Hope it's not being cheeky to ask - how did people do betting wise?
I've made my biggest ever single-event profit of about £1660 (prev best was £1100 on Nadal v Federer at Australia 2009).
Cashed out at 1.13 about 5 mins before Trump crashed to 1.03. Better than a poke in the eye, as my bank manager used to say when discussing my overdraft.
It seems obvious now that what Clinton should have done was to ignore Trump completely and just focus on her own policies. By taking on Trump she was doing exactly what he and his supporters wanted.
The lack of last minute scandal to throw at Trump on the weekend was a big miss.
Two criminal trials coming up proved to be insufficient for Hilary to beat him.
Would those idiots who selected Clinton despite knowing how hated she was please do abject public penance?
It's ironic, because I was trying to think of a President possibly worse than Trump will likely be, and Harding immediately jumped to mind. Popped his clogs in office, and Coolidge took over and then won in 1928.
Hope it's not being cheeky to ask - how did people do betting wise?
I've made my biggest ever single-event profit of about £1660 (prev best was £1100 on Nadal v Federer at Australia 2009).
About £3k, assuming Clinton wins the popular vote. Managed to make £750 from a standing start on the ECV market, and the Senate Control has also copped. The most pleasing win was an even £200 with a mate on the Republicans 4 years ago...
Trump was never in the lead with any polls bar a couple around the conventions. Betfair never had him lower than 3 until a couple of hours ago. It's Brexit on steroids.
I think the national polls finished with Clinton about 3-4 and she'll end up winning by 1-2.
Only by piling votes up in California where they don't count.
The pollsters screwed up bigly here, as they did in the UK at the refereddum and the last election.
Well yes national polls are really based around what the national results will be.
Trump presently leads the national popular vote by almost 1. 5 million votes with over a third of California having now reported
In a way, I hope he does win the popular vote, however marginal.
It will hang over this election like a bad smell if the EC/Popular Vote is split again, and make it even harder for the country to come together (harder than it already is!)
He has a clear enough lead now I think and San Francisco, the most Democratic part of the state, is further ahead in its returns than some more Trump friendly rural counties of California
It's ironic, because I was trying to think of a President possibly worse than Trump will likely be, and Harding immediately jumped to mind. Popped his clogs in office, and Coolidge took over and then won in 1928.
No, Coolidge was 1924, you're thinking of Hoover (who was also a businessman rather than politician, but was a thoroughly decent human being and was in many ways a more effective president than his widely feted but little understood successor).
Whether they'll work with Trump is another question, but if they do assuming the Senate stays red - which seems a very safe assumption - he's going to be extremely powerful, more so than any president since George W. Bush before Katrina.
Trump was never in the lead with any polls bar a couple around the conventions. Betfair never had him lower than 3 until a couple of hours ago. It's Brexit on steroids.
I think the national polls finished with Clinton about 3-4 and she'll end up winning by 1-2.
Only by piling votes up in California where they don't count.
The pollsters screwed up bigly here, as they did in the UK at the refereddum and the last election.
Well yes national polls are really based around what the national results will be.
Trump presently leads the national popular vote by almost 1. 5 million votes with over a third of California having now reported
She'll come through when the west coast finishes counting.
Whether they'll work with Trump is another question, but if they do assuming the Senate stays red - which seems a very safe assumption - he's going to be extremely powerful, more so than any president since George W. Bush before Katrina.
It will be a real test of 'checks and balances'.
With the exception of the Supreme Court, they've all been hammered, and given the age of the Democratic justices, surely that can't hold for long.
So does the manner of Trump's win change the received wisdom that Rubio or Kasich would have beaten Hillary easily?
Other way round, perhaps. Kasich or Rubio would probably have lost to Hillary. It would have been a normal election, with the polls correct, voters sticking with their own party and DNVs staying at home.
So does the manner of Trump's win change the received wisdom that Rubio or Kasich would have beaten Hillary easily?
Other way round, perhaps. Kasich or Rubio would probably have lost to Hillary. It would have been a normal election, with the polls correct, voters sticking with their own party and DNVs staying at home.
I disagree. Hilary Clinton lost this election to a candidate barely better than a monkey on a stick. A half-decent candidate would surely have taken Nevada, Maryland, Virginia and even Washington to make up for possibly losing Wisconsin.
If Clinton wins the popular vote the twitterwauling will be astronomic
I doubt that will be much mentioned; I suspect Americans largely regard their system as a feature more than a bug. The Greens in Florida, on the other hand. Again ...
Anyway, the comparison was meant with Harding, since at the time he was widely thought to be unsuitable for the office (as so clearly is Trump), on top of which he tends to be put at or near the bottom of those occasional "worst ever Presidents" surveys.
So does the manner of Trump's win change the received wisdom that Rubio or Kasich would have beaten Hillary easily?
Other way round, perhaps. Kasich or Rubio would probably have lost to Hillary. It would have been a normal election, with the polls correct, voters sticking with their own party and DNVs staying at home.
Yes, that's what I was getting at. I actually think they'd might have won differently, with Rubio taking e.g. NV/CO. But they wouldn't have got the deplorables out to vote.
Anyway, the comparison was meant with Harding, since at the time he was widely thought to be unsuitable for the office (as so clearly is Trump), on top of which he tends to be put at or near the bottom of those occasional "worst ever Presidents" surveys.
Fair enough. Seems a very good comparison to me then.
Isn't everyone glad we have a SERIOUS Prime Minister who doesn't shoot her mouth off about foreign Presidential candidates, as opposed to the grandstanding twat we just got rid of.
If Clinton wins the popular vote the twitterwauling will be astronomic
She probably won't, San Francisco is now 90% in and Trump still has a national popular vote lead of well over a million
San Francisco is tiny in population (relatively).
San Francisco county is one of the biggest counties in California and the most Democratic, some Trump counties in California still have not yet reported all their votes
Isn't everyone glad we have a SERIOUS Prime Minister who doesn't shoot her mouth off about foreign Presidential candidates, as opposed to the grandstanding twat we just got rid of.
Trump now wins 13% of Blacks and 33% of Hispanics. WOW.
When was the last time a Republican got 13% of AA ?
Pre-LBJ, I should imagine, when Dixicrats and Lincoln's legacy pushed African Americans to the GOP.
1932 the Democrats dominated minority votes for the first time, and ever since. So Hoover would have done better than that, but probably not many since.
Anyway, the comparison was meant with Harding, since at the time he was widely thought to be unsuitable for the office (as so clearly is Trump), on top of which he tends to be put at or near the bottom of those occasional "worst ever Presidents" surveys.
Fair enough. Seems a very good comparison to me then.
Hope you can get some sleep soon.
Although on 1928, Hoover was the last businessman who'd never held elective office (he was a cabinet minister under Coolidge) to be elected president. That didn't turn out well either.
Comments
Would those idiots who selected Clinton despite knowing how hated she was please do abject public penance?
1.Beware the polls when they get estimated turnout really wrong.
2.The Sunderland moment of the night was Tampa and Virginia.
Good morning.
https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/796240852003733504
Oh.
Will Sarah Palin get a cabinet post?
My point was that Hoover was a better president than Trump will be.
Coolidge doesn't work for me as a possible comparison, the quiet man who allowed corruption to flourish (the second one possibly)
Harding, the elderly incoherent who lasted two years before dying having achieved nothing but a reputation for straight talking, seems more like it.
Worryingly I would be especially pleased if the two years part came up...
sounds like about to concede
http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/states/new-york#president
Can't see Palin. Trump might be a maverick but he'll want loyal deputies.
I do hope the US is not headed that way again.
Anyway, the comparison was meant with Harding, since at the time he was widely thought to be unsuitable for the office (as so clearly is Trump), on top of which he tends to be put at or near the bottom of those occasional "worst ever Presidents" surveys.
Trump now wins 13% of Blacks and 33% of Hispanics.
WOW.
When was the last time a Republican got 13% of AA ?
Hope you can get some sleep soon.
1992 has nothing on this.
You have to wonder a bit about anyone who can still defend her candidacy after this utter disaster.
Is there anyone out there who now doesn't think Sanders would have done better?
Blimey, been a busy night for the editor, 5 threads and >3,000 comments. Are we there yet!
California votes to legalise recreational marijuana