Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the year of Trump’s impeachment
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the year of Trump’s impeachment
Paddy Power have a market up on the year that Donald Trump is impeached. The Paddy Power terms are very clear, this bet doesn’t require the Senate to vote to convict, just the House of Representatives to vote to impeach
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I think it's an omission rather than an error per se.
Edit - now you've got me doing it - it's eight this year....twenty one in 2020.
The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
Is this market void or a loser if Trump survives the full term?
I said Only twice in the last year 88 years has an elected incumbent President lost in a general election.
Ford was never elected President.
But at 33/1 I’m prepared to take the loss.
This market is a lay for me.
I have tested my IQ recently and I am not a genius*: Instead I am a mere ultra-intelligent guy. Now I have studied Stats, Econ-Stats and Econometrics and - whilst correlation =/= causation - I expect it is fair to say that people exist within the other end-of-the-curve**.
I am also fascinated by Psychology: Yep, I follow 'psuedo-sciences'. Human thoughts and empathy are complex: To expect a 'hive' mentality and conformity does not sound to me as something any liberal*** should believe in.
* I had only drunk eight-cans of Scrumpi-Jack so I was probably too sober.
** Bell-End is under petition.
*** Lib-Dhimmies would not understand such complex thoughts.
I might see if my friend in the UK can pass by a Paddy’s shop with a fiver on the 33s.
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-uk-special-relationship-in-doubt-if-trump-doesnt-get-royal-wedding-invite-says-wolff/
2019 is the start of the Long Campaign and, if an impeachment attempt comes after Trump has declared an intention to stand again, then elements on the right that might have been ok with hanging him out to dry after a midterm beating will rally and circle the wagons - especially if there are no other big republican players making noises about challenging him.
Bought a tin candle as a late Christmas gift replacement (prior gift was not ok because the recipient's health has taken a turn for the worst) and the damned lid wasn't included. Humbug!
On-topic: Trump won't be impeached. He's a stable genius.
Source:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-passing-the-tax-bill-help-the-gop-in-2018-probably-not/
So not just New York and California. Far from it.
Problem is the President is so Marmite. His fans will say look at my small tax cut! He is great!
His opponents will take their small tax cut and point to the huge cuts for billionaires.
Whether he is re-elected will depend on who can motivate their voters.
In the meantime the tax changes effectively punish the higher spending democratic states and benefit the lower taxed republican states: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/business/high-tax-states-law.html
Or to put it another way, the cross subsidy of higher spending states from the Federal Budget is being limited to $10K per tax payer. The consequences for Democrats are likely to be severe.
Why in the last 85 years?
You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.
Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).
Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).
Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.
Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).
So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.
Against that - it's Trump.
It certainly won't be this year. Even if the Democrats have a landslide in the House, they won't be able to take their seats in the 116th Congress (and do anything about it) until 3rd January 2019.
But, as the test for the Paddy Power market is just that the House of Representatives pass a vote of impeachment (rather than impeachment succeeding) 6/1 in 2019, and 33/1 in 2020, is actually quite good.
Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote) in a House where the Republicans had 223 seats, and the Democrats 211 seats.
So these things are pretty partisan.
The qualification “as things currently stand” is an important one because all sorts could come out of the various investigations which make things much more serious for Trump.
But at the moment, impeachment proceedings would look like partisan posturing on the basis that the Dems don’t like Trump, rather than anything concrete and substantial. This would further polarise the US political divide in a way that would allow the GOP to claim the Dems are on a witch hunt and energise their base for 2020. Bad idea for the Dems. That’s assuming of course that they don’t have the numbers to convict in the Senate but, even if they did, they could be leading themselves down an even more dangerous path and open up room for a Pence victory in 2020.
The Democrats have a much better chance winning in 2020 if they take their objections to Trump to the 2020 campaign stump rather than through congressional intrigue. 2020 gives them a golden opportunity to paint themselves as unifiers, healers, a return to sanity.. if they’ve spent the last two years squabbling about impeachment, they hand so many cards back to the GOP.
I don't think it's a certainty that the Democrats take back the house. The US economy will do pretty well this year as it responds to the Trump tax cuts, and is pretty much holding the rest of the world economy up. And what do the Democrats stand for these days? All they stand for is just trying to impeach Trump, absolutely nothing else. The Russia conspiracy nonsense has pretty much run its course now - if there was anything then it would have been found by now. And the Democrats have plenty of skeletons of their own in the cupboard.
'Look, I would have built a wall and got rid of Kim Jong Un and found a way to turn water into wine if those buggers in Congress hadn't jammed everything solid by obsessing about impeachment.'
If he has to defend his own record having achieved nothing, they have a greater chance of beating him.
Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!
It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.
If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.
Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.
"The Paddy Power terms are very clear, this bet doesn’t require the Senate to vote to convict, just the House of Representatives to vote to impeach"
Grammar school. No hyphen.
It is less popular than Trump.
Trump is unlikely to be impreached. However it is Trump - nothing can be ruled out.
Would betting on an impeachment be regarded as unpleasant by US citizens? Dethronement (by political mechanism) of the Queen wouldn't be something I'd bet on for example .
It puts me in the odd situation of cheering on the Forest...
But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
LEAVE 52%
REMAIN 48%
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/950058312531369985
Said laws are even less effective when that certain individual is dead.
I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment
The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.
Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).
As ever, DYOR
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018
And lastly:
* h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc
It was however designed to stop anyone emulating a particular individual. The wisdom of this may be seen from the fact that Eisenhower and Reagan were stopped from standing again and the US was spared the farcical denouement the USSR had to go through with Brezhnev.
Term limits to the grant of arbitrary power seem fairly sensible to me.
Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.
So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
A convention that Washington himself deliberately set.
https://genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-one-last-time-lyrics
Grant also put himself forward for the Republican nomination in 1876 and 1880 but was rejected.
I will confess I can never make Washington out. He was a very strange man and I sometimes wonder if a lot of the brilliance he is credited with was actually just him being rather eccentric and probably not really having a great grasp of what was going on.