1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
I think TSE is suggesting (rightly, IMHO) that there would be a swing back to the Republicans between now and 2020. None of MI, WI nor OH were particularly strong wins for an incumbent Senator of the opposition, in mid-term.
I'm really getting annoyed at 538 and their models.
If they can't cope with early results then they should review their models.
It is like the GB exit poll being solely in Liverpool.
As I said last night, Nate silver spends virtually no time involved and 538 now make their money from sports. They are still trading on a past that just isn’t the reality anymore.
What was interesting was how again the CNN exit poll (or at least the bits they showed) didn’t match up to reality. The numbers for Trump / policies were absolutely terrible, pointing to a pounding like dockside hooker and that isn’t what happened.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
Very bouncy. As with previous elections, being on at the right time to alter bets could've been very tasty.
Mr. Alistair, if it makes you feel better, I made the opposite mistake at our last election. I held onto a Con 50-70 seat majority instead of hedging at about 2.5. It's very easy to see mistakes with hindsight, alas.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Politically a narrow Democrat majority in the House is ideal for Trump. It gives him a target to rant against, Washington insiders to blame for anything that goes wrong, prevents him from doing anything really unpopular (like repealing Obamacare). By the time of the 2020 election the Democrat House will be to blame for the massive deficit. Impeachment also feeds into his persecution pose. At the same time some of the Democrats in Republican-leaning districts will feel under pressure to vote his way to win re-election themselves.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020
3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought
4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting
5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020
6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020
This is just a gut take at the moment, but to my mind the scale of the Democratic popular vote win is the most important factor, given the closeness of the 2016 vote, and therefore I don't think Trump should have shortened overnight.
Obviously the distributional effects of that vote are hurting the Dems more and more, but Trump's was a narrow win in the first place.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
The Dems won the popular vote by 7% which is triple what happened at WH2016
But which popular vote? If you include California, you had two Democrats running for Senate and no Republican - in the most populous state. That seriouslly skews the figures as against 2016.
A lot is being waged on the assumption that Texas is the same Texas it has been donkeys years. The thing is that isn’t true. There has been a massive influx of people from places like California to the big cities and obviously demographic changes.
Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
The Dems won the popular vote by 7% which is triple what happened at WH2016
But which popular vote? If you include California, you had two Democrats running for Senate and no Republican - in the most populous state. That seriouslly skews the figures as against 2016.
The House vote is the popular one usually referred to.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
OTOH, instead of a late night and a squeaky bum, you could have followed my advice from Saturday, backed CROSS COUNTER to win the Melbourne Cup at 10/1 and had a decent night's sleep and a decent profit.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Politically a narrow Democrat majority in the House is ideal for Trump. It gives him a target to rant against, Washington insiders to blame for anything that goes wrong, prevents him from doing anything really unpopular (like repealing Obamacare). By the time of the 2020 election the Democrat House will be to blame for the massive deficit. Impeachment also feeds into his persecution pose. At the same time some of the Democrats in Republican-leaning districts will feel under pressure to vote his way to win re-election themselves.
Whilst that's true to an extent, the Democrats will now have control of the various scrutiny committees, and if they use that power well they'll be able to poke around in various murky areas which might turn up some awkward stuff for Trump. That assumes they don't screw up by over-doing it and getting all excited without solid evidence,
Adding a graph showing the 538 model, US market Predictit and Augur, the crypto-economic prediction market system on the Ethereum network. Not as fine-grained as it could be, unfortunately.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
If there has been malpractice or negligence then why shouldn't they be held to account? Doctors and other professionals are.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020
3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought
4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting
5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020
6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020
This is just a gut take at the moment, but to my mind the scale of the Democratic popular vote win is the most important factor, given the closeness of the 2016 vote, and therefore I don't think Trump should have shortened overnight.
Obviously the distributional effects of that vote are hurting the Dems more and more, but Trump's was a narrow win in the first place.
[edit - or not, as it turns out. But I still reckon Trump should now be comfortably odds-on for re-election]
I think Lads are 11/8 for him to be re-elected (down from 6/4). The probable state of his arteries would put me off.
For a fat old bloke with an unhealthy lifestyle, I'd normally agree. But he doesn't have any great history of illness so (and I am not an actuary), I don't think the likelihood of his health intervening between now and Nov 2020 are sufficient to justify the gap between reasonably odds-on (his raw chance of winning), and Ladbrokes' 11/8.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
Is Trump going to stand?
He will stand. Despite all those early reports of him not liking the White House, he loves doing those rallies, he loves the adoring fans. CNN were saying last night he plans to continue to do l oads of them in the coming months despite no elections.
A lot is being waged on the assumption that Texas is the same Texas it has been donkeys years. The thing is that isn’t true. There has been a massive influx of people from places like California to the big cities and obviously demographic changes.
Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
"A lot of the betting, I guess, was influenced by the commentators on the American networks most notably CNN which, of course, has a much bigger audience in the UK."
CNN was cautiously optimistic about the House for the Dems, even Rick Santorum.
What was not was 538, whose movements had an instant effect on the markets without as many people as you might think wondering if 538 really did have results the rest of us didn't.
For me there was a moment VI-2 and VI-7 moved towards the blue column that I jumped on the remaining odds at 1.4, not huge sums, but pretty damn close to safe money
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
Hasn’t there been a case before of a disappointed client suing their legal advisors? Or am I thinking of something like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
A lot is being waged on the assumption that Texas is the same Texas it has been donkeys years. The thing is that isn’t true. There has been a massive influx of people from places like California to the big cities and obviously demographic changes.
Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
Yes. Abbot won the Governorship by 13%.
That’s the big feature of the US isn’t it; all sorts of people coming into the country, those already there moving about in it. How many people are where their grandparents were?
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
Hasn’t there been a case before of a disappointed client suing their legal advisors? Or am I thinking of something like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
Many.
The standards of professional negligence are well known and something all solicitors are insured against
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Politically a narrow Democrat majority in the House is ideal for Trump. It gives him a target to rant against, Washington insiders to blame for anything that goes wrong, prevents him from doing anything really unpopular (like repealing Obamacare). By the time of the 2020 election the Democrat House will be to blame for the massive deficit. Impeachment also feeds into his persecution pose. At the same time some of the Democrats in Republican-leaning districts will feel under pressure to vote his way to win re-election themselves.
Whilst that's true to an extent, the Democrats will now have control of the various scrutiny committees, and if they use that power well they'll be able to poke around in various murky areas which might turn up some awkward stuff for Trump. That assumes they don't screw up by over-doing it and getting all excited without solid evidence,
I think they won't be able to help themselves on the latter point. The whole Kavanaugh episode proves this.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
I suspect after last night, the Republican planners for 2020 are more confident than the Democrats. The Republicans know exactly what they have to do. Trump has not split the Republican party asunder, as seemed quite possible in 2016. And the fight as to which Democrat candidate will do best against him is likely to be bloody, as there is no obvious answer.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.
Have you looked at black and female candidates systematically or are you just going by the general vibe off a couple of cases?
If I were a Democrat I'd be taking a serious look at Amy Klobuchar after last night. Probably the most impressive Senate margin of the night winning 60% of the vote in a Midwest senate election (the open Minnesota senate race was won by the Dem with only 53% of the vote).
I think she might be the right model candidate to take on Trump in 2020.
Regardless of the eventual 2020 outcome, this looks a good Trump-laying opportunity. Lots of potential developments will probably see his price drift, most notably a Mueller subpoena or even the House impeaching (which I continue to think would be a political mistake, unless the evidence is overwhelming).
What is it with the absolubtely glacial speed of counting in Dem strongholds
No incentive for them to finish the job quickly. California always takes weeks to finish counting: I remember from 2012 when I was doing the spreadsheet for OGH.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.
Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.
If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
Hasn’t there been a case before of a disappointed client suing their legal advisors? Or am I thinking of something like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
Many.
The standards of professional negligence are well known and something all solicitors are insured against
But the law isn’t an absolute, is it. It appears to be capable of being moulded and amended as society changes. Can the ‘failure’ of Evans’ original lawyers fairly be described as ‘negligence’? If it can be, I doubt if the case will actually come to court; it’ll be a case of the insurers arguing over the amount.
But as someone else said (sort of), if he’d kept it in his trousers until he got home none of this would have happened.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.
I don’t know. A white man is easy for trump to repeat what he did to all the GOP candidates and just be really horrible to them without fear of backlash for being a sexist or a racist. He had a lot harder time in the debates versus Clinton, despite her being an unlikeable figure for many.
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
If Collins had voted no he would have voted no as well.
This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.
Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.
If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.
Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"
I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
Hasn’t there been a case before of a disappointed client suing their legal advisors? Or am I thinking of something like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
Many.
The standards of professional negligence are well known and something all solicitors are insured against
But the law isn’t an absolute, is it. It appears to be capable of being moulded and amended as society changes. Can the ‘failure’ of Evans’ original lawyers fairly be described as ‘negligence’? If it can be, I doubt if the case will actually come to court; it’ll be a case of the insurers arguing over the amount.
But as someone else said (sort of), if he’d kept it in his trousers until he got home none of this would have happened.
There is no way to answer that question.
To take you on a legal journey for a moment, there is no doubt that solicitors owe their clients a duty of care which means providing them with a reasonable standard of advice judged against what a person might reasonably expect of a qualified solicitor. Equally, a criminal solicitor will know that the wrong advice could (could) lead to their client being wrongly jailed.
So the remaining questions are two-fold: what advice did Brabners give Evans, what actions did they take on his behalf, and in what respects did that differ to what a reasonable solicitor would have done? Only a court can decide that.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.
Have you looked at black and female candidates systematically or are you just going by the general vibe off a couple of cases?
Admittedly I haven't looked at House candidates at all, but in the Senate and gubernatorial races, female and ethnic minority candidates almost all underperformed their polling, especially in the South.
I'm also going off the DIRE ratings that Nancy Pelosi had in all the exit polls, and the (largely anecdotal) signs that she swung some votes to the Republicans. Given she is pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of political positions (like Clinton was), surely there must be something else at work there.
I think the Dems need to run a campaign in 2020 based on raising the minimum wage and Medicare for all (the latter currently polls at 52% of Republicans in support).
A lot is being waged on the assumption that Texas is the same Texas it has been donkeys years. The thing is that isn’t true. There has been a massive influx of people from places like California to the big cities and obviously demographic changes.
Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Politically a narrow Democrat majority in the House is ideal for Trump. It gives him a target to rant against, Washington insiders to blame for anything that goes wrong, prevents him from doing anything really unpopular (like repealing Obamacare). By the time of the 2020 election the Democrat House will be to blame for the massive deficit. Impeachment also feeds into his persecution pose. At the same time some of the Democrats in Republican-leaning districts will feel under pressure to vote his way to win re-election themselves.
Whilst that's true to an extent, the Democrats will now have control of the various scrutiny committees, and if they use that power well they'll be able to poke around in various murky areas which might turn up some awkward stuff for Trump. That assumes they don't screw up by over-doing it and getting all excited without solid evidence,
I think they won't be able to help themselves on the latter point. The whole Kavanaugh episode proves this.
As some pb commenters suggested, they should have let Harris and Booker continue with their lines that the Kavanaugh appointment was corrupt, rather than let it be derailed by he-said/she-said many decades ago. As David Cameron once remarked, too many tweets make a SCOTUS.
1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election
Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM. That alone is enough to win in 2020.
Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
Is Trump going to stand?
Unless death or physical incapacity intervene, yes, he will.
- He needs to stand to protect his interests; - He believes no-one could do a better job; - He believes he can win; - He probably won't be impeached and certainly won't be convicted if he is; - He probably won't be challenged in the primaries and certainly won't be defeated there.
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
This is another under-rated point from the midterms. Manchin is a Democrat but there will be times when, as far as party-line votes go, he isn't.
The Democrats do now have a Senate problem, as conservative States cease to return Democratic Senators.
ND and MO showing a bit of a lag. I would say that compared to 2 years ago the position has improved for the Dems in those states, but compared ot 6 years ago (which is what counted) not so much
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
If Collins had voted no he would have voted no as well.
But, then he would have lost, and the new Senate would have voted through another right wing Justice.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
In absolute terms, there may be more white felons than black felons.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
In absolute terms, there may be more white felons than black felons.
No may about it, there are more white felons than black felons in Florida.
The big thing for trumps chances is of course the economy.
I'm not so sure. The boom is largely a coastal, blue state, phenomenon. The rust belt is getting jealous girlfriend syndrome. And it's the rust belt he needs to keep sweet. No evidence of that on last night's numbers.
Congratulations to Mike for a cracking couple of tips which should cover this year's holidays I guess.Spread betting is not for me.If FOBS are the crack cocaine of gambling,spead betting is the billy whizz,meth-amphetamine.My strategy of 2% of betting bank per bet is a low risk one and I reduce risk by dutching in ante-post markets. My results is down a point on the night but up a point if the Blues win Arizona where I understand the count has been suspended it is so close. No damage done. The Blue Wave was indeed not so much a tsunami but more a big wee-wee. My overall impression of US politics is just how corrupt it is,and how big money de-legitimises democracy.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
In absolute terms, there may be more white felons than black felons.
No may about it, there are more white felons than black felons in Florida.
I'd expect turnout to be low, generally, among felons, but presumably white felons would be mostly people without college degrees, exactly the group that loves Trump.
I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).
Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
In absolute terms, there may be more white felons than black felons.
It's probably best to be sceptical about how many of them will bother to vote when overall turnout at recent presidential elections hasn't been higher than 58%.
The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
If Collins had voted no he would have voted no as well.
But, then he would have lost, and the new Senate would have voted through another right wing Justice.
The reverberations of Kavanaugh being defeated are unknowable. For all we know it would have energised WV Dem activists and boosted Manchin's vote.
F1: repost, but still odd to me that Ricciardo is 4 to not be classified at the next race.
He's had 4/8 recent race DNFs, and 8/19 season long. Alonso's odds are just 2.75, and that's with one fewer total DNF and the last couple being down to misfortune (accident caused by another, and debris) rather than reliability letting him down.
Comments
[edit - or not, as it turns out. But I still reckon Trump should now be comfortably odds-on for re-election]
That alone is enough to win in 2020.
If they can't cope with early results then they should review their models.
It is like the GB exit poll being solely in Liverpool.
Shame it scared me off the rest of the markets as reality matched my betting position before I got scared off and cashed out.
Mr. Alistair, if it makes you feel better, I made the opposite mistake at our last election. I held onto a Con 50-70 seat majority instead of hedging at about 2.5. It's very easy to see mistakes with hindsight, alas.
Dem 51.0%
GOP 47.3%
Dem lead: 3.7%
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html
"'Gammon' is added to Collins Dictionary as word of the year "
https://tinyurl.com/y96m4sly
Obviously the distributional effects of that vote are hurting the Dems more and more, but Trump's was a narrow win in the first place.
Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
OTOH, instead of a late night and a squeaky bum, you could have followed my advice from Saturday, backed CROSS COUNTER to win the Melbourne Cup at 10/1 and had a decent night's sleep and a decent profit.
Oh well...
Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrX0mJdVsAEPJLY.jpg:large
"Two members of the Labour Party in Peterborough have resigned, citing the party's "bullying and incompetence" in dealing with anti-Semitism.
Richard Ferris and Matthew Mahabadi had earlier criticised the selection of a local candidate who allegedly suggested the Holocaust was a hoax.
In a joint statement they said blowing the whistle in March had exposed them to "alienation and ignorance".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46109551
Labour moderates really do need to drain the swamp their party has become.
CNN was cautiously optimistic about the House for the Dems, even Rick Santorum.
What was not was 538, whose movements had an instant effect on the markets without as many people as you might think wondering if 538 really did have results the rest of us didn't.
For me there was a moment VI-2 and VI-7 moved towards the blue column that I jumped on the remaining odds at 1.4, not huge sums, but pretty damn close to safe money
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/brother-of-peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-admits-perverting-course-of-justice-1-8693598
How many people are where their grandparents were?
The standards of professional negligence are well known and something all solicitors are insured against
Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.
I think she might be the right model candidate to take on Trump in 2020.
She's 50/1 with Ladbrokes right now.
But as someone else said (sort of), if he’d kept it in his trousers until he got home none of this would have happened.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1060136565505249281
To take you on a legal journey for a moment, there is no doubt that solicitors owe their clients a duty of care which means providing them with a reasonable standard of advice judged against what a person might reasonably expect of a qualified solicitor. Equally, a criminal solicitor will know that the wrong advice could (could) lead to their client being wrongly jailed.
So the remaining questions are two-fold: what advice did Brabners give Evans, what actions did they take on his behalf, and in what respects did that differ to what a reasonable solicitor would have done? Only a court can decide that.
I'm also going off the DIRE ratings that Nancy Pelosi had in all the exit polls, and the (largely anecdotal) signs that she swung some votes to the Republicans. Given she is pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of political positions (like Clinton was), surely there must be something else at work there.
- He needs to stand to protect his interests;
- He believes no-one could do a better job;
- He believes he can win;
- He probably won't be impeached and certainly won't be convicted if he is;
- He probably won't be challenged in the primaries and certainly won't be defeated there.
Vettel 46th.
My results is down a point on the night but up a point if the Blues win Arizona where I understand the count has been suspended it is so close.
No damage done.
The Blue Wave was indeed not so much a tsunami but more a big wee-wee.
My overall impression of US politics is just how corrupt it is,and how big money de-legitimises democracy.
So they will sit on their hands
He's had 4/8 recent race DNFs, and 8/19 season long. Alonso's odds are just 2.75, and that's with one fewer total DNF and the last couple being down to misfortune (accident caused by another, and debris) rather than reliability letting him down.