politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to desert Trump as do more leading Republican

rcs1000 said:

nunu said:

The DUP MP's are all shaking their heads as Farron asks his rambling question.

Who?

Some MP from the Lake District.

Theuniondivvie said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Wow - Theresa just shot down the leader of SNP

Wow, PB Tories too hasty in resorting to typing one handed, plus ça change.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/786164850271592448

If you're explaining, you're losing....

I think it's great when all those loser journos (particularly the ones that have no love of 'the Nats') do the explaining for me.

https://twitter.com/Kevin_Maguire/status/786164532456464384

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/786164326709288960

Still losing.

Get used to it. It's the way the SNP is going...

I've always held that the views of southern Tories with no Scottish votes, no influence and minimal clues should be of vital importance. Unfortunately most of my countrymen are of a different opinion.

We'll just have to build on Scottish votes for Tories then....

Look, I predicted that the SNP would poll 50% of the Scottish votes in the 2015 General Election. (It was 49.9 something % - so sue me!) I'm now predicting that the SNP high tide has been and gone.

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.

I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"

@rhiannonlucyc

Imagine if remain had won by tiny margin & the govt went for "hard remain" - Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage. People would go apeshit.

Casino_Royale said:

MikeSmithson said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarkSenior said:

Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "

Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat

Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed

More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,

It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.

And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.

No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.

Not quite true. The party machines should have an indication by how on how postal voting is going. Clearly it is illegal for that information to be passed on.

But that doesn't add much unless either overwhelming or in an already poll baselined close fight.

And not really. It is exceptionally difficult to get any useful information from a postal vote verification, if it is done properly, since the ballot papers are kept face down and the sample isn't random to start with.

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarkSenior said:

Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "

Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat

Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed

More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,

It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.

And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.

No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.

Posters do provide some general indication of local enthusiasm and also confirmation that someone from the party concerned has canvassed the local area.

not_on_fire said:

@rhiannonlucyc

Imagine if remain had won by tiny margin & the govt went for "hard remain" - Schengen, Euro, multilingual signage. People would go apeshit.

True, because there wouldn't be a mandate.

They won't, however, go apeshit about leaving the EU when the country has voted for it. Remaining subject to the ECJ, to Commission directives, to free movement of people and paying a membership fee for the privilege is not leaving the EU in any meaningful way; it'd simply be keeping the obligations while giving up the influence.

Jobabob said:

rcs1000 said:

Jobabob said:

stodge said:

Morning again all

On topic, the polarisation of the US is frightening to behold. There was a time when even if one was opposed, there was an inherent respect for the office of POTUS. That seems to have ebbed away. As for a bet, I think Alaska to go for Clinton is one on which I'd invest a few pounds. Obama wasn't far away in 2012 and the latest poll gives Trump only a 3-point advantage. It's the sort of state I could imagine Johnson polling well and perhaps acting as a spoiler.

Off topic, I wholeheartedly agree there should not be a vote in parliament on triggering A50 - we voted to do that on June 23rd. There does need to be scrutiny and debate on the final deal in Parliament with a vote and I think I favour that over a second referendum though I'm not wholly convinced.

How is the rise of Trump any different from the rise of Palin? Both are populists who appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor.

There will always be that target group in the US, but so far, in recent times, their political representatives have been soundly beaten.

Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.

It is quite possible that Trump, like Palin, becomes an irrelevance very quickly after election day.

If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.

Why?

Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.

Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.

If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.

You may be right there, Robert.

@rcs1000

Mebbe you should short some Trump CDSs...

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarkSenior said:

Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "

Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat

Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed

More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,

It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.

And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.

No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.

Posters do provide some general indication of local enthusiasm and also confirmation that someone from the party concerned has canvassed the local area.

They show there are pumped up activists who are good at putting up posters.

You can make a town of several thousand voters look dominated for one side just by putting up a few dozen posters on the main thoroughfares and streets, and in every seat I've ever campaigned the Lib Dems have been much better at it, but it doesn't translate into votes.

It can, at best, demoralise the opposition activists and imply to voters that (for instance) the LDs might stand a sporting chance, so isn't a wasted vote, but tells you very little about the result.

Charles said:

Jobabob said:

rcs1000 said:

If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.

Why?

Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.

Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.

If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.

You may be right there, Robert.

@rcs1000

Mebbe you should short some Trump CDSs...

I think you mean *buy* some Trump CDS's. If I shorted them, I would be betting on his credit rating improving

Casino_Royale said:

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarkSenior said:

Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "

Well you seem to be admitting you will not win the seat

Like Farage and Johnson admitted not winning the referendum as the polls closed

More seriously, I don't think anyone thinks a LibDem win is anything other than an extremely remote possibility,

It reminds me of Oldham West, when the UKIP odds kept shortening and shortening, and we heard regular posts about UKIP was doing really well. And we all fell for it.

And then UKIP barely budged on their 2015 result, and Labour actually increased its share.

No one knows anything and volumes of activists and posters prove nothing.

Posters do provide some general indication of local enthusiasm and also confirmation that someone from the party concerned has canvassed the local area.

They show there are pumped up activists who are good at putting up posters.

You can make a town of several thousand voters look dominated for one side just by putting up a few dozen posters on the main thoroughfares and streets, and in every seat I've ever campaigned the Lib Dems have been much better at it, but it doesn't translate into votes.

It can, at best, demoralise the opposition activists and imply to voters that (for instance) the LDs might stand a sporting chance, so isn't a wasted vote, but tells you very little about the result.

In the case of Witney, surely the purpose is to persuade Green and Labour voters that the LibDems are the local alternative to the Conservative Party.

I suspect it will be a moderately successful pitch.

david_herdson said:

MarkSenior said:

Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "

That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.

And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.

On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.

As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!

david_herdson said:

MarkSenior said:

Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "

That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.

That would be good for LDs, acceptable for Tories, bad for Labour and UKIP.
I would guess that it won't be far off that.

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.

I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"

If enough small c conservative middle class (in the US sense of the word) people in the US are concerned enough about this enough, their votes combined with the angry wwcs might just be enough for Trump to squeak it.

Because of this, whoever wins will be attempting to set the course of the US long after they are in their grave.

The thought of judicial activist types having a majority in SCOTUS could be enough to make me vote trump, despite everything,
it if I had the vote.

Trump isnt very sound on the social issues involved, but Hillary is a grade 1 ism obsessed Social Justice Warrior of the worst sort.

When it comes to voting day such hard headed considerations might do for hillary as did different hard headed considerations do for Kinnock in 1992.

steve hawkes ‏@steve_hawkes 10 mins10 minutes ago

Labour: "The focus on Russian atrocities sometimes diverts attention away from other civilian casualties that have been taking place" #syria

WTF?

Cyclefree said:

edmundintokyo said:

Cyclefree said:

Why then did France continue to allow such immigration into the country? The killer in Nice, for instance, was an unskilled labourer from North Africa who was allowed to move to France in 2003. Why?

Family visa, wife is reported as "French-Tunisian", so I guess she was a French national?

Apparently he wasn't religious and drank like a proper French person, so it's not obvious that immigration should have been able to guess that he'd go religious-homicidal-bonkers 10 years later.

That's not really the point. What benefit to France was it to have an unskilled labourer immigrate into the country? What skills did he bring that could not be found within the country or within the EU itself?

He was a loving husband to his (presumably) French wife. OK, not really, as he turned out to be a scumbag at home as well as a homicidal nutter, but as far as an immigration bureaucrat could have known, he would have been.

This represents a great benefit to a particular French person. I think this is obviously the right question when somebody wants to live with their spouse, particularly as judging the net benefit of a human being to an entire nation is a seriously inexact science.

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

Jobabob said:

rcs1000 said:

If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.

Why?

Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.

Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.

If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.

You may be right there, Robert.

@rcs1000

Mebbe you should short some Trump CDSs...

I think you mean *buy* some Trump CDS's. If I shorted them, I would be betting on his credit rating improving

Can I blame autocorrect and be believed?

Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.

I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"

Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?

Charles said:

rcs1000 said:

Charles said:

Jobabob said:

rcs1000 said:

If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.

Why?

Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.

Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.

If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.

You may be right there, Robert.

@rcs1000

Mebbe you should short some Trump CDSs...

I think you mean *buy* some Trump CDS's. If I shorted them, I would be betting on his credit rating improving

Can I blame autocorrect and be believed?

I've always wondered how many complex trades made in haste then have to be reversed when it becomes apparent the opposite move was intended....

Or are there simple systems in place to stop this?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.

That sort of intellectualism isn't tolerated in Maoist regimes, is it?

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.

I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"

Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?

That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.

A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.

The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.

The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.

The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.

I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Although I'm not following the parliamentary debate live, judging by the Guardian live blog, Sir Keith Starmer is sounding like a grown-up and making some well-argued points. That's quite a novelty amongst the Shadow front-bench nowadays.

Though as David Davis has just said that Keir Starmer's request to answer 170 questions, one for each day to A50 being served, is just a stunt

Davis would know all about pointless stunts of course.

And good to know that he has such a low view of Parliament.

On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.

They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms

In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.

So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.

I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"

Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?

That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.

A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.

The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.

The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.

The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.

I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.

You've made it very clear what YOU think about abortion. I take it you think that the Founding Fathers wanted their values to be set in stone forever. Those values were, of course, at least in part the result of centuries of judicial activism on both sides of the Pond.

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

''He absolutely is not professional. ''

Its amazing who Remainers will follow if it means slowing Brexit down.

Almost as amazing as those leftists fretting about losing City revenues.

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.

You have to give the Republican membership a lot of credit in finding just about the only candidate who Hilary has a chance of winning against.

Regarding Trump if this was any other candidate in any other election, it would be all over. And even now on paper his opponent should win by a least a country mile if not a landslide.

However, his opponent is Hillary Clinton. A lot of people clearly find Trump repulsive and are saying so openly. A lot of people also find Clinton repulsive but to say so openly is to give tacit approval to Trump so they don't.

Polls have shown that a decent chunk of Hillary voters are anti-Trump not pro-Clinton. If he is written off then their need to vote disappears and does that let him back into contention in states like Florida?

Despite everything, despite all the shocks to the Trump campaign, his video response to the sex tape scandal still rings true for me. That all this is a distraction to the tens of millions of Americans for whom the American dream is an evil fiction. That they are unhappy and they are disconnected and that a vote for the Uber Establishment Clinton changes nothing.

So I'm not prepared to write him off just yet...

It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.

619 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.

They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms

In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.

So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.

That is interesting. What did he say about 'Shy Trumpers' or whether the Supreme Court nomination is an important factor? Or was he not that specific?

Trumpers aren't shy, far from it.

If they have concerns about supreme court nominations, they can vote for the appropriate senator if they have an election this year.

TheScreamingEagles said:

It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.

You could buy a white man through slavery?

Nigelb said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.

I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"

Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?

Supreme Court's sole role is to interpret the Constitution. Arguably real life would be a distraction from their duty!

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.

You could buy a white man through slavery?

Plenty of white slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries. Have you never read Robinson Crusoe? I'd be wary of judging historical figures by modern standards. Maybe we should then decry all modern Muslims as they split umma/dhimmi and their value 100/50 in eg court cases.

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.

You have to give the Republican membership a lot of credit in finding just about the only candidate who Hilary has a chance of winning against.

Not so. I think the GOP field was very weak indeed and all of the candidates would have struggled to beat her. I'm not sure this "even a spaniel with a red rosette would have beaten Hillary" meme has much basis in fact.

Ishmael_X said:

JosiasJessop said:

braeside02 said:

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.

Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.

As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.

Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.

Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.

Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?

logical_song said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.

They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms

In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.

So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.

If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.

I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020.

logical_song said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.

They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms

In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.

So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.

If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.

Indeed, she might decide voluntarily to be a President Juan Term

Alistair said:

braeside02 said:

Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.

I must have imagined those congressional hearings, special prosecutors, FBI investigation etc

No scrutiny! Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

you mean... FBI "investigation"

You need to put scare quotes around it.

AlastairMeeks said:

Meanwhile, Labour's awkward squad doesn't sound as if it is going to disband either:

https://twitter.com/JWoodcockMP/status/786184848566255617

Stop The War may be what finally does for Corbyn, though I'd still make the IRA favourites in that particular market.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/stop-the-war-oppose-the-west-and-support-dictators-they-are-trai/

IanB2 said:

MarqueeMark said:

PClipp said:

david_herdson said:

MarkSenior said:

Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "

That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.

And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.

On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.

As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!

There was clearly an element of high profile Remainers moving the vote in their constituencies compared to neighbouring MPs. Cameron would have benefitted more than any others - Witney was going to lose the prestige of having the PM as their MP if he lost the Referendum. Plus, if you were already inclined to give the guy your vote, you were probably more inclined to give him a hearing on the big issue of the day.

I suspect there was a sizeable number of voters who would otherwise have voted Leave, but didn't want to line up against their MP. I reckon there would be a big shift to Leave in Witney if there was another vote.

How that impacts on the by-election, I haven't a clue.

Weren't many of the home county seats north west of London - in the belt up to Oxford and across to the Cotswolds and Bristol (where the proportion of people with qualifications is probably higher than in Kent or Essex) declared for Remain? I don't remember Witney being particularly out of line?

That's right: Tory Remainia – a big band of Remain yellow in a blue Leaver sea

PClipp said:

david_herdson said:

MarkSenior said:

Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "

That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.

And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.

On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.

As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!

I expect the LDs to do well in the by-election, but to win from fourth place and 6.8% against 60% for the Tory would be beyond anything that has been achieved before by any party.
(I await contradiction ;-) )

Jobabob said:

logical_song said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.

They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms

In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.

So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.

If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.

I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020.

I think highly unlikely we will see Clinton in 2020. Not buying into the conspiracy theory nuts of Parkinsons or whatever their latest theory is, it is no secret she does have a number of long term health conditions and the next 5-10 years are going to be extremely testing.

I think after 5 years and being the first woman POTUS that will be enough.