Matthew Kick Bill Clinton reassuring Hillary tonight by reminding her that Nelson Mandela wasn't elected president until after serving 27 years in prison
When does Betfair pay out on the Next President market? Surely we don't have to wait until Jan 20?
Why wouldn't you? There are various scenarios that would prevent someone making it, which don't need spelling out.
From Betfair's market rules:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. [Bit more about what happens in the case of a tie follows]
Well, I had a funny feeling this was Brexit all over again. And so it has proven.
President Donald Trump. Wow.
Three things to take from this:
1. Dems have to seriously kick themselves for choosing Clinton now. They have known for ages that, although popular with some of the base, she is widely distrusted by the country at large. 2. Was the FBI letter the October surprise to end all October surprises? 3. Is there room in someone's fallout shelter?
totally agree. Sense of entitlement from the Liberal elite.
When does Betfair pay out on the Next President market? Surely we don't have to wait until Jan 20?
Why wouldn't you? There are various scenarios that would prevent someone making it, which don't need spelling out.
From Betfair's market rules:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. [Bit more about what happens in the case of a tie follows]
Fair enough. Although if there is an upset and it ended up going the other way, I bet the backers of the eventual president wouldn't be that happy.
Surely that also makes bets on the likes of Pence money down the drain?
When Hillary decided to make her "deplorables" speech, why the hell didn't one of her advisors tell her to change it beforehand?
It wasn't a speech, it was an answer to a question at a private fund-raiser.
It was exact same situation with Obama's his "cling to their guns" comment: Asked about Republican voters, they want to grant the questioner's premise about some of them being way out there, but also say there are a lot of decent people who just feel left behind. But then phrase that badly and you've given a huge gift to the opposition.
When does Betfair pay out on the Next President market? Surely we don't have to wait until Jan 20?
From Betfair's market rules:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. [Bit more about what happens in the case of a tie follows]
*projected* electoral college votes? Could they pay out after a concession speech?
When does Betfair pay out on the Next President market? Surely we don't have to wait until Jan 20?
Why wouldn't you? There are various scenarios that would prevent someone making it, which don't need spelling out.
No, the market's explicitly on the projected Electoral College votes. If it's clear on the night, they'll almost certainly pay out tomorrow (and if it's not, they'll only wait for that clarity to emerge).
Also, the Republicans will now proceed to scrap Obamacare. His entire legacy now consists of being the first black president. Almost a footnote in history, poor chap.
Also, the Republicans will now proceed to scrap Obamacare. His entire legacy now consists of being the first black president. Almost a footnote in history, poor chap.
Half black. He didn't even manage that bit completely!
Congratulations to all that called this correctly. I think the West is now in real trouble.
Indeed. And contrition from those who dismissed the possibility too readily.
I still find it extraordinary that someone with such appalling ratings could win an election like this. True, Hillary's are far from healthy (in fact, they're the second-worst ever recorded for a presidential candidate), but they were still well ahead of Trump. All I can think is either (1) the pollsters screwed up, or (2) we paid insufficient attention to those who disapproved of both candidates, who must have broken clearly for Trump. After all, it's not just whether a voter's opinion of a candidate is plus or minus zero but it's *how much* it is so relative to the others on the ballot that counts.
Also, the Republicans will now proceed to scrap Obamacare. His entire legacy now consists of being the first black president. Almost a footnote in history, poor chap.
They won't scrap it, if they do anything they'll rename it.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
Watch the GOP rally round Trump like they never doubted him now !!
One has to suspect that they will find a modus operandi. The deadlock of recent years shows that there is only so much the President can accomplish working against Congress. And the Congressional Republicans also have an enormous amount to gain from co-operation, of course.
Also, the Republicans will now proceed to scrap Obamacare. His entire legacy now consists of being the first black president. Almost a footnote in history, poor chap.
Well Obama lost his chance in 2009, he could have rammed actual Healthcare reform before Kennedy died, he had the votes but he waited for Congress.
Also he did nothing to help the economy recover apart from bank bailouts.
He is mediocre but still better than George W. though.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He does seem to be anti free trade though, so maybe that hampers our chance of getting a deal?
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
The question is Trump's foreign policy, and whether it will ease tensions in hotspots around the world. It's useless being friendly with the US if eastern Europe is aflame.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He's bad for free trade, so maybe not good for us.
Unlikely but then we'd have said the same for Trump for the same reasons: he appeared to have a low ceiling to his vote (and as an aside, Trump at no point exceeded 46% in the trackers and was rarely above 44%, which is a serious polling failure as he almost certainly didn't benefit from a very late swing that the polls didn't pick up).
But Biden would have done better, as, in all probability, would any number of mainstream, less tainted senators or governors.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He does seem to be anti free trade though, so maybe that hampers our chance of getting a deal?
One can't be sure, BUT the thing about Trump's protectionist leanings is that he's interested in defending industry. The UK trades largely in services. It goes without saying that we are not the same kind of threat as China, or even possibly Germany. But we shall see.
It is possible a lot of Sanders supporters crossed parties to vote for Trump, insofar as both were outsiders running against the establishment, and Sanders had most of the DNVs, and it may explain the polling errors if this group switched.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He's bad for free trade, so maybe not good for us.
He's buddies with Farage, Boris and Salmond and hostile to the EU.
Congratulations to all that called this correctly. I think the West is now in real trouble.
Indeed. And contrition from those who dismissed the possibility too readily.
I still find it extraordinary that someone with such appalling ratings could win an election like this. True, Hillary's are far from healthy (in fact, they're the second-worst ever recorded for a presidential candidate), but they were still well ahead of Trump. All I can think is either (1) the pollsters screwed up, or (2) we paid insufficient attention to those who disapproved of both candidates, who must have broken clearly for Trump. After all, it's not just whether a voter's opinion of a candidate is plus or minus zero but it's *how much* it is so relative to the others on the ballot that counts.
Just as people switched late to the Tories in 2015 because they feared the poll prediction of a Miliband minority PM, I am sure that Clinton's projected win probably made some people switch late to Trump. as they also switched to Brexit to reduce the projected Remain win.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
He's bad for free trade, so maybe not good for us.
Leaving aside whether you are a Trump fan or not, from a narrow national interest point of view, is this good for the UK? We may be one of the few overseas countries he can cope with / speak language /relate to etc? Suddenly UK at the front of the queue?
The question is Trump's foreign policy, and whether it will ease tensions in hotspots around the world. It's useless being friendly with the US if eastern Europe is aflame.
Russia is not going to screw up the chance to negotiate a new settlement as an equal with the US by doing anything stupid now.
Also remember that Trump's first wife was from the Czech Republic and third is from Slovenia. He's not going to be completely blind to the concerns of eastern Europe.
Comments
(BTW, will they get a refund?)
and only NV and NE2 look pretty certain.
Bill Clinton reassuring Hillary tonight by reminding her that Nelson Mandela wasn't elected president until after serving 27 years in prison
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2016 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. [Bit more about what happens in the case of a tie follows]
I'm not exactly ecstatic myself.
It took 24 years to count the votes, but Perot and Buchanan won it.
Surely that also makes bets on the likes of Pence money down the drain?
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/arizona
It was exact same situation with Obama's his "cling to their guns" comment: Asked about Republican voters, they want to grant the questioner's premise about some of them being way out there, but also say there are a lot of decent people who just feel left behind. But then phrase that badly and you've given a huge gift to the opposition.
Poor America.
Congrats to Plato!
I have a spread depending on it!
Now on 244 ECVs!
When the populace are hugely dissatisfied with their electoral representatives and institutions, punters should bet against what the polls predict.
I can't justify or explain this suggested rule but it seems to have worked in most of the recent significant electoral events.
Is Tobacco edible ?
Or can I spit it out ?
I still find it extraordinary that someone with such appalling ratings could win an election like this. True, Hillary's are far from healthy (in fact, they're the second-worst ever recorded for a presidential candidate), but they were still well ahead of Trump. All I can think is either (1) the pollsters screwed up, or (2) we paid insufficient attention to those who disapproved of both candidates, who must have broken clearly for Trump. After all, it's not just whether a voter's opinion of a candidate is plus or minus zero but it's *how much* it is so relative to the others on the ballot that counts.
Also he did nothing to help the economy recover apart from bank bailouts.
He is mediocre but still better than George W. though.
Jack was right about the importance of FOP, unfortunately his ARSE had a malfunction
But Biden would have done better, as, in all probability, would any number of mainstream, less tainted senators or governors.
He will probably be good with us.
Also remember that Trump's first wife was from the Czech Republic and third is from Slovenia. He's not going to be completely blind to the concerns of eastern Europe.
Try as I might, I cannot see how Prez Trump isn't going to be a disaster, for the US and the world. I hope I'm wrong.
Cheers, I owe you
*Epic sad face*