Once Congress meets in January to count the votes cast yesterday then Biden should be formally elected with Pence as President of the Senate announcing the result under the US constitution.
If however any objections are received and signed by at least 1 US representative and 1 Senator then each chamber of Congress will consider the objections separately under the Electoral Count Act 1887. The House should vote down any objections but the Senate could uphold them if purely on party lines, albeit we must presume Romney at least would vote them down. In any case both chambers have to uphold the objection so regardless it would fail anyway.
OT @Peter_the_Punter -- your posts invariably include the previous quote twice. Are you running some funny browser extension that interacts badly with the site?
Indeed, I feel a bit guilty taking money off these people.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
When I started playing poker I had a discussion with my wife about whether it was morally okay to win money from stupid people (as the only way to win money at poker is to play with people more stupid than you). After going back and forward we decided it was morally fine as I was playing at low stakes and ultimately people are responsible for their actions.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
If you are quite happy to use the adjective stupid to describe your fellow human beings, I'd argue you have a few more moral issues than whether you bet or not.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
You are not a serious punter, Philip, and on the evidence of that post I'd say it's just as well.
Whether he is a serious punter or not he is right. If we are talking about serious punters, they don't moan about how its all unfair because of a months delay on a payout when the delay is arguable on the rules. They don't worry about whether Flutter group is bankrupt and cannot pay because they disagree with a decision. They don't stop betting on Betfair.
Indeed, I feel a bit guilty taking money off these people.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
When I started playing poker I had a discussion with my wife about whether it was morally okay to win money from stupid people (as the only way to win money at poker is to play with people more stupid than you). After going back and forward we decided it was morally fine as I was playing at low stakes and ultimately people are responsible for their actions.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
If you are quite happy to use the adjective stupid to describe your fellow human beings, I'd argue you have a few more moral issues than whether you bet or not.
If you have a better word to describe someone chasing 2nd best low no high multiway in a PLO8 game then feel free to use it.
You'll also note I didn't exclude myself from the stupid categorisation - it is why I never played higher stakes because I knew I would be the stupid fish being preyed on at bigger blinds.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
Not really - the only reason people were not piling in for Biden was a fear of Betfair's behaviour, not because they thought Biden had not already won.
That, and the fact that you'd punt a hundred quid over from your account and then it would tell you that your winnings would be 40p or some such.
Britain is quite unusual in that its most deprived areas tend to be around the coast.
In most other countries the coast is highly sought after; retirement towns for the wealthy old etc
Even in Northern Europe? The climate is hardly conducive to living on the coast 12 months a year, especially if you are old.
Yes. There is no real climate difference between Hastings and Sandbanks, Ostend, Deauville to give three examples.
Er, four examples Shirley?
(Edit: Unless St Leonards-on-Sea has renamed itself Sandbanks - I wouldn't be surprised, it always has had delusions of grandeur.)
Three examples of wealthier towns than Hastings...
I'd say the main difference between Hastings and Sandbanks is the topography not the climate.
We had a lovely day at Saltburn beach with the grandkids in September. But we probably spent less than £30 on chips, ice cream and arcades. It's the sort of thing you do when you know the weather forecast. To book a week long family holiday, even in the summer, is a bit of a gamble.
Learning from Trump or from CCHQ's last election campaign, or the bus before that? Political campaigns are free to lie on social media because our rules cover only traditional broadcasts, and because the end justifies the means.
Barely a Remain seat among them, which is not surprising as if you are posh and well off you are more likely to have voted Remain in 2016 than be a Tory now.
Remain after all only won upper middle class ABs in 2016 but Leave won the lower middle class and working class vote, the Tories in 2019 however won every class and did best with skilled working class C2s not ABs
Look at the dates he bet his "life savings" away. 🤦🏻♂️
A fool and his money are easily parted. Congratulations to whomever took his money off him.
Actually, no. It's not good if anyone loses their shirt betting.
Well said @Casino_Royale. People tend to forget this is the sort of stuff than can tip people over the edge, Enjoying someone else's misery is never good.
I was at a virtual dinner party last night and was surprised that one of the participants said that there was no evidence that the vaccines stopped people from infecting others as opposed to not getting seriously ill themselves. My understanding from here was that there was such evidence albeit it was preliminary. Have there been any developments on this?
Yes, we simply don't know yet whether vaccines allow asymptomatic spread. That may be apparent in time.
No evidence is not evidence that it doesn't though, and I suspect that it does.
Tim Harford's podcast - How to Vaccinate the World is excellent on this and an absolute must-listen.
Deals with all those issues. And as you say, the trials didn't test for onward transmission (nor efficacy of single dose). So they simply don't know (so the "get vaccinated not to kill granny" is wholly spurious).
Do you have a link?
That might be ameliorated by them vaccinating the grannies first, as planned.
Betvictor have now settled my last outstanding bet from the election. Final score is an 11/10 loser, 7/1 winner and 4/1 winner. Happy days.
Easy with hindsight but wish I'd had more on Trump 200-249 ECV @ 4/1. Favourite winning each state would land close to the middle of that but they had 150-199 as fav at a much shorter price.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
Bookies pay you with money gained from other people betting on losing outcomes
How is that different from the exchanges?
On reviewing the times I still bet at any great level, when bookies paid me it was with money gained from me betting on other losing outcomes. Still got quite a bit to make up
I don't have a problem with when Betfair ultimately chose to pay out. I can see why they waited until votes were certified and those certifications were clear of challenge. Whilst I was derisive of Trump's "legal" challenges (they barely merit the word), I can see why a betting company works on the basis a challenge by the US President might succeed.
My concern, and where confidence has been hit, is that they were never clear on the position. Even yesterday, they were tweeting advice suggesting they'd wait until 6th January, or maybe even 20th January.
They had weeks to provide clarity and failed.To be honest, it would've been pretty easy and obvious to say a day or two after the election, "Trump is intent on challenging the results in various states. We'll pay out when he (or Biden) concedes or when the Electoral College votes, whichever is earlier". For a market worth millions, it wasn't that tricky.
I think they should have paid out when Safe Harbor date was reached, as @Pulpstar suggested. At that point there was no further possible dispute on the projected ECV figures. Waiting until yesterday added nothing, given that they had explicitly excluded 'faithless electors' and other late events in their rules.
Mr. kle4, I partly agree on the execution. The way the throne was decided could've been done with basically the same plot but executed miles better. Other elements (the way the Night King was handled standing out) epitomises the subversion complaint.
Indeed, I feel a bit guilty taking money off these people.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
When I started playing poker I had a discussion with my wife about whether it was morally okay to win money from stupid people (as the only way to win money at poker is to play with people more stupid than you). After going back and forward we decided it was morally fine as I was playing at low stakes and ultimately people are responsible for their actions.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
If you are quite happy to use the adjective stupid to describe your fellow human beings, I'd argue you have a few more moral issues than whether you bet or not.
What a bizarre criticism. Some people just are objectively stupid. That includes people who were betting large sums on Trump when he'd already lost.
To those feeling guilty about harvesting some money on Betfair, don't. The only person conning anyone here (including conning MrEd to some degree judging by his comments on here over recent weeks) was Trump.
Barely a Remain seat among them, which is not surprising as if you are posh and well off you are more likely to have voted Remain in 2016 than be a Tory now.
Remain after all only won upper middle class ABs in 2016 but Leave won the lower middle class and working class vote, the Tories in 2019 however won every class and did best with skilled working class C2s not ABs
Poverty, austerity and Brexit. Dominic Cummings made the connection, and so did CCHQ.
Betvictor have now settled my last outstanding bet from the election. Final score is an 11/10 loser, 7/1 winner and 4/1 winner. Happy days.
Easy with hindsight but wish I'd had more on Trump 200-249 ECV @ 4/1. Favourite winning each state would land close to the middle of that but they had 150-199 as fav at a much shorter price.
+1 - I suspect BetVictor will be watching my betting closely as I've only placed 2 bets there.
One was £20 at 12/1 on an FA cup 1st round match they had seriously mispriced with the bonus placed at 4/1 on Trump getting between 201 to 250 electoral votes (which was a complete misprice based on the size of the band they used).
On the subject of deprived areas, I remember being told by an East Sussex councillor that the difference in life expectancy between Hastings and the rural parts of the county just a very few miles away was something really quite dramatic - ten years, if memory serves me correctly.
I don't have a problem with when Betfair ultimately chose to pay out. I can see why they waited until votes were certified and those certifications were clear of challenge. Whilst I was derisive of Trump's "legal" challenges (they barely merit the word), I can see why a betting company works on the basis a challenge by the US President might succeed.
My concern, and where confidence has been hit, is that they were never clear on the position. Even yesterday, they were tweeting advice suggesting they'd wait until 6th January, or maybe even 20th January.
They had weeks to provide clarity and failed.To be honest, it would've been pretty easy and obvious to say a day or two after the election, "Trump is intent on challenging the results in various states. We'll pay out when he (or Biden) concedes or when the Electoral College votes, whichever is earlier". For a market worth millions, it wasn't that tricky.
I think they should have paid out when Safe Harbor date was reached, as @Pulpstar suggested. At that point there was no further possible dispute on the projected ECV figures. Waiting until yesterday added nothing, given that they had explicitly excluded 'faithless electors' and other late events in their rules.
Wisconsin was the possible exception to this. The only possible exception, mind.
I don't have a problem with when Betfair ultimately chose to pay out. I can see why they waited until votes were certified and those certifications were clear of challenge. Whilst I was derisive of Trump's "legal" challenges (they barely merit the word), I can see why a betting company works on the basis a challenge by the US President might succeed.
My concern, and where confidence has been hit, is that they were never clear on the position. Even yesterday, they were tweeting advice suggesting they'd wait until 6th January, or maybe even 20th January.
They had weeks to provide clarity and failed.To be honest, it would've been pretty easy and obvious to say a day or two after the election, "Trump is intent on challenging the results in various states. We'll pay out when he (or Biden) concedes or when the Electoral College votes, whichever is earlier". For a market worth millions, it wasn't that tricky.
I think they should have paid out when Safe Harbor date was reached, as @Pulpstar suggested. At that point there was no further possible dispute on the projected ECV figures. Waiting until yesterday added nothing, given that they had explicitly excluded 'faithless electors' and other late events in their rules.
That may well be right. The key, though, is they should've provided clarity early in November on what the trigger was.
Once Congress meets in January to count the votes cast yesterday then Biden should be formally elected with Pence as President of the Senate announcing the result under the US constitution.
If however any objections are received and signed by at least 1 US representative and 1 Senator then each chamber of Congress will consider the objections separately under the Electoral Count Act 1887. The House should vote down any objections but the Senate could uphold them if purely on party lines, albeit we must presume Romney at least would vote them down. In any case both chambers have to uphold the objection so regardless it would fail anyway.
It's a weird system where the current government effectively gets to vote on whether to accept the next leadership.
Barely a Remain seat among them, which is not surprising as if you are posh and well off you are more likely to have voted Remain in 2016 than be a Tory now.
Remain after all only won upper middle class ABs in 2016 but Leave won the lower middle class and working class vote, the Tories in 2019 however won every class and did best with skilled working class C2s not ABs
Poverty, austerity and Brexit. Dominic Cummings made the connection, and so did CCHQ.
Interestingly the highlighted parts of the map include areas of the Kent and East Anglian Coast, Lincolnshire or the North East which voted for Blair and the South West which voted for the LDs in the late 1990s and early 2000s but are now all solid Tory post Brexit.
So they are not safe Tory areas as such but moved away from Labour after Brexit, while the South West moved away from the LDs after the austerity of the coalition years yes.
On the subject of deprived areas, I remember being told by an East Sussex councillor that the difference in life expectancy between Hastings and the rural parts of the country just a very few miles away was something really quite dramatic - ten years, if memory serves me correctly.
Anecdote!!
A friend of mine. Senior economist (why mention it? Because he's always interested in local economies and how they function). Went to I think NE somewhere not sure where apols. Felt like a Mars Bar. Went into local newsagent, asked for one. The bloke said they didn't stock them because they were too expensive.
This is what is happening in the UK. No idea if it's a one-off happens nowhere else situation but I'm guessing not.
Betvictor have now settled my last outstanding bet from the election. Final score is an 11/10 loser, 7/1 winner and 4/1 winner. Happy days.
Easy with hindsight but wish I'd had more on Trump 200-249 ECV @ 4/1. Favourite winning each state would land close to the middle of that but they had 150-199 as fav at a much shorter price.
+1 - I suspect BetVictor will be watching my betting closely as I've only placed 2 bets there.
One was £20 at 12/1 on an FA cup 1st round match they had seriously mispriced with the bonus placed at 4/1 on Trump getting between 201 to 250 electoral votes (which was a complete misprice based on the size of the band they used).
Its a widespread fallacy that rural areas are all middle class and affluent.
Perhaps caused by too many twee TV series about rural vets and doctors plus urban rich having having second homes in a few scenic areas.
To be accurate - there is often enormous disparities *within* quite small local areas.
It is not uncommon to have a lovely, ancient market town/village - the old stone houses owned by prosperous people, nice local shops etc.
Most of the locals live in the housing estate "over the hill" - priced out of the town.
The prosperous people work elsewhere - there are few local jobs. And the planning law make sure that creating new jobs is prevented.
The 2 groups rarely interact - drink in different pubs, shop in different places, go to different school, lead different lives.
Planning very rarely prevents jobs being created - even in National Parks anything that creates jobs will be looked on favourably.
The usual issue (in the parks) is that people won't ask for help early enough so end up putting applications in for the wrong location because they aren't experts.
One of the interesting thing about cashing out on BFX is the figure on net deposits. 10 years of gambling, mostly on politics and football, and I am £200 up. Not the most effective way for me to make a living!
I only seem to have that net deposits figure for current cards - betfair seems to have removed the stats for older cards... I guess they don't want people like me knowing how much we have lost!
Is there a market on who gets sworn in as US president on 20 January? I wouldn't mind a longshot bet against Biden. Couldn't find a market either at Betfair or Smarkets.
Betvictor have now settled my last outstanding bet from the election. Final score is an 11/10 loser, 7/1 winner and 4/1 winner. Happy days.
Easy with hindsight but wish I'd had more on Trump 200-249 ECV @ 4/1. Favourite winning each state would land close to the middle of that but they had 150-199 as fav at a much shorter price.
+1 - I suspect BetVictor will be watching my betting closely as I've only placed 2 bets there.
One was £20 at 12/1 on an FA cup 1st round match they had seriously mispriced with the bonus placed at 4/1 on Trump getting between 201 to 250 electoral votes (which was a complete misprice based on the size of the band they used).
So I've cost them £300 all in.
Nice one. You could try throwing in a few £1 football accas to try throw them off the scent.
Its a widespread fallacy that rural areas are all middle class and affluent.
Perhaps caused by too many twee TV series about rural vets and doctors plus urban rich having having second homes in a few scenic areas.
To be accurate - there is often enormous disparities *within* quite small local areas.
It is not uncommon to have a lovely, ancient market town/village - the old stone houses owned by prosperous people, nice local shops etc.
Most of the locals live in the housing estate "over the hill" - priced out of the town.
The prosperous people work elsewhere - there are few local jobs. And the planning law make sure that creating new jobs is prevented.
The 2 groups rarely interact - drink in different pubs, shop in different places, go to different school, lead different lives.
Sounds like a depressing kind of existence. A lot of villages do seem quite sterile and dead. What I like about London is that the housing estate and the £1mn house are often on the same street, the kids usually go to the same school, and there are a range of local jobs. There is a very strong sense of community where we live. Although of course there are other areas of London which are very divided, eg Kensington.
Once Congress meets in January to count the votes cast yesterday then Biden should be formally elected with Pence as President of the Senate announcing the result under the US constitution.
If however any objections are received and signed by at least 1 US representative and 1 Senator then each chamber of Congress will consider the objections separately under the Electoral Count Act 1887. The House should vote down any objections but the Senate could uphold them if purely on party lines, albeit we must presume Romney at least would vote them down. In any case both chambers have to uphold the objection so regardless it would fail anyway.
It's a weird system where the current government effectively gets to vote on whether to accept the next leadership.
The timing is all important here - it's actually the new Senate and Congress (albeit chaired by the outgoing Vice President) accepting the new leadership on the day after the new Senate and Congress start sitting.
Its a widespread fallacy that rural areas are all middle class and affluent.
Perhaps caused by too many twee TV series about rural vets and doctors plus urban rich having having second homes in a few scenic areas.
To be accurate - there is often enormous disparities *within* quite small local areas.
It is not uncommon to have a lovely, ancient market town/village - the old stone houses owned by prosperous people, nice local shops etc.
Most of the locals live in the housing estate "over the hill" - priced out of the town.
The prosperous people work elsewhere - there are few local jobs. And the planning law make sure that creating new jobs is prevented.
The 2 groups rarely interact - drink in different pubs, shop in different places, go to different school, lead different lives.
Planning very rarely prevents jobs being created - even in National Parks anything that creates jobs will be looked on favourably.
The usual issue (in the parks) is that people won't ask for help early enough so end up putting applications in for the wrong location because they aren't experts.
When I lived in Malmesbury, there was a large group on the local council, who were quite clear. Nothing larger than a barn conversion for a studio would get through on their watch. They were quite explicit on this - and canvased for votes on that basis.
Once Congress meets in January to count the votes cast yesterday then Biden should be formally elected with Pence as President of the Senate announcing the result under the US constitution.
If however any objections are received and signed by at least 1 US representative and 1 Senator then each chamber of Congress will consider the objections separately under the Electoral Count Act 1887. The House should vote down any objections but the Senate could uphold them if purely on party lines, albeit we must presume Romney at least would vote them down. In any case both chambers have to uphold the objection so regardless it would fail anyway.
It's a weird system where the current government effectively gets to vote on whether to accept the next leadership.
The timing is all important here - it's actually the new Senate and Congress (albeit chaired by the outgoing Vice President) accepting the new leadership on the day after the new Senate and Congress start sitting.
Fair point. Still weird, though. Why would they ever (legitimately) refuse?
Indeed, I feel a bit guilty taking money off these people.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
When I started playing poker I had a discussion with my wife about whether it was morally okay to win money from stupid people (as the only way to win money at poker is to play with people more stupid than you). After going back and forward we decided it was morally fine as I was playing at low stakes and ultimately people are responsible for their actions.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
On the morality of gambling, imo it is similar to most of the other main vices. If you would be content to work for anywhere involved in alcohol (vineyards through supermarkets, restaurants, hotels), in tobacco, or even in the promotion of unhealthy addictive food (supermarkets, tv, social media) then gambling is no worse.
Sadly 1-2% have serious life changing harm from gambling and perhaps 10% have some harm. It is a reality that will be true whether gambling is legal or not, and whether you yourself bet or not. Illegal gambling in the US or China is just as much a social problem as legal gambling in the UK, if not greater with the added element of criminal gangs.
Human nature is the problem, good regulation and diverting some of the profits to supporting gambling charities the best solution we have found to date.
I was at a virtual dinner party last night and was surprised that one of the participants said that there was no evidence that the vaccines stopped people from infecting others as opposed to not getting seriously ill themselves. My understanding from here was that there was such evidence albeit it was preliminary. Have there been any developments on this?
Yes, we simply don't know yet whether vaccines allow asymptomatic spread. That may be apparent in time.
No evidence is not evidence that it doesn't though, and I suspect that it does.
Tim Harford's podcast - How to Vaccinate the World is excellent on this and an absolute must-listen.
Deals with all those issues. And as you say, the trials didn't test for onward transmission (nor efficacy of single dose). So they simply don't know (so the "get vaccinated not to kill granny" is wholly spurious).
It's not wholly spurious.
There is good reason to believe vaccinations help prevent onward spread based on everything we know about spread. Just because it hasn't been tested and proven doesn't mean it's spurious.
I'm not sure if there's any evidence that acquired immunity (from infection) blocks onward transmission, either. If vaccine-generated immunity does not do so, then why should infection-acquired immunity do so?
There’s a good rumour going around that Putin has had an exact replica of his Kremlin office made up at his dacha in Sochi. With Moscow getting seriously ravaged by the virus, he got moved away from the capital a few weeks ago. He’s not been seen for a while in Moscow, except in photos and videos taken in that office.
Betvictor have now settled my last outstanding bet from the election. Final score is an 11/10 loser, 7/1 winner and 4/1 winner. Happy days.
Easy with hindsight but wish I'd had more on Trump 200-249 ECV @ 4/1. Favourite winning each state would land close to the middle of that but they had 150-199 as fav at a much shorter price.
+1 - I suspect BetVictor will be watching my betting closely as I've only placed 2 bets there.
One was £20 at 12/1 on an FA cup 1st round match they had seriously mispriced with the bonus placed at 4/1 on Trump getting between 201 to 250 electoral votes (which was a complete misprice based on the size of the band they used).
So I've cost them £300 all in.
Nice one. You could try throwing in a few £1 football accas to try throw them off the scent.
Problem is I did that randomly on their acca bonus and was only a dodgy VAR decision away from pulling that off as well (and I know less about football than TSE knows about fashion).
On the subject of deprived areas, I remember being told by an East Sussex councillor that the difference in life expectancy between Hastings and the rural parts of the county just a very few miles away was something really quite dramatic - ten years, if memory serves me correctly.
I tell you what is a real eye opener.
A few years ago I was looking at car insurance prices and instead of using my normal Sheffield postcode, I accidentally dropped one number, which meant the postcode was a for a rough part of Sheffield.
It sent my insurance soaring, it nearly doubled it.
Once Congress meets in January to count the votes cast yesterday then Biden should be formally elected with Pence as President of the Senate announcing the result under the US constitution.
If however any objections are received and signed by at least 1 US representative and 1 Senator then each chamber of Congress will consider the objections separately under the Electoral Count Act 1887. The House should vote down any objections but the Senate could uphold them if purely on party lines, albeit we must presume Romney at least would vote them down. In any case both chambers have to uphold the objection so regardless it would fail anyway.
It's a weird system where the current government effectively gets to vote on whether to accept the next leadership.
The timing is all important here - it's actually the new Senate and Congress (albeit chaired by the outgoing Vice President) accepting the new leadership on the day after the new Senate and Congress start sitting.
There will be women in the same room as Mr Pence. I wonder if he will need to have his wife with him?
Its a widespread fallacy that rural areas are all middle class and affluent.
Perhaps caused by too many twee TV series about rural vets and doctors plus urban rich having having second homes in a few scenic areas.
That map actually suggests that, if you can't see either the sea or a tower block from where you live, you are very likely to be in an above median affluence area.
Barely a Remain seat among them, which is not surprising as if you are posh and well off you are more likely to have voted Remain in 2016 than be a Tory now.
Remain after all only won upper middle class ABs in 2016 but Leave won the lower middle class and working class vote, the Tories in 2019 however won every class and did best with skilled working class C2s not ABs
Poverty, austerity and Brexit. Dominic Cummings made the connection, and so did CCHQ.
Interestingly the highlighted parts of the map include areas of the Kent and East Anglian Coast, Lincolnshire or the North East which voted for Blair and the South West which voted for the LDs in the late 1990s and early 2000s but are now all solid Tory post Brexit.
So they are not safe Tory areas as such but moved away from Labour after Brexit, while the South West moved away from the LDs after the austerity of the coalition years yes.
The South-West LibDem vote was always anomalous -- solid but quite Eurosceptic.
Is there a market on who gets sworn in as US president on 20 January? I wouldn't mind a longshot bet against Biden. Couldn't find a market either at Betfair or Smarkets.
Welcome Jeremy. I'm not aware of anyone offering this. I think it would be betfair exchange if anybody.
Its a widespread fallacy that rural areas are all middle class and affluent.
Perhaps caused by too many twee TV series about rural vets and doctors plus urban rich having having second homes in a few scenic areas.
To be accurate - there is often enormous disparities *within* quite small local areas.
It is not uncommon to have a lovely, ancient market town/village - the old stone houses owned by prosperous people, nice local shops etc.
Most of the locals live in the housing estate "over the hill" - priced out of the town.
The prosperous people work elsewhere - there are few local jobs. And the planning law make sure that creating new jobs is prevented.
The 2 groups rarely interact - drink in different pubs, shop in different places, go to different school, lead different lives.
Planning very rarely prevents jobs being created - even in National Parks anything that creates jobs will be looked on favourably.
The usual issue (in the parks) is that people won't ask for help early enough so end up putting applications in for the wrong location because they aren't experts.
When I lived in Malmesbury, there was a large group on the local council, who were quite clear. Nothing larger than a barn conversion for a studio would get through on their watch. They were quite explicit on this - and canvased for votes on that basis.
That won't stand up when it comes to the next appeal stage - the inspectorate will just check the local plan see that it matches the initial recommendation and allow the appeal.
Its a widespread fallacy that rural areas are all middle class and affluent.
Perhaps caused by too many twee TV series about rural vets and doctors plus urban rich having having second homes in a few scenic areas.
To be accurate - there is often enormous disparities *within* quite small local areas.
It is not uncommon to have a lovely, ancient market town/village - the old stone houses owned by prosperous people, nice local shops etc.
Most of the locals live in the housing estate "over the hill" - priced out of the town.
The prosperous people work elsewhere - there are few local jobs. And the planning law make sure that creating new jobs is prevented.
The 2 groups rarely interact - drink in different pubs, shop in different places, go to different school, lead different lives.
Sounds like a depressing kind of existence. A lot of villages do seem quite sterile and dead. What I like about London is that the housing estate and the £1mn house are often on the same street, the kids usually go to the same school, and there are a range of local jobs. There is a very strong sense of community where we live. Although of course there are other areas of London which are very divided, eg Kensington.
The bit that would make a dog laugh was that the wealthy types were, to a man/woman liberal, greenies etc.
Nothing quite like listening to them damning Thatcher for the state of manufacturing industry while knowing that they had used every possible avenue to prevent jobs coming to the area.
If I ever become rich enough, I will go back and to build a Dark Satanic Mill.
you need to zoom in and take a look at the city seats
Very few areas from wealthy Remain heavy London and of course cities like Birmingham, Nottingham and Sheffield, Hull and Coventry and Sunderland for example voted Leave anyway.
The poorer parts of Manchester and Liverpool and Newcastle perhaps the only exceptions
Indeed, I feel a bit guilty taking money off these people.
I'll make a donation to a gambling charity with some of my winnings.
When I started playing poker I had a discussion with my wife about whether it was morally okay to win money from stupid people (as the only way to win money at poker is to play with people more stupid than you). After going back and forward we decided it was morally fine as I was playing at low stakes and ultimately people are responsible for their actions.
Obviously no moral problems gambling with bookies but Betfair raises the same thoughts that I had with Poker. I'd came to a stronger conclusion than Poker - betting on Betfair was almost identical to betting with bookies in my head. However this market has genuinely made me reconsider somewhat. I'm still got to bet on exchanges but I'm not so certain about my moral standing so much anymore.
If you are quite happy to use the adjective stupid to describe your fellow human beings, I'd argue you have a few more moral issues than whether you bet or not.
What a bizarre criticism. Some people just are objectively stupid. That includes people who were betting large sums on Trump when he'd already lost.
To those feeling guilty about harvesting some money on Betfair, don't. The only person conning anyone here (including conning MrEd to some degree judging by his comments on here over recent weeks) was Trump.
Convert to Yen Buddhism - the doctrine that since money is the root of all evil, it is best to gather as much as possible in a safe place. Your pockets.
Normal warnings about early polling apply but do we think Michelle Obama would run if she was the only person who could stop a Kamala Harris nomination and the resulting GOP presidency?
Normal warnings about early polling apply but do we think Michelle Obama would run if she was the only person who could stop a Kamala Harris nomination and the resulting GOP presidency?
No and you are begging the question of Kamala's electoral toxicity. By 2024 she'll have been Vice President for four years.
I don't want people to suffer from gambling problems.
It was a poor attempt at humour. I'm sorry.
That was quick to catch it. I has decided I didn't have the energy for a Thompson argument his morning. I really appreciate you withdrawing the comment.
I'd accept that the chap as stupid and/or reckless.
But there's a lot of undeserved misfortune around at the moment, and I'm seeing one of my ex-tenants tomorrow to try and resolve a situation - so it's a bit near the surface and I felt that my comment may have been toom blunt.
The guy settled down with gf after an unexpected baby (ie did the right thing) a couple of years ago. Good earnings - well above national average, but 1/3+ on overtime. Very secure job. Got furloughed for 3 months in lockdown due to a pre-existing chronic condition, which cost a lot of lost income, and somehow the pressure has blown up the relationship so that is lost, the house is lost, currently homeless and owes me a big chunk of rent *, and also various others. I hope his credit rating doesn't go too badly.
Unfortunately the block on evictions also means there is less stock available, so it will be tough to get back in.
You can say he should have taken action earlier, which is true (did not talk to me early enough). But fundamentally it's not his own fault.
I have three or four tenants in difficult, and the others will pull through with forbearance, perhaps a rent reduction for the period, and no rent increases for a couple of years.
This one - unfortunately - hasn't. The child is two.
* There have been severe limits on LL freedom of action, and my policy has been forbearance as I always look for longer term tenants.
Normal warnings about early polling apply but do we think Michelle Obama would run if she was the only person who could stop a Kamala Harris nomination and the resulting GOP presidency?
No and you are begging the question of Kamala's electoral toxicity. By 2024 she'll have been Vice President for four years.
The problem isn't her current polling, the problem is that she isn't very good.
Betvictor have now settled my last outstanding bet from the election. Final score is an 11/10 loser, 7/1 winner and 4/1 winner. Happy days.
Easy with hindsight but wish I'd had more on Trump 200-249 ECV @ 4/1. Favourite winning each state would land close to the middle of that but they had 150-199 as fav at a much shorter price.
+1 - I suspect BetVictor will be watching my betting closely as I've only placed 2 bets there.
One was £20 at 12/1 on an FA cup 1st round match they had seriously mispriced with the bonus placed at 4/1 on Trump getting between 201 to 250 electoral votes (which was a complete misprice based on the size of the band they used).
So I've cost them £300 all in.
That was very good.
I did flag up that betvictor bet on here on october 31st. Wasnt so bold as to call it a tip though.
Normal warnings about early polling apply but do we think Michelle Obama would run if she was the only person who could stop a Kamala Harris nomination and the resulting GOP presidency?
No and you are begging the question of Kamala's electoral toxicity. By 2024 she'll have been Vice President for four years.
The problem isn't her current polling, the problem is that she isn't very good.
Why?
Her speech introducing Biden on the night that the networks called the result for Biden/Harris was absolutely fantastic. She really looked like a future President then.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
I've some sympathy with that - and you could make a very strong case that they were irresponsible in allowing people to bet money on Trump long after it became clear that there was zero chance of his winning under any reasonable interpretation of their rules.
The 'projected' thing, for such a massive market, created a dilemma for them they ought to have anticipated. They seem to have been afraid of legal action had they settled earlier. Next time around, the rules will almost certainly be declared EC votes.
Now Betfair have settled the election, surely we can have a 2024 election market!
Oh, we already do!
SkyBet and BetFred have them at least. Can get Trump 10/3 as GOP candidate, Haley 6/1, Pence 10/1, Ivanka 16/1.
Democrat side you can get Biden 2/1, Harris 2/1, AOC 12/1, Buttigieg 20/1, Cuomo 25/1.
Not huge value there - maybe a little on Cuomo as he's an obvious choice if it's an unpopular Presidency which tarnishes Harris (and Biden does indeed decide not to go again). AOC and Buttigieg have decades ahead of them, but not sure Cuomo can afford to sit it out if he's ever to have a shot at it.
Not sure about Pence but Trump would need to want to run, be healthy enough to run, and not be in jail or overseas fighting extradition. Cumulatively I think that's only maybe a 40% chance, and if he runs he maybe has a 50/50 chance of winning.
Steve Barclay is the sacrifice cabinet member sent out to defend 'save xmas' disaster on R4 this morning.
I don't get it...if they had come out yesterday and said new mutant variant, spreading, numbers too high, we need to massively scale back Christmas hall pass to 1-2 days, far better than trying to argue no change, but be careful.
Yes, German states tightened both the general distancing rules, and the Christmas "relaxation" on Sunday, I don't think there is any reduction in most people's acceptance of the rules as a result of the changes.
Hospital staff are being asked to give availability on their planned days off over christmas + new year, in case things get bad. I guess it will be OK, but in January things will probably tight - hopefully people will be responsible over christmas! There are enough beds in the hospitals, I think, but the crunch will be if there are enough staff if there is a higher peak in January.
Local emergency/ICU department staff have been told they might be vaccinated starting next week - I'm a bit sceptical as approval hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if they have any doses, but we'll see.
Have all of them tightened?
I seem to recall Frau Merkel apologising that she could not make it happen a few days ago.
New rules agreed on Sunday, apply from tomorrow til 10th January:
Steve Barclay is the sacrifice cabinet member sent out to defend 'save xmas' disaster on R4 this morning.
I don't get it...if they had come out yesterday and said new mutant variant, spreading, numbers too high, we need to massively scale back Christmas hall pass to 1-2 days, far better than trying to argue no change, but be careful.
Yes, German states tightened both the general distancing rules, and the Christmas "relaxation" on Sunday, I don't think there is any reduction in most people's acceptance of the rules as a result of the changes.
Hospital staff are being asked to give availability on their planned days off over christmas + new year, in case things get bad. I guess it will be OK, but in January things will probably tight - hopefully people will be responsible over christmas! There are enough beds in the hospitals, I think, but the crunch will be if there are enough staff if there is a higher peak in January.
Local emergency/ICU department staff have been told they might be vaccinated starting next week - I'm a bit sceptical as approval hasn't happened yet, and I'm not sure if they have any doses, but we'll see.
Have all of them tightened?
I seem to recall Frau Merkel apologising that she could not make it happen a few days ago.
New rules agreed on Sunday, apply from tomorrow til 10th January:
Once Congress meets in January to count the votes cast yesterday then Biden should be formally elected with Pence as President of the Senate announcing the result under the US constitution.
If however any objections are received and signed by at least 1 US representative and 1 Senator then each chamber of Congress will consider the objections separately under the Electoral Count Act 1887. The House should vote down any objections but the Senate could uphold them if purely on party lines, albeit we must presume Romney at least would vote them down. In any case both chambers have to uphold the objection so regardless it would fail anyway.
It's a weird system where the current government effectively gets to vote on whether to accept the next leadership.
The entire electoral college malarky was a cobbled together compromise, probably intended to be temporary, to placate the slave states. And as it's embedded in the constitution, it has proven very difficult indeed to change.
Normal warnings about early polling apply but do we think Michelle Obama would run if she was the only person who could stop a Kamala Harris nomination and the resulting GOP presidency?
No and you are begging the question of Kamala's electoral toxicity. By 2024 she'll have been Vice President for four years.
The problem isn't her current polling, the problem is that she isn't very good.
Why?
Her speech introducing Biden on the night that the networks called the result for Biden/Harris was absolutely fantastic. She really looked like a future President then.
She can do the lines they give her, the problem is her strategy is kind of terrible; See how she managed to flame out in the primary after letting Bernie Sanders pied piper her off to the left then getting scared and walking that back and losing both sides. And her debate against Pence was pretty weak, although TBF it didn't need to be strong.
you need to zoom in and take a look at the city seats
Very few areas from wealthy Remain heavy London and of course cities like Birmingham, Nottingham and Sheffield, Hull and Coventry and Sunderland for example voted Leave anyway.
The poorer parts of Manchester and Liverpool and Newcastle perhaps the only exceptions
Ha ha very few areas from London? You need to master the use of the zoom function. I counted around 40 London constituencies on that map, more than half of the city's 73 constituencies. And if the map were extended to Scotland and N Ireland you'd find plenty of poor Remain-voting areas too. If I recall correctly income is not a robust predictor of Brexit opinion once education is controlled for but I may be wrong.
Now Betfair have settled the election, surely we can have a 2024 election market!
Oh, we already do!
SkyBet and BetFred have them at least. Can get Trump 10/3 as GOP candidate, Haley 6/1, Pence 10/1, Ivanka 16/1.
Democrat side you can get Biden 2/1, Harris 2/1, AOC 12/1, Buttigieg 20/1, Cuomo 25/1.
Not huge value there - maybe a little on Cuomo as he's an obvious choice if it's an unpopular Presidency which tarnishes Harris (and Biden does indeed decide not to go again). AOC and Buttigieg have decades ahead of them, but not sure Cuomo can afford to sit it out if he's ever to have a shot at it.
On the Republican side, Don Jr polls better than Ivanka but that might be because Ivanka is RINO and a woman, or because poll respondents confuse the name with the President's. That health warning aside, there might be some value in the son and heir.
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
'What this has done to me is make me less confident about using Betfair as my primary betting exchange.'
Nice bit of understatement there, Mike!
Personally I wouldn't touch them with a shitty stick. I suppose I should be grateful that I've learned something about them whilst getting my money out eventually. They're a bunch of kids playing a game they don't understand.
Betdaq and Sporting Index will do just fine when the need arises, and of course the traditional bookies with whom I have never had a serious problem in a lifetime of punting.
I disagree slightly. Betfair have certainly not covered themselves in glory over this, but paying out on the EC result is at least defensible. And to (apparently) settle so massive a market without significant delay, once the result was declared, gives me some confidence in their financial trustworthiness.
If they hadn't closed out the market last night, I would probably not have bet with them again.
I had £10k locked in with them. That's a lot for me. When you have a lot held by a bookie, or exchange, you must be confident that they have clear rules, stick to them, apply them fairly and intelligently, and deal reasonably with complaints.
Betfair failed on each count.
The rules stated that if there was doubt as to the projected winner they would wait for the official results.
The projected winner was disputed by the President of the United States of America, lawyers in the courts and punters worldwide.
So they waited for the official results.
I see no qualms with that. Had they not paid yesterday I would but paying on the day the results become official seems reasonable when the results are being disputed. 🤷🏻♂️
You are not a serious punter, Philip, and on the evidence of that post I'd say it's just as well.
Whether he is a serious punter or not he is right. If we are talking about serious punters, they don't moan about how its all unfair because of a months delay on a payout when the delay is arguable on the rules. They don't worry about whether Flutter group is bankrupt and cannot pay because they disagree with a decision. They don't stop betting on Betfair.
What is your experience of serious punters?
I've been a lifelong punter, semi-professionally for about fifteen years. I know many other serious punters and have often discussed aspects of the biz with them, read their books, attended their lectures. They are generally smart, worldly, fair and honest. Betting and bookmaking goes back generations in the family. I don't recognise the sort of behaviour you allude to from my experiences.
Normal warnings about early polling apply but do we think Michelle Obama would run if she was the only person who could stop a Kamala Harris nomination and the resulting GOP presidency?
No. And of all the reasons that she might, that is one of the silliest.
Beto O'Rourke never seems to figure in these lists any more.
He'll need to win in Texas first. Which is not entirely impossible.
LOL @ the Michelle Obama number.
I think O'Rourke has little chance of winning Texas in 2022 unfortunately for him even if he does run for governor, the usual midterm backlash to the opposition party will keep it GOP.
A better longshot bet might be Joe Kennedy III if he runs for Massachussetts governor in 2022 and wins
Congratulations to everyone who has successfully taken dollar off Trumpers. I know its a betting site but that really isn't my poison - but I have a lot of admiration for those of you who make such a success of it.
Its a widespread fallacy that rural areas are all middle class and affluent.
Perhaps caused by too many twee TV series about rural vets and doctors plus urban rich having having second homes in a few scenic areas.
To be accurate - there is often enormous disparities *within* quite small local areas.
It is not uncommon to have a lovely, ancient market town/village - the old stone houses owned by prosperous people, nice local shops etc.
Most of the locals live in the housing estate "over the hill" - priced out of the town.
The prosperous people work elsewhere - there are few local jobs. And the planning law make sure that creating new jobs is prevented.
The 2 groups rarely interact - drink in different pubs, shop in different places, go to different school, lead different lives.
Sounds like a depressing kind of existence. A lot of villages do seem quite sterile and dead. What I like about London is that the housing estate and the £1mn house are often on the same street, the kids usually go to the same school, and there are a range of local jobs. There is a very strong sense of community where we live. Although of course there are other areas of London which are very divided, eg Kensington.
The bit that would make a dog laugh was that the wealthy types were, to a man/woman liberal, greenies etc.
Nothing quite like listening to them damning Thatcher for the state of manufacturing industry while knowing that they had used every possible avenue to prevent jobs coming to the area.
If I ever become rich enough, I will go back and to build a Dark Satanic Mill.
You prefer your wealthy types to lack a social conscience, don't you?
You clearly associate being wealthy with not giving a shit - thus the ones who don't pretend to give a shit are authentic whereas those who do are that most dreadful of things, hypocrites.
Philip Green over Lewis Hamilton any day of the week as it were.
Normal warnings about early polling apply but do we think Michelle Obama would run if she was the only person who could stop a Kamala Harris nomination and the resulting GOP presidency?
No and you are begging the question of Kamala's electoral toxicity. By 2024 she'll have been Vice President for four years.
The problem isn't her current polling, the problem is that she isn't very good.
Why?
Her speech introducing Biden on the night that the networks called the result for Biden/Harris was absolutely fantastic. She really looked like a future President then.
She can do the lines they give her, the problem is her strategy is kind of terrible; See how she managed to flame out in the primary after letting Bernie Sanders pied piper her off to the left then getting scared and walking that back and losing both sides. And her debate against Pence was pretty weak, although TBF it didn't need to be strong.
Yeah, laying Harris when she was favourite in the Primaries was good times.
Now Betfair have settled the election, surely we can have a 2024 election market!
Oh, we already do!
SkyBet and BetFred have them at least. Can get Trump 10/3 as GOP candidate, Haley 6/1, Pence 10/1, Ivanka 16/1.
Democrat side you can get Biden 2/1, Harris 2/1, AOC 12/1, Buttigieg 20/1, Cuomo 25/1.
Not huge value there - maybe a little on Cuomo as he's an obvious choice if it's an unpopular Presidency which tarnishes Harris (and Biden does indeed decide not to go again). AOC and Buttigieg have decades ahead of them, but not sure Cuomo can afford to sit it out if he's ever to have a shot at it.
On the Republican side, Don Jr polls better than Ivanka but that might be because Ivanka is RINO and a woman, or because poll respondents confuse the name with the President's. That health warning aside, there might be some value in the son and heir.
I suspect it's almost entirely name confusion.
I think Trump Jnr has less than a tenth of his father's charisma and about half his intellect (which is saying something).
Ivanka is smarter but I don't think she'd go for it in 2024. She's only 39, and there's speculation she may run for Senate. It would make sense to sit 2024 out.
Comments
If however any objections are received and signed by at least 1 US representative and 1 Senator then each chamber of Congress will consider the objections separately under the Electoral Count Act 1887. The House should vote down any objections but the Senate could uphold them if purely on party lines, albeit we must presume Romney at least would vote them down. In any case both chambers have to uphold the objection so regardless it would fail anyway.
You'll also note I didn't exclude myself from the stupid categorisation - it is why I never played higher stakes because I knew I would be the stupid fish being preyed on at bigger blinds.
Remain after all only won upper middle class ABs in 2016 but Leave won the lower middle class and working class vote, the Tories in 2019 however won every class and did best with skilled working class C2s not ABs
sorry for the delay.
Easy with hindsight but wish I'd had more on Trump 200-249 ECV @ 4/1. Favourite winning each state would land close to the middle of that but they had 150-199 as fav at a much shorter price.
I apologise.
I don't want people to suffer from gambling problems.
It was a poor attempt at humour. I'm sorry.
To those feeling guilty about harvesting some money on Betfair, don't. The only person conning anyone here (including conning MrEd to some degree judging by his comments on here over recent weeks) was Trump.
One was £20 at 12/1 on an FA cup 1st round match they had seriously mispriced with the bonus placed at 4/1 on Trump getting between 201 to 250 electoral votes (which was a complete misprice based on the size of the band they used).
So I've cost them £300 all in.
In response to Mike's last sentence, are there any credible alternatives to Betfair, and what are they?
It is not uncommon to have a lovely, ancient market town/village - the old stone houses owned by prosperous people, nice local shops etc.
Most of the locals live in the housing estate "over the hill" - priced out of the town.
The prosperous people work elsewhere - there are few local jobs. And the planning law make sure that creating new jobs is prevented.
The 2 groups rarely interact - drink in different pubs, shop in different places, go to different school, lead different lives.
So they are not safe Tory areas as such but moved away from Labour after Brexit, while the South West moved away from the LDs after the austerity of the coalition years yes.
A friend of mine. Senior economist (why mention it? Because he's always interested in local economies and how they function). Went to I think NE somewhere not sure where apols. Felt like a Mars Bar. Went into local newsagent, asked for one. The bloke said they didn't stock them because they were too expensive.
This is what is happening in the UK. No idea if it's a one-off happens nowhere else situation but I'm guessing not.
The usual issue (in the parks) is that people won't ask for help early enough so end up putting applications in for the wrong location because they aren't experts.
Sadly 1-2% have serious life changing harm from gambling and perhaps 10% have some harm. It is a reality that will be true whether gambling is legal or not, and whether you yourself bet or not. Illegal gambling in the US or China is just as much a social problem as legal gambling in the UK, if not greater with the added element of criminal gangs.
Human nature is the problem, good regulation and diverting some of the profits to supporting gambling charities the best solution we have found to date.
A few years ago I was looking at car insurance prices and instead of using my normal Sheffield postcode, I accidentally dropped one number, which meant the postcode was a for a rough part of Sheffield.
It sent my insurance soaring, it nearly doubled it.
Nothing quite like listening to them damning Thatcher for the state of manufacturing industry while knowing that they had used every possible avenue to prevent jobs coming to the area.
If I ever become rich enough, I will go back and to build a Dark Satanic Mill.
The poorer parts of Manchester and Liverpool and Newcastle perhaps the only exceptions
But Christmas bubbles mean inviting Granny and Aunt Flo for a three-household mix.
However, if Nigel and Nigella come back from their pox-ridden universities, they count as part of your household, and surely that is more of a risk?
I'd accept that the chap as stupid and/or reckless.
But there's a lot of undeserved misfortune around at the moment, and I'm seeing one of my ex-tenants tomorrow to try and resolve a situation - so it's a bit near the surface and I felt that my comment may have been toom blunt.
The guy settled down with gf after an unexpected baby (ie did the right thing) a couple of years ago. Good earnings - well above national average, but 1/3+ on overtime. Very secure job. Got furloughed for 3 months in lockdown due to a pre-existing chronic condition, which cost a lot of lost income, and somehow the pressure has blown up the relationship so that is lost, the house is lost, currently homeless and owes me a big chunk of rent *, and also various others. I hope his credit rating doesn't go too badly.
Unfortunately the block on evictions also means there is less stock available, so it will be tough to get back in.
You can say he should have taken action earlier, which is true (did not talk to me early enough). But fundamentally it's not his own fault.
I have three or four tenants in difficult, and the others will pull through with forbearance, perhaps a rent reduction for the period, and no rent increases for a couple of years.
This one - unfortunately - hasn't. The child is two.
* There have been severe limits on LL freedom of action, and my policy has been forbearance as I always look for longer term tenants.
Her speech introducing Biden on the night that the networks called the result for Biden/Harris was absolutely fantastic. She really looked like a future President then.
The 'projected' thing, for such a massive market, created a dilemma for them they ought to have anticipated. They seem to have been afraid of legal action had they settled earlier.
Next time around, the rules will almost certainly be declared EC votes.
SkyBet and BetFred have them at least. Can get Trump 10/3 as GOP candidate, Haley 6/1, Pence 10/1, Ivanka 16/1.
Democrat side you can get Biden 2/1, Harris 2/1, AOC 12/1, Buttigieg 20/1, Cuomo 25/1.
Not huge value there - maybe a little on Cuomo as he's an obvious choice if it's an unpopular Presidency which tarnishes Harris (and Biden does indeed decide not to go again). AOC and Buttigieg have decades ahead of them, but not sure Cuomo can afford to sit it out if he's ever to have a shot at it.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-lockdown-merkel-announces-tough-new-covid-curbs/a-55921912
There's still some small variations between states.
Here's a summary of the slight relaxation for Christmas (24th-26th December) in English:
https://www.thelocal.de/20201214/what-exactly-are-germanys-christmas-meeting-rules
LOL @ the Michelle Obama number.
I've been a lifelong punter, semi-professionally for about fifteen years. I know many other serious punters and have often discussed aspects of the biz with them, read their books, attended their lectures. They are generally smart, worldly, fair and honest. Betting and bookmaking goes back generations in the family. I don't recognise the sort of behaviour you allude to from my experiences.
A better longshot bet might be Joe Kennedy III if he runs for Massachussetts governor in 2022 and wins
You clearly associate being wealthy with not giving a shit - thus the ones who don't pretend to give a shit are authentic whereas those who do are that most dreadful of things, hypocrites.
Philip Green over Lewis Hamilton any day of the week as it were.
I think Trump Jnr has less than a tenth of his father's charisma and about half his intellect (which is saying something).
Ivanka is smarter but I don't think she'd go for it in 2024. She's only 39, and there's speculation she may run for Senate. It would make sense to sit 2024 out.