Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Extraordinary. The betting odds on both Biden and Trump now lo
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Extraordinary. The betting odds on both Biden and Trump now longer than evens
Above are the the overnight odds on the £70m “Next President” market on the Betfair exchange.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm not sure what to read into it, if anything. There has been no decisive move for either of the VP candidates as you'd expect if anyone had inside information.
Biden 2.02
Dem 1.95
Trump 2.04
Rep 2.04
Comparing the prices on the named candidates with those on their parties shows it is still Biden who carries the risk premium.
In a shock resignation letter, Kelly said: “I have no confidence in your ability to shape the party’s message, strategy and organisation.
“I know that this is a view shared by other parliamentarians, party members and indeed many members of the public.”
A senior Labour source said: “Richard has to go, for the good of the party. His time is up. We will be wiped out if he stays.”
Another Labour insider said: “Their time has passed. They have had their years of self-indulgence and they need to go before it’s too late.”
Leonard said: “It is deeply disappointing that disgruntled MSPs who never supported my leadership would choose the day when the Scottish Government finally accepted a Labour policy demand of ten years - for a National Care Service - to try and wage an internal war.”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5996588/scots-labour-james-kelly-quit-richard-leonard/
The worlds richest woman is now McKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, who was gifted 4% of Amazon as part of her divorce settlement.
A change this Thursday would be the fifth affecting travellers and travel companies to Portugal since this whole sorry farce commenced.
The states have until this meeting to certify their results, and last time out this was on 19th December - so be prepared to wait wait a month to get paid out, possibly even longer if we end up in court. Bush v Gore was decided on 12th December 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election
The constantly changing guidance can’t be popular with anyone at this point.
Imagine the chaos if that happens in a close race, and the winner changes as a result. The Supreme Court would have to rule on whether electors are allowed in practice to vote for whoever they want, even when their state has instructed them to vote a certain way.
It could also be that neither candidate gets 270 actual votes in the actual electoral college, in which case it goes back to the state delegations of Representatives.
Betfair will pay out on who is *supposed* to have won, even if they are not actually elected!
Perhaps they were right to be worried about it. Perhaps this time next year when property prices have crashed, repossessions have gone through the roof and the banks have been bailed out, we'll be able to have more sympathy with the decision faced by the government. But the need to lockdown looked inevitable by the beginning of March, and the government really ought to have accepted that change was coming whether they liked it or not.
Bookmakers' rules will vary. Betfair rules for the named president include:
This market will be settled according to the candidate that has the most projected Electoral College votes won at the 2020 presidential election. Any subsequent events such as a ‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market. In the event that no Presidential candidate receives a majority of the projected Electoral College votes, this market will be settled on the person chosen as President in accordance with the procedures set out by the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Biden 2.04
Trump 2.02
This report examines decisions made in three areas: economic support, Covid-19 testing and the lockdown.
It highlights the chancellor’s economic support measures as an example of policy based on clear objectives and developed after working closely with scheme users.......
....The report also identifies how:
- The government needed to be clearer about the role of science advice and its limitations, particularly in the early stages of the crisis when it looked to its scientists to generate policy, not just advise on it
- Government decisions were influenced too much by concerns over NHS capacity rather than by controlling the spread of the virus
- Senior officials distanced themselves from the decision to reach 100,000 tests a day, and it was unclear who was responsible for different aspects of the testing regime, which made it difficult to assign responsibility for remedying gaps and failures
- The government did not think about some of the most important aspects of how it would implement its policies until after it had announced them, leaving many public services, in particular schools and the police, playing catch up.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/decision-making-crisis-coronavirus
Another key finding: saving the NHS was not a good enough proxy for the goal of saving lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_lockdowns
If that's the case Biden has blown it.
I can't remember a politician as despised as Trump, if he manages to win twice that is a truly remarkable achievement
Decisions on the economic support package – the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS, or ‘furlough’), the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) and the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) were taken very quickly. For instance, the CJRS was designed and announced within 48 hours, with the SEISS coming days later. The schemes were rolled out ahead of schedule and with remarkably few problems, preventing the immediate wave of job losses the government had feared. In large part, this was thanks to the steps taken by ministers and officials:
• Decision makers were clear that delivering fast financial support to the vast majority of affected workers and businesses was preferable to taking the time to cater to every individual circumstance.
• The government worked closely with business and union groups, which helped secure a positive public reception when the policies were announced.
• Delivery was factored in from the start. Treasury ministers and officials worked closely with HMRC officials, who would be responsible for implementing key measures, and choices about how the schemes would work were guided by what could be done quickly.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/decision-making-crisis.pdf
They both have to survive nine weeks. I think they're going to manage that.
One or either might fail (I've seen a rumour that some of Biden's senior aides are discussing if he should take the knee in the first presidential debate, for example, which would be a gift to Trump) but they will be the candidates fighting it out on polling day. No question.
Apple are also fighting them, with new privacy functionality in IOS14, which is wildly popular with their customers but severely restricts what Facebook and Google can do to track you around the Internet.
https://apple.slashdot.org/story/20/08/30/1720246/are-apples-privacy-changes-hypocritical-unfair-to-facebook-and-advertising-companies
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/decision-making-crisis.pdf
1) Some that voted Trump will not vote for him this time (they may vote Biden or more likely abstain)
2) He has virtually no new constituency from which to draw new votes
3) Biden is much more palatable to many than Clinton
4) Anti-Trumpers who didn`t bother voting last time will be super motivated to vote this time. (I think turnout differentials are generally more significant in elections than floating voters.)
I can`t see a flaw in the logic in any of the above, and cannot see any other result than a significant Biden win.
A) no restrictions
C) flexible restrictions which change as the facts change
C) seems like a logical approach to me
Why is your data better than the people reviewing the information and making the decision on behalf of the government?
Once again top marks to the Treasury.
https://twitter.com/ElshadKarbasi/status/1301044559275794433?s=20
1) all the focus is on Brits going abroad - sometimes forgotten is on the foreigners coming here (who are on balance less affected by the sudden changes).
2) the numbers game is ridiculous - one would hope there was more serious underlying analysis but there seems little evidence of that. The policy basically arbitrarily penalises travellers to and from countries that, all things being equal, do an enormous amount of testing and rewards those that do very little. It’s not based on a serious risk assessment to the country. In what basis is the level of “20 per 100k” set when the 20 represents not an accurate level of real infection, but simply reflects testing and reporting protocols in other countries?
😉
And Good Morning one and all!
Not sure Trump will look any better in retrospect than he does right now, however.
It's the swing states I'm nervous about. That's why I think Biden should focus on WWC swing voters in those states.
Forget taking the knee stuff and the Bernie bros sledging.
https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/1301049858896388097?s=20
Of course this could be part of a trend that will see the gap narrow from the current 6-7pts, but I think a more likely outcome is both candidates remain in the range they have been all year. And while either of Trump or Biden could outperform the polling average, it is hard to predict which direction that will be in.
I'd also note that official US Covid-19 deaths will be over 200,0000 within a few weeks, and they'll likely be the worst effected developed nation per population (other than Belgium) by election day. So there's plenty of opportunity to attack Trump on how poorly he's managed the crisis between now and November 3rd.
Of course Trump can still win, but it's not a c50% provability. I'm maxed out on Biden at his current price, but if continues to drift I'll top up more.
Add to that the gerrymandered House and Senate, and the highly political judiciary stuffed with increasingly out of touch with majority opinion ultra-conservative judges - isn't it a recipe for the disenfranchised majority getting extremely pissed off?
Which of these approaches would help get things under control?
Law and order 39%
Bringing people together 61%
Which comes closest to your view?
Police departments don’t need to be reformed: 21%
Police departments have a problem with race, but the problem can be fixed by reforming the existing system: 61%
Police reform hasn’t worked. We need to defund police and reinvent our approach to public safety: 18%
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/trcdohan8j/20200828_yahoo_coronavirus_crosstabs.pdf
The fact is that where Biden is is where the voters are.
There are possibly two groups of people who might possibly move from non-voter or Dem-voter to Trump in 2020. The first are people (including their friends and families) who 4 years ago were unemployed or who had insecure jobs, but currently are in a more secure employment situation. This group was probably a reasonable size late last year. Covid will have scythed this down to negligible levels, and Trump has 2 months to get them back.
The second are people who feel that if they are paying less tax now than 4 years ago. For a start most people in this group and might be swayed to Trump were probably "Don't like trump but I'll hold the nose and vote anyway Republicans" and so opportunity the potential gains are small. But also many who thought Trump would give them tax cuts found out that the middle classes got no tax cut, and it was the already rich who really benefitted. Many in the middle classes felt they had been fooled by the Republican tax changes.
At the moment, I cannot see how these two groups get anywhere near cancelling out Stocky's 1)-4) groups above.
It's not enough that Trump will gain share from undecideds as so will Biden and if he's starting from 50% then it's effectively game over already.
Just need to hope that Biden doesn't lose that share though. It's possible he can. But watch the shares not the lead.
That is the system working by design and not a flaw.
That Trump isn't one of them is not a shock.
Either I seriously over estimated the risk or the Treasury has played an absolute blinder. It will be interesting to compare our experience with other countries to get a clue on that.
Under proposals announced yesterday each person will be assigned a unique digital identity to help them with such tasks as registering with a new GP.
The details have yet to be finalised but it is understood that legislation could be amended to remove the need for landlords to check tenants’ immigration documents. Witnesses would no longer have to attend signings on property deals in person, and bar owners would be able to digitally verify drinkers’ ages.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/digital-id-cards-lead-the-dominic-cummings-data-revolution-v750fn3kt
It does help Nicola play mother of the nation once again I suppose but once again jobs will be lost.
The other issue is that the method for changing the system requires smaller states to consent to handing away their powers to the larger states. That isn't going to happen.
Oh and incidentally the EU has similar foibles in its voting systems too. They just get less attention as it's less apparent.
Once again the examples just don't justify the creation of an ID card - and I personally can see the benefits of issuing them. It's just that those benefits aren't outlined here.
"I want to be very clear about all of this: Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting. It's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change, it will only bring destruction. It's wrong in every way."
...oh I see he already has.
Grandpa Joes folksy Americana, harking back to a mythic age when Americans got on with each other hits the sweet spot on this issue.
It is pretty impressive that 18% support defunding the police. That is a major loss of confidence by a big share of the population.
Swinney was on R4 saying this is because they're finding transmission is being driven by home visits.
Bollocks.
Also, if one of the bereaved happens to be a lawyer, they can never meet the PM?
Bollocks. On stilts.
I'm sure lots of people will be pointing out that Boris is leading the way here any second now.
Any second now.
*Crickets chirp*