I really hope that votecastr is back next time, gullible punters basing their bets on that instead of real results was highly profitable.
Looks like they've gone to ground.
I hope pb-ers made good money on this election? Some of the odds were just insane - as even I, a Hillary predictor - realised late last night. At one point Trump was over 8, even as exits polls implied some high white working class turnout.
Did the odds get crazier than that? I went to bed at midnight.
Anyone know who made the most money, apart from Rod Crosby?
There was a 150 minute switch over between both candidates being at 10/1 - 11 on Betfair - between about 1am and 3:30 UK time.
Mr @Dromedary apparently came close to being six figures up on the night!
That must go down as the greatest betting opportunity in the history of PB?
It was quite literally Brexit night all over again.
As the polls started to close, the market shifted hard towards the favourite, before flipping back just as hard the other way as everyone realised the exit polls were just as crap as all the other pre-election polling. Another great PB betting night!
I really hope that votecastr is back next time, gullible punters basing their bets on that instead of real results was highly profitable.
Looks like they've gone to ground.
I hope pb-ers made good money on this election? Some of the odds were just insane - as even I, a Hillary predictor - realised late last night. At one point Trump was over 8, even as exits polls implied some high white working class turnout.
Did the odds get crazier than that? I went to bed at midnight.
Anyone know who made the most money, apart from Rod Crosby?
There was a 150 minute switch over between both candidates being at 10/1 - 11 on Betfair - between about 1am and 3:30 UK time.
Mr @Dromedary apparently came close to being six figures up on the night!
That must go down as the greatest betting opportunity in the history of PB?
It was quite literally Brexit night all over again.
As the polls started to close, the market shifted hard towards the favourite, before flipping back just as hard the other way as everyone realised the exit polls were just as crap as all the other pre-election polling. Another great PB betting night!
That;s three on the trot polls wrong and "wrong" side wins
GE 2015, Brexit, WH2016
the pollsters have a problem, but not as big as the politicians
This election is depressing. Make no mistake Clinton was an awful candidate and a popular Dem would not have lost Pennsylvania or Wisconsin/Michigan, but now a precedent has been set. For all future elections facts won't matter as they will be dismissed as bias. A candidate will get away with lying their pants off because the news are not allowed to call them out for it, and he knew that. Every time it was pointed some of the things he said some if then on camera all he had to do is turn around and say "I didn't say that" or " the media is rigged" and many people will forgive him because he is "speaking his mind" despite the fact he flips flops more than most. I'm not even sure he actually believes in anything apart from power for himself as in 2012 he was calling for immigration reform (amnesty). Suspect his cult following will be let down badly by which point Americas electorate will be even more cynical.
I see that williamglenn keeps complaining about Brexit lies but happily accepts Trump, sad!
Ah well we are in the post truth politics now and we can't really complain when politicians lie to us because apparently we will allow them to get away with it.
(Before anyone points it out yes I know Clinton is not always forthcoming with the truth but most of what she says is based in reality).
'It's interesting how people accept anything they're used to. The idea that it's OK to elect a president who actually had fewer votes than his opponent is weird. And I don't think people accept it because they've followed the 1779 rationale (a compromise between democracy and protecting small states from being dominated by big ones). It's just that it's how things are, in the same way that we live with still having hereditary peers in the Lords, which is surely indefensible to any rational mind.'
It's interesting how it's quite acceptable when Labour win an election with 35% of the vote but when it's the Tory's winning on 37% of the vote we urgently need PR and are repeatedly told that 63% of voters didn't vote Tory.
It's interesting how it's quite acceptable when Labour win an election with 35% of the vote but when it's the Tory's winning on 37% of the vote we urgently need PR and are repeatedly told that 63% of voters didn't vote Tory.
Not strictly true, John.
They usually go to the extra effort of trying to claim that all abstainers voted against the Tories/Brexit etc.
'It's interesting how people accept anything they're used to. The idea that it's OK to elect a president who actually had fewer votes than his opponent is weird. And I don't think people accept it because they've followed the 1779 rationale (a compromise between democracy and protecting small states from being dominated by big ones). It's just that it's how things are, in the same way that we live with still having hereditary peers in the Lords, which is surely indefensible to any rational mind.'
It's interesting how it's quite acceptable when Labour win an election with 35% of the vote but when it's the Tory's winning on 37% of the vote we urgently need PR and are repeatedly told that 63% of voters didn't vote Tory.
Equally when Brown becomes PM, the Right say he is unelected and illegitimate and yet when May becomes PM under similar circumstances they are strangely silent.
Right, after a 5 o'clock finish last night, I have to get an early night - it's a 4.30 start tomorrow from Devon to get to Brands Hatch. (A Ferrari 246, a Lancia-Ferrari D50 and a Jaguar D-type being put through their paces, all filmed by the Top Gear guys. And with no noise limitation - the full 120 decibels. Glorious....)
Right, after a 5 o'clock finish last night, I have to get an early night - it's a 4.30 start tomorrow from Devon to get to Brands Hatch. (A Ferrari 246, a Lancia-Ferrari D50 and a Jaguar D-type being put through their paces, all filmed by the Top Gear guys. And with no noise limitation - the full 120 decibels. Glorious....)
'It's interesting how people accept anything they're used to. The idea that it's OK to elect a president who actually had fewer votes than his opponent is weird. And I don't think people accept it because they've followed the 1779 rationale (a compromise between democracy and protecting small states from being dominated by big ones). It's just that it's how things are, in the same way that we live with still having hereditary peers in the Lords, which is surely indefensible to any rational mind.'
It's interesting how it's quite acceptable when Labour win an election with 35% of the vote but when it's the Tory's winning on 37% of the vote we urgently need PR and are repeatedly told that 63% of voters didn't vote Tory.
Equally when Brown becomes PM, the Right say he is unelected and illegitimate and yet when May becomes PM under similar circumstances they are strangely silent.
Odd.
TMay did go through an election (although her final opponent dropped out).
They were not "similar circumstances". You know what Brown did.
Right, after a 5 o'clock finish last night, I have to get an early night - it's a 4.30 start tomorrow from Devon to get to Brands Hatch. (A Ferrari 246, a Lancia-Ferrari D50 and a Jaguar D-type being put through their paces, all filmed by the Top Gear guys. And with no noise limitation - the full 120 decibels. Glorious....)
OGH says: "Normally bookies only ever tell us when they have lost almost never when they have won."
As a non-punter I am fascinated. My impression on the other hand is that gamblers often speak of their winnings, but not of their losses. This obverse makes sense of course.
NYT predicts Clinton to win popular vote by 1.3 points. That would be about 1.7 million votes.
Looking good for my turnout bet then, although from the sound of things it is going to take a few days to have the final tally to Mr @Shadsy's satisfaction.
It's interesting how people accept anything they're used to. The idea that it's OK to elect a president who actually had fewer votes than his opponent is weird. And I don't think people accept it because they've followed the 1779 rationale (a compromise between democracy and protecting small states from being dominated by big ones). It's just that it's how things are, in the same way that we live with still having hereditary peers in the Lords, which is surely indefensible to any rational mind.
Fair point. But I think it's more about playing by the rules you started out with. This applies to any contest, political or otherwise. Everyone knows the rules at the start; you can't go changing them midway through, even if they are stupid. The time for changing the rules is before the start of the game, not after the end.
FWIW, I agree that the particular mechanism used for electing a president is daft.
No way this is the last laugh. Satire is going to boom, Alec Baldwin will make a packet.
SNL is going to be must-watch for the next four years. Their election sketches for the past few weeks have been superb, culminating with Trump kissing Putin last week.
I just watched The Daily Show, which went out live just as the result became obvious last night. It was an hour of almost no jokes, might as well have been following a funeral. I'm sure they'll pick up though, Donald will give them plenty of material.
Bigly....
Where does this word bigly come from? First time I noticed it was a week or so ago & now it's all over the place.
I really hope that votecastr is back next time, gullible punters basing their bets on that instead of real results was highly profitable.
Looks like they've gone to ground.
I hope pb-ers made good money on this election? Some of the odds were just insane - as even I, a Hillary predictor - realised late last night. At one point Trump was over 8, even as exits polls implied some high white working class turnout.
Did the odds get crazier than that? I went to bed at midnight.
Anyone know who made the most money, apart from Rod Crosby?
At about 1:30 last night Trump was 12 to 1.
Yes, there was a 15 minute window in which you could get big sums matched above 10. All thanks to votecastr!
'It's interesting how people accept anything they're used to. The idea that it's OK to elect a president who actually had fewer votes than his opponent is weird. And I don't think people accept it because they've followed the 1779 rationale (a compromise between democracy and protecting small states from being dominated by big ones). It's just that it's how things are, in the same way that we live with still having hereditary peers in the Lords, which is surely indefensible to any rational mind.'
It's interesting how it's quite acceptable when Labour win an election with 35% of the vote but when it's the Tory's winning on 37% of the vote we urgently need PR and are repeatedly told that 63% of voters didn't vote Tory.
Equally when Brown becomes PM, the Right say he is unelected and illegitimate and yet when May becomes PM under similar circumstances they are strangely silent.
Odd.
When ANY PM takes over mid-term, the opposition say he is unelected and illegitimate. That too is part of the game that all sides understand and play by. The ploy being: goad your opponent into calling an early election, possibly forfeiting the advantage of choosing the time. It never works, because new Prime Ministers can do politics too.
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
Good. I can't wait to see the EU quivver.
If the UK does trade deals with the US, Australia, New Zealand and India, and grandfathers Canada, that's a market over 3 times bigger than the EU combined.
NYT predicts Clinton to win popular vote by 1.3 points. That would be about 1.7 million votes.
Looking good for my turnout bet then, although from the sound of things it is going to take a few days to have the final tally to Mr @Shadsy's satisfaction.
It's interesting how people accept anything they're used to. The idea that it's OK to elect a president who actually had fewer votes than his opponent is weird. And I don't think people accept it because they've followed the 1779 rationale (a compromise between democracy and protecting small states from being dominated by big ones). It's just that it's how things are, in the same way that we live with still having hereditary peers in the Lords, which is surely indefensible to any rational mind.
Fair point. But I think it's more about playing by the rules you started out with. This applies to any contest, political or otherwise. Everyone knows the rules at the start; you can't go changing them midway through, even if they are stupid. The time for changing the rules is before the start of the game, not after the end.
FWIW, I agree that the particular mechanism used for electing a president is daft.
Maybe the rules should be that if anyone wins the popular vote by more than a million votes it overrules the electoral college result. That would be a sensible compromise I think.
It is absolutely terrific. If you didn't respect Queen Elizabeth before, you will after.
It is also *not* sanctimonious and left-wing - full of hat tips to "diversity", and the like. It's brazen, it's honest, and it's historically fascinating: its the type of series a more conservative writer/film director might make about the monarchy, except it is made by a soft lefty slightly reluctant monarchist.
If the UK does trade deals with the US, Australia, New Zealand and India, and grandfathers Canada, that's a market over 3 times bigger than the EU combined.
Suck it up.
You sound more motivated by an irrational hatred of the EU than by a cool assessment of Britain's interests.
He will be fine...he gets a big fat cheque every month for his team sports prediction work. The political prediction work is a tiny fraction of what he does now.
OGH says: "Normally bookies only ever tell us when they have lost almost never when they have won."
As a non-punter I am fascinated. My impression on the other hand is that gamblers often speak of their winnings, but not of their losses. This obverse makes sense of course.
Bookies like their customers to think they're crap and always lose money, because if they're losing money then customers are winning it. They keep quiet about the other 95% of markets where they make profits.
For bonus points, be Paddy Power, who paid out on both horses as winners, in the two horse race for President.
It is absolutely terrific. If you didn't respect Queen Elizabeth before, you will after.
It is also *not* sanctimonious and left-wing - full of hat tips to "diversity", and the like. It's brazen, it's honest, and it's historically fascinating: its the type of series a more conservative writer/film director might make about the monarchy, except it is made by a soft lefty slightly reluctant monarchist.
The BBC would never make a show like it.
Huzzah for the free market.
Absolutely.
Perhaps a little embarrasing, but I just shed a tear when King George died. So poignant.
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
Good. I can't wait to see the EU quivver.
If the UK does trade deals with the US, Australia, New Zealand and India, and grandfathers Canada, that's a market over 3 times bigger than the EU combined.
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
Bullshit ! Trump is in line to become the next failed politician.
He will be remembered for NOT building the wall. [ Actually building a useless wall might boost the Mexican economy ].
How is he going to bring back factories to the rust belt ? Press a button ?
Your comments have nothing to say about Brexit and Nato.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
"I sit in one of the dives … uncertain and afraid,” wrote WH Auden, in the days before war broke out in 1939. Tonight it’s the entire leftwing, humanist and liberal world’s turn to sit in its modern dives – coffee bars staffed by global, precarious, young people – and face it.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
NATO is a defensive alliance targeted at Russia. As it seems likely Trump will seek an accommodation with Putin, the question is moot.
OGH says: "Normally bookies only ever tell us when they have lost almost never when they have won."
As a non-punter I am fascinated. My impression on the other hand is that gamblers often speak of their winnings, but not of their losses. This obverse makes sense of course.
Indeed - it seems a remarkable coincidence that on here after any big betting event we always have posters reporting their winnings but almost nobody comes on to talk about their losses.
And when there is a surprise result surely more people have lost than won?
What happened to all the people who said Clinton was about to go to 1.01 around 1am (when Luntz called it for Clinton)? How much money was lost on Clinton at around 1.2?
What about the various bets on Clinton seat bands which were talked about as being likely winners?
If every single person posting on here who bet on last night had to declare their result there must surely have been more losers than winners.
Dawning on a Dem friend of mine that Trump is serious about chucking Mexico out of NAFTA and introducing tariffs on Mexican goods. He's panicking because he thinks that's what the Dems should have done in the last eight years to bring jobs back to the rust belt. Very worried that Trump might actually be successful over the next four years and line Pence up for 2020 locking the Dems out for possibly 12 years with their strength in the mid west and lesser rhetoric on immigrants.
You know one thing where the Americans have one over on us, their media (well some of it at least) do get it. I was impressed by how relatively mature CNN's coverage of the election was. Reading and listening to lots of other thoughtful coverage and soul-searching. There does seem to be an actual desire to understand why voters went for Trump despite everything. I wish our media was half as mature.
We just have the Beeb in permanent mourning branding everyone racists.
Dawning on a Dem friend of mine that Trump is serious about chucking Mexico out of NAFTA and introducing tariffs on Mexican goods. He's panicking because he thinks that's what the Dems should have done in the last eight years to bring jobs back to the rust belt. Very worried that Trump might actually be successful over the next four years and line Pence up for 2020 locking the Dems out for possibly 12 years with their strength in the mid west and lesser rhetoric on immigrants.
By increasing the cost of living in the whole of the US, you mean ? Factories do not go abroad just for tax reasons. They go mainly for cost reasons.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
NATO is a defensive alliance targeted at Russia. As it seems likely Trump will seek an accommodation with Putin, the question is moot.
He has made it quite plain that he will not support Nato countries that do not pay the 2%.
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
Bullshit ! Trump is in line to become the next failed politician.
He will be remembered for NOT building the wall. [ Actually building a useless wall might boost the Mexican economy ].
How is he going to bring back factories to the rust belt ? Press a button ?
Your comments have nothing to say about Brexit and Nato.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
No. Putin is our friend now. Trump may even ask him to join Nato. The South China Sea is where the action is. And Philippines, Malaysia are hanging out with China !!!
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
I heard some talking head today on LBC (?) saying that Europe has effectively just been told to get real on funding their own defences and to stop expecting other countries to provide their insurance against the Russians.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
NATO is a defensive alliance targeted at Russia. As it seems likely Trump will seek an accommodation with Putin, the question is moot.
He has made it quite plain that he will not support Nato countries that do not pay the 2%.
In one sense, he is correct. You should not belong to a club if you are not prepared to pay the fees.
Dawning on a Dem friend of mine that Trump is serious about chucking Mexico out of NAFTA and introducing tariffs on Mexican goods. He's panicking because he thinks that's what the Dems should have done in the last eight years to bring jobs back to the rust belt. Very worried that Trump might actually be successful over the next four years and line Pence up for 2020 locking the Dems out for possibly 12 years with their strength in the mid west and lesser rhetoric on immigrants.
By increasing the cost of living in the whole of the US, you mean ? Factories do not go abroad just for tax reasons. They go mainly for cost reasons.
By forcing the Mexican factories to cut their prices by 25-30% and making them uneconomic, assuming he is going to use a 35% tariff rate that was mentioned previously. The factories will have to eat the cost of the tariff (just as Nissan would have to do here and for which the government are in hot water over subsidising) or face a huge sales drop. The whole point of tariffs is to make domestic manufacturing more competitive, as a Labour supporter I thought you knew this. My friend is worried that it will work and it will hand the mid west to the GOP for the next two election cycles.
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
Bullshit ! Trump is in line to become the next failed politician.
He will be remembered for NOT building the wall. [ Actually building a useless wall might boost the Mexican economy ].
How is he going to bring back factories to the rust belt ? Press a button ?
Your comments have nothing to say about Brexit and Nato.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
No. Putin is our friend now. Trump may even ask him to join Nato. The South China Sea is where the action is. And Philippines, Malaysia are hanging out with China !!!
I know the point has already been made, but it's an important one for future reference: the real hero of the forecasting models was undoubtedly Nate Silver, whose assessment that the probability distribution remained wider than most people were saying was vindicated in spectacular fashion. Punters take note, I suggest. This punter certainly intends to.
Real Charlie Sykes – Verified account @SykesCharlie
Trump won Wisconsin because Dems didn't turnout: Bush 2004 - 1,478,120; Romney 2012 - 1,410,966; Trump 2016 - 1,407,401
In fact, that is true for most of the US. It now seems Romney got more votes than Trump.
Yep, Trump is heading for the infamous 47% that Romney received in 2012. Hillary Clinton looks like getting at least 48%. What a system.
Yes but everyone knew it was by popular vote, then safe states wouldn't exist. Voting would be different anyway.
True. We also have a system of 650 electoral college votes ! But what kind of a system is it that no candidate visits California, Texas, New York, Illinois >
OK , they will visit PA, WI, MI for the next three cycles. I think GA, AZ and TX will come into the frame. The Dems won NV quite easily as they did CO.
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
Bullshit ! Trump is in line to become the next failed politician.
He will be remembered for NOT building the wall. [ Actually building a useless wall might boost the Mexican economy ].
How is he going to bring back factories to the rust belt ? Press a button ?
Your comments have nothing to say about Brexit and Nato.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
No. Putin is our friend now. Trump may even ask him to join Nato. The South China Sea is where the action is. And Philippines, Malaysia are hanging out with China !!!
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
NATO is a defensive alliance targeted at Russia. As it seems likely Trump will seek an accommodation with Putin, the question is moot.
He has made it quite plain that he will not support Nato countries that do not pay the 2%.
In one sense, he is correct. You should not belong to a club if you are not prepared to pay the fees.
The interesting thing about Trump apart from his admiration for Putin is that he agrees that Russia should retain Crimea and remain in the east of Ukraine.
The EU will not like that stance and even less if Trump decides Ukraine should not join the EU as part of a deal with Putin
I think one of the reasons that pollsters were wrong, again, was social media. It scares people off telling the truth because the left dominate social media and cry foul. So, the shy Right keeps quiet until voting. Also in this instance, Hilary needed to lay off the 'I'm a women' thing. It is gender-ist and why would men vote for someone who puts them last.
Also Hillary is married to an alleged rapist, pedophile and confirmed adulterer and womaniser, a man she stoutly defended while denigrating his victims. She was unable to play the feminist card with any brio or conviction.
You must have been shocked when you woke up, I think you went to bed when several people were saying Clinton was a shoe-in.
I laughed out loud when i woke up and saw the headline. And then I sang in the shower, literally. I was surprised by how much his election delighted me. It still does.
It's not that I like him, it's more my detestation of the smug Guardianista liberal left. I am revelling in their rout. They've had it coming for decades. Fuck them. They are despicable. I hope they all crash their hybrid cars from apoplexy at the result.
I know the point has already been made, but it's an important one for future reference: the real hero of the forecasting models was undoubtedly Nate Silver, whose assessment that the probability distribution remained wider than most people were saying was vindicated in spectacular fashion. Punters take note, I suggest. This punter certainly intends to.
From Nate's morning article before the vote:
"First, Clinton’s overall lead over Trump — while her gains over the past day or two have helped — is still within the range where a fairly ordinary polling error could eliminate it.
Second, the number of undecided and third-party voters is much higher than in recent elections, which contributes to uncertainty.
Third, Clinton’s coalition — which relies increasingly on college-educated whites and Hispanics — is somewhat inefficiently configured for the Electoral College, because these voters are less likely to live in swing states. If the popular vote turns out to be a few percentage points closer than polls project it, Clinton will be an Electoral College underdog."
The third point was very prescient in the end with Clinton winning the popular vote by piling up useless votes in Texas and California and Dems not turning out or switching in mid western swing states.
Real Charlie Sykes – Verified account @SykesCharlie
Trump won Wisconsin because Dems didn't turnout: Bush 2004 - 1,478,120; Romney 2012 - 1,410,966; Trump 2016 - 1,407,401
In fact, that is true for most of the US. It now seems Romney got more votes than Trump.
Yep, Trump is heading for the infamous 47% that Romney received in 2012. Hillary Clinton looks like getting at least 48%. What a system.
Yes but everyone knew it was by popular vote, then safe states wouldn't exist. Voting would be different anyway.
True. We also have a system of 650 electoral college votes ! But what kind of a system is it that no candidate visits California, Texas, New York, Illinois >
OK , they will visit PA, WI, MI for the next three cycles. I think GA, AZ and TX will come into the frame. The Dems won NV quite easily as they did CO.
The same kind of system that meant in Birmingham Perry Barr I got about 3 election communications and not a single canvasser knocking on my door in last year's general election. Ask OGH how many he had.
I know the point has already been made, but it's an important one for future reference: the real hero of the forecasting models was undoubtedly Nate Silver, whose assessment that the probability distribution remained wider than most people were saying was vindicated in spectacular fashion. Punters take note, I suggest. This punter certainly intends to.
He did say that, that's true. But he also gave one number rather than a spread. The "herding" of the final polls was also clearly evident [ by more or less all pollsters. ]
Also, in the US, the overall votes poll can , in fact, be misleading.
It is absolutely terrific. If you didn't respect Queen Elizabeth before, you will after.
It is also *not* sanctimonious and left-wing - full of hat tips to "diversity", and the like. It's brazen, it's honest, and it's historically fascinating: its the type of series a more conservative writer/film director might make about the monarchy, except it is made by a soft lefty slightly reluctant monarchist.
The BBC would never make a show like it.
Huzzah for the free market.
Absolutely.
Perhaps a little embarrasing, but I just shed a tear when King George died. So poignant.
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
Bullshit ! Trump is in line to become the next failed politician.
He will be remembered for NOT building the wall. [ Actually building a useless wall might boost the Mexican economy ].
How is he going to bring back factories to the rust belt ? Press a button ?
Your comments have nothing to say about Brexit and Nato.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
No. Putin is our friend now. Trump may even ask him to join Nato. The South China Sea is where the action is. And Philippines, Malaysia are hanging out with China !!!
I have no beef with Putin. If he wants to conquer a quasi-Fascist Ukraine, what do I care.
He's better than Erdogan, our supposed ally, who is an actual Islamist, and who covertly supports ISIS, who in turn want to slaughter us all. Putin BOMBS Isis.
Likewise Saudi, our other supposed allies. Why are the Saudis good and Putin bad?
Russia is the peak of civilisation compared to the hideousness of Saudi Arabia.
At least Trump's presidency might sweep away much of this canting nonsense.
Will Trump tell the Israel lobby where to get off? I doubt it.
I know the point has already been made, but it's an important one for future reference: the real hero of the forecasting models was undoubtedly Nate Silver, whose assessment that the probability distribution remained wider than most people were saying was vindicated in spectacular fashion. Punters take note, I suggest. This punter certainly intends to.
Yes his pre forecast was good but his in play forecast was poor. The whole point of his model is to correlate state movements.
If the UK does trade deals with the US, Australia, New Zealand and India, and grandfathers Canada, that's a market over 3 times bigger than the EU combined.
Suck it up.
You sound more motivated by an irrational hatred of the EU than by a cool assessment of Britain's interests.
No, my vote was rational and well thought through as I'm sure you know.
But no-one will be more pleased than I to see the EU gets its comeuppance for its contempt for democracy and its insufferable arrogance.
I know the point has already been made, but it's an important one for future reference: the real hero of the forecasting models was undoubtedly Nate Silver, whose assessment that the probability distribution remained wider than most people were saying was vindicated in spectacular fashion. Punters take note, I suggest. This punter certainly intends to.
His popular vote forecast may not be that far off the mark when Los Angeles County pulls its finger out and completes the counting process.
There's going to be disagreement about this... but to me the evidence suggests Clinton won black voters by ~10pts less than Obama.
That's about 85:10 if he is right. Trump did much better with black voters than most predicted. I guess his "what have you got to lose" stance wasn't so bad.
Faisal Islam, Sky suggesting that there will be an early invitation to the new POTUS to no 10.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
Bullshit ! Trump is in line to become the next failed politician.
He will be remembered for NOT building the wall. [ Actually building a useless wall might boost the Mexican economy ].
How is he going to bring back factories to the rust belt ? Press a button ?
Your comments have nothing to say about Brexit and Nato.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
No. Putin is our friend now. Trump may even ask him to join Nato. The South China Sea is where the action is. And Philippines, Malaysia are hanging out with China !!!
I have no beef with Putin. If he wants to conquer a quasi-Fascist Ukraine, what do I care.
He's better than Erdogan, our supposed ally, who is an actual Islamist, and who covertly supports ISIS, who in turn want to slaughter us all. Putin BOMBS Isis.
Likewise Saudi, our other supposed allies. Why are the Saudis good and Putin bad?
Russia is the peak of civilisation compared to the hideousness of Saudi Arabia.
At least Trump's presidency might sweep away much of this canting nonsense.
Has the chateau survived your discovery that Trump had won ?
Guido could have spent 25% of his potential winnings laying off his liability when Trump was 10/1 - or do we reckon he was too busy in the pub by that point?
Real Charlie Sykes – Verified account @SykesCharlie
Trump won Wisconsin because Dems didn't turnout: Bush 2004 - 1,478,120; Romney 2012 - 1,410,966; Trump 2016 - 1,407,401
In fact, that is true for most of the US. It now seems Romney got more votes than Trump.
Yep, Trump is heading for the infamous 47% that Romney received in 2012. Hillary Clinton looks like getting at least 48%. What a system.
Yes but everyone knew it was by popular vote, then safe states wouldn't exist. Voting would be different anyway.
True. We also have a system of 650 electoral college votes ! But what kind of a system is it that no candidate visits California, Texas, New York, Illinois >
OK , they will visit PA, WI, MI for the next three cycles. I think GA, AZ and TX will come into the frame. The Dems won NV quite easily as they did CO.
The same kind of system that meant in Birmingham Perry Barr I got about 3 election communications and not a single canvasser knocking on my door in last year's general election. Ask OGH how many he had.
True. Except Perry Barr does not house a ninth of the British population. CA, TX, NY, IL together has a population of 95m out of 308m.
The US easily could have a system based on votes as they are a Presidential democracy rather than maintain a system which was created because of huge suspicions between States.
Real Charlie Sykes – Verified account @SykesCharlie
Trump won Wisconsin because Dems didn't turnout: Bush 2004 - 1,478,120; Romney 2012 - 1,410,966; Trump 2016 - 1,407,401
In fact, that is true for most of the US. It now seems Romney got more votes than Trump.
Yep, Trump is heading for the infamous 47% that Romney received in 2012. Hillary Clinton looks like getting at least 48%. What a system.
The Democrats have only themselves to blame for selecting Hillary Clinton, and the resulting collapse in their vote.
It was pretty obvious that there was always a big danger of the Democrats piling up useless votes in California, New York, etc. while narrowly losing Wisconsin and Michigan, but amazingly they didn't see the danger.
Comments
As the polls started to close, the market shifted hard towards the favourite, before flipping back just as hard the other way as everyone realised the exit polls were just as crap as all the other pre-election polling. Another great PB betting night!
Edit: a picture tells a thousand words.
https://twitter.com/betdatapolitics/status/796251936471314432
GE 2015, Brexit, WH2016
the pollsters have a problem, but not as big as the politicians
All voted for Clinton.
http://www.maxim.com/news/3-states-legalize-recreational-marijuana-2016-11
I see that williamglenn keeps complaining about Brexit lies but happily accepts Trump, sad!
Ah well we are in the post truth politics now and we can't really complain when politicians lie to us because apparently we will allow them to get away with it.
(Before anyone points it out yes I know Clinton is not always forthcoming with the truth but most of what she says is based in reality).
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/9/1594733/-The-post-truth-election-and-a-post-truth-presidency
Think I'll disengage from politics for now until things change if they ever do.
'It's interesting how people accept anything they're used to. The idea that it's OK to elect a president who actually had fewer votes than his opponent is weird. And I don't think people accept it because they've followed the 1779 rationale (a compromise between democracy and protecting small states from being dominated by big ones). It's just that it's how things are, in the same way that we live with still having hereditary peers in the Lords, which is surely indefensible to any rational mind.'
It's interesting how it's quite acceptable when Labour win an election with 35% of the vote but when it's the Tory's winning on 37% of the vote we urgently need PR and are repeatedly told that 63% of voters didn't vote Tory.
Trentrance?
They usually go to the extra effort of trying to claim that all abstainers voted against the Tories/Brexit etc.
Odd.
Good night all.
TMay did go through an election (although her final opponent dropped out).
They were not "similar circumstances". You know what Brown did.
He went on to say 'Some in government think they have just been dealt the Brexit Trump card'
The European leaders have been very churlish today and not really done themselves any favours.
Trump is seeking 2% defence spending into the pot from all Nato members for him to continue protecting them within Nato.
Of course UK is the only other Nato member committed to the 2%.
With the UK leaving the EU and the hole in the EU's finances a large scale increase in funding of Nato will be 'popcorn time'
"Normally bookies only ever tell us when they have lost almost never when they have won."
As a non-punter I am fascinated. My impression on the other hand is that gamblers often speak of their winnings, but not of their losses. This obverse makes sense of course.
FWIW, I agree that the particular mechanism used for electing a president is daft.
Some details emerged when the VP slot was being filled.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/john-kasich-donald-trump-vice-president
Mr Pence may be executive "PrimeMinister" while Donald remains on his Shining Hill (and no doubt communicates via twitter).
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?d1=23&m1=06&y1=2016&d2=09&m2=11&y2=2016
3h
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn
Write-ins (almost all Sanders) received 6.5% of the vote in Vermont https://vtelectionresults.sec.state.vt.us/Index.html#/federal …
53
85
The Democrats really screwed themselves by rigging the primaries.
If the UK does trade deals with the US, Australia, New Zealand and India, and grandfathers Canada, that's a market over 3 times bigger than the EU combined.
Suck it up.
He will be remembered for NOT building the wall. [ Actually building a useless wall might boost the Mexican economy ].
How is he going to bring back factories to the rust belt ? Press a button ?
It is also *not* sanctimonious and left-wing - full of hat tips to "diversity", and the like. It's brazen, it's honest, and it's historically fascinating: its the type of series a more conservative writer/film director might make about the monarchy, except it is made by a soft lefty slightly reluctant monarchist.
The BBC would never make a show like it.
Huzzah for the free market.
Real Charlie Sykes – Verified account @SykesCharlie
Trump won Wisconsin because Dems didn't turnout: Bush 2004 - 1,478,120; Romney 2012 - 1,410,966; Trump 2016 - 1,407,401
For bonus points, be Paddy Power, who paid out on both horses as winners, in the two horse race for President.
Perhaps a little embarrasing, but I just shed a tear when King George died. So poignant.
Would be interested if you agree that EU countries will need to make their defence spending up to the 2% each towards Nato spending as demanded by Trump
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/globalisation-dead-white-supremacy-trump-neoliberal
"I sit in one of the dives … uncertain and afraid,” wrote WH Auden, in the days before war broke out in 1939. Tonight it’s the entire leftwing, humanist and liberal world’s turn to sit in its modern dives – coffee bars staffed by global, precarious, young people – and face it.
And when there is a surprise result surely more people have lost than won?
What happened to all the people who said Clinton was about to go to 1.01 around 1am (when Luntz called it for Clinton)? How much money was lost on Clinton at around 1.2?
What about the various bets on Clinton seat bands which were talked about as being likely winners?
If every single person posting on here who bet on last night had to declare their result there must surely have been more losers than winners.
We just have the Beeb in permanent mourning branding everyone racists.
I was very surprised.
Maybe he has converted to Brexit or more probably will lapse back to his usual anti government stance will that silly grin
https://labourlist.org/2016/11/is-jeremy-corbyn-the-only-answer-to-trumpism/
Yes but if everyone knew it was by popular vote, then safe states wouldn't exist. Voting would be different anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07vwr08
OK , they will visit PA, WI, MI for the next three cycles. I think GA, AZ and TX will come into the frame. The Dems won NV quite easily as they did CO.
We are big defence spenders.
The EU will not like that stance and even less if Trump decides Ukraine should not join the EU as part of a deal with Putin
That's why Trump won.
"First, Clinton’s overall lead over Trump — while her gains over the past day or two have helped — is still within the range where a fairly ordinary polling error could eliminate it.
Second, the number of undecided and third-party voters is much higher than in recent elections, which contributes to uncertainty.
Third, Clinton’s coalition — which relies increasingly on college-educated whites and Hispanics — is somewhat inefficiently configured for the Electoral College, because these voters are less likely to live in swing states. If the popular vote turns out to be a few percentage points closer than polls project it, Clinton will be an Electoral College underdog."
The third point was very prescient in the end with Clinton winning the popular vote by piling up useless votes in Texas and California and Dems not turning out or switching in mid western swing states.
twitter.com/BBCSteveR/status/796221237265649664/photo/1
Also, in the US, the overall votes poll can , in fact, be misleading.
But no-one will be more pleased than I to see the EU gets its comeuppance for its contempt for democracy and its insufferable arrogance.
(((Harry Enten))) – Verified account @ForecasterEnten
There's going to be disagreement about this... but to me the evidence suggests Clinton won black voters by ~10pts less than Obama.
Trump holding up an RCS comment 'Clinton Defeats Trump'
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dewey+wins&biw=1360&bih=612&tbm=isch&imgil=UJaXxInAkxPcgM%3A%3BeAqcLfTJ_GnthM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.chicagotribune.com%252Fnews%252Fnationworld%252Fpolitics%252Fchi-chicagodays-deweydefeats-story-story.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=UJaXxInAkxPcgM%3A%2CeAqcLfTJ_GnthM%2C_&usg=__FSopXqMD21IrBfZLYSexCzyIsq8=&ved=0ahUKEwiFn8rxzZzQAhUMKsAKHfcwCXoQyjcILQ&ei=0JMjWIX3B4zUgAb34aTQBw#imgrc=UJaXxInAkxPcgM:
It was the rise of the Davos class that sealed America’s fate
Hillary Clinton’s embrace of neoliberalism was disastrous"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate
True. Except Perry Barr does not house a ninth of the British population. CA, TX, NY, IL together has a population of 95m out of 308m.
The US easily could have a system based on votes as they are a Presidential democracy rather than maintain a system which was created because of huge suspicions between States.