Categories
Options
Betfair responds to critics over its delay in settling Wh2020 bets – politicalbetting.com
Betfair responds to critics over its delay in settling Wh2020 bets – politicalbetting.com
An update on the US Next President Exchange market.https://t.co/6M0EYzs9if
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"If there is any material change to the established role or any ambiguity as to who occupies the position, then Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled."
I agree they made a mistake by not settling earlier but they are not breaking the whole market information box read as a whole.
PB might be the correct answer I suppose...
South Africa go favourites again.
https://www.idrlabs.com/fascist-elements/test.php
I wonder what Eric Clapton would get?
"There's no hope for my constituents – even if we get our rate down to nothing, we'll still be tied to Leicester. Let those who have tiers shed them."
Telegraph.
While there was whingeing about whether Russia had attempted to sow division in the US (which, by the way, they also do by amplifyng BLM stuff too, so this is hardly one way), there was no attempt to claim by the candidate that the votes cast were invalid.
There is no equivalence here, and your attempt to claim it is staggering.
Biden 1.04
Democrats 1.05
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.05
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.05
Trump ECV 210-239 1.08
Biden ECV 300-329 1.08
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.04
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.05
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.02
AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.05
MI Dem 1.05
NV Dem 1.03
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.05
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.09
Trump exit date 2021 1.07
Do Betfair have a right to take a very broad interpretation? Yes they do, the rule is their reasonable discretion, they are not bound by the most literal or common interpretation of wording given that clause.
Since when are we beholden to U.S. lawyers?
It was an attempt at an awesome pun that has clearly worked about as well as Ben Stokes’ lofted drive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKkAI_e2LiI
Ministers in 2016 really believed that a deal could be negotiated in weeks (days!) because of how closely aligned we were. Rather missing the point that since we were leaving we weren't likely to remain aligned for very much longer - indeed you might have thought that's why we were leaving in the first place.
He also states that he assumed we would be leaving the single market and customs union - wasn't that the logic of wanting to end free movement/budgetary contributions and strike our own trade deals? They aren't the words of someone who was committed to BINO.
What an innings.
Put him back to open.
“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU from 2013 to 2017, tells Andrew Neil that any Brexit deal will be shallow. He also says that their relationship could be characterised as '200 years of misreadings', and that David Cameron was forced to call a referendum after France and Germany tried to block a British veto.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKkAI_e2LiI
I`m not sure what BF are doing speaking to US lawyers. Their holding company has interests in the states, but nothing to do with BF as far as I know. In any case, the legal position between UK punters and BF has nothing to do with US legal opinion. WTF.
We may believe there is no chance the courts will overturn the count and make Trump the projected winner but if they do then Trump would have won.
OK, that’s a bit harsh. But Roy has been woefully out of sorts for ages, and given there are plenty of options available it’s daft to keep playing him when Buttler and Bairstow together should every bowler in world petitioning for their kit to include brown trousers.
Barry Davies as bad as I thought he was, though.
Right from the get go, it was suggested Russia got Trump elected and that was a line of enquiry pursued throughout the years, even when the evidence was increasingly questioned. There are plenty more where these came from:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-helped-to-swing-the-election-for-trump
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/20/us/politics/russia-interference-election-trump-clinton.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania-election-hillary-clinton-hacked-manipulated-donald-trump-swing-states-scientists-lawyers-a7433091.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/this-election-is-being-rigged-but-not-by-hillary-clinton-110025/
You seem to have the view that just because Hillary Clinton conceded meant she accepted the result and didn't claim the election was stolen. That is rot. She clearly was saying her victory was "stolen" in 2019.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/
Just accept it - the Democrats were banging on about a stolen election for 4 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55107473
Incidentally, Ivan Rogers is not at all the arch-Remainer of legend. He just happened to have been talking sense about Brexit.
*buffs shoes*
We vote for populist ninnies (OK, Romford votes for a populist ninny), so people who want to become MPs become more populist and ninny-like to get elected. It's a viscous circle.
Did Clinton moan and call it stolen? Yes
Did she refuse to concede or the Democrats refuse to handover power in normal timescales? No
Did they make a concerted attempt to overturn the electoral vote and leave the Presidency to party hacks? No
There is no equivalence, if Trump was just saying he won and left it at that, it would be a minor grumble, it is the attack on voting as the final decider of the presidency that is the difference. You were telling us this was Trump's plan on election night!
And, quietly, because they're making a mint from it.
And there remains evidence for Russian interference.
The Democrats nonetheless accepted they’d lost the election. Had the impeachment succeeded, Pence would still have been president.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1332360480858501122?s=19
Madonna at number one on BBC4 / Top of the Pops with Vogue. It's 12th April 1990.
More later. Gotta eat.
No loitering for coffee or a postprandial brandy, unless you want the rozzers to feel your collar. The clink of your households synchronised cutlery on the fine porcelain plates must herald a dash for the door.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55109932
https://twitter.com/adamseconomics/status/1332391264289914880
https://twitter.com/adamseconomics/status/1332391265900523520
It's 'breathtaking' corruption, yet they've been unable to prove a damn thing and most of the lawsuits haven't even alleged anything so strong.
Hypothetically if Trump were to win court cases striking out enough "illegal" Biden votes then Trump would become the certified winner of those states. Trump would become the projected winner. Under Betfair's rules Trump would become the winner, before the Electoral College votes and without faithless electors.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
It takes me back to my youth...
It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
It's no good just saying you "tell truth to power". It's how you do it and when you do it, and to what degree, that matters.