Categories
Options
Betfair WH2020 betting is back – politicalbetting.com
Betfair WH2020 betting is back – politicalbetting.com
Betfair has now re-opened the WH2020 markets which were close before the weekend when Trump went into hospital . Chart @betdatapolitics pic.twitter.com/YRzbPNh0og
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/10/05/riverside-megachurch-pastor-who-attended-white-house-event-contracts-covid-19-1321259
Sen. Pat Toomey to retire from politics in blow to GOP
The move puts Republicans at an immediate disadvantage as they survey the 2022 Senate landscape.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/05/pat-toomey-senate-retirement-426429
But I am less clear on your examples here. I'm sure it was argued on here that it would be within the rules to stack the bench, since it does not have a set membership or something, and there is precedent for expanding its scale.
Sounds like a bad idea, and frankly the politicisation of the judges by their very nature seems a poor idea to me as well, but is it actually the case that the Republican shenanigans are within the rules, but expanding the court is not?
Since when has Trumpsky EVER engaged in what you could reasonably call "normal" campaigning?
Short answer of course is, never!
Even his detractors (such as yours truly) must admit that DT is an amazing political phenomenon, along the lines of Huey Long, Benito Mussolini and . . . wait for it . . . Valdimir Putin.
Tried to think of a Brit other than Boris Johnson who might maybe perhaps qualify (except that BoJo has yet to stay in office for at least a few years running) but failed.
Which is a credit to the British and your constitution that as an America wish I could claim, but obviously (and sadly) cannot.
The Democrat plan would involve permanently changing the number of SC judges to ensure a permanent majority effectively. The Republican actions involved bending the rules but not breaking them altogether.
What would make the Democrat plan even more binding is that, if they did expand the SC, they would almost certainly also give statehood to DC, Puerto Rico and possibly also Guam and American Samoa to give themselves a very strong lock hold on the Senate possibly for ever
The Republicans behaved aggressively in 2016 by leveraging their control of the Senate to frustrate Obama’s desire to nominate a new SC Justice. The arguments they put forward were utterly specious.
In 2020 they are behaving hypocritically is trying to ram through an appointment leveraging their control of the White House and the Senate.
In both cases they are acting within the rules
If the Democrats chose to appoint 6 ideologically pure Justices to ensure they have a majority on the bench they will destroy an institution that is a fundamental part of the American system and one which, by and large, (yes, I know, Dred Scott was both bad law and bad morally) has served the American people well.
You repeatedly seem to think it’s ok to break the rules for partisan advantage. I find that disturbing
It would possibly be unwise, but it would certainly be within the “rules”.
It would, of course, be a gross violation of norms, which is what Charles probably means - just that he doesn’t seem to get quite so exercised about that when it comes from the Republican side.
Of course, sometimes rules should be changed, but it's unfortunate that oftentimes people are suddenly converted to the necessity of doing so by partisan considerations, like people discovering PR is the way after an election that has been lost. I'm still not particularly clearer. I can certainly see that it is an escalation of the judicial warfare between the two, and a bad idea, but when it comes to 'breaking' the rules if they are legally allowed to do it and it'd been done before, it's not precisely breaking it surely? It's a question of degree, not something wholly different? After all, the criticism of the Republican move is that it is crappy but they can technically do it, and the same wording could be applied to the Democrat potential move?
I do think the Democrats outrage of the Supreme Court nomination issue has the smell of grandstanding about it. Yes the Republican hypocrisy in about facing their previous position must have been galling, if unsurprising, but it doesn't disguise that they are, for the same reasons, also about facing, and saying the other lot did it first hardly matters if they believed their own principals last time.
My sense is that, regardless of Biden-Trump outcome, post-election the Republicans are a bit more likely to tear themselves up in more key races in more states & districts than the Democrats.
BUT not by much. What transpires could come down to who wins the White House like HYUFD says.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
If the Democrats do expand the SC and do add their new justices, then it does permanently change the rules. It is no different from someone saying here “you know what, I can’t get my bill through the Commons, let me add another100 MPs and nominate them all”
It’s meant to permanently lock in one side’s advantage
For one thing, just about all the Democrats running for US Senate in contested races this year have gone on record pledged to OPPOSE any such plan.
For another, just a dumb idea, historically, judicially and above all politically.
Not many people realise Canada is more densely populated than Australia.
Which just goes to show how bloody empty Oz is.
The danger in doing this, of course, is that it devalues an institution that should be above politics. And yes... the Democrats started it with Roe vs Wade, which is one of the most appalling judicial decisions in history.
Personally, I think the best Justices are the ones appointed when the Senate and the Presidency are held by different parties.
If the Democrats "pack the court" then they too will be acting within the rules. There are no "rules" against "court packing" any more than there were "rules" against the Senate not holding hearings on Merrick Garland. The court has changed size frequently in the past, before Dred Scott.
In the Kavanaugh nomination the GOP changed the rules by scrapping the minority party's right to filibuster.
If the GOP want to push to the edge of the rules, so long as they stay within the rules, even changing the rules, then why shouldn't the Democrats do the same? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I won't belabour the point further, but I'm still not persuaded that it is such a stark distinction, other than in scale of crappiness. Expanding the court wouldn't permanently change the rules if expanding was already something they could do, and have done before - for one thing while I doubt it would happen, the court could presumably be reduced in future.
Given how laboriously detailed the US constitution is on certain points, I am somewhat surprised it doesn't specificy an exact number of Justices though.
What happens when there is fog?
https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1313233907903614978
Pretty laughable boast from Boris though, given our record on housing and infrastructure delivery in this country.
On the judges, it’s the permanency of the thing that would be the problem. Adding 6 justices, all of which would be Democratic nominees and (presumably) young would mean a permanent Democrat majority. In that case, I think a lot of Republican voters would decide the rules were being stacked against them and lose faith in the system (and worse)
Can you describe what rule the Dems would be breaking?
And the Tories for the past decade have been boosting wind power. It is a far better suggestion for renewable energy generation than solar power which the UK under Labour was investing ridiculous sums in . . . when solar works much worse in the winter and the UK electricity demand peaks in the winter.
• ex-London
And the rhetoric about ‘rules’ is a little threadbare.
The court's size has changed many times in America's history. No rule against it whatsoever. The GOP removing the ability of the minority party to fillibuster a Justice, removing the requirement for bipartisan approval of Justices actually did change the rules though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias
Certainly I can see the danger you suggest there, although who is deserving of being a state is a political question, and like most political questions bi-partisanship will not always occur.
The difficulty is, as with everything, the impossibility of objective assessment. I don't know if all those areas even want to be States (though I'd be surprised why they wouldn't, if the chance arose), but if they do, and if they fit the criteria (such as they exist) for statehood (certainly some are large enough), then just as those pushing for it might be doing so for partisan reasons, might not others resist it for partisan reasons?
I mean, OK, the Democrats are coming around on the statehood issue as they think it will help them in the Senate, that's a poor motivation. But if Republicans reject it simply to preserve their perceived advantage in the Senate, that's not a good motivation either.
However, English visitors can stampede across our border unchecked, many from highly contaminated English regions, and climb a Welsh mountain or lounge in a Welsh holiday home. Why on Earth is this permitted?
Mark Drakeford is completely correct to insist on quarantining at the border.
I suspect it will be Welsh Labour's most popular policy ever. Drakeford could be looking at a landslide next year.
Why would "Red Wallers" be against reliable, clean, cheap energy?
Much better than investing in nuclear white elephants with three times the strike price.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/12/raheem-sterling-tired-roy-hodgson-england-estonia
> medical leeches have been proven to possess miraculous healing properties, thanks to their amazing ability to suck out "bad blood" from the human body.
> WHO quacks and socialist bureaucrats have conspired to suppress startling new findings that medical leeches are already curing thousands of COVID sufferers in secret cave laboratories all across (or rather under) China.
> Florida is prime source in US for top-quality medical leeches, followed by Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.
Mr President, the leech is as American as you, and almost as impressive in it's own blood-sucking way.
SO display you vision and leadership to the world, by grabbing hold of a fistful of leeches, and clutching them to your bosom!
Hard on the leeches. But best if you REALLY want to MAGA.
The Red Wall is used to factories, mills and pit head winding gear blocking the views.
It's a big call by the politicians here - and despite the lack of unity it's all the politicians. The Opposition were confident enough that the government would follow NPHET recommendations that they felt able to outflank the government by criticising NPHET during the day. But the government weren't for allowing that to happen so joined in themselves, leaving the Opposition with nowhere to go. Only the fringe People Before Profit group support the NPHET recommendation for level 5, crushing the virus, and solving the health problem as a precondition to solving the economic problem.
It's a new world where the government are freestyling their own epidemiology, and they've taken a huge risk, because if the spread of the virus doesn't come under control, and the death toll rises and they eventually follow the advice to move to level 5 anyway, they will clearly be seen to have made the wrong call.
ps. One interesting side point was that the government admitted that they'd created a plan, with five levels, but with no idea how they would implement one of those levels, and so it was impossible for them to do so when it was recommended to them. Astonishing - and yet only a footnote to the main issue.
To earn a crust, I am tomorrow heading for a Covid-free Southampton from lockdown hotspot, the Vale of Glamorgan. I hope they let me back in!
Oh boy......
BUT perhaps OUR butt-head ignorance, is YOUR greatest defense?
The Republicans started this war off with their obstruction and blatant attempts to suppress voting, I have no sympathy for them.
I don't think Biden will pack the court as it will just lead to tit for tat Judge inflation and the bench tripling in size by 2050.
DC statehood is more likely than Puerto Rico I think.
Regardless of whether you think now was the right time to move to level 5, I rather think that if you have a plan that includes five levels, you should be able to use all five levels if doing so is indicated. But they aren't ready to do so. They seemed to believe they would never have to.
That's why they're terrified about the idea of packing. Because it would make all their shenanigans meaningless.
If you can't see that you need stronger glasses.
Packing the Court would be a serious breach of political norms, even in these degraded times. It would be constitutional, though.
1) The current state of play: both RCP and 538 have Biden now c.8 points ahead. He may be slightly less far ahead in the key swing states like Pennsylvania, but a 3-4 point lead is very likely to be enough. An election tomorrow would be a near-certain Biden win.
2) Volatility: Biden's lead has been remarkably stable for months, in a way the 2016 election was not. Trump becoming incapacitated or worse would have been a genuine black swan event in terms of people's reactions, but I don't think a week's long illness followed by Trump being very Trump-like about it all is going to make a big impact (bearing in mind Biden's lead has persisted through the entire Covid and Black Lives Matter sagas).
3) Time: four weeks doesn't offer that long for things to change given the lack of volatility in the polls after some very significant events.
All in all, this means the likelihood of a Trump win is overstated in the betting markets. But there is a great benefit to this: the general public continue to not believe that Biden is winning comfortably. That is ideal for motivating people to vote Trump out; and I think a similar thing happened in 2017/2019 in the UK where people only took Corbyn win seriously the second time around.
Plus apart from racism I see no reason why Hawaii should be a State but Puerto Rico should not.
Not considered Guam and American Samoa but if they're Americans and they want to be a State then of course they should be.
Possible statehood for Puerto Rico or District of Columbia is different kettle of fish. In case of PR, both US parties have pledged themselves in not-so-distant pass to granting statehood IF and when clear majority of islanders so decide. GOP has never made same (theoretical) commitment to statehood for DC.
BTW, note that a little-considered option would be returning District of Columbia to State of Maryland, at least for electoral purposes. That would mean no US Senate seats, except as part of the Maryland electorate, but WOULD give Washingtonians a couple or more voting Representatives in US House.
As for court-packing, repeat it's a historical, judicial, practical political downer. Forgetaboutit.
Taking his last breath on Friday and waving to his adoring fans on Sunday. It is almost biblical.
People claim it was a failure of an idea for FDR but forget that it became unnecessary for FDR since some of the Justices FDR was against chose to retire and he ended up picking most of the Court's nine Jusices then anyway.
If ACB is approved then SCOTUS could have a GOP majority from existing Justices alone, if they choose not to retire, for the next 30 plus years. Plus you would expect if they do choose to retire they'll retire when the GOP controls the Senate and Oval Office, as Ginsburg probably should have done in Obama's era.
Packing the court would rectify what the GOP has done, otherwise they could face a decades-long permanent conservative majority because the GOP were prepared to push and change the rules but they weren't.
Sssh!
I take it the BC election isn't featuring on the news?
It'll probably be of more import than the gubernatorials on the East Coast.
The focus has seemed to be on the Excel file debacle, but the true story is that we're now running at close to 12,000 cases per day by the latest (complete) specimen dates. That removes my hope that the rate of cases increasing was slowing significantly. The slowdown hypothesis was apparently supported by ONS and Imperial studies, while also coinciding with when we would have expected a slowdown from the 'rule of six' rule coming into place, but it seems it was too good to be true.
Now it's possible that this increase is driven by schools and universities going back, but in any case it shows the difficulty of keeping a lid on cases while retaining some semblance of normality. It now seems very likely that "true" (ONS) cases will be close to 20,000 per day once the current period is covered in their report in a couple of weeks. Given that's close to 1% of the UK population per month, I can't help but think that tighter restrictions are coming up before the year is out once hospitalisations have risen by enough.
In the near term, I wouldn't be surprised if at least some parts of London joins the local lockdown later this week or next given recent data.
Offshore would be OK. That will stop the Spanish trawlers too.
If we could get tidal stream energy working that could be huge . It might eventually add a few milliseconds on to each day though!
Is anyone actually paying any attention to Biden in this election campaign?
https://twitter.com/jonlemire/status/1313252541652709377?s=21