Ipsos MORI Politics + Society podcast. US election special. Can Trump turn it around? – politicalbet

System

Ipsos MORI Politics + Society podcast. US election special. Can Trump turn it around? – politicalbetting.com

pic.twitter.com/g5lGbRG4aE

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

First.

kle4

He can. I hope he won't. Currently I don't think he will. Interesting to see what paths the podcast thinks he might have yet.

kle4

FPT

Omnium said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1314184430408413184?s=20

They will not be able to force anyone to do anything.
"They won't have the power to take enforcement action. If there are particularly egregious examples, they would need to escalate that to the police."

They can inform the police on those not wearing facemasks, not social distancing etc so the police can then fine them.

The police cannot be everywhere at once

Here we go again.The police cannot enforce laws which don’t exist and there are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres away from anyone else. Guidelines are not laws and you cannot be fined for ignoring them. Nor do the police (let alone Covid Marshalls) have the right to go into your home to see how many people are there with you.

The Metropolitan Police are, once again, misleading Londoners about the law. I know we have a government which has a disregard for the law but we do not - yet - live in a lawless society where the police can just do what the hell they like.

Government Regulations came into force in late September actually giving the police the legal power to impose fines for failing to quarantine, wear facemasks where required to or breaching the rule of 6

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-what-lockdown-breaches-can-you-be-fined-for-12077642

Read my email. There are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres apart or to wash your hands and yet the Metropolitan Police are misleading the public by claiming that there are and that they will “enforce” such laws. Nor do they have the power to enter someone’s home to enforce the Rule of 6.

I quite like the Metropolitan Police. If they say something then mostly that's fine for me, at least in the short term.

Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.

You what? It's precisely because I am a law abiding person that I for one am so keen that the police, when enforcing the law, get it right.

Not caring if they do get it right is not abiding by the law, it is actually enabling unlawful behaviour by the police. They act within the bounds of the law, and have been granted authority over us as a result, so it is one area where it is quite reasonable for us to expect them to act only within those bounds and to err on the side of caution rather than assume powers that don't exist.

I am really surprised that being 'picky' about the police following the law is apparently not something law abiding people want.

NerysHughes

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139048/coronavirus-case-rates-in-the-past-7-days-in-europe-by-country/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54250626

If you add the South West to the South East figure that would equate to less than 15 cases per 100000

Malmesbury's wonderful daily breakdown shows this clearly.

The North/South divide on Covid is extraordinary and I can find no explanantion for it.

kle4

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

LadyG said:

Didn't realise France has it even worse than us

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1314226891210084354?s=20

Presumably just running a few days ahead? It's definitely not far off the top rung of poor performers along with us and Spain though. And all without Boris and Dido.

Can we export them both to France and see whether they make it worse or better? My bet might be on the former

No takers I imagine. But the point is people like them are clearly not the only problem.

No, but they do a damn good job at exacerbating said problem. France has its own issues I am sure, but pointing to their incompetence does not let our so-called leader, and for that matter our much loved institutions (yep, the NHS), off the hook.

Would never suggest it does, although it may mean that people sometimes overegg assessment of some of our ills (or at least to what extent it is down purely to person due to personal distaste of those involved.

Benpointer said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

LostPassword said:

NickPalmer said:

LostPassword said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Both Sky, BBC and The Piers Moron Show are guilty of this, increasingly they invite people on with very extreme views and then claim balance. So you get the Churchill was nothing but a racist vs Churchill never did a single thing wrong shout-athon.

We are seeing it now with COVID, we have the lockdown absolutists vs the likes of Gupta or Sikora getting an incredible amount of airtime.

Yes. It means the boring problems in the middle - of making sure that people isolate when asked to do so, even if they don't have symptoms - are not receiving the attention that they need.

It's incredibly frustrating that Gupta is still being treated as someone with any credibility when the predictions she made during the first wave have been so comprehensively contradicted by subsequent events.

But the need for a fake balance comes before everything.

Yes, it's fake balance but also because the media always look for the splashier story. A moderate opinion is seen as intrinsically less interesting. A lot of media analysis becomes clearer if one thinks of the media as primarily a branch of the entertainment industry.

Well, maybe, but why is that so?

It seems to come back to Rory Stewart's observation of a lack of seriousness. All the quibbling over minutiae during the Covid crisis is another sign.

If we can't be a bit serious a bit of the time about politics and our governance, then that's it for democracy.

I miss Rory. We need people like him in Parliament.

Old Etonians? Oxford PPE graduates? Spies?

While it should not be the case that people who are Etonians with their natural sense of superiority are promoted to positions of responsibility when they have little else to offer (yes I am referring to Johnson), it would be equally ridiculous if we ignored people who are genuinely good who went there. IMO Rory Stewart is genuinely one of the latter variety. Your post smacks of silly small minded inverted snobbery.

The problem is, how do you determine who the genuinely good people are?

You listen to me, obviously

isam

https://twitter.com/hector_drummond/status/1314243232629481472?s=20

Pro_Rata

This chart, linked within the Unicovid earlier, details 7717 cases in the biggest English university hotspots over 7 days (all 20% student MSOAs with over 30 cases)

https://twitter.com/carlbaker/status/1314197408197140485?s=09

Total cases for England over same sample date range = 69205.

Casino_Royale

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

TheScreamingEagles

'Come to flat 8, we've all got Rona'... Self-isolating students at Manchester University host 'Covid Positive' parties

'There's a fear if you don't go out you will be alone'

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/come-flat-8-weve-rona-19069350

algarkirk

kle4 said:

FPT

Omnium said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1314184430408413184?s=20

They will not be able to force anyone to do anything.
"They won't have the power to take enforcement action. If there are particularly egregious examples, they would need to escalate that to the police."

They can inform the police on those not wearing facemasks, not social distancing etc so the police can then fine them.

The police cannot be everywhere at once

Here we go again.The police cannot enforce laws which don’t exist and there are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres away from anyone else. Guidelines are not laws and you cannot be fined for ignoring them. Nor do the police (let alone Covid Marshalls) have the right to go into your home to see how many people are there with you.

The Metropolitan Police are, once again, misleading Londoners about the law. I know we have a government which has a disregard for the law but we do not - yet - live in a lawless society where the police can just do what the hell they like.

Government Regulations came into force in late September actually giving the police the legal power to impose fines for failing to quarantine, wear facemasks where required to or breaching the rule of 6

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-what-lockdown-breaches-can-you-be-fined-for-12077642

Read my email. There are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres apart or to wash your hands and yet the Metropolitan Police are misleading the public by claiming that there are and that they will “enforce” such laws. Nor do they have the power to enter someone’s home to enforce the Rule of 6.

I quite like the Metropolitan Police. If they say something then mostly that's fine for me, at least in the short term.

Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.

You what? It's precisely because I am a law abiding person that I for one am so keen that the police, when enforcing the law, get it right.

Not caring if they do get it right is not abiding by the law, it is actually enabling unlawful behaviour by the police. They act within the bounds of the law, and have been granted authority over us as a result, so it is one area where it is quite reasonable for us to expect them to act only within those bounds and to err on the side of caution rather than assume powers that don't exist.

I am really surprised that being 'picky' about the police following the law is apparently not something law abiding people want.

Yes. The power of arrest, detention, investigation, charge and so on gives police a very special set of powers and duties. People go to prison for stuff the police arrest for and investigate. The least a free society can ask is that what constitutes a crime is clear and well understood and is not some murky area of behaviour that a particular police officer happens not much to like. It can also ask that parliament agrees with what is designated as a criminal offence and that ministers can't make it up as they go along. Which is currently happening.

HYUFD

Trump is currently polling about 42% from 46% in 2016, he has lost suburban women and independent voters to Biden in particular unless he wins them back hard to see how he turns it around

FrancisUrquhart

Rather than the plastic police running around shouting at people without a mask or mingling too closely on the street, this is the sort of thing that needs serious legal punishment.

Dozens of revellers pack into illegal boat party rave in North London as organisers demand anyone attending must DELETE the NHS Test and Trace app before boarding

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8819681/North-London-rave-Dozens-revellers-pack-illegal-boat-party.html

Benpointer

QTWTAIN barring a black swan event. And even then, we've just had one of those and it only seems to have helped Biden.

Cyclefree

kle4 said:

FPT

Omnium said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1314184430408413184?s=20

They will not be able to force anyone to do anything.
"They won't have the power to take enforcement action. If there are particularly egregious examples, they would need to escalate that to the police."

They can inform the police on those not wearing facemasks, not social distancing etc so the police can then fine them.

The police cannot be everywhere at once

Here we go again.The police cannot enforce laws which don’t exist and there are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres away from anyone else. Guidelines are not laws and you cannot be fined for ignoring them. Nor do the police (let alone Covid Marshalls) have the right to go into your home to see how many people are there with you.

The Metropolitan Police are, once again, misleading Londoners about the law. I know we have a government which has a disregard for the law but we do not - yet - live in a lawless society where the police can just do what the hell they like.

Government Regulations came into force in late September actually giving the police the legal power to impose fines for failing to quarantine, wear facemasks where required to or breaching the rule of 6

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-what-lockdown-breaches-can-you-be-fined-for-12077642

Read my email. There are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres apart or to wash your hands and yet the Metropolitan Police are misleading the public by claiming that there are and that they will “enforce” such laws. Nor do they have the power to enter someone’s home to enforce the Rule of 6.

I quite like the Metropolitan Police. If they say something then mostly that's fine for me, at least in the short term.

Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.

You what? It's precisely because I am a law abiding person that I for one am so keen that the police, when enforcing the law, get it right.

Not caring if they do get it right is not abiding by the law, it is actually enabling unlawful behaviour by the police. They act within the bounds of the law, and have been granted authority over us as a result, so it is one area where it is quite reasonable for us to expect them to act only within those bounds and to err on the side of caution rather than assume powers that don't exist.

I am really surprised that being 'picky' about the police following the law is apparently not something law abiding people want.

As a law-abiding person I expect the police, above all, to abide by the law. For them to misrepresent what the law is and threaten the public with non-existent laws are very unpleasant actions indeed.

Or do I have to remind you of this - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/lockdown-blues/ - when a policeman threatened a member of the public with making up evidence to get his own way.

Plus what @algarkirk said.

And am reposting this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/04/01/taking-liberties/ - as it continues to be relevant. Sadly.

Philip_Thompson

Benpointer said:

QTWTAIN barring a black swan event. And even then, we've just had one of those and it only seems to have helped Biden.

100% agreed.

Are we allowed to use the phrase black swan in 2020 or is it politically incorrect?

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

First.

He is in the vicinity of the docks already.

Benpointer

Biden has wisely said he'll turn up for the scheduled debates but won't add a new one on 29th October.

18:07 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/oct/08/kamala-harris-mike-pence-debate-donald-trump-coronavirus-covid-19-joe-biden-us-election-live-updates

Cyclefree

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

QTWTAIN barring a black swan event. And even then, we've just had one of those and it only seems to have helped Biden.

100% agreed.

Are we allowed to use the phrase black swan in 2020 or is it politically incorrect?

I wish I were as confident as you.

Why not? Black swans are special and very elegant creatures.

Foxy

TheScreamingEagles said:

'Come to flat 8, we've all got Rona'... Self-isolating students at Manchester University host 'Covid Positive' parties

'There's a fear if you don't go out you will be alone'

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/come-flat-8-weve-rona-19069350

Perhaps not wise:

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1314251365456240643?s=19

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

First.

He is in the vicinity of the docks already.

I'm writing a thread where I've convinced Trump will win* by fair means.

*Win the electoral college, not the popular vote.

Benpointer

Any update on how many votes have already been cast? I can't find the link to the site that was tracking it.

isam

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

FPT

Omnium said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1314184430408413184?s=20

They will not be able to force anyone to do anything.
"They won't have the power to take enforcement action. If there are particularly egregious examples, they would need to escalate that to the police."

They can inform the police on those not wearing facemasks, not social distancing etc so the police can then fine them.

The police cannot be everywhere at once

Here we go again.The police cannot enforce laws which don’t exist and there are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres away from anyone else. Guidelines are not laws and you cannot be fined for ignoring them. Nor do the police (let alone Covid Marshalls) have the right to go into your home to see how many people are there with you.

The Metropolitan Police are, once again, misleading Londoners about the law. I know we have a government which has a disregard for the law but we do not - yet - live in a lawless society where the police can just do what the hell they like.

Government Regulations came into force in late September actually giving the police the legal power to impose fines for failing to quarantine, wear facemasks where required to or breaching the rule of 6

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-what-lockdown-breaches-can-you-be-fined-for-12077642

Read my email. There are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres apart or to wash your hands and yet the Metropolitan Police are misleading the public by claiming that there are and that they will “enforce” such laws. Nor do they have the power to enter someone’s home to enforce the Rule of 6.

I quite like the Metropolitan Police. If they say something then mostly that's fine for me, at least in the short term.

Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.

You what? It's precisely because I am a law abiding person that I for one am so keen that the police, when enforcing the law, get it right.

Not caring if they do get it right is not abiding by the law, it is actually enabling unlawful behaviour by the police. They act within the bounds of the law, and have been granted authority over us as a result, so it is one area where it is quite reasonable for us to expect them to act only within those bounds and to err on the side of caution rather than assume powers that don't exist.

I am really surprised that being 'picky' about the police following the law is apparently not something law abiding people want.

As a law-abiding person I expect the police, above all, to abide by the law. For them to misrepresent what the law is and threaten the public with non-existent laws are very unpleasant actions indeed.

Or do I have to remind you of this - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/lockdown-blues/ - when a policeman threatened a member of the public with making up evidence to get his own way.

Plus what @algarkirk said.

And am reposting this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/04/01/taking-liberties/ - as it continues to be relevant. Sadly.

https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1314236450796339200?s=20

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1314247475994259456?s=20

Omnium

FPT

@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.

For me, this is true.

Northern_Al

HYUFD said:

Trump is currently polling about 42% from 46% in 2016, he has lost suburban women and independent voters to Biden in particular unless he wins them back hard to see how he turns it around

I agree. I wonder if calling Kamala Harris a "monster" and other general abuse will help or hinder Trump in winning over suburban women?

Elenion211

Benpointer said:

Any update on how many votes have already been cast? I can't find the link to the site that was tracking it.

6.3+ M, according to @electproject

nico679

So a bunch of Trump supporters wanted to kidnap the Dem governor of Michigan , this is the same lot of scum that turned up at the state capital building moaning about the restrictions.

Stocky

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

First.

He is in the vicinity of the docks already.

I'm writing a thread where I've convinced Trump will win* by fair means.

*Win the electoral college, not the popular vote.

You serious?

Carnyx

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

QTWTAIN barring a black swan event. And even then, we've just had one of those and it only seems to have helped Biden.

100% agreed.

Are we allowed to use the phrase black swan in 2020 or is it politically incorrect?

I remember being very surprised to see neatly particoloured black-and-white swans in the moat at Eltham Palace.

ydoethur

isam said:

https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1314236450796339200?s=20

He’s broadly right, but there’s a ‘should’ missing between ‘police’ and ‘enforce.’

Unless he doesn’t quite understand and thinks they really do enforce the law without fear or favour...

Malmesbury

UK cases by specimen date

Benpointer

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

QTWTAIN barring a black swan event. And even then, we've just had one of those and it only seems to have helped Biden.

100% agreed.

Are we allowed to use the phrase black swan in 2020 or is it politically incorrect?

I was at a quiz night in a local restaurant this week. The (presumably professional) quizmaster started the evening with a bit of chat and then asked the nearly entirely white, middle-aged, rural audience: "Now, I don't need to be politically correct tonight do I?"

There was an awkward silence before somebody at the back piped-up: "Yes please, if you don't mind." followed by a "Hear-hear".

The quizmaster got the message.

It actually made me feel quite proud of my fellow community.

Malmesbury

UK cases by specimen data and scaled to 100K population

Malmesbury

London cases scaled to 100k population

Malmesbury

UK case summary

Daveyboy1961

Malmesbury said:

UK cases by specimen data and scaled to 100K population

Is there any chance these numbers can show a consistent no of dec places? For a nerd like me it looks so sloppy. These weren't from a csv file by chance?

Malmesbury

UK Hospitals

Malmesbury

UK Deaths

algarkirk

Cyclefree said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

QTWTAIN barring a black swan event. And even then, we've just had one of those and it only seems to have helped Biden.

100% agreed.

Are we allowed to use the phrase black swan in 2020 or is it politically incorrect?

I wish I were as confident as you.

Why not? Black swans are special and very elegant creatures.

And are important in the history of the philosophy of science as real example of the (insoluble) problem of induction, and whether we can actually know any general truths from finite instances.

Malmesbury

Daveyboy1961 said:

Malmesbury said:

UK cases by specimen data and scaled to 100K population

Is there any chance these numbers can show a consistent no of dec places? For a nerd like me it looks so sloppy. These weren't from a csv file by chance?

JSON actually.

I can't be that bothered to format the output xlsx file that much - it outputs to that because a friend who was asking for the data is an Excel addict, and it was simple way to create the graphs for him.

kinabalu

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

Andy_Cooke

isam said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

FPT

Omnium said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1314184430408413184?s=20

They will not be able to force anyone to do anything.
"They won't have the power to take enforcement action. If there are particularly egregious examples, they would need to escalate that to the police."

They can inform the police on those not wearing facemasks, not social distancing etc so the police can then fine them.

The police cannot be everywhere at once

Here we go again.The police cannot enforce laws which don’t exist and there are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres away from anyone else. Guidelines are not laws and you cannot be fined for ignoring them. Nor do the police (let alone Covid Marshalls) have the right to go into your home to see how many people are there with you.

The Metropolitan Police are, once again, misleading Londoners about the law. I know we have a government which has a disregard for the law but we do not - yet - live in a lawless society where the police can just do what the hell they like.

Government Regulations came into force in late September actually giving the police the legal power to impose fines for failing to quarantine, wear facemasks where required to or breaching the rule of 6

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-what-lockdown-breaches-can-you-be-fined-for-12077642

Read my email. There are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres apart or to wash your hands and yet the Metropolitan Police are misleading the public by claiming that there are and that they will “enforce” such laws. Nor do they have the power to enter someone’s home to enforce the Rule of 6.

I quite like the Metropolitan Police. If they say something then mostly that's fine for me, at least in the short term.

Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.

You what? It's precisely because I am a law abiding person that I for one am so keen that the police, when enforcing the law, get it right.

Not caring if they do get it right is not abiding by the law, it is actually enabling unlawful behaviour by the police. They act within the bounds of the law, and have been granted authority over us as a result, so it is one area where it is quite reasonable for us to expect them to act only within those bounds and to err on the side of caution rather than assume powers that don't exist.

I am really surprised that being 'picky' about the police following the law is apparently not something law abiding people want.

As a law-abiding person I expect the police, above all, to abide by the law. For them to misrepresent what the law is and threaten the public with non-existent laws are very unpleasant actions indeed.

Or do I have to remind you of this - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/lockdown-blues/ - when a policeman threatened a member of the public with making up evidence to get his own way.

Plus what @algarkirk said.

And am reposting this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/04/01/taking-liberties/ - as it continues to be relevant. Sadly.

https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1314236450796339200?s=20

And he and Young and Pearson remain staggeringly unselfaware of the fact that it is precisely them and their followers that make any Swedish-style restriction level impossible. Because they will loudly refuse to follow any level of restrictions and encourage as many people as possible to do likewise.

So we end up with harsher and longer restrictions, policed more strongly than we otherwise would.

Ironic, really.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

First.

He is in the vicinity of the docks already.

I'm writing a thread where I've convinced Trump will win* by fair means.

*Win the electoral college, not the popular vote.

Convinced whom ?

TheScreamingEagles

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

First.

He is in the vicinity of the docks already.

I'm writing a thread where I've convinced Trump will win* by fair means.

*Win the electoral college, not the popular vote.

Convinced whom ?

Myself.

MrEd

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

isam

Andy_Cooke said:

isam said:

Cyclefree said:

kle4 said:

FPT

Omnium said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1314184430408413184?s=20

They will not be able to force anyone to do anything.
"They won't have the power to take enforcement action. If there are particularly egregious examples, they would need to escalate that to the police."

They can inform the police on those not wearing facemasks, not social distancing etc so the police can then fine them.

The police cannot be everywhere at once

Here we go again.The police cannot enforce laws which don’t exist and there are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres away from anyone else. Guidelines are not laws and you cannot be fined for ignoring them. Nor do the police (let alone Covid Marshalls) have the right to go into your home to see how many people are there with you.

The Metropolitan Police are, once again, misleading Londoners about the law. I know we have a government which has a disregard for the law but we do not - yet - live in a lawless society where the police can just do what the hell they like.

Government Regulations came into force in late September actually giving the police the legal power to impose fines for failing to quarantine, wear facemasks where required to or breaching the rule of 6

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-what-lockdown-breaches-can-you-be-fined-for-12077642

Read my email. There are no laws requiring you to be 2 metres apart or to wash your hands and yet the Metropolitan Police are misleading the public by claiming that there are and that they will “enforce” such laws. Nor do they have the power to enter someone’s home to enforce the Rule of 6.

I quite like the Metropolitan Police. If they say something then mostly that's fine for me, at least in the short term.

Trying to be picky about whether the police have got it quite right strikes me as unpleasant, and not the mindset of a law-abiding person.

You what? It's precisely because I am a law abiding person that I for one am so keen that the police, when enforcing the law, get it right.

Not caring if they do get it right is not abiding by the law, it is actually enabling unlawful behaviour by the police. They act within the bounds of the law, and have been granted authority over us as a result, so it is one area where it is quite reasonable for us to expect them to act only within those bounds and to err on the side of caution rather than assume powers that don't exist.

I am really surprised that being 'picky' about the police following the law is apparently not something law abiding people want.

As a law-abiding person I expect the police, above all, to abide by the law. For them to misrepresent what the law is and threaten the public with non-existent laws are very unpleasant actions indeed.

Or do I have to remind you of this - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/lockdown-blues/ - when a policeman threatened a member of the public with making up evidence to get his own way.

Plus what @algarkirk said.

And am reposting this - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/04/01/taking-liberties/ - as it continues to be relevant. Sadly.

https://twitter.com/ClarkeMicah/status/1314236450796339200?s=20

And he and Young and Pearson remain staggeringly unselfaware of the fact that it is precisely them and their followers that make any Swedish-style restriction level impossible. Because they will loudly refuse to follow any level of restrictions and encourage as many people as possible to do likewise.

So we end up with harsher and longer restrictions, policed more strongly than we otherwise would.

Ironic, really.

Could you list the restrictions Peter Hitchens refusing to follow, please?

Foxy

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

MrEd

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

pm215

Omnium said:

@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.

You seem to me to have the causality the wrong way around. If the police are such that wrongdoing does not occur in their midst (and if it does they come down on it like a ton of bricks), then they are likely to be honoured and respected. But the views of the public about the police aren't going to be a big factor in whether the force is a nest of corruption or not -- that is more down to internal culture and whether those who try it on get away with it or not.

MikeSmithson

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

The more Trump interjects and speaks over Biden and the moderator the more it reinforces the white women who have turned against him which is the big voting dynamic of this campaign. Trump's macho aggression is a big turn off to women.

Malmesbury

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

"I am the generous candidate - my opponent is sick. So I offer a delay to fight him on level terms"

kinabalu

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

QTWTAIN barring a black swan event. And even then, we've just had one of those and it only seems to have helped Biden.

100% agreed.

Are we allowed to use the phrase black swan in 2020 or is it politically incorrect?

I was at a quiz night in a local restaurant this week. The (presumably professional) quizmaster started the evening with a bit of chat and then asked the nearly entirely white, middle-aged, rural audience: "Now, I don't need to be politically correct tonight do I?"

There was an awkward silence before somebody at the back piped-up: "Yes please, if you don't mind." followed by a "Hear-hear".

The quizmaster got the message.

It actually made me feel quite proud of my fellow community.

Fabulous. ☺☺

That’s what national "greatness" is.

Omnium

pm215 said:

Omnium said:

@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.

You seem to me to have the causality the wrong way around. If the police are such that wrongdoing does not occur in their midst (and if it does they come down on it like a ton of bricks), then they are likely to be honoured and respected. But the views of the public about the police aren't going to be a big factor in whether the force is a nest of corruption or not -- that is more down to internal culture and whether those who try it on get away with it or not.

Do what the police say. See how it works out.

alex_

Blood tests being cancelled all over the country because of shortages of testing diagnostic kit.

MrEd

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.

But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?

Nigelb

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

He still has 40% or so of the US electorate persuaded to vote for him.
It’s not astounding that some people are still convinced he’ll win.

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

First.

He is in the vicinity of the docks already.

I'm writing a thread where I've convinced Trump will win* by fair means.

*Win the electoral college, not the popular vote.

Convinced whom ?

Myself.

Sounds like a painful exercise.

TimT

Malmesbury said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

"I am the generous candidate - my opponent is sick. So I offer a delay to fight him on level terms"

I am the confident, lucid candidate. What is Trump afraid of? That he can't win a debate?

It goes a long way to diffusing whatever traction Trump's attack line has about Biden being not up to it mentally

Foxy

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.

But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?

He will win again because he is on top of his brief, and Trump has more than a few screws loose.

When people see Joe, he grows on them, when they see Trump they are repelled.

Nigelb

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.

But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?

Because there’s also a risk in going into hiding.
I suspect you would be among those drawing conclusions were he to refuse to debate.

Nigelb

alex_ said:

Blood tests being cancelled all over the country because of shortages of testing diagnostic kit.

Is that the Roche warehousing problems still ?

Nigelb

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

You don’t think there are a very large number of people fed up of Trump’s schtick ?
I think the 18-35 turnout might be surprisingly high on this basis,

Cyclefree

Omnium said:

FPT

@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.

For me, this is true.

In an ideal world. But I am afraid that wrongdoing has been endemic in many parts of the police for decades now, including the Met - and very recently.

See https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/17/a-toxic-culture/ and http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/10/13/the-tyranny-of-low-expectations/.

IshmaelZ

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.

But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?

If he offers and the debate doesn't happen, that's a win. (trump looks sick or frightened). If the debate happens and he wins, that's a win. If it happens and he loses that's a lose. More good outcomes than bad, and he obviously thinks the odds overall are in his favour.

CarlottaVance

Sounded breathy in parts:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1314252606110412806?s=20

alex_

Nigelb said:

alex_ said:

Blood tests being cancelled all over the country because of shortages of testing diagnostic kit.

Is that the Roche warehousing problems still ?

Yep. Apparently being restricted to emergencies only. In parts of London anyway.

kinabalu

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

Trump is done, Ed. If you think he isn't, back him. Why are you giving me betting advice when you aren't doing any? I don't need advice unless I ask for it. I know - I know - that America cannot and will not give this ridiculous character a 2nd term. This has been clear to me for a long long time. The polls have simply caught me up. I'm not led by the polls. The polls are led by me. I am spooky at this stuff. I called the Brexit outcome right. I called the Johnson landslide. In both cases early and in both cases made loads. And I got the Arc winner on Sunday - ante post at 20/1. ☺

Alistair

I am shocked, shocked that the person who thought the GOP would retain their house majority in 2018 thinks Trump will win this November.

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

You aren't on the ground.

And you tipped John James to win in Michigan and the GOP to retain their majority in the house on the basis of not believing the polls in 2018 as well based on feeling the polls didn't reflect the feeling on the ground.

MrEd

IshmaelZ said:

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.

But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?

If he offers and the debate doesn't happen, that's a win. (trump looks sick or frightened). If the debate happens and he wins, that's a win. If it happens and he loses that's a lose. More good outcomes than bad, and he obviously thinks the odds overall are in his favour.

And, if that is what he is thinking, then fair enough. But it's a risk. If he believes he has the lead the polls say he does, and with their implied stability, it seems odd with the prize some close at grasp.

Omnium

Cyclefree said:

Omnium said:

FPT

@Cyclefree I'd mostly like to see the police sufficiently honoured and respected that it was inconceivable that wrongdoing would occur in their midst.

For me, this is true.

In an ideal world. But I am afraid that wrongdoing has been endemic in many parts of the police for decades now, including the Met - and very recently.

See https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/01/17/a-toxic-culture/ and http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/10/13/the-tyranny-of-low-expectations/.

Yep. I choose to disregard that though. I choose to do so because I want to believe wholeheartedly in the police.

MrEd

Nigelb said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

You don’t think there are a very large number of people fed up of Trump’s schtick ?
I think the 18-35 turnout might be surprisingly high on this basis,

Could be. But you wouldn't put your mortgage on Biden not making a slip up.

It's also a Town Hall debate-style, give Joe a couple of minutes to talk, chances are he gets through but there's a chance at some point he wonders. On National TV.

Anabobazina

I note certain PBers are projecting their own views about who won various debates, despite the widespread and easily accessible data which tells us who the US electorate consider to have won said debates.

Sagand

Nate Silver posted this in May 2017.
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/861945983143469056?s=20
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/861948043565969409?s=20
I'd argue it has held for UK election 2017 & 2019, Irish abortion referendum and Australian 2019 election. If it is to hold for US election 2020 it'd be Biden performing at or over the polls.

FrancisUrquhart

Anabobazina said:

I note certain PBers are projecting their own views about who won various debates, despite the widespread and easily accessible data which tells us who the US electorate consider to have won said debates.

Yeah but we can't trust the plebs opinion on anything, they always get it wrong....

Elenion211

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

Imho Biden was suggsting the second debate to take place on October 22, ie instead of third debate. The townhall format probably suits him more.

Anabobazina

MrEd said:

Nigelb said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

You don’t think there are a very large number of people fed up of Trump’s schtick ?
I think the 18-35 turnout might be surprisingly high on this basis,

Could be. But you wouldn't put your mortgage on Biden not making a slip up.

It's also a Town Hall debate-style, give Joe a couple of minutes to talk, chances are he gets through but there's a chance at some point he wonders. On National TV.

“So you’re telling me there’s a chance?

https://youtu.be/gqdNe8u-Jsg

OllyT

deleted

CorrectHorseBattery

MrEd is trying to be the next OverconfidentHorseBattery!

Nigelb

MrEd said:

Nigelb said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

You don’t think there are a very large number of people fed up of Trump’s schtick ?
I think the 18-35 turnout might be surprisingly high on this basis,

Could be. But you wouldn't put your mortgage on Biden not making a slip up.

It's also a Town Hall debate-style, give Joe a couple of minutes to talk, chances are he gets through but there's a chance at some point he wonders. On National TV.

Thanks to the Betfair EV market, I don’t need to.

But the point is surely that someone saying they want to be President for the next four years really can’t hide away for the next month.
That is one thing which might just eat into his lead.

williamglenn

Trigger warning for @welshowl

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1314219770347163651

MrEd

Alistair said:

I am shocked, shocked that the person who thought the GOP would retain their house majority in 2018 thinks Trump will win this November.

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

You aren't on the ground.

And you tipped John James to win in Michigan and the GOP to retain their majority in the house on the basis of not believing the polls in 2018 as well based on feeling the polls didn't reflect the feeling on the ground.

I did indeed say that the Republicans would win the House in 2018 - in fact, I put up a post about it, which is below.

Not sure I said John James would win, more that he had more of a chance than people thought and the results showed he did better than expected (but show me if I did, I just haven't got the time). I did get the Republicans keeping the Senate and got some calls rights (eg Florida) but not all.

Anything else?

Oh, and what is your betting record like? Mine (at that point) at the bottom of that post for disclosure

Why betting on the Republicans in the House mid-terms may be the right strategy

The consensual view on the November mid-terms has been that the Democrats are favourites to win back the House in November.It is almost a given that a party that holds the White House loses seats - Clinton and Bush picked up a few seats in 1998 and 2002 but under unusual circumstances (pushback against Impeachment for Clinton, the aftermath of 9/11 for Bush). Trump disgust is seen as a powerful force for Democrats to turn out and independents to switch sides. The Mueller probe casts a shadow over the Presidency. Moreover, the Maths seem to favour the Democrats. Democrats have to win 23 seats, fewer than the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 and the Republicans in 2010. There are 23 seats where Clinton won in 2016 but where there are Republican House members. Pennsylvania's court ruling helps the Democrats in several seats. Special elections in Arizona and Pennsylvania (Conor Lamb) show a swing to the Dems.

However, I think the value is more in the Republicans winning the House, which you can get for 5/4 at Ladbrokes. First, the Democrats lead in the Generic polls is shrinking. As Mike said, it is down to 3.4% and on a downward trend. The quite frequent double-digit Democrat poll leads have disappeared (the last one was in late April) and there is a question whether the Democrats are suffering from Labour's problem over here in that it is building up huge but useless majorities in safe seats, which could exaggerate their position.

Second, the economy is improving and Trump is getting the credit. According to CBS, 64% rate the economy as doing well or very well and, importantly, 68% credit Trump's policies, either strongly or somewhat, with that strength. GDP growth, jobs growth, wage growth all point to a buoyant US economy and Trump's ratings are improving, 44% on average think he is doing a good job, not great but not disastrous.

Third, the Republicans are far ahead of the Democrats on fundraising,. Up to and including April, they had raised c. $185m and plan to spend $250m on the election. Republican turnout in primaries is up substantially (61% up in West Virginia, 43% in Indiana and 48% in Ohio) and the ground machine looks well prepared and slick. Democrats do have their strengths and, while the national party is in debt, local candidates have been well funded. However, that is a problem because it makes it far easier for the Republicans to shift resources to well needed.

Fourth is impeachment. While Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi states impeachment of Trump is not on the table, that message is constantly undermined by activities and other influential Democrats such as Maxime Waters who says a Democrat-controlled House will push for it. That is a problem, it fires up Republicans to turn out and it alienates swing voters. The more talk of impeachment, the more likely swing voters will stick with the lesser of two evils, essentially in a strong economy.

Finally, I think there will be a "wild card" and that is the Mueller investigation but not in the way you may think. The increasing narrative on the Republican side is that, yes, there is a scandal bigger than Watergate but that scandal is the Obama Administration deliberately placed spies in the Trump campaign in 2016 to spy on his campaign (FWIW, the fact both the NY Times and Washington Post are quoting sources saying, yes, there was a source inputted but it was for the good of Trump etc suggests there is something that is about to come out). The narrative is already firing up Republicans, and if anything fishy comes out, is likely to impact swing voters.

If you do not want to take the risk on the House, then the 4/7 on the Republicans with more than 50 Senate seats on Ladbrokes looks a very safe bet. Ticket splitting is getting rarer and Trump has delivered to the conservatives on judicial appointments. With a fair chance, there could be at least one Supreme Court justice retiring, that gives an incentives to turn out. The Republicans have learnt from the Moore fiasco in Alabama and gone for sensible choices in WV, OH and ID. The Dems only hopes are Nevada and Arizona, and the latter seems too much of a push. The Republicans, on the other hand, would seem to have a very good chance in Indiana, West Virginia (depending on the losing Republican primary candidate getting on the ballot), Montana and North Dakota, with Missouri another good option. I have not seen individual state Senate bets but I would go for Rick Scott in Florida, which I think will be another Republican pick-up and Ohio might also be worth a look.

PS for matters of disclosure on whether to listen to me, I won on Brexit and the US Presidentials but did horribly on the 2017 GE ex-TSE's great tip on Scottish Tories


I

kinabalu

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/BigFashionista/status/1313513158171078656

IshmaelZ

MrEd said:

IshmaelZ said:

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.

But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?

If he offers and the debate doesn't happen, that's a win. (trump looks sick or frightened). If the debate happens and he wins, that's a win. If it happens and he loses that's a lose. More good outcomes than bad, and he obviously thinks the odds overall are in his favour.

And, if that is what he is thinking, then fair enough. But it's a risk. If he believes he has the lead the polls say he does, and with their implied stability, it seems odd with the prize some close at grasp.

"It's in the bag anyway" is Theresa May-think. Biden will presumably be looking at private polling (is that more of a consideration over there than here because our public polls are better than theirs?) and private medical opinion on how hard trump has really been hit by covid. Anyway I think more highly of him for it, and I agree it makes a powerful statement that he is not terrified of having a senior moment on air.

OllyT

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

Could you expand on your assertion that despite all the national polling telling pretty much the same story right now, including the GOP leaners like Rasmussen, you are telling us that "it doesn't feel like that on the ground".

Perhaps you could point me to some credible sources where I could read about that. I would like to try to understand it.

MrEd

kinabalu said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

I don't know. It's almost as big a mystery as why you aren't selling Biden EC supremacy at 94.

You know the reason @Kinablu, I still don't feel confident enough to go quids in. How many times do I have to repeat it?

williamglenn

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

All pollsters in 2017 showed a huge Labour surge with both main parties converging around 40%, so if you bet on a thumping majority for May, it can't have been based on a close reading of the polls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

kinabalu

MrEd said:

Nigelb said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

You don’t think there are a very large number of people fed up of Trump’s schtick ?
I think the 18-35 turnout might be surprisingly high on this basis,

Could be. But you wouldn't put your mortgage on Biden not making a slip up.

It's also a Town Hall debate-style, give Joe a couple of minutes to talk, chances are he gets through but there's a chance at some point he wonders. On National TV.

Well you're not putting anything on let alone the mortgage.

MrEd

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MrEd is trying to be the next OverconfidentHorseBattery!

Blimey HorseBattery, that is a mouthful. And are you always correct?!

kinabalu

Alistair said:

I am shocked, shocked that the person who thought the GOP would retain their house majority in 2018 thinks Trump will win this November.

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

You aren't on the ground.

And you tipped John James to win in Michigan and the GOP to retain their majority in the house on the basis of not believing the polls in 2018 as well based on feeling the polls didn't reflect the feeling on the ground.

Guy talks drivel. Polite, artful drivel.

OllyT

MrEd said:

Foxy said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Because he won the last one, and will win the next one?

Whether he "won" is subject to debate. That has been the narrative but, as was pointed out on here, the comments at the time the debate was going on were different from the analysis afterwards. The Republicans felt Trump had won, the Democrats Biden. Swing state polling hasn't really changed that much.

But let's accept your argument: he won the first one. How does he know he will the second? It's not a guarantee. He may make a slip up; he may tell Black people again they have to vote Democrat; he may repeat his remarks at a Florida school that were actually quite creepy. He's not guaranteed as a slam dunk to win a debate. So why risk it if he has such a lead?

It's only "subject to debate" if you choose to ignore all the polling on the subject

IshmaelZ

MrEd said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MrEd is trying to be the next OverconfidentHorseBattery!

Blimey HorseBattery, that is a mouthful. And are you always correct?!

look at his avatar, or PB threads last November.

MrEd

Nigelb said:

MrEd said:

Nigelb said:

MrEd said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

Trump probably has a 15% chance now. 20% at best.

So the odds available on Biden are still crazy.

Yes it's odd. Trump should be 6 or 7 and he's 3. Something irrational is supporting the price. Could it be the fear amongst many that he and he alone stands between us and domination by an elite cabal of wealthy liberal child molesters? Because that might not show up in the polls. Not even Rasmussen.

The biggest mistake I have ever made betting wise was with believing Theresa May would win a thumping majority in 2017 because of what the polls were saying. Not all of them, we have debated this before, but a lot of them. What I should have been paying more attention is the mood around me which suggested people were getting tired of May and especially her refusal to turn up for the debate.

I think this is what it feels like here. The polls are saying Biden should be a shoo-in but it doesn't feel like that on the ground. There does not feel like a popular uprising for Biden / Harris and, quite frankly, outside the Coasts and on Twitter, not much up of an uprising against DT

You don’t think there are a very large number of people fed up of Trump’s schtick ?
I think the 18-35 turnout might be surprisingly high on this basis,

Could be. But you wouldn't put your mortgage on Biden not making a slip up.

It's also a Town Hall debate-style, give Joe a couple of minutes to talk, chances are he gets through but there's a chance at some point he wonders. On National TV.

Thanks to the Betfair EV market, I don’t need to.

But the point is surely that someone saying they want to be President for the next four years really can’t hide away for the next month.
That is one thing which might just eat into his lead.

Funnily enough, I'm not assuming anyone would literally put their mortgage on it (although on this site, you never know...)

Well, Biden was stuck in a basement for ages, hasn't really submitted himself to any tough and probing interviews and gets interviewers who softball him questions, so actually he has done a pretty good job at hiding himself away.

But, on a separate note, if hiding away does eat into leads, I better put my money on Collins in Maine and Tillis in NC as both their opponents are doing exactly that.

Philip_Thompson

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Has he done it? Sky News just reported that Trump's campaign requested a delay and Biden's campaign rejected that out of hand.

TimT

MrEd said:

CorrectHorseBattery said:

MrEd is trying to be the next OverconfidentHorseBattery!

Blimey HorseBattery, that is a mouthful. And are you always correct?!

I thought MrEd was a real horse, and did not need a battery ...

TheScreamingEagles

The war on the privately educated continues.

The class ceiling: does the England cricket team suffer for its elitism?

England cricketers are more likely to be privately educated than peers in the House of Lords. Is that a problem?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/08/the-class-ceiling-does-england-cricket-team-suffer-elitism

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1314269428964634626

Andy_JS

TheScreamingEagles said:

The war on the privately educated continues.

The class ceiling: does the England cricket team suffer for its elitism?

England cricketers are more likely to be privately educated than peers in the House of Lords. Is that a problem?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/08/the-class-ceiling-does-england-cricket-team-suffer-elitism

Because about 25 years ago they sold off a lot of the state school playing fields.

No_Offence_Alan

TheScreamingEagles said:

The war on the privately educated continues.

The class ceiling: does the England cricket team suffer for its elitism?

England cricketers are more likely to be privately educated than peers in the House of Lords. Is that a problem?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/oct/08/the-class-ceiling-does-england-cricket-team-suffer-elitism

Wasn't it Labour who sold off most state school playing fields?

MrEd

Philip_Thompson said:

MrEd said:

I've been thinking about the whole thing around the second debate and what happens now. At first, I was with @Peter_the_Punter's view that it was a daft move by Donald but I gradually moved into the camp that it actually made sense, especially if he is still sick but even if he is not - Trump is a physical presence, he relies on physical gestures and - if memory serves me right, the taller of every Presidential candidate has always won at least in the modern era - he's an inch plus taller than Biden. I think it is this rather than whether he is cut off or not (that would be a massive editorial call on the night) that drives his decision.

What I find more interesting though is Biden calling for the second debate to be delayed to accommodate Trump. Now, challengers favour debates because they see it as a way to see as being seen equal and get over the incumbency gap. But not always and particularly if you think you hold the advantage. This is what Sara Gideon has done in Maine - Susan Collins has been calling for more debates with her but Gideon has refused, seemingly viewing that she has the advantage and so why put it at risk from another debate?

In which case, if Joe Biden has such the lead the polls say he has and he knows it, why is he asking for the debate to be delayed? It makes no sense. The easy win would have been to say Trump is chicken and, while Trump would have disputed it, no one on the Democratic side would have taken issue with Biden's description. Logically, Biden's calls to delay the debate rather than allow it to slip and blame Trump make no sense.

So why has he done it?

Has he done it? Sky News just reported that Trump's campaign requested a delay and Biden's campaign rejected that out of hand.

Just looking at Politico, I think it's changed constantly. The headlines I saw earlier said Trump had said no to a virtual debate and Biden then said reschedule it to Oct 22nd, which was meant to be the final debate. Looking now, I see the Republicans came back later and said yes we will take that but on condition we still have a third debate that the final debate be shifted a week back to the 29th. The Democrats have apparently said no to that. So, maybe Biden isn't willing to put himself at risk of a third debate after all.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/08/trump-biden-virtual-second-debate-427810