Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s first electoral test sees the Republicans holding on i
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s first electoral test sees the Republicans holding on in Kansas with a majority down 20%
GOP holds on in Kansas by-election in President Trump's 1st electoral test. Maj down from 27% to 7.2% https://t.co/pSBHzlzf8V pic.twitter.com/nvPaHl9YFv
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Then again maybe they're not stooping. Maybe they prefer Putin over Boris like their dear leader Corbyn.
In the US, politicians have exempted themselves from the unsolicited call legislation, with the result that constituents get several automated calls a day running up to an election. I'm sure they don't realise how much they annoy everyone, but the parties obviously think they still work.
BTW, Johnson is co-favourite at 6/1 with Fox and Hammond (?!). Fox at least makes some sense of the three. I presume the other two are money-driven, Shadsy being a sensible and astute sort of chap.
Is there polling evidence that shows this affect exists for both parties in the USA? Eg that Democrats are more likely to oppose a policy if they believe it is proposed by Trump than by Obama even if its the same policy? And vice-versa.
Didn't you once write a thread about political 'events' actually happening much less often than is commonly perceived?
F1: Turkey could return to the calendar:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39551386
The Turkish circuit was pretty good, and the site of the infamous on-track collision between Vettel and Webber which allowed McLaren to win.
Must've been a long time ago...
http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html
Edit - i do think if his original healthcare bill had passed we would see some red states react against republicans in a big way.
European military influence will continue to be leveraged via the Anglo-French axis.
Listening to John McDonnell calling on the government to legislate the triple lock on pension until 2025 is pure politics. The triple lock is unsustainable in the long term, and I say that as a pensioner, but he knows he is not going to become the Govenment so he can throw all kind of goodies to the electorate with no prospect of being able to do any of them
That said - if c. 24m had lost health insurance with his bill - i think that would have done the trick.
I imagine Boris will remain in place until after the election, and then (if the Conservatives win) will be tossed overboard.
Republicans hold three branches of government - normally a sign of a big loss coming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VLYpKGVBUg
In 2006 the Democrats won by over 30 seats on a 52% to 44% margin
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2006
As for Syria, the opportunity for change was in 2013, there's now no good options on the table. Showing no response to the use of chemical weapons was also not an option, the short sharp shock will hopefully do the trick.
Hammond after the budget.
Fox because he shouldn't have been there in the first place.
I agree the first two are poor value. Losing such a senior figure is something serious. If it happens, it will either need careful planning or bring down the government. Hammond appears doubly safe because it's hard to see anyone else who could command the same respect as Chancellor and no. 2 in the government at present.
If anyone wants value, Justine Greening might just be vulnerable. There are some very nasty problems building up around the new GCSE and A-levels - too rushed, too difficult, inadequate training for teachers, insufficient examiners, exam board IT systems under pressure (and according to an email I have just had, being hacked by outsiders). As a result this summer could be extraordinarily chaotic and difficult. Moreover, vicious budget cuts and severe reductions in curriculum options, increases in class sizes and in some areas, even charges are about to come in.
None of those are her fault, but it could potentially destroy OFQUAL and if that goes it's hard to imagine there will be no knock-on effect at the DfE. In an ideal world both would be abolished along with OFSTED and the money spent on something useful. That won't happen of course but the civil servants who have royally goofed up may try to hide behind the minister.
DYOR but I think she's in a nasty spot. And May's not Cameron - she doesn't back her ministers the way he did.
The cost of the triple lock over the past 7 years has been peanuts compared to the huge savings to the Treasury arising from successively deferring eligibility to the state pension. For most of that period, the basic state pension has been rising in line with RPI as before, since wage increases have been stagnant and below CPI let alone RPI for most of that period, and only for a relatively brief period has RPI been below 2.5%.
To leave McLaren before the end of this season, 5
Drive for Ferrari in 2018, 4
Drive for Renault in 2018, 6
If Mercedes' odds were up, I'd be rather more interested. I'm not sure I see him racing for Ferrari. Renault would need to rapidly improve and they're not there. Mercedes has a second driver with a single year contract and a main driver who might retire quite soon.
Leaving McLaren before the season's up is possible but perhaps not likely.
Anyway, not betting on this but thought others might be interested.
That said, I would expect Trump to lose seats in the House in 2018. Presidents usually do. Loss of the House is possible but unlikely. Loss of the Senate looks vanishingly unlikely. So he is still safe from impeachment.
This was a highly competitive district in the 1990's.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328326-republican-wins-kansas-special-election-fending-off-upset
It's my view we are approaching Syria all wrong. The issue of disengaging Putin from Assad needs far more carrots and far fewer sticks. It's time we got out of the Cold War mentality and tried working with rather than against Putin.
I'm sure Putin doesn't care one iota about Assad - he cares about Russia's military presence in Syria because it makes Russia look as though it matters in the world and for Russians, just like many British people, it's all about status and looking like we count, we're important, we matter even if we don't.
"Global Britain" is predicated on the notion we can be a great mercantile nation again as we were before trading with all and sundry across the oceans - it's a romantic fantasy but it touches at the core of the British identity and therefore appeals.
Russians want to feel important as they did in the Cold War years when they were (or appeared to be) the equal of Washington on the world stage. The events of 1989-91 were a national humiliation and Putin appeals to the Russian people as the leader who can take them back to where they were, where they felt happiest and strongest.
Give Putin his bases, make him feel important and peace in Syria becomes achievable as a partnership - a joint US-Russian initiative aimed at a political resolution involving all bar IS who can be eliminated by both powers working in concert. Have Russian AND American troops on the ground in Damascus to oversee the transition to a new Government - it may not be democracy but it won't be gassing its own people.
Let Assad go into exile - is the price of peace really worth the judgement of one man ? A deal in Syria and a rapprochement with Teheran and Moscow - it's a pipedream but it starts from coming out of the Cold War mindset and considering why Russia acts as it does.
Unfortunately it doesn't sound as ridiculous as it should. Five more years of Corbyn and they'd be lucky if we were comparing them to the Contuity Liberals!
The courts, including the Supremes, took cases in North Carolina, Alabama and Virginia redistricting last year.
That would however also be very nasty for those doing heavy manual work. No way am I carrying 15 textbooks from classroom to classroom into my 60s. For a plumber or a builder that would be impossible.
That said, the private pension I have is due to mature in 2056 when I will be 73, if I live that long, which is a fair indication of how things are going.
Perhaps permitting earlier retirement but for a lower pension would work?
He may want some guarantees for the Alawites and that's not unreasonable and I imagine he'll try to take some of his no doubt considerable personal fortune with him and I'd be a bit firmer there but I'm sure the right "package" could be put together.
The much bigger problem than Assad is the political, economic, cultural and social reconstruction of Syria and that's not a task for the faint-hearted. It's going to need global leadership and involvement. It's going to need vast sums of money but it also provides huge opportunities to return people, skills and knowledge to the country. Rebuilding Aleppo, parts of Damascus and other damaged Syrian cities could be a huge economic opportunity if managed correctly.
It shouldn't be an opportunity to create a vast bureaucracy nor an opportunity for American, European and Chinese firms to make vast profits and leave the Syrian people little better off.
A more plausible scenario would be a doctor signing people off for retirement depending on the job they do. Because obviously the NHS is so underworked that this would be easy to arrange and they'd be glad to fill their doctors' time up filling in forms.*
Alternatively, people may have to take other forms of work if they cannot carry on with a trade until they can retire. But as such work would be unskilled it would likely mean a big drop in income too.
However I look at it I can't see a good option.
*In case of doubt, that was sarcasm.
Why would Putin abandon a dictator who will be very supportive for an unknown?
If we don't get the water supply right it would seem to me the rest is so much rearranging of deckchairs on an Olympic class liner that's just hit a large ice cube. Any thoughts on how it could be done.
Pensions were introduced in 1908 for over 70s, when life expectancy at birth was well under 60. We seriously all need to die younger.
The Americans in particular were coming around to the idea that this was not doable and that it was better for Assad to remain. His use of chemical weapons (again) complicates that but the underlying real politick remains unchanged and I expect the Americans to eventually come to the same conclusion all over again.
What we all need is for the millions of Syrian refugees to go home and to start rebuilding their shattered lives. If the price of that is Assad remaining we will eventually pay it. Recognition of this reality is why Boris got so little support.
Admittedly, doesn't always work like that. The last Vicar of Hartpury held on until he was 75 because they couldn't find a replacement.
Your last sentence sounds like a 60s teenager motto - live fast, die young. And had Osborne's changes gone through, that would have happened to a lot of people at 60!
What I am suggesting is Moscow has a huge say in post-Assad Syria predicated on the maintaining of its military presence at Latakia, Tartus and elsewhere. The problem is the drain on Moscow's military and economic resources of its involvement in Syria would end with peace so it's in Moscow's interests to return to if not a status quo ante bellum then a more stable and peaceful Syria.
Assad may be winning for now but as Afghanistan demonstrated, long term military involvement in a country isn't risk or cost free. Better to obviate that risk by reducing the threat of conflict than backing a leader who will never be acceptable or accepted.
Putin is missing a huge opportunity - the West's agenda starts and ends with the removal of Assad. Were Moscow to achieve that, they would a) be able to stand up and look tall in the world as a power able to get things done while b) remaining effective control of Syria and c) styming the West politically.
As everyone on this thread appears to be guessing or watching late night talk shows for their information, here's the definitive list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting_commission
Even more questionable is how Assad can keep the peace. He's lost a large proportion of his army (which is why he hasn't won even with Iranian, Hezbelloah and Russian help), so securing 'rebel' areas will be difficult.
It's easy to guess the way he'd do it, and it won't be good for the populations.
It would be bollocks, of course, but it would be a convenient fiction that Trump would believe because he wants/needs it to be true. There could be worse ways to stop the fighting than Trump's obsession with alternative facts.