, we’ve had several General Elections where the EU was an issue (often not a major one, I concede). Now we’re going to have to rejig thousands of commercial and professional arrangements, and probably end up with a lower standard of living.
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
Bullshit. We didn't support Lisbon. A referendum on it would have sunk in flames. Gordon Brown and your weasel party supported it - and ratified it in secret with no popular vote. It's precisely this sort of mendacity about the last 40 years that led us directly to Brexit.
Spot on. A referendum on Lisbon would have lanced the boil at an earlier stage and in all likelihood led to changes being made to the UK's relationship with the EU which would have meant avoiding the mess we now find ourselves in
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
What say did I have for Brown singing the Lisbon treaty.. SWET FECK ALL
I don't really understand why NC is looking so Dem-winnable in the first place. I know the demographics are moving towards the Dems over time but it's not hugely hispanic, so what is it that Obama couldn't do in 2012 that Hillary is going to be able to do in 2016? If there's no particular reason why it should swing faster than anywhere else but the state polling says it will, the best guess would be that the polling's wrong.
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
Bullshit. We didn't support Lisbon. A referendum on it would have sunk in flames. Gordon Brown and your weasel party supported it - and ratified it in secret with no popular vote. It's precisely this sort of mendacity about the last 40 years that led us directly to Brexit.
Spot on. A referendum on Lisbon would have lanced the boil at an earlier stage and in all likelihood led to changes being made to the UK's relationship with the EU which would have meant avoiding the mess we now find ourselves in
I think the Lisbon Treaty betrayal was the final straw for many EU waverers.
It is made up at the final ECV figure less 330, or 0, whichever is the higher.
So if you sell at the current 20.5 you'd lose just half a point if she gets 351. You'd win 10.5 points if she gets 340 ECVs. You'd win a fixed 20.5 points if she gets 330 or any lower number.
Conversely, your potential losses if she does better than 350 are uncapped.
Thanks.
And to think they say that spread betting is confusing...
Having said that there are plenty of traditional bets with too many features for comfort.
And don't forget that Florida's 29 ECVs all go either one way or the other. Spread betting can be scary at the best of times, but the US ECVs are about the scariest thing possible to make a spread bet on - even Mike has cashed out!
'White registered unaffiliated voters saw an overall increase of 41 percent, but among suburban white registered unaffiliated voters, it was an increase of 57 percent.
Among black unaffiliated voters, who are typically more from the Millennial generation, it was again suburban black unaffiliated voters showing the largest increase. '
If Clinton is winning suburban whites, this would be very good.
I don't really understand why NC is looking so Dem-winnable in the first place. I know the demographics are moving towards the Dems over time but it's not hugely hispanic, so what is it that Obama couldn't do in 2012 that Hillary is going to be able to do in 2016? If there's no particular reason why it should swing faster than anywhere else but the state polling says it will, the best guess would be that the polling's wrong.
NC is a mixed bag, from hillbilly to high tech university industries in the research triangle. Heading the way of GA and VA as the New South rather than the Old South.
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
Bullshit. We didn't support Lisbon. A referendum on it would have sunk in flames. Gordon Brown and your weasel party supported it - and ratified it in secret with no popular vote. It's precisely this sort of mendacity about the last 40 years that led us directly to Brexit.
Spot on. A referendum on Lisbon would have lanced the boil at an earlier stage and in all likelihood led to changes being made to the UK's relationship with the EU which would have meant avoiding the mess we now find ourselves in
I think the Lisbon Treaty betrayal was the final straw for many EU waverers.
For me it was that plus our 5 year trade pivot away from the EU, down from ca. 55% of all trade to ca. 43% at the moment and falling. In 10 years we will all be wondering what the fuss was about.
It is made up at the final ECV figure less 330, or 0, whichever is the higher.
So if you sell at the current 20.5 you'd lose just half a point if she gets 351. You'd win 10.5 points if she gets 340 ECVs. You'd win a fixed 20.5 points if she gets 330 or any lower number.
Conversely, your potential losses if she does better than 350 are uncapped.
Thanks.
And to think they say that spread betting is confusing...
Having said that there are plenty of traditional bets with too many features for comfort.
And don't forget that Florida's 29 ECVs all go either one way or the other. Spread betting can be scary at the best of times, but the US ECVs are about the scariest thing possible to make a spread bet on - even Mike has cashed out!
My rule 1 is always understand what bet you're making.
The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
Disagree, think about the demographics.
Labour voters age and become Conservative voters. Remainers will become Leavers (Rejoiners will become Remain-outers?) in the same way, and the status quo advantage will have passed to the Eurosceptic side.
That happens with some things but you also get a fair bit of stickiness where an entire cohort picks a side when they're young and that advantage sticks. This is a basic worldview issue: Educated young people who have grown up with free movement just don't see things the way older people do.
Until they lose their jobs - and have to train their replacments from a lower-income country.
Which does happen, both here and in America: here is your redundancy notice and you must spend the time training your outsourced replacements.
One factor we do not have is that on much of the continent, open borders mean Europe now seems more like a single country in that you can drive from (say) Germany through Poland to Czechia and buy beer using the same banknotes.
It is, however, the relatively poor manual workers who cant really afford to drive 1000 miles to enjoy a beer, ski down the Alps and enjoy the vistas that have lost their jobs.
But I suppose that doesn't matter to most on this website.
Bingo. Immigration/FoM was low on my list of reasons for being a Leaver but when Remainers say how terrible it is that we're being stripped of our 'rights' to free movement it shows how out of touch they are with most people who voted Leave.
One of us has selective amnesia. I’m an OAP and i’m sure that further developments were envisaged, and talked about in 1975.
they may well have been and I expect we were told we would get a say, which we never got and its why we are where we are now.
We did have a say. We agreed. Can you recall a single example of major treaty change that occurred over the opposition of a British Government, Conservative or Labour? It's an irritating habit of mainstream politicians of my own party and others to vaguely blame Brussels for doing stuff that we could have opposed but actually supported.
What say did I have for Brown singing the Lisbon treaty.. SWET FECK ALL
To be fair to @NickPalmer, he did say British Governments as opposed to British people - and the government of 2007 were all for Lisbon even if the people were not. Lancing the boil with a referendum then, would probably have applied enough braking to prevent the Brexit vote nine years later.
The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
To rejoin after Brexit would require the UK to join the eurozone and Schengen, the UK may eventually join EFTA, which it was a member of before it joined the EU but I cannot see it joining the EU again once Article 50 has been invoked and the terms of departure agreed
It would not require Schengen. The treaties explicitly recognise the CTA. It would take a new Treaty - which requires the agreement of Ireland - to derecognise the CTA.
The EU is on an unstoppable mission to become the U.S.E. If we were ever to be so foolish as to get back in we'd be assimilated. Fully. The very grief and wailing and gnashing that is manifest in our Brexit decision is to me fairly solid evidence that we voted to get out at just about the last practical opportunity. A Remain vote would have sealed our future as part of a U.S.E. We'll never rejoin.
I was merely pointing out that wad HYUFD said was factually incorrect. Unless the treaties change, which requires unanimity, then any joiner can commit to either Schengen or the CTA.
The problem is that when we do rejoin, the EU will have developed not necessarily to our advantage.
When? We are never going to rejoin.
Us rejoining the EU now is as likely as Canada joining the USA or Japan joining China.
Disagree, think about the demographics.
Labour voters age and become Conservative voters. Remainers will become Leavers (Rejoiners will become Remain-outers?) in the same way, and the status quo advantage will have passed to the Eurosceptic side.
That happens with some things but you also get a fair bit of stickiness where an entire cohort picks a side when they're young and that advantage sticks. This is a basic worldview issue: Educated young people who have grown up with free movement just don't see things the way older people do.
Until they lose their jobs - and have to train their replacments from a lower-income country.
Which does happen, both here and in America: here is your redundancy notice and you must spend the time training your outsourced replacements.
One factor we do not have is that on much of the continent, open borders mean Europe now seems more like a single country in that you can drive from (say) Germany through Poland to Czechia and buy beer using the same banknotes.
It is, however, the relatively poor manual workers who cant really afford to drive 1000 miles to enjoy a beer, ski down the Alps and enjoy the vistas that have lost their jobs.
But I suppose that doesn't matter to most on this website.
Bingo. Immigration/FoM was low on my list of reasons for being a Leaver but when Remainers say how terrible it is that we're being stripped of our 'rights' to free movement it shows how out of touch they are with most people who voted Leave.
Fair point. Although I suspect that many such Leavers didn’t realise how it would actually affect them n the longer term.
''Bingo. Immigration/FoM was low on my list of reasons for being a Leaver but when Remainers say how terrible it is that we're being stripped of our 'rights' to free movement it shows how out of touch they are with most people who voted Leave. ''
Voters have looked over the pond and have seen that, when immigration explodes, You become your identity. White Male. Latino. Asian. AA. Look at the way the election is discussed on here.
The only thing that follows that is trouble and conflict, as identities blame each other for denying each other power.
And don't forget that Florida's 29 ECVs all go either one way or the other. Spread betting can be scary at the best of times, but the US ECVs are about the scariest thing possible to make a spread bet on - even Mike has cashed out!
FL isn't a danger if you're selling on the 330-ups at 20.5, because the price assumes FL goes her way. If by any chance Trump does a lot better and takes FL, that just makes it a safer bet (but probably wouldn't increase your profit because you'd make no extra profit below 330). Texas on the other hand would be a killer - you'd lose 38 points just on that one state if it flipped to Clinton.
Of course, understanding exactly how the bets work and the corresponding risks is crucial. Also crucial is understanding how your bets interact. I have a little model of my betting position which (subject to an assumption of in which order the states would fall) allows me to chart my expected profit/loss by number of ECVs.
Rather depends on what you regard as ‘fully’, - I think there’s every chance in a few years we’ll have left the steam roller towards a European federal state government, while retaining many trade links and adopted EU standards .
If Trump loses, then I think he could have won by doing exactly the same - outwith the whole "Build the wall" thing.
Trade o Muslims o Social conservative pivot o Iraq o "Hillary in jail" o Mexico/Wall x
He could have won - assuming he doesn't - had he simply avoided being disproportionately gratuitously insulting to women. There are many paths to victory which he could have taken but doing something about his scores with women would have been one of the easiest.
@Richard_Nabavi SPIN won't seem to have my payment show up and they've decided my existing spread bet "exhausts" my limit >.>
Does the payment not show up in your account history?
One problem with them is that I think they treat the bets as independent, so if you have an open buy on the main ECV market and then sell on the X-ups market, they can ask for a deposit even though you've actually reduced your real exposure.
'White registered unaffiliated voters saw an overall increase of 41 percent, but among suburban white registered unaffiliated voters, it was an increase of 57 percent.
Among black unaffiliated voters, who are typically more from the Millennial generation, it was again suburban black unaffiliated voters showing the largest increase. '
If Clinton is winning suburban whites, this would be very good.
Yes. I think on the whole this election will be won or lost based on what the white vote does, how it splits and differential turnout.
@Richard_Nabavi SPIN won't seem to have my payment show up and they've decided my existing spread bet "exhausts" my limit >.>
Does the payment not show up in your account history?
One problem with them is that I think they treat the bets as independent, so if you have an open buy on the main ECV market and then sell on the X-ups market, they can ask for a deposit even though you've actually reduced your real exposure.
My existing bet is a Sell of Trump at 209 (I have it hedged at Spreadex to make it effectively a straight bet on Hillary 250+ with large downside.)
If Trump loses, then I think he could have won by doing exactly the same - outwith the whole "Build the wall" thing.
Trade o Muslims o Social conservative pivot o Iraq o "Hillary in jail" o Mexico/Wall x
He could have won - assuming he doesn't - had he simply avoided being disproportionately gratuitously insulting to women. There are many paths to victory which he could have taken but doing something about his scores with women would have been one of the easiest.
well pussygate wouldve screwed him over regardless
I see the daily mail aren't backing down from their enemy of the people routine, today publishing profiles of the supreme court judges pointing out any connections to EU & previous judgments that the Daily Mail doesn't approve of.
Meanwhile, Farage is planning to march on the Court with a load of his fellow pitchforkers apparently.
One side effect of this is that we can now see *some* Brexiters' attitudes to the rule of law. It is not a pretty sight.
I don't have any problem with the Mail poring over the backgrounds of the Supreme Court judges to try to identify their possible predispositions in this case; I'm planning to do so myself. I do have a problem with them suggesting that any of the judges are actively biased or compromised without the most compelling of evidence. This isn't it and is fit only for crackpots.
Most of the Leave campaign was predicated on eg the IFS being in the pocket of their EU paymasters.
There is no aspect of Britain's civic society that some Leavers aren't prepared to dismember in pursuit of their mania. And far too few of the other Leavers are willing to stand up to their fellow travellers and tell them that they are dangerously wrong.
I have never revealed my vote and don't intend to. But I am very willing to say that those on the Leave side who attack the idea that the government should be subject to the rule of law are indeed wrong and dangerously so. This is a key principle that our forefathers fought for since Magna Carta. It is the basis of the rule of law. It is one of the things which makes me proud of Britain. It is one of the things which Britain has brought to the world.
Criticise legal judgments by all means. Do so in robust fashion. Free speech matters. It too is key to our freedoms.
But marches on courts, talk of "enemies of the people", the belief that governments must implement the peoples' will without any regard to the law are things which are rather more reminiscent of rackety and illiberal Continental regimes we have become rather too familiar with in the recent past. They are not - and should not - be part of the Britain I love.
And don't forget that Florida's 29 ECVs all go either one way or the other. Spread betting can be scary at the best of times, but the US ECVs are about the scariest thing possible to make a spread bet on - even Mike has cashed out!
FL isn't a danger if you're selling on the 330-ups at 20.5, because the price assumes FL goes her way. If by any chance Trump does a lot better and takes FL, that just makes it a safer bet (but probably wouldn't increase your profit because you'd make no extra profit below 330). Texas on the other hand would be a killer - you'd lose 38 points just on that one state if it flipped to Clinton.
Of course, understanding exactly how the bets work and the corresponding risks is crucial. Also crucial is understanding how your bets interact. I have a little model of my betting position which (subject to an assumption of in which order the states would fall) allows me to chart my expected profit/loss by number of ECVs.
That's a very clear and concise explaination. Agree with you that the key is predicting the order in which states change hands. Good luck, and hope your model is profitable!
He could have won - assuming he doesn't - had he simply avoided being disproportionately gratuitously insulting to women. There are many paths to victory which he could have taken but doing something about his scores with women would have been one of the easiest.
Things like the wall were avoidable, as they were part of his pitch during the campaign. Trump's misogyny is part of who he is, correcting that would require a time machine to change his upbringing.
If Trump loses, then I think he could have won by doing exactly the same - outwith the whole "Build the wall" thing.
Trade o Muslims o Social conservative pivot o Iraq o "Hillary in jail" o Mexico/Wall x
He could have won - assuming he doesn't - had he simply avoided being disproportionately gratuitously insulting to women. There are many paths to victory which he could have taken but doing something about his scores with women would have been one of the easiest.
If Trump were not Trump he would have a better chance of winning. And a lot of us would not be so worried about tomorrow's result.
I see the daily mail aren't backing down from their enemy of the people routine, today publishing profiles of the supreme court judges pointing out any connections to EU & previous judgments that the Daily Mail doesn't approve of.
Meanwhile, Farage is planning to march on the Court with a load of his fellow pitchforkers apparently.
One side effect of this is that we can now see *some* Brexiters' attitudes to the rule of law. It is not a pretty sight.
I don't have any problem with the Mail poring over the backgrounds of the Supreme Court judges to try to identify their possible predispositions in this case; I'm planning to do so myself. I do have a problem with them suggesting that any of the judges are actively biased or compromised without the most compelling of evidence. This isn't it and is fit only for crackpots.
Most of the Leave campaign was predicated on eg the IFS being in the pocket of their EU paymasters.
There is no aspect of Britain's civic society that some Leavers aren't prepared to dismember in pursuit of their mania. And far too few of the other Leavers are willing to stand up to their fellow travellers and tell them that they are dangerously wrong.
I have never revealed my vote and don't intend to. But I am very willing to say that those on the Leave side who attack the idea that the government should be subject to the rule of law are indeed wrong and dangerously so. This is a key principle that our forefathers fought for since Magna Carta. It is the basis of the rule of law. It is one of the things which makes me proud of Britain. It is one of the things which Britain has brought to the world.
Criticise legal judgments by all means. Do so in robust fashion. Free speech matters. It too is key to our freedoms.
But marches on courts, talk of "enemies of the people", the belief that governments must implement the peoples' will without any regard to the law are things which are rather more reminiscent of rackety and illiberal Continental regimes we have become rather too familiar with in the recent past. They are not - and should not - be part of the Britain I love.
Well said. The Daily Mail and similar coverage seemed to be encouraging mob rule, as indeed so has Farage. We can do without Momentum, Trumpism (plus Farage playing Robin to his Batman) and newspapers challenging the rule of law.
''well pussygate wouldve screwed him over regardless ''
People working two low paid jobs in hollowed out cities to survive.
I'm sure they base their voting decisions on unproven allegations of sexual misconduct.
Lowly paid women who have to put up with sexual harrassment as the price of keeping their jobs may very well see his boasts differently.
If only blue collar whie American males were voting, then you might have a point, but America is much more diverse than that, and indeed much more diverse than Britain.
He could have won - assuming he doesn't - had he simply avoided being disproportionately gratuitously insulting to women. There are many paths to victory which he could have taken but doing something about his scores with women would have been one of the easiest.
Things like the wall were avoidable, as they were part of his pitch during the campaign. Trump's misogyny is part of who he is, correcting that would require a time machine to change his upbringing.
Trump's biggest problem with these stories during the campaign is that he just wouldn't move on from them.
When the story about the bus came up, he should have said "Apologies for the crude language, was banter from a long time ago, but it was just that - only talk. No blowies from the interns for President Trump!" and then just shut up and let it blow over.
But he wouldn't let it lie and gave the story legs - someone really should have confiscated his phone after the convention.
No surprise to see some on the right calling for "democratic" oversight of judges because a court decision has been handed down that they do not like. The far left believes in this too. Just another case of the two wings circling to join each other.
Absolutely. The problem is the extremes seem to be in control of the debate at the moment.
WB Yeats put it best: "The worst are full of passionate intensity." "The centre cannot hold."
''They are not - and should not - be part of the Britain I love.''
This sunlit vision of a past Britain where everybody knew their places and the decisions of authority were always respected is a huge pile of b8llocks.
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
I believe that commercial life in both Britain and Europe is so interdependent that a customs wall, for example, between us is impossible.
Switzerland is not in the customs union and does 70% of its trade with the EU. They seem to get on just fine. Better than fine, in fact.
Are you sure about that; I thought there was a dispute going on. And Switzerland never got as involved as we did in the first place. It’s always a lot harder to unravel something than set it up in the first place.
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
The fantasists all seem to be on the Leave side. Farage and co calling for marches on the courts, for democratic control of judges, saying that Parliament is going to overturn the will of the people and so on. It's all utter nonsense. We are leaving the EU. Our democracy requires the clear separation of powers. Judges are independent. All that remains to be decided is when we leave and under what terms. Neither of these things were voted on in June.
''If Trump were not Trump he would have a better chance of winning. And a lot of us would not be so worried about tomorrow's result. ''
I don;t buy the argument that some kind of soft right McCain/Romney/Ryan clone would be beating Clinton.
They would just be losing in a different way.
Agreed, and similarly I don't buy the argument that any other Democrat would be winning in a landslide. Saying that Trump and Clinton are two uniquely weak candidates electorally is one of those truisms that isn't true.
I don;t buy the argument that some kind of soft right McCain/Romney/Ryan clone would be beating Clinton.
They would just be losing in a different way.
Possibly, I don't doubt that Trump is channeling some real anger that a "clone" would find harder to do so — as was Sanders on the other side of the fence — but Trump has too much baggage.
Comments
In contrast to the US, parliament can always change legislation - and the constitution if necessary - to correct a situation they find objectionable. That should always be the remedy to adverse decisions.
detached amusement. And occasionally cut off by fog.
Glad that you managed to find useful work after Parliament, I imagine that there must be a fair number of former MPs who are not so fortunate? Elections like those of 1997 or 2010 hand out a lot of P45s at the same time, although maybe the more professional politicians find it easier to head back to the wonk factory or bag carrying role from which they came?
https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/795583866937442304
Clinton is +1 in the H2H.
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-tracking-poll-most-accurate-presidential-poll/
And to think they say that spread betting is confusing...
Having said that there are plenty of traditional bets with too many features for comfort.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3912164/Latest-Wikileaks-dump-8-000-new-emails-shows-DNC-prepared-anchors-Wolf-Blitzer-Jake-Tapper-interviews-Trump-Cruz.html
Again, why get so excited over one poll?
Also, the fact they mention the Nov surprise when it wouldn't' have impacted on their field work makes me... Pause
http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/north-carolina-early-voting-results-2016-election-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-votes-cast-turnout-up-down-increase-decrease-who-winning-republicans-democrats/
Trade o
Muslims o
Social conservative pivot o
Iraq o
"Hillary in jail" o
Mexico/Wall x
Now we’re going to have to rejig thousands of commercial and professional arrangements, and probably end up with a lower standard of living.
Is it any wonder? When polls are being discussed on here, identity is all.
I'd make 2 adjustments, move NC from lean Hillary to TCTC. Move Nevada from TCTC to lean Hillary. That takes her total down to 274.
Fortunately Racism is over so the Voting Rights Act is now unconstitutional so no one needs to worry.
Among black unaffiliated voters, who are typically more from the Millennial generation, it was again suburban black unaffiliated voters showing the largest increase. '
If Clinton is winning suburban whites, this would be very good.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/
Voters have looked over the pond and have seen that, when immigration explodes, You become your identity. White Male. Latino. Asian. AA. Look at the way the election is discussed on here.
The only thing that follows that is trouble and conflict, as identities blame each other for denying each other power.
Of course, understanding exactly how the bets work and the corresponding risks is crucial. Also crucial is understanding how your bets interact. I have a little model of my betting position which (subject to an assumption of in which order the states would fall) allows me to chart my expected profit/loss by number of ECVs.
I've done alot of betting on NC, on both sides - but pretty much all above evens so its all good.
https://twitter.com/World_First/status/795572358941732864?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
He gives Hillary Florida and Trump Virginia??!
Either a mistake, or are people in the money markets really that under-informed?!
Oh my aching sides.
(And she said "We are all just prisoners here, of our own device" .....
They stab it with their steely knives, But they just can't kill the beast")
Cold Open, featuring Trump kissing Putin and a KKK leader, but everyone hugs and makes up in the end!
ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=xCXEBsnLlpU
Weekend Update: 'A Weiner Always Pops Up At The Worst Possible Time'
ttps://youtube.com/watch?v=o2AnM1HxJJw
Clinton 44 .. Trump 41
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-07/national-poll
One problem with them is that I think they treat the bets as independent, so if you have an open buy on the main ECV market and then sell on the X-ups market, they can ask for a deposit even though you've actually reduced your real exposure.
Remember the little event in June called the Referendum.
We're leaving, despite the fantasies of Remoaners.
Criticise legal judgments by all means. Do so in robust fashion. Free speech matters. It too is key to our freedoms.
But marches on courts, talk of "enemies of the people", the belief that governments must implement the peoples' will without any regard to the law are things which are rather more reminiscent of rackety and illiberal Continental regimes we have become rather too familiar with in the recent past. They are not - and should not - be part of the Britain I love.
Clinton 47 .. Trump 41
https://www.scribd.com/document/330243723/NBC-News-SurveyMonkey-Toplines-and-Methodology-1031-11-6?secret_password=RZmAhM5A4ukrIpXPn0p8
People working two low paid jobs in hollowed out cities to survive.
I'm sure they base their voting decisions on unproven allegations of sexual misconduct.
The Daily Mail and similar coverage seemed to be encouraging mob rule, as indeed so has Farage.
We can do without Momentum, Trumpism (plus Farage playing Robin to his Batman) and newspapers challenging the rule of law.
I don;t buy the argument that some kind of soft right McCain/Romney/Ryan clone would be beating Clinton.
They would just be losing in a different way.
If only blue collar whie American males were voting, then you might have a point, but America is much more diverse than that, and indeed much more diverse than Britain.
When the story about the bus came up, he should have said "Apologies for the crude language, was banter from a long time ago, but it was just that - only talk. No blowies from the interns for President Trump!" and then just shut up and let it blow over.
But he wouldn't let it lie and gave the story legs - someone really should have confiscated his phone after the convention.
A great poet.
This sunlit vision of a past Britain where everybody knew their places and the decisions of authority were always respected is a huge pile of b8llocks.
Unrest had often been there.