NYT: Charles Blow on Biden at debate - "Bless his heart. It feels like he’s just hanging on for dear life. At moments, it felt like he vanished, not just because it wasn’t his time to speak but because his aura of invincibility is flickering like a candle in a hurricane. But he yelled in his closing, so there’s that."
Other columnists also gave him the thumbs down.
Not looking good for the Dems at the moment.
The problem the Dems have is that their leading moderate is not as mentally sharp as he once was.
Yes, I know I take the piss out of @HYUFD, but he's absolutely right that the Biden of 2016 was a formidable candidate who would have hammered Trump.
But Biden is four years older, and isn't (frankly) as coherent as he was then. His inability to count to three. His inability to think on his feet. His statements that he's going to abolish capital gains tax... no wait, he's going to increase it.
He's a man who was once great, but is now rambling and only semi-coherent. Trump would absolutely hammer him.
Which leads to one of two conclusions: if Biden fades before Iowa, then whichever moderate is ahead of him there is going to be going toe-to-tow with Warren. If Biden manages to hang on to second in Iowa, then I think Warren is going to wipe the floor with Biden over the course of the Primaries.
My view is that Biden is losing ground in Iowa, has the least committed support, and doesn't have the ground organisation. I think that points to someone else winning there. And right now, Buttigieg is the guy making waves in Iowa.
Only Biden can beat Warren. Buttigieg will be toast if he ends up against her
Disagree. I think Warren hammers Biden.
In fact, I think everyone hammers Biden.
Incoherence is not an attractive quality in a candidate.
NYT: Charles Blow on Biden at debate - "Bless his heart. It feels like he’s just hanging on for dear life. At moments, it felt like he vanished, not just because it wasn’t his time to speak but because his aura of invincibility is flickering like a candle in a hurricane. But he yelled in his closing, so there’s that."
Other columnists also gave him the thumbs down.
Not looking good for the Dems at the moment.
The problem the Dems have is that their leading moderate is not as mentally sharp as he once was.
Yes, I know I take the piss out of @HYUFD, but he's absolutely right that the Biden of 2016 was a formidable candidate who would have hammered Trump.
But Biden is four years older, and isn't (frankly) as coherent as he was then. His inability to count to three. His inability to think on his feet. His statements that he's going to abolish capital gains tax... no wait, he's going to increase it.
He's a man who was once great, but is now rambling and only semi-coherent. Trump would absolutely hammer him.
Which leads to one of two conclusions: if Biden fades before Iowa, then whichever moderate is ahead of him there is going to be going toe-to-tow with Warren. If Biden manages to hang on to second in Iowa, then I think Warren is going to wipe the floor with Biden over the course of the Primaries.
My view is that Biden is losing ground in Iowa, has the least committed support, and doesn't have the ground organisation. I think that points to someone else winning there. And right now, Buttigieg is the guy making waves in Iowa.
Only Biden can beat Warren. Buttigieg will be toast if he ends up against her
Disagree. I think Warren hammers Biden.
In fact, I think everyone hammers Biden.
Incoherence is not an attractive quality in a candidate.
I think we probably agree more than that actually. I should have said I don't think anyone on the Dem bench but Biden can beat Warren, but that doesn't mean he will. I still think Mayor Pete doesn't have a hope.
So, if the DUP move toward the deal the Labour leavers probably move away (workers protection etc), so if the ex-Cons for the most part vote the way they did before the deal fails, but is closer than it has been before, the extension is asked for as no deal agreed, and then we have an election?
One more day of fine dining in NYC and I shall be aboard the good ship Queen Mary and mostly off the internet. What's the betting it will be resolved by the time I reach Southampton?
Is there anything to the Buttigieg hype? Someone said he has good organisation in Iowa and oodles of cash, but is it working?
Yes. He's doing very well in Iowa. There have been two polls in the last fortnight: oOne poll showed him up 10 points to 17% in Iowa (vs Biden on 22) and the other showed him up 7 points.
For Buttigieg to have a real chance, he needs to beat Biden in Iowa. If you read the New York Times piece, he has by far the best physical organisation there, and is clearly getting traction. Biden also has relatively weak infrastructure in Iowa, and that matters in a caucus state. (See Obama's path the Presidency.)
Caucus states also matter with the 15% bar at the prescinct level. This means second preferences matter. If your Harris or Kloubocher supporter realises her woman is going to get 15%, then they join another grouping. And Buttigieg does very well on second preferences.
I think Buttigieg probably beats Biden in Iowa, and may even (say 5-1 chance) win the state ahead of Warren.
So, if the DUP move toward the deal the Labour leavers probably move away (workers protection etc), so if the ex-Cons for the most part vote the way they did before the deal fails, but is closer than it has been before, the extension is asked for as no deal agreed, and then we have an election?
Surely the workers protection alignment issue is for the UK only, and wouldn't be relevant to the leaving agreement? It's a commitment the UK parliament might make to its electors. Not to the EU.
NYT: Charles Blow on Biden at debate - "Bless his heart. It feels like he’s just hanging on for dear life. At moments, it felt like he vanished, not just because it wasn’t his time to speak but because his aura of invincibility is flickering like a candle in a hurricane. But he yelled in his closing, so there’s that."
Other columnists also gave him the thumbs down.
Not looking good for the Dems at the moment.
The problem the Dems have is that their leading moderate is not as mentally sharp as he once was.
Yes, I know I take the piss out of @HYUFD, but he's absolutely right that the Biden of 2016 was a formidable candidate who would have hammered Trump.
But Biden is four years older, and isn't (frankly) as coherent as he was then. His inability to count to three. His inability to think on his feet. His statements that he's going to abolish capital gains tax... no wait, he's going to increase it.
He's a man who was once great, but is now rambling and only semi-coherent. Trump would absolutely hammer him.
Which leads to one of two conclusions: if Biden fades before Iowa, then whichever moderate is ahead of him there is going to be going toe-to-tow with Warren. If Biden manages to hang on to second in Iowa, then I think Warren is going to wipe the floor with Biden over the course of the Primaries.
My view is that Biden is losing ground in Iowa, has the least committed support, and doesn't have the ground organisation. I think that points to someone else winning there. And right now, Buttigieg is the guy making waves in Iowa.
Only Biden can beat Warren. Buttigieg will be toast if he ends up against her
Disagree. I think Warren hammers Biden.
In fact, I think everyone hammers Biden.
Incoherence is not an attractive quality in a candidate.
I think we probably agree more than that actually. I should have said I don't think anyone on the Dem bench but Biden can beat Warren, but that doesn't mean he will. I still think Mayor Pete doesn't have a hope.
If Mayor Pete wins Iowa, he is the de facto moderate candidate.
Now that's far, far from a certainty. But we need to remember the extent to which early contests define who the candidates that matter are.
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
So, if the DUP move toward the deal the Labour leavers probably move away (workers protection etc), so if the ex-Cons for the most part vote the way they did before the deal fails, but is closer than it has been before, the extension is asked for as no deal agreed, and then we have an election?
Surely the workers protection alignment issue is for the UK only, and wouldn't be relevant to the leaving agreement? It's a commitment the UK parliament might make to its electors. Not to the EU.
I don't know, I just know that all but a handful of that grouping always seem to be looking for reasons to say no, after suggesting they were willing.
One more day of fine dining in NYC and I shall be aboard the good ship Queen Mary and mostly off the internet. What's the betting it will be resolved by the time I reach Southampton?
Approximately the same as TSE eating a pineapple pizza.
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
One more day of fine dining in NYC and I shall be aboard the good ship Queen Mary and mostly off the internet. What's the betting it will be resolved by the time I reach Southampton?
Approximately the same as TSE eating a pineapple pizza.
Funnily I was at a New York pizza joint yesterday lunchtime, and had to veto several of the pizza options I fancied because they had added pineapple to the offering
He [Pete Buttigieg]’s certainly the strongest contender under the age of 70.
This is a pretty damning indictment of the quality of the Democratic field that their best candidate who is not of an age that would normally be well into retirement, is no more than the mayor of a town in Indiana.
One more day of fine dining in NYC and I shall be aboard the good ship Queen Mary and mostly off the internet. What's the betting it will be resolved by the time I reach Southampton?
Approximately the same as TSE eating a pineapple pizza.
Funnily I was at a New York pizza joint yesterday lunchtime, and had to veto several of the pizza options I fancied because they had added pineapple to the offering
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
Travellers gonna travel..
The back story suggests the Brits may not have been as innocent as first impressions might suggest. They had previously applied for ESTAs but been rejected. The car was very full (eight occupants, I read somewhere). And its movements were tracked carefully by the US authorities and appear to have been pretty deliberate.
Is there any solid evidence on the predictive power of political betting markets?
No. They reflect received wisdom of those prepared to stake money on such matters. As such they reflect the prejudices, blind spots and hopes of that unrepresentative group.
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
Travellers gonna travel..
The back story suggests the Brits may not have been as innocent as first impressions might suggest. They had previously applied for ESTAs but been rejected. The car was very full (eight occupants, I read somewhere). And its movements were tracked carefully by the US authorities and appear to have been pretty deliberate.
One more day of fine dining in NYC and I shall be aboard the good ship Queen Mary and mostly off the internet. What's the betting it will be resolved by the time I reach Southampton?
Approximately the same as TSE eating a pineapple pizza.
Funnily I was at a New York pizza joint yesterday lunchtime, and had to veto several of the pizza options I fancied because they had added pineapple to the offering
How can you survive in such a country?
Choose a non-pineapple option and take the first ship home.
I am actually pining for a cup of tea made with water somewhere near boiling point when it hits the teabag.
Well, the Dance of the Seven Veils this isn't and I certainly feel somewhat overdressed at this stage.
The backpedalling and voltes face of the key players is wondrous to behold and there will be those who, when they see the new "Deal", will wonder why if this Deal is so good why Theresa May's WA was so bad.
Now, of course, we have increased fatigue and the ditch. As I said earlier, tired people often make bad decisions and tired people often support bad decisions. The sheer ennui of the people has become a frantic desire to agree to almost anything in order to get this "over with".
So everyone wants a Deal and many seem set to abandon whatever principals they once had in order to get a Deal and ignore everything they've said in the past three years to ensure a Deal "gets over the line".
As someone else has said, this is now about Boris and his personal political survival - he's not interested in the ditch and remember he will always say whatever the audience in front of him wants to hear. The interests of the country seem now to be a poor second to that.
That's politics but as I misquoted Churchill earlier this isn't the end or even the beginning of the end. I'm not even sure it's the end of the beginning either. I do suspect once we have agreed the WA and formally left the line toward the EU will soften considerably and the PD will almost certainly be full of good intentions and kind words.
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
One more day of fine dining in NYC and I shall be aboard the good ship Queen Mary and mostly off the internet. What's the betting it will be resolved by the time I reach Southampton?
Approximately the same as TSE eating a pineapple pizza.
Funnily I was at a New York pizza joint yesterday lunchtime, and had to veto several of the pizza options I fancied because they had added pineapple to the offering
How can you survive in such a country?
It's a shame the "make your own pizza, $2.50 per extra topping offer" doesn't work in reverse.
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
Travellers gonna travel..
The back story suggests the Brits may not have been as innocent as first impressions might suggest. They had previously applied for ESTAs but been rejected. The car was very full (eight occupants, I read somewhere). And its movements were tracked carefully by the US authorities and appear to have been pretty deliberate.
And $16,000 in cash .
A quick google of the surname is enlightening.
I get a load of businesses near here, a stack of NY lawyers, and a lot of articles about tennis.
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
TBH not sure; all part of the water charge. Mind you, after we had a water meter fitted some years ago we were charged nothing for about two years; the meter was faulty and stuck on zero. Was quite sorry when the Water Co realised!
He [Pete Buttigieg]’s certainly the strongest contender under the age of 70.
This is a pretty damning indictment of the quality of the Democratic field that their best candidate who is not of an age that would normally be well into retirement, is no more than the mayor of a town in Indiana.
I think its rather good. You could have Chelsea Clinton and Hunter Biden - they've got great CVs.
I've blown my cash on this, but for precisely these sort of reasons I'd backed Gabbard.
I'd quite like to know how to pronounce Buttigieg's name. We may need to know.
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
TBH not sure; all part of the water charge. Mind you, after we had a water meter fitted some years ago we were charged nothing for about two years; the meter was faulty and stuck on zero. Was quite sorry when the Water Co realised!
A couple of years ago I had an electricity meter that was faulty. When my solar panels were generating net power, it ran backwards.
Unfortunately I replaced it with a SMART meter before fully realising what I had.
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
TBH not sure; all part of the water charge. Mind you, after we had a water meter fitted some years ago we were charged nothing for about two years; the meter was faulty and stuck on zero. Was quite sorry when the Water Co realised!
its all based on rateable value.. guess at a third of your water bill as sewerage, it'll still cost you a bomb.. septic tanks are not allowed anymore, I think you have to have a klargester.. that has to be emptied annually or more often....
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
TBH not sure; all part of the water charge. Mind you, after we had a water meter fitted some years ago we were charged nothing for about two years; the meter was faulty and stuck on zero. Was quite sorry when the Water Co realised!
A couple of years ago I had an electricity meter that was faulty. When my solar panels were generating net power, it ran backwards.
Unfortunately I replaced it with a SMART meter before fully realising what I had.
that's how electricity meters should work with energy generation surely
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
TBH not sure; all part of the water charge. Mind you, after we had a water meter fitted some years ago we were charged nothing for about two years; the meter was faulty and stuck on zero. Was quite sorry when the Water Co realised!
A couple of years ago I had an electricity meter that was faulty. When my solar panels were generating net power, it ran backwards.
Unfortunately I replaced it with a SMART meter before fully realising what I had.
that's how electricity meters should work with energy generation surely
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
One more day of fine dining in NYC and I shall be aboard the good ship Queen Mary and mostly off the internet. What's the betting it will be resolved by the time I reach Southampton?
Approximately the same as TSE eating a pineapple pizza.
Funnily I was at a New York pizza joint yesterday lunchtime, and had to veto several of the pizza options I fancied because they had added pineapple to the offering
He [Pete Buttigieg]’s certainly the strongest contender under the age of 70.
This is a pretty damning indictment of the quality of the Democratic field that their best candidate who is not of an age that would normally be well into retirement, is no more than the mayor of a town in Indiana.
I think its rather good. You could have Chelsea Clinton and Hunter Biden - they've got great CVs.
I've blown my cash on this, but for precisely these sort of reasons I'd backed Gabbard.
I'd quite like to know how to pronounce Buttigieg's name. We may need to know.
Gabbard was really wooden yesterday. I had high hopes for her, but she seriously disappointed me.
Is there any solid evidence on the predictive power of political betting markets?
No. They reflect received wisdom of those prepared to stake money on such matters. As such they reflect the prejudices, blind spots and hopes of that unrepresentative group.
Thanks Alastair, I'm angling towards that conclusion but thought if anyone knew of evidence to the contrary they'd be on this forum!
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
TBH not sure; all part of the water charge. Mind you, after we had a water meter fitted some years ago we were charged nothing for about two years; the meter was faulty and stuck on zero. Was quite sorry when the Water Co realised!
A couple of years ago I had an electricity meter that was faulty. When my solar panels were generating net power, it ran backwards.
Unfortunately I replaced it with a SMART meter before fully realising what I had.
Our smart meter doesn’t display, due to crap internet service. Can’t be bothered to do anything about it as it’s the fourth time it’s gone awol. Reported it three time’s; had enough.
If we're going to remain can we at least give Northern Ireland to the Irish ? Half of them want out anyway and the other half elect some of the most unlikeable politicians in the western world.
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
TBH not sure; all part of the water charge. Mind you, after we had a water meter fitted some years ago we were charged nothing for about two years; the meter was faulty and stuck on zero. Was quite sorry when the Water Co realised!
A couple of years ago I had an electricity meter that was faulty. When my solar panels were generating net power, it ran backwards.
Unfortunately I replaced it with a SMART meter before fully realising what I had.
that's how electricity meters should work with energy generation surely
Alas, no. They should only run forwards.
but if they ran in both directions you could be charged actual use of electricity when you use more than you generate or given a payment when using less.
One more day of fine dining in NYC and I shall be aboard the good ship Queen Mary and mostly off the internet. What's the betting it will be resolved by the time I reach Southampton?
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
Travellers gonna travel..
The back story suggests the Brits may not have been as innocent as first impressions might suggest. They had previously applied for ESTAs but been rejected. The car was very full (eight occupants, I read somewhere). And its movements were tracked carefully by the US authorities and appear to have been pretty deliberate.
You can follow Avenue 0 on Google Streetview and consider how plausible the original story was. It's nondescript farming country - not exactly a tourist destination. You could just about shoot the ditch in a 4x4 with forethought. Swerving to avoid a squirrel doesn't seem plausible.
He [Pete Buttigieg]’s certainly the strongest contender under the age of 70.
This is a pretty damning indictment of the quality of the Democratic field that their best candidate who is not of an age that would normally be well into retirement, is no more than the mayor of a town in Indiana.
I think its rather good. You could have Chelsea Clinton and Hunter Biden - they've got great CVs.
I've blown my cash on this, but for precisely these sort of reasons I'd backed Gabbard.
I'd quite like to know how to pronounce Buttigieg's name. We may need to know.
Gabbard was really wooden yesterday. I had high hopes for her, but she seriously disappointed me.
I've not had time to watch the debate, so I'll defer to you. Disappointing then.
I think/thought she is/was the one Democrat in the race that'd beat Trump.
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
Travellers gonna travel..
The back story suggests the Brits may not have been as innocent as first impressions might suggest. They had previously applied for ESTAs but been rejected. The car was very full (eight occupants, I read somewhere). And its movements were tracked carefully by the US authorities and appear to have been pretty deliberate.
You can follow Avenue 0 on Google Streetview and consider how plausible the original story was. It's nondescript farming country - not exactly a tourist destination. You could just about shoot the ditch in a 4x4 with forethought. Swerving to avoid a squirrel doesn't seem plausible.
I had relatives who lived in homes out in the country, without main drainage!
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
Not having mains drainage is WONDERFUL. I have a septic tank, it gets emptied every 7 yrs for about £200 that's £25 a year... How much do you pay a year for sewerage?
TBH not sure; all part of the water charge. Mind you, after we had a water meter fitted some years ago we were charged nothing for about two years; the meter was faulty and stuck on zero. Was quite sorry when the Water Co realised!
A couple of years ago I had an electricity meter that was faulty. When my solar panels were generating net power, it ran backwards.
Unfortunately I replaced it with a SMART meter before fully realising what I had.
that's how electricity meters should work with energy generation surely
Alas, no. They should only run forwards.
but if they ran in both directions you could be charged actual use of electricity when you use more than you generate or given a payment when using less.
That would be the most logical way to reward people for solar panels, and would be cheaper than feed-in tariffs, but unfortunately that is not the way they are supposed to work.
Boris's antics these last weeks have added £ to the cost of my trip.
Holiday money? Holiday money??????
Oh, @IanB2, you think you know exchange rate pain? What you think of as pain is merely a shadow. Pain has a face: and I have such sights to show you...
New court action from Jolyon Maughan. Even as an uber Remainer I don't understand it. The WAIB can repeal the restrictions he's referring to. We'll see but it has a bridge too far feel to it.
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said. They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US. Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
Travellers gonna travel..
The back story suggests the Brits may not have been as innocent as first impressions might suggest. They had previously applied for ESTAs but been rejected. The car was very full (eight occupants, I read somewhere). And its movements were tracked carefully by the US authorities and appear to have been pretty deliberate.
You can follow Avenue 0 on Google Streetview and consider how plausible the original story was. It's nondescript farming country - not exactly a tourist destination. You could just about shoot the ditch in a 4x4 with forethought. Swerving to avoid a squirrel doesn't seem plausible.
Did seem a bit odd, even for the Yanks.
Their treatment may have been harsh by British standards. But *if* they compounded their error by telling a pack of lies it's easier to understand. The Yanks have a wonderful word - scofflaw - which we could do with over here.
I was going to post this earlier today but was out, so here goes. This is for those interested in fixed odds.
If you think Pete Buttigieg is going to be the Democratic nominee then you're presumably tempted by the 8/1 currently on offer from Ladbrokes.
But wait a moment.
If you scroll down you'll see the following two specials:
Trump to beat Buttigieg 25/1 Buttigigieg to beat Trump 25/1 (was 33/1 this morning)
So this post assumes you think Buttigieg is going to get the nomination. If so, you're then gambling on whether Trump is likely to be impeached prior to November next year. If he's not then these 25/1 bets are much better than the current 8/1 and well worth the few extra months wait.
I'd say the 25/1 looks like a good bet. And, dare I say it, an obvious arb. Bet on both and it's a winner.
I'm with Yellow Submarine on this one, I don't quite understand from his description why the Withdrawal Bill would not deal with any contraditions with other legislation - what prevents parliament from indicating it is happy with the new WA (if there is one)? The bill giving effect to that will come later.
Given the unlikelihood of any WA getting passed, it might be better to let it get voted down than quibble about whether parliament can even consider it, the same as it would have been simpler for the government to seek parliamentary approval for A50 being triggered, since they would always have done so, rather than be forced to do it.
From his comments to Andrew Neil, it appears far from certain that Philip Hammond will vote for Johnson's Deal. Others such as Gauke and Greening might well take a similar view.
I was going to post this earlier today but was out, so here goes. This is for those interested in fixed odds.
If you think Pete Buttigieg is going to be the Democratic nominee then you're presumably tempted by the 8/1 currently on offer from Ladbrokes.
But wait a moment.
If you scroll down you'll see the following two specials:
Trump to beat Buttigieg 25/1 Buttigigieg to beat Trump 25/1 (was 33/1 this morning)
So this post assumes you think Buttigieg is going to get the nomination. If so, you're then gambling on whether Trump is likely to be impeached prior to November next year. If he's not then these 25/1 bets are much better than the current 8/1 and well worth the few extra months wait.
I'd say the 25/1 looks like a good bet. And, dare I say it, an obvious arb. Bet on both and it's a winner.
I think the 8-1 on Buttigieg is about right. I think the 15 or 16 he was on yesterday on Betfair was too generous.
New court action from Jolyon Maughan. Even as an uber Remainer I don't understand it. The WAIB can repeal the restrictions he's referring to. We'll see but it has a bridge too far feel to it.
From his comments to Andrew Neil, it appears far from certain that Philip Hammond will vote for Johnson's Deal. Others such as Gauke and Greening might well take a similar view.
Justine Greening didn't even vote for May's deal, so she'll definitely be a no.
I guess Hammond and co might be waiting for guarantees of getting the Whip back and reselection? I'd say they're much more likely to vote for the deal than against.
From his comments to Andrew Neil, it appears far from certain that Philip Hammond will vote for Johnson's Deal. Others such as Gauke and Greening might well take a similar view.
Justine Greening didn't even vote for May's deal, so she'll definitely be a no.
I guess Hammond and co might be waiting for guarantees of getting the Whip back and reselection?
Boris would be very well advised to epitomise magnanimity over that.
They rebelled over No Deal, and he wanted to seriously threaten it to get a Deal, so the rationale will have expired if a Deal is secured. Readmission (no hard feelings) would be conditional on voting for it.
Is there any solid evidence on the predictive power of political betting markets?
Spectacular failures in the last few big events, right enough, along with the polling. The two are probably linked I’d say
Pretty much. Betting markets act as a datagatherer, taking in sources and reaching a consensus. This enables them to discard rogue polls and are hence SLIGHTLY better at predicting who will get the most votes. But "slightly better" is not the same as "good".
In the noughties academics were pretty solid in saying they were good, but since the post 2014 problems a slight reappraisal has taken place. There are many good academics who have written on the subject: Christopher Wliezen, Will Jennings, there's quite a list. But academic debate did rather get bogged down as wo whether adjusted polls beat adjusted bets.
One academic that springs to mind is Leighton Vaughan Williams: if you Google him and "House Of Lords" you can get the testimony he gave regarding political betting to the enquiry.
One thing I will say: the further away one is from "most votes", the more unreliable indicators become. So "most votes" beats "most seats" beats "overall majority" beats "government formation", for example.
There is also the question on how exactly do you judge the accuracy of a probabilistic prediction, which is a whole subject in itself...
From his comments to Andrew Neil, it appears far from certain that Philip Hammond will vote for Johnson's Deal. Others such as Gauke and Greening might well take a similar view.
Justine Greening didn't even vote for May's deal, so she'll definitely be a no.
I guess Hammond and co might be waiting for guarantees of getting the Whip back and reselection? I'd say they're much more likely to vote for the deal than against.
I would expect it to be the other way round.
The whip will only be restored to rebel conservatves who vote for the deal
Mind you, I am not convinced there will be a deal to vote on this weekend
From his comments to Andrew Neil, it appears far from certain that Philip Hammond will vote for Johnson's Deal. Others such as Gauke and Greening might well take a similar view.
Justine Greening didn't even vote for May's deal, so she'll definitely be a no.
I guess Hammond and co might be waiting for guarantees of getting the Whip back and reselection? I'd say they're much more likely to vote for the deal than against.
From his comments to Andrew Neil, it appears far from certain that Philip Hammond will vote for Johnson's Deal. Others such as Gauke and Greening might well take a similar view.
Justine Greening didn't even vote for May's deal, so she'll definitely be a no.
I guess Hammond and co might be waiting for guarantees of getting the Whip back and reselection? I'd say they're much more likely to vote for the deal than against.
I would expect it to be the other way round.
The whip will only be restored to rebel conservatves who vote for the deal
Mind you, I am not convinced there will be a deal to vote on this weekend
Well, that was what I meant, they might be waiting for a concrete, public guarantee that they get the Whip back if they vote for the deal.
Without that guarantee, it's not a very attractive offer to them to say "even if you vote for this sub-optimal deal, your political career is still over".
Is there any solid evidence on the predictive power of political betting markets?
Spectacular failures in the last few big events, right enough, along with the polling. The two are probably linked I’d say
Pretty much. Betting markets act as a datagatherer, taking in sources and reaching a consensus. This enables them to discard rogue polls and are hence SLIGHTLY better at predicting who will get the most votes. But "slightly better" is not the same as "good".
In the noughties academics were pretty solid in saying they were good, but since the post 2014 problems a slight reappraisal has taken place. There are many good academics who have written on the subject: Christopher Wliezen, Will Jennings, there's quite a list. But academic debate did rather get bogged down as wo whether adjusted polls beat adjusted bets.
One academic that springs to mind is Leighton Vaughan Williams: if you Google him and "House Of Lords" you can get the testimony he gave regarding political betting to the enquiry.
One thing I will say: the further away one is from "most votes", the more unreliable indicators become. So "most votes" beats "most seats" beats "overall majority" beats "government formation", for example.
There is also the question on how exactly do you judge the accuracy of a probabilistic prediction, which is a whole subject in itself...
Yeah I guess the same would be true of “to be placed” beating “winner” beating “forecast” beating “tricast” in a horse race. If the fundamentals are wrong, the derivatives get less accurate at each step?
From his comments to Andrew Neil, it appears far from certain that Philip Hammond will vote for Johnson's Deal. Others such as Gauke and Greening might well take a similar view.
Justine Greening didn't even vote for May's deal, so she'll definitely be a no.
I guess Hammond and co might be waiting for guarantees of getting the Whip back and reselection? I'd say they're much more likely to vote for the deal than against.
Greening is also not standing again.
It is ok Justin, she will vote against unless it comes with a referendum attached
However, it looks increasingly likely the EU will grant only a short extension and certainly not long enough to organise a referendum. Indeed there are EU countries, France among them, who do not want an anti EU country in the EU and the UK is top of that list
Comments
In fact, I think everyone hammers Biden.
Incoherence is not an attractive quality in a candidate.
Let me guess the DUP causing the problems .
Boris's antics these last weeks have added £ to the cost of my trip.
And I’ve had sepsis. NOT FUN.
For Buttigieg to have a real chance, he needs to beat Biden in Iowa. If you read the New York Times piece, he has by far the best physical organisation there, and is clearly getting traction. Biden also has relatively weak infrastructure in Iowa, and that matters in a caucus state. (See Obama's path the Presidency.)
Caucus states also matter with the 15% bar at the prescinct level. This means second preferences matter. If your Harris or Kloubocher supporter realises her woman is going to get 15%, then they join another grouping. And Buttigieg does very well on second preferences.
I think Buttigieg probably beats Biden in Iowa, and may even (say 5-1 chance) win the state ahead of Warren.
Now that's far, far from a certainty. But we need to remember the extent to which early contests define who the candidates that matter are.
A previous PB post showed just how bad betting markets have been at predicting important political events, like Trump and Brexit.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/09/10/when-the-betting-markets-got-it-wrong/
Is there any solid evidence on the predictive power of political betting markets?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50067575
A British family detained in the US after crossing the border from Canada intentionally entered the country illegally, officials have said.
They said the vehicle was captured on video "slowly and deliberately" driving through a ditch to enter the US.
Two adults in the vehicle had previously been denied travel authorisation to the US, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said.
Travellers gonna travel..
A Scotsman walked into a pub... (there is usually an Englishman and an Irishman in this joke but they're still in the World Cup.)
A quick google of the surname is enlightening.
I am actually pining for a cup of tea made with water somewhere near boiling point when it hits the teabag.
Well, the Dance of the Seven Veils this isn't and I certainly feel somewhat overdressed at this stage.
The backpedalling and voltes face of the key players is wondrous to behold and there will be those who, when they see the new "Deal", will wonder why if this Deal is so good why Theresa May's WA was so bad.
Now, of course, we have increased fatigue and the ditch. As I said earlier, tired people often make bad decisions and tired people often support bad decisions. The sheer ennui of the people has become a frantic desire to agree to almost anything in order to get this "over with".
So everyone wants a Deal and many seem set to abandon whatever principals they once had in order to get a Deal and ignore everything they've said in the past three years to ensure a Deal "gets over the line".
As someone else has said, this is now about Boris and his personal political survival - he's not interested in the ditch and remember he will always say whatever the audience in front of him wants to hear. The interests of the country seem now to be a poor second to that.
That's politics but as I misquoted Churchill earlier this isn't the end or even the beginning of the end. I'm not even sure it's the end of the beginning either. I do suspect once we have agreed the WA and formally left the line toward the EU will soften considerably and the PD will almost certainly be full of good intentions and kind words.
Think I know where: https://www.google.com/maps/@49.0023616,-122.4294834,3a,75y,232.74h,83.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saNfS0sLwqIBOcecXwgIBYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Across the ditch is the US.
https://www.channel4.com/news/new-ira-says-border-infrastructure-would-be-legitimate-target-for-attack
but it's worth watching the video
I've blown my cash on this, but for precisely these sort of reasons I'd backed Gabbard.
I'd quite like to know how to pronounce Buttigieg's name. We may need to know.
Unfortunately I replaced it with a SMART meter before fully realising what I had.
https://www.google.com/maps/@49.002136,-122.7535906,3a,75y,18.07h,86.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3wYrrTiAnsDeUwsJ2VRWpQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Madrid's brutal response to Catalan separatists is typical of a country forged by violence
BY JASON WEBSTER"
https://unherd.com/2019/10/will-spain-be-held-together-by-force/
I think/thought she is/was the one Democrat in the race that'd beat Trump.
The government might need to amend that before any vote otherwise it could make that vote illegal .
Holiday money??????
Oh, @IanB2, you think you know exchange rate pain? What you think of as pain is merely a shadow. Pain has a face: and I have such sights to show you...
(Foreshadowing... )
I was going to post this earlier today but was out, so here goes. This is for those interested in fixed odds.
If you think Pete Buttigieg is going to be the Democratic nominee then you're presumably tempted by the 8/1 currently on offer from Ladbrokes.
But wait a moment.
If you scroll down you'll see the following two specials:
Trump to beat Buttigieg 25/1
Buttigigieg to beat Trump 25/1 (was 33/1 this morning)
So this post assumes you think Buttigieg is going to get the nomination. If so, you're then gambling on whether Trump is likely to be impeached prior to November next year. If he's not then these 25/1 bets are much better than the current 8/1 and well worth the few extra months wait.
I'd say the 25/1 looks like a good bet. And, dare I say it, an obvious arb. Bet on both and it's a winner.
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1184530510304944129?s=21
The only question is whether filmmakers (dress left) can make it objectively enough to appeal to both sides.
Given the unlikelihood of any WA getting passed, it might be better to let it get voted down than quibble about whether parliament can even consider it, the same as it would have been simpler for the government to seek parliamentary approval for A50 being triggered, since they would always have done so, rather than be forced to do it.
It looks desperate.
By their standards Sturgeon would already be in jail and we’d have truckloads of police on the streets of Glasgow and Dundee.
I guess Hammond and co might be waiting for guarantees of getting the Whip back and reselection? I'd say they're much more likely to vote for the deal than against.
They rebelled over No Deal, and he wanted to seriously threaten it to get a Deal, so the rationale will have expired if a Deal is secured. Readmission (no hard feelings) would be conditional on voting for it.
Plus, he needs the votes and the unity.
In the noughties academics were pretty solid in saying they were good, but since the post 2014 problems a slight reappraisal has taken place. There are many good academics who have written on the subject: Christopher Wliezen, Will Jennings, there's quite a list. But academic debate did rather get bogged down as wo whether adjusted polls beat adjusted bets.
One academic that springs to mind is Leighton Vaughan Williams: if you Google him and "House Of Lords" you can get the testimony he gave regarding political betting to the enquiry.
One thing I will say: the further away one is from "most votes", the more unreliable indicators become. So "most votes" beats "most seats" beats "overall majority" beats "government formation", for example.
There is also the question on how exactly do you judge the accuracy of a probabilistic prediction, which is a whole subject in itself...
The whip will only be restored to rebel conservatves who vote for the deal
Mind you, I am not convinced there will be a deal to vote on this weekend
Without that guarantee, it's not a very attractive offer to them to say "even if you vote for this sub-optimal deal, your political career is still over".
However, it looks increasingly likely the EU will grant only a short extension and certainly not long enough to organise a referendum. Indeed there are EU countries, France among them, who do not want an anti EU country in the EU and the UK is top of that list