Even after 38 court flops and two recounts punters are still ready to bet on Trump and Betfair remai
Options
Even after 38 court flops and two recounts punters are still ready to bet on Trump and Betfair remains open – politicalbetting.com
Chart Betdata.io
0
Comments
-
Lock him up and the Betfair people.0
-
fpt
The government's strategy is fairly easy to understand. It is literally whack a mole. Oh how we laughed when that was used as an example but that is it.
They want to batter down the incidence and they will do this, clumsily as it turns out, by tiers, lockdowns, what-all else. When it comes down they will re-open to allow what economic activity that can exist to exist. And then they batter down again when naturally incidence rises.
So why that? Well first I think they were/are shit-scared of the virus and to start with they weren't sure what or how it would play out. What if no vaccine? Endless rises and falls. Secondly, it is the line, impossible to draw, between allowing what economic activity can take place, and avoiding the scenes we all saw in Italy six months ago when hospitals were overflowing.
However, and this is where @contrarian is a vital voice in all of this, the government has also monumentally fucked up. In communication, in redress, in targeting, and as @contrarian says, in the NHS. I have spoken with consultants who are seething at the lack of work being done in the "normal" NHS.
Where is the new capacity? Nightingale? Anything else? What about a signing on bonus of £XXXXX to nurses and doctors and related disciplines.
Plus the control. Brady is right. This is an unprecedented restriction on freedom and the country, whether because of furlough, or holding on to nurse, has acquiesced in a quite extraordinary way.
And, not least on PB.1 -
If you lock them up, they’ll never pay out.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
1 -
-
-
Trump's still on 6%? Why don't they offer good old Abe Lincoln as a 1% longshot while they're at it?3
-
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.Sandpit said:
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.Malmesbury said:
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.Omnium said:Re Header
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".2 -
I put my money where my mouth is yesterday (just after pay day!) and piled a couple of thousand on (mix of similar markets on states won and EVs won). 7% return in a few days on a certainty can't be bad and will help for Xmas costs.2
-
Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.06
Democrats 1.06
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.06
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.06
Trump ECV 210-239 1.1
Biden ECV 300-329 1.09
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.08
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.06
MI Dem 1.05
NV Dem 1.05
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.05
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.11
Trump exit date 2021 1.09
1 -
Probably tactful not to use "Abe Lincon" and "longshot" in the same sentence.BluestBlue said:Trump's still on 6%? Why don't they offer good old Abe Lincoln as a 1% longshot while they're at it?
1 -
It is quite normal for Newcastle players to pick up the odd infection after a night out in The Toon...tlg86 said:4 -
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?1 -
Too soon?Stuartinromford said:
Probably tactful not to use "Abe Lincon" and "longshot" in the same sentence.BluestBlue said:Trump's still on 6%? Why don't they offer good old Abe Lincoln as a 1% longshot while they're at it?
1 -
Surely an Abe Lincoln bet would be a dead cert, given the short range involved.BluestBlue said:
Too soon?Stuartinromford said:
Probably tactful not to use "Abe Lincon" and "longshot" in the same sentence.BluestBlue said:Trump's still on 6%? Why don't they offer good old Abe Lincoln as a 1% longshot while they're at it?
I'll get my coat. It's the one with Dr Mudd's card in the pocket...0 -
6 after 6 after 6 right now in the Cricket.0
-
-
-
Has he actually measured the correlation, or is this "they look similar". I'd even contest the statement that they are correlated.HYUFD said:0 -
-
Any chance I could get a bet on a Tory majority in 2019?1
-
There is 1,000 (or 999/1) against Kanye West if you want it. All the names from when the market opened years ago are still there, and all at 1,000 aside from Biden 1.06 and Trump 17.BluestBlue said:Trump's still on 6%? Why don't they offer good old Abe Lincoln as a 1% longshot while they're at it?
0 -
Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=201 -
-
South Africa really smashing it all over the park.
Not nice to see but have to respect it.
22 off the 17th over.0 -
Stop complaining.
This is free money.2 -
It’s pretty much worth betting mortgage money on that 1.06 right now, if you can get your hands on the liquidity at good rates. (Not that I’m in that position myself).1
-
-
Sainsbury's was quite crowded this morning as people are starting their Christmas shopping.HYUFD said:1 -
I love the way it looks like Elon Musk talking to Chamberlain.Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
"Neville, Neville, don't worry about the Germans. The future is ELECTRIC. Instead of wasting it on planes and tanks, just give me a few billion in subsidies for my factory instead and the UK can have a world beating industry assembling my cars."7 -
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.2 -
Warwickshire is bang on the average in terms of case rates. What are they on about?Scott_xP said:0 -
SPotY's sixth contender will be named in The One Show, around 20 past 7.
The first five named are Stuart Broad, Hollie Doyle, Lewis Hamilton, Jordan Henderson & Ronnie O'Sullivan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/sports-personality/550433580 -
I agree, far from convinced by this.* If he wants better examples of spurious geographical correlations, XKCD will oblige: https://xkcd.com/1138/RobD said:
Has he actually measured the correlation, or is this "they look similar". I'd even contest the statement that they are correlated.HYUFD said:
*There likely is something in UKIP <- deprivation/age profile -> detected covid cases, but it's not really obvious here0 -
Do you distrust it?Philip_Thompson said:6 after 6 after 6 right now in the Cricket.
0 -
How does he know it's correlation rather than causation?HYUFD said:0 -
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.0 -
The power of PB. Biden in by two ticks to 1.04 in the past couple of minutes, now back to 1.05.DecrepiterJohnL said:Current Betfair prices:-
Biden 1.06
Democrats 1.06
Biden PV 1.03
Biden PV 49-51.9% 1.06
Trump PV 46-48.9% 1.06
Trump ECV 210-239 1.1
Biden ECV 300-329 1.09
Biden ECV Hcap -48.5 1.07
Biden ECV Hcap -63.5 1.08
Trump ECV Hcap +81.5 1.01
AZ Dem 1.05
GA Dem 1.06
MI Dem 1.05
NV Dem 1.05
PA Dem 1.05
WI Dem 1.05
Trump to leave before end of term NO 1.11
Trump exit date 2021 1.091 -
I’ve worked (or consulted) to companies on both extremes of this, and it’s a great insight into corporate culture.Malmesbury said:
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.Sandpit said:
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.Malmesbury said:
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.Omnium said:Re Header
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.1 -
I liked today's xkcd:Selebian said:
I agree, far from convinced by this.* If he wants better examples of spurious geographical correlations, XKCD will oblige: https://xkcd.com/1138/RobD said:
Has he actually measured the correlation, or is this "they look similar". I'd even contest the statement that they are correlated.HYUFD said:
*There likely is something in UKIP <- deprivation/age profile -> detected covid cases, but it's not really obvious here
https://xkcd.com/2392/
3 -
Taps finger on side of (masked) nose.rcs1000 said:
I love the way it looks like Elon Musk talking to Chamberlain.Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
"Neville, Neville, don't worry about the Germans. The future is ELECTRIC. Instead of wasting it on planes and tanks, just give me a few billion in subsidies for my factory instead and the UK can have a world beating industry assembling my cars."
'However can I just warn you and your successors about the dangers of paedo divers?'5 -
Read up on "Just Culture" - it is specifically used in the aviation industry for accident investigations.Sandpit said:
I’ve worked (or consulted) to companies on both extremes of this, and it’s a great insight into corporate culture.Malmesbury said:
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.Sandpit said:
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.Malmesbury said:
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.Omnium said:Re Header
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.
1 -
The government's strategy is literally whack a mole? Messy, cruel and surely ineffective, no?TOPPING said:fpt
The government's strategy is fairly easy to understand. It is literally whack a mole. Oh how we laughed when that was used as an example but that is it.
They want to batter down the incidence and they will do this, clumsily as it turns out, by tiers, lockdowns, what-all else. When it comes down they will re-open to allow what economic activity that can exist to exist. And then they batter down again when naturally incidence rises.
So why that? Well first I think they were/are shit-scared of the virus and to start with they weren't sure what or how it would play out. What if no vaccine? Endless rises and falls. Secondly, it is the line, impossible to draw, between allowing what economic activity can take place, and avoiding the scenes we all saw in Italy six months ago when hospitals were overflowing.
However, and this is where @contrarian is a vital voice in all of this, the government has also monumentally fucked up. In communication, in redress, in targeting, and as @contrarian says, in the NHS. I have spoken with consultants who are seething at the lack of work being done in the "normal" NHS.
Where is the new capacity? Nightingale? Anything else? What about a signing on bonus of £XXXXX to nurses and doctors and related disciplines.
Plus the control. Brady is right. This is an unprecedented restriction on freedom and the country, whether because of furlough, or holding on to nurse, has acquiesced in a quite extraordinary way.
And, not least on PB.1 -
TBH I’m not quite sure Betfair expected a billion pound market, with tens of millions a day still going on it a month after the vote.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It would have been escalated to the CEO and the corporate lawyers, who are judging that the risk of calling it early is a lot higher than letting it run to the point where it’s clear beyond any doubt.0 -
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=207 -
That. And he's also chosen a date.Selebian said:
I agree, far from convinced by this.* If he wants better examples of spurious geographical correlations, XKCD will oblige: https://xkcd.com/1138/RobD said:
Has he actually measured the correlation, or is this "they look similar". I'd even contest the statement that they are correlated.HYUFD said:
*There likely is something in UKIP <- deprivation/age profile -> detected covid cases, but it's not really obvious here
Kent and the East Midlands have moved up the rankings recently.
Would have been different a month before.
0 -
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.0 -
True. But for most of the year, the Covid heat map hasn't looked anything like the UKIP map at all. So what's special about now?Omnium said:
(If I had to speculate, I'd wonder about the link between Farageism and lockdown-scepticism making the most recent lockdown less effective in certain places, but that would be massive speculation. But how else does one explain Havering?)0 -
It still looks nothing like the UKIP map.Stuartinromford said:
True. But for most of the year, the Covid heat map hasn't looked anything like the UKIP map at all. So what's special about now?Omnium said:
(If I had to speculate, I'd wonder about the link between Farageism and lockdown-scepticism making the most recent lockdown less effective in certain places, but that would be massive speculation. But how else does one explain Havering?)1 -
The madness is Trump wanting literally millions of Biden votes thrown out.paulyork64 said:
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.0 -
Again broadly agree.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.1 -
Precedent. Precedence is who sits next to the Queen at dinner.Philip_Thompson said:
The madness is Trump wanting literally millions of Biden votes thrown out.paulyork64 said:
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.2 -
Indeed. What Trump's lawyers are now arguing for is a recount where signatures are closely scrutinised to ensure they match.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Again broadly agree.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.0 -
The moles of the shires are sick of being whacked:
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/13338208758005022740 -
Wasn't it a short-range shot?!Stuartinromford said:
Probably tactful not to use "Abe Lincon" and "longshot" in the same sentence.BluestBlue said:Trump's still on 6%? Why don't they offer good old Abe Lincoln as a 1% longshot while they're at it?
A longshot is more like that general who sneered the enemy couldn't hit a barn door ...0 -
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.2 -
84 runs in final 5 overs setting England 192 to win.
Very impressive batting there by the South Africans.0 -
"Why are you dodging like this? They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."Carnyx said:
Wasn't it a short-range shot?!Stuartinromford said:
Probably tactful not to use "Abe Lincon" and "longshot" in the same sentence.BluestBlue said:Trump's still on 6%? Why don't they offer good old Abe Lincoln as a 1% longshot while they're at it?
A longshot is more like that general who sneered the enemy couldn't hit a barn door ...1 -
No one unless they are having Scotch Eggs.IshmaelZ said:
Precedent. Precedence is who sits next to the Queen at dinner.Philip_Thompson said:
The madness is Trump wanting literally millions of Biden votes thrown out.paulyork64 said:
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.1 -
Yes, familiar with that. The work that the aviation community has done on what they call CRM (crew resource management, or cockpit resource management) since the Teneriffe crash in 1977, is still ground-breaking today.Malmesbury said:
Read up on "Just Culture" - it is specifically used in the aviation industry for accident investigations.Sandpit said:
I’ve worked (or consulted) to companies on both extremes of this, and it’s a great insight into corporate culture.Malmesbury said:
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.Sandpit said:
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.Malmesbury said:
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.Omnium said:Re Header
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.
Aviation is like F1 - that people walk away from horrific accidents is entirely by design, and decades of continuous improvement.1 -
Aka 'not Prince Andrew if photographers are present'IshmaelZ said:
Precedent. Precedence is who sits next to the Queen at dinner.Philip_Thompson said:
The madness is Trump wanting literally millions of Biden votes thrown out.paulyork64 said:
it's not just the exchange. I have bets unsettled from Paddy's and Betvictor that I think they could settle.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
My losers are settled, my winners (hopefully) not yet.
In a civilised country it won't happen.
If America's courts go through with it though then we're through the looking glass and the market (and the USA and the world) is as f###ed as a stepmom on Pornhub as TSE is fond of saying.
The precedence is twenty years old. It is for the courts to settle this now.2 -
Assuming there is still a link between the envelopes and the votes they once contained. If not, then Trump will be asking the courts to disqualify all of the votes on the basis of a handful of disputed signatures.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. What Trump's lawyers are now arguing for is a recount where signatures are closely scrutinised to ensure they match.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Again broadly agree.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.0 -
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.1 -
Though Hitler was very like Stalin and he led the USSR for decades until his death.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.0 -
Many of the people that walk away owe their lives to design.Sandpit said:
Yes, familiar with that. The the work that the aviation community has done on what they call CRM (crew resource management, or cockpit resource management) since the Teneriffe crash in 1977, is still ground-breaking today.Malmesbury said:
Read up on "Just Culture" - it is specifically used in the aviation industry for accident investigations.Sandpit said:
I’ve worked (or consulted) to companies on both extremes of this, and it’s a great insight into corporate culture.Malmesbury said:
Oh yes. I won't name names, but the company where he worked previously, where this was the situation, developed an explosive reputation some little time later. Literally.Sandpit said:
Oh, that sort of company. Where everyone’s constantly afraid that *they* are the ‘insulation layer’ - the ones who’ll end up in serious trouble at the enquiry, when everyone above plausibly denies knowledge of the f***up.Malmesbury said:
When I was working for a certain oil company a new manger was bought in from a competitor, above me.Omnium said:Re Header
Cyclefree, there's a sort of insulation layer of senior management that sits aloof and above these things. What does the archbishop of canterbury know about anything!?
I can think of no better illustration as to how this failure of accountability works than the Libor fixing trials.
I just happened to be called onto jury service as one of these were commencing. I filled in a few forms that said that yes I did know about 10-12 of the defendants, yes I did have substantial expertise in the area, yes I had worked for a couple of the listed firms. Every single one of those things excluded me. (I was really quite happy about that) That's insane though.
He was rather startled that senior management actually wanted to know things. Apparently, in his previous role, there was approbation towards those who "officiously informed" senior managers of issues.
The oil company for which I worked had a universal, internal opinion on the matter - "That's why we don't do things like that".
Some will immediately ask ‘who was to blame?’, so they can be fired and the incident put in the past - while others will analyse every minor setback as if it were a plane crash, because they want to learn from the past and develop into the future.
You can guess which company has the happy staff and the higher productivity.
Aviation is like F1 - that people walk away from horrific accidents is by design, and decades of continuous improvement.
Many of the people that die owe their deaths to design.
0 -
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....1 -
Rumours around t’internet that Vandoorne gets the Mercedes drive this weekend - Lay Russell for the win if you believe them.0
-
Trump goes back to court to reverse the Wisconsin result :
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/01/trump-campaign-files-election-lawsuit-in-wisconsin-after-state-declares-biden-won-.html0 -
It gets better. They found drugs in his backpack but "he didn't know whose they were". So they took him to his nearby flat and found drugs there too. He also didn't know whose they were....Richard_Nabavi said:3 -
I'd not dignify that with the term "path to victory".Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. What Trump's lawyers are now arguing for is a recount where signatures are closely scrutinised to ensure they match.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Again broadly agree.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.
In theory, the Supreme Court could argue the US Constitution requires them to declare the reanimated corpse of George Washington President. But it's all utterly in the realms of fantasy.
To be a "path to victory" it needs some semblence of plausibility (even if it needs a lot of fairly unlikely things to come together). This is "a dragon might land on the White House lawn carrying a unicorn on its back" territory.
0 -
He was indeed. But their motivations were very different. Stalin's was to exert total Communist Party control over the Soviet Union, first and foremost.Philip_Thompson said:
Though Hitler was very like Stalin and he led the USSR for decades until his death.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
Hitler's was to avenge 1918. He couldn't do that without War with the neighbours at some point.1 -
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.Malmesbury said:
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....1 -
someone is wanting 1.7 for Tyson Fury to get in top 3. There's £40 there. now there is only one spot left in the 6-person shortlist so I'm guessing they have inside knowledge it might be him. but even then I wouldnt have him odds on to make the top 3.DecrepiterJohnL said:SPotY's sixth contender will be named in The One Show, around 20 past 7.
The first five named are Stuart Broad, Hollie Doyle, Lewis Hamilton, Jordan Henderson & Ronnie O'Sullivan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/sports-personality/550433580 -
And they will say "no".DecrepiterJohnL said:
Assuming there is still a link between the envelopes and the votes they once contained. If not, then Trump will be asking the courts to disqualify all of the votes on the basis of a handful of disputed signatures.Philip_Thompson said:
Indeed. What Trump's lawyers are now arguing for is a recount where signatures are closely scrutinised to ensure they match.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Again broadly agree.Philip_Thompson said:
The merits of the legal cases may be different from 2000 but the legal situation is the same.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
I do tend to agree on balance. It's a billion pound exchange market, and Betfair would really open themselves up to a disaster if (and I know it is a huge, ridiculous "if") the President prevails in his legal battle. It's a mess up in terms of the original market terms, but there we are.Philip_Thompson said:
I asked Peter this morning what happened with the bookies for Bush vs Gore in 2000 since the legal situation now is the same as then (one side projected to have won but the other side disagrees and is litigating against the result) and he said that Betfair paid out all states except Florida which was in dispute.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
That seems to be exactly what Betfair have done in 2020 too. Followed the precedence laid down twenty years ago.
Given the precedence of twenty years ago I don't see why it should be expected Betfair would do anything differently now?
I don't agree it's comparable with 2000 though. The Supreme Court decision then was 5-4 (on one of the points, 7-2 on the other) on a serious point of law (& the state courts had ruled for Gore), with a fairly good chance Gore would've won had it gone the other way. This time, Trump needs to win multiple cases (flipping 37 EVs or nullifying 74) on grounds which are laughably weak - all serious law firms have walked away, the cases bear no relation to the bold "fraud" claims from Trump on Twitter, and they've been annihilated time and again by Republican appointed judges. It's chalk and cheese.
It is not Betfair's job to adjudicate legal cases before the courts do, that is the courts job. If the precedence is that if the court reverses the result (as it could have done in 2000) then that is relevant to the market then cases being before the courts (as they are) are grounds for waiting and seeing. As happened in 2000.
It is vexatious and absurd litigtation. We all know that. But Betfair set the precedence twenty years ago and are following it now. The Courts will rule against Trump and then this is over, in the mean time there's free money available if you have the liquidity.
But, to be clear, the Supreme Court did not "reverse the result" in 2000 and that is way outside their powers. What they did is uphold the Florida Secretary of State's certification of the votes and overturn the state court's decision to order a further manual recount in light of the state's existing laws on certification. Gore was not ahead and although he might have gone ahead had the recount proceeded, he may not. Even if Trump won in the Supreme Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) it almost certainly wouldn't change the result as the most he can dream of is manual recounts in states which aren't actually that close - the Wisconsin recounts in large counties actually added to Biden's majority, but the movement (74 votes) was utterly trivial and indicative of what we'd see in all these states which were won by five or six figure majorities.
Signatures naturally vary. A strict scrutiny match on signatures could see hundreds of thousands or millions of perfectly legitimate votes be thrown out as "illegal" votes in a recount. At which point voila Trump is the winner.
It is sick, it should lose, but there is a path to victory for Trump there if the courts abuse their position and let him get away with it.0 -
Looks like a pretty crap correlation to me, especially in the West Midlands area.HYUFD said:1 -
What ‘authority’?HYUFD said:1 -
Johnson relying on Labour abstaining. Wonder how often we’ll see that going forward?rottenborough said:The moles of the shires are sick of being whacked:
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/13338208758005022740 -
Until Labour has anything constructive to say abstention is their best strategy.DougSeal said:
Johnson relying on Labour abstaining. Wonder how often we’ll see that going forward?rottenborough said:The moles of the shires are sick of being whacked:
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/13338208758005022741 -
True to a point - but Hitler was clear to his associates that if threatened with a general war he would back off. I don't actually think he was lying on this. On several occasions previously a strong stand caused him to back off other things.DougSeal said:
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.Malmesbury said:
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.1 -
Well we do know that Leavers are more casual with personal hygiene...rcs1000 said:
How does he know it's correlation rather than causation?HYUFD said:
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-voters-less-likely-to-change-their-underpants-every-day/0 -
I wish it did. A day trip to the Peak District would be a little less arduous. Actually N Warks borders Staffs and Leics, but you're right about the difference from S Warks. The question I'd like answered is, do the good people of Stratford really want to entertain the drinking classes of Birmingham and Coventry from now until Christmas?Andy_JS said:1 -
LOL at that.Foxy said:
Well we do know that Leavers are more casual with personal hygiene...rcs1000 said:
How does he know it's correlation rather than causation?HYUFD said:
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-voters-less-likely-to-change-their-underpants-every-day/
It's UKIP / not UKIP not leave / Remain.
And are you sure that 81% vs 89% is causation
?
Dare say that more medics than other professions don't take their undies off at night - but that would be because they are working!0 -
But the reason Hitler took the whole of Czechoslovakia was that he didn't want it to be a factor in his plans for further conquest, so your argument is circular.Malmesbury said:
True to a point - but Hitler was clear to his associates that if threatened with a general war he would back off. I don't actually think he was lying on this. On several occasions previously a strong stand caused him to back off other things.DougSeal said:
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.Malmesbury said:
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.0 -
Or if the French and Brits had made serious overtures to Stalin. It was our perfunctory efforts that meant that Stalin negotiated a non aggression pact instead. He didn't want to fight unless we did too.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.2 -
He’s a British World Champion, in a year when there haven’t been many of those. I’d back him to be nominated at 1/10.paulyork64 said:
someone is wanting 1.7 for Tyson Fury to get in top 3. There's £40 there. now there is only one spot left in the 6-person shortlist so I'm guessing they have inside knowledge it might be him. but even then I wouldnt have him odds on to make the top 3.DecrepiterJohnL said:SPotY's sixth contender will be named in The One Show, around 20 past 7.
The first five named are Stuart Broad, Hollie Doyle, Lewis Hamilton, Jordan Henderson & Ronnie O'Sullivan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/sports-personality/550433580 -
No rush....
France is aiming to launch a widespread Covid-19 vaccination campaign between April and June next year, its President Emmanuel Macron said0 -
It’s a counterfactual but my issue with what you are doing is your prioritising what he said in private over his public announcements and writings over some two decades. He was clearly lying in one or the other, I tend to believe the public pronouncements. The whole period of the phony war, which was essentially a period of de facto peace during a declared war, gave him ample opportunity to back off (to a greater or lesser extent) but he doubled down and invaded Western Europe, thus ensuring a general, non phony, war.Malmesbury said:
True to a point - but Hitler was clear to his associates that if threatened with a general war he would back off. I don't actually think he was lying on this. On several occasions previously a strong stand caused him to back off other things.DougSeal said:
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.Malmesbury said:
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.0 -
Tooze’s book on the Nazi economy is a worthwhile read. It reveals how the way Germany was financing everything, and its economic vulnerability to the US, essentially put Hitler on a tight timetable for war, regardless of the politics.Malmesbury said:
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....2 -
Jonathan Rea, world superbike champion for the sixth time, and from Northern Ireland if that counts. I can't see Tao Geoghegan Hart even given the strength of the cycling lobby, but Rea would put me off 1/10 Fury to qualify (and vice versa of course).Sandpit said:
He’s a British World Champion, in a year when there haven’t been many of those. I’d back him to be nominated at 1/10.paulyork64 said:
someone is wanting 1.7 for Tyson Fury to get in top 3. There's £40 there. now there is only one spot left in the 6-person shortlist so I'm guessing they have inside knowledge it might be him. but even then I wouldnt have him odds on to make the top 3.DecrepiterJohnL said:SPotY's sixth contender will be named in The One Show, around 20 past 7.
The first five named are Stuart Broad, Hollie Doyle, Lewis Hamilton, Jordan Henderson & Ronnie O'Sullivan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/sports-personality/550433581 -
Launch?FrancisUrquhart said:No rush....
France is aiming to launch a widespread Covid-19 vaccination campaign between April and June next year, its President Emmanuel Macron said1 -
But it's in that region. Your street may be completeley covid-19 free, but you could still be in a tier 3 area.Andy_JS said:0 -
Of course they will take all of August off from vacinating as well.RobD said:
Launch?FrancisUrquhart said:No rush....
France is aiming to launch a widespread Covid-19 vaccination campaign between April and June next year, its President Emmanuel Macron said4 -
Working out who he was lying to is hard, I agree. He seems to have had the kind of sociopathic personality that nebulas lying non-stop including to *himself*DougSeal said:
It’s a counterfactual but my issue with what you are doing is your prioritising what he said in private over his public announcements and writings over some two decades. He was clearly lying in one or the other, I tend to believe the public pronouncements. The whole period of the phony war, which was essentially a period of de facto peace during a declared war, gave him ample opportunity to back off (to a greater or lesser extent) but he doubled down and invaded Western Europe, thus ensuring a general, non phony, war.Malmesbury said:
True to a point - but Hitler was clear to his associates that if threatened with a general war he would back off. I don't actually think he was lying on this. On several occasions previously a strong stand caused him to back off other things.DougSeal said:
Expansion to the east, Liebensraum, was part and parcel of all far right party platforms in Germany in the inter war period. Hitler devoted a chapter in Mein Kampf to it - as well as large parts of its unpublished 1928 sequel. Whatever happened at Munich and thereafter the invasion of Poland and then the Soviet Union was inevitable. He had long rejected even Germany’s pre WW1 borders as inadequate. War was, in essence, a manifesto commitment.Malmesbury said:
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....
The problem was that the behaviour of the Russian, UK & French governments gave him enough to convince himself that he could take just one more piece of Europe.
All the accounts of those close to him was that he was shocked and upset that he was in a *general* war.1 -
Completely agree: really excellent bookIanB2 said:
Tooze’s book on the Nazi economy is a worthwhile read. It reveals how the way Germany was financing everything, and its economic vulnerability to the US, essentially put Hitler on a tight timetable for war, regardless of the politics.Malmesbury said:
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....2 -
January’s going to be an interesting juxtaposition - Brexit chaos the government will be blaming on the EU, alongside a massive success in securing the early vaccinations.FrancisUrquhart said:No rush....
France is aiming to launch a widespread Covid-19 vaccination campaign between April and June next year, its President Emmanuel Macron said1 -
It's an argument. The question is whether Hitler was driven by the economic issues or not. Or whether he was a gambler who had rolled so many sixes in a row that he thought he was Fate itself.IanB2 said:
Tooze’s book on the Nazi economy is a worthwhile read. It reveals how the way Germany was financing everything, and its economic vulnerability to the US, essentially put Hitler on a tight timetable for war, regardless of the politics.Malmesbury said:
At that point in his career he wasn't completely over the top power crazed. That came after he essentially rolled ten 6s in a row in 1939-40. He told his confidents that he would back off if the French and UK pushed back seriously.dixiedean said:
Then again he wouldn't. Because he was Hitler.Malmesbury said:
If Hitler had backed off cancelling Czechs, then war would probably have been delayed. Maybe indefinitely.Alphabet_Soup said:
"I've come from the future to tell you not to sign anything.'"Theuniondivvie said:Thought this was a contemporary photo for a minute and was wondering why Neville was talking to a bloke in a mask.
https://twitter.com/Robert___Harris/status/1333812372998385666?s=20
If he'd survived the financial crunch that was coming, Hitler might then have lasted a long, long time.
It is a bit like saying Trump could have won a second term if he hadn't insulted and offended so many people.
They didn't, so he took the agreement. And half of Czechoslovakia.
When they reacted to him taking the other half, he was furious. Because he felt they had lied in a fashion. Pretending to be weak....0 -
If you lock them up with Trump, they’ll pay to get out.ydoethur said:
If you lock them up, they’ll never pay out.TheScreamingEagles said:Lock him up and the Betfair people.
2
This discussion has been closed.