politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another debate, another victory for Hillary

Glorious first!

Second? Like the Tory tonight!

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

Glorious first!

I'd give that 6 out of 5. Speedy, but rather unoriginal.

I'll admit it, it was canned!

Interesting to cross reference Clinton's No Fly Zone section with Boris Johnson's " Kinetic " comment. War in Syria could be a domestic issue in the UK by next summer.

JosiasJessop said:

RobD said:

Glorious first!

I'd give that 6 out of 5. Speedy, but rather unoriginal.

You get banned for being speedy.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Indeed Hilllary is now a shoo in, just as the Libdems are in Witney (innocent face)

Yep. Remain was a shoo in too :O

JennyFreeman said:

ToryJim said:

Just read that Hollande piece, my word I knew he was staggeringly inept but that's a different ballgame.

I can't find anything he said with which I disagree. So he said Islam has a problem. You think that's electoral suicide? Pardon the pun.

Well we can all cherry pick to our prejudices but in toto nothing good comes of that series of interviews.

When Democrats attack Trump over Putin I remember the Reset Button which Clinton gave Russia in 2009, a clear misjudgement which I understand Clinton now regrets. Basically, nobody has clean hands here.

JennyFreeman said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

Indeed Hilllary is now a shoo in, just as the Libdems are in Witney (innocent face)

Yep. Remain was a shoo in too :O

...Based on polling models that assumed wwc turnout would be low, when actually it was high. In the US it's the other way round; models already assume a higher turnout amongst Trumpers. Of course turnout can always be higher still, but the margin for a surprise appears much lower.

david_herdson said:

JennyFreeman said:

Pong said:

JennyFreeman said:

CarlottaVance said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting analysis of the 3 debates

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13340828/hillary-clinton-debate-trump-won

Very good.

The polling tells the story. As Nate Silver notes, on the eve of the first presidential debate, Clinton led by 1.5 points. Before the second, she was up by 5.6 points. Before the third, she was winning by 7.1 points.

I did notice Clinton kept calling Trump 'Donald' (which apparently he loathes) - but Donald kept calling Clinton 'She'.....as if he couldn't bear to utter her name.....

Trump is actually ahead or tied in three of the latest polls.

Be careful what you look for.

You think Trump will win the popular vote?

I don't think he will.

I'm prepared to back that up with real money.

Evens, up to £25k.

?

Silly sod: why on earth would I take Evens on Trump when I can get at least 4/1?

That aside, my point is that people see what they want to see. On balance I reckon Trump will lose but I don't see the foregone conclusion that some others do, and that's based on polling as well as other reports.

Remember how cockahoop and cocky Remainers were right up to the night of the result? They were convinced to the point of arrogance.

There was an abundance of both evidence and reasoning to suggest that Leave might win e.g.

- a majority of polls in June had Leave ahead
- the expectation was that Leave would benefit from a big turnout (or a very small one).
- Remain's campaign was dreadful

By contrast, the evidence and reasoning in the US all points to Hillary:

- nearly all VI polling puts Hillary ahead
- Trump's approval ratings are far worse
- state polling reinforces the national trend
- Trump is still playing to the base and not seeking to gain independents or women
- Relying on new voters in a pre-existing format is an extremely tough ask (c.f. EURef)
- Early voting is taking place now, hard coding current opinion into the results
- Trump's character won't allow him to change tack
- The GOP is distancing itself as much as possible to mitigate damage; they expect him to lose

A pretty good summary.

To me the value looks to be in areas that go against trend. Ohio and Iowa for Trump, but also Georgia and Arizona for Clinton. Possibly also some value in a Clinton landslide too, Dems take Alabama...

Either way we're going to miss a Obama. Damn the 22nd amendment.

The Tories are 1.02 in Witney. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/27930564/market?marketId=1.126891150

YellowSubmarine said:

The Tories are 1.02 in Witney. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/27930564/market?marketId=1.126891150

A sure sign of Libdems winning here

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

YellowSubmarine said:

The Tories are 1.02 in Witney. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/27930564/market?marketId=1.126891150

A sure sign of Libdems winning here

By elections without any polling and in such a febrile political environment are not nailed on.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

YellowSubmarine said:

The Tories are 1.02 in Witney. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/27930564/market?marketId=1.126891150

A sure sign of Libdems winning here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunfermline_and_West_Fife_by-election,_2006

Was 1.02 as the returning officer got up to speak.

Has Trump promised to impeach Obama yet?

Innocent_Abroad said:

Has Trump promised to impeach Obama yet?

He referred to the " Obama regime ".

Dave Wasserman – Verified account ‏@Redistrict

In 2012, 59.2% of GA's registered voters were white. Today, it's down to 57.2%. For 1st time, Gwinnett Co. electorate is majority nonwhite.

Nigelb said:

Root gone.
We might just lose a test to Bangladesh.

Didn't happen when Dave was PM.

I blame Brexit and Theresa May

Dave Wasserman ‏@Redistrict
In 2012, 55% of registered voters in Gwinnett County, GA were white. In 2016, just 49% are. It really could go blue: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/clinton-trump-vote-maps-2016/ …

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nielh said:

I'm tempted to put a small bet on trump. Clinton is the likely winner but because of the volatility and unpredictability trump certainly has a good chance.
Trump at 6/1 is ok value

Unfortunately he is only at 4-1 which isnt worth it alas. Seems the bookies, stung by Brexit and Leicester are being cautious.

He is longer on Betfair

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

YellowSubmarine said:

The Tories are 1.02 in Witney. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/27930564/market?marketId=1.126891150

A sure sign of Libdems winning here

By elections without any polling and in such a febrile political environment are not nailed on.

Does febrile have a meaning that I didn't know about?

2. When my side are losing, badly, and I don't want to accept that there might be a cause (e.g. rampant Europhilia) for this.

F1: Brawn's comments on Wolff, Lauda and Lowe fleshed out a bit more here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/37708335

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

As an interested outsider I think that the gerrymandering of the voting system has a lot to do with it. There are just far too many safe seats in Congress. This results in the threat always coming from your left for Dems and your right for the GOP. It makes moderates vulnerable, it makes bipartisanship (otherwise known as betrayal) impossible and it forces even sensible politicians to ramp up the rhetoric to 11.

This has progressively made the country ungovernable and deeply divided. It also means the choices for President tend to play to the base of their party rather than reaching out. Clinton tried to run a pretty centralist campaign and it meant that she could not shake off someone as daft as Bernie for months. Trump didn't and that is one of the reasons he is going to lose.

We have the same problem here to some extent. Safe seats are fundamentally undemocratic and destabilising.

david_herdson said:

JennyFreeman said:

david_herdson said:

JennyFreeman said:

CarlottaVance said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting analysis of the 3 debates

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13340828/hillary-clinton-debate-trump-won

..

Trump is actually ahead or tied in three of the latest polls.

Be careful what you look for.

I love unintended irony.

Don't be patronising David, you're better than that.

My point was a betting one. All my best bets have been the ones where I stripped out my desires and wants. Bet from the head, not the heart.

"Bet from the head not the heart" is sound advice. If anything, I tend to overcompensate.

But I'm sorry; to say "Be careful what you look for" at the same time as posting "Trump is actually ahead or tied in three of the latest polls" does at the least suggest selective vision.

FWIW, the better comparison would be with GE2015, when the Tories outperformed all the polling but one firm (ICM?) consistently gave them leads of 3-6, which while still short, looked at the time like a methodological error. In fact, they were closest to being on the ball.

However, in that election, the subsidiary data suggested that there might be something wrong with the top line; in this one, it reinforces the impression that they're in synch.

Also ICM was and is a very good pollster with an excellent track record, which is definitely not true of the LA Times or Rasmussen.

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

The population of China is over 4 times the population of the US. America being usurped by China and/or others is inevitable.

All things being equal, the bigger the population, the more powerful the country, but things rarely are equal. China spent 150 years wasting its potential, and may yet do so.

Mortimer said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

YellowSubmarine said:

The Tories are 1.02 in Witney. https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/27930564/market?marketId=1.126891150

A sure sign of Libdems winning here

By elections without any polling and in such a febrile political environment are not nailed on.

Does febrile have a meaning that I didn't know about?

2. When my side are losing, badly, and I don't want to accept that there might be a cause (e.g. rampant Europhilia) for this.

Febrile in this sense means volatile and over heated.

In the absence of a NoJam PB contest, I am predicting a safe Con hold, with over 50% of the vote. LDs on 25% and Lab on 12%.

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

As an interested outsider I think that the gerrymandering of the voting system has a lot to do with it. There are just far too many safe seats in Congress. This results in the threat always coming from your left for Dems and your right for the GOP. It makes moderates vulnerable, it makes bipartisanship (otherwise known as betrayal) impossible and it forces even sensible politicians to ramp up the rhetoric to 11.

This has progressively made the country ungovernable and deeply divided. It also means the choices for President tend to play to the base of their party rather than reaching out. Clinton tried to run a pretty centralist campaign and it meant that she could not shake off someone as daft as Bernie for months. Trump didn't and that is one of the reasons he is going to lose.

We have the same problem here to some extent. Safe seats are fundamentally undemocratic and destabilising.

I think that's fairly astute. I'd add another factor: money. Spending $6-7 billion on the presidential and congressional races (as in 2012) is not only obscene; it actually prevents good government.

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

As an interested outsider I think that the gerrymandering of the voting system has a lot to do with it. There are just far too many safe seats in Congress. This results in the threat always coming from your left for Dems and your right for the GOP. It makes moderates vulnerable, it makes bipartisanship (otherwise known as betrayal) impossible and it forces even sensible politicians to ramp up the rhetoric to 11.

This has progressively made the country ungovernable and deeply divided. It also means the choices for President tend to play to the base of their party rather than reaching out. Clinton tried to run a pretty centralist campaign and it meant that she could not shake off someone as daft as Bernie for months. Trump didn't and that is one of the reasons he is going to lose.

We have the same problem here to some extent. Safe seats are fundamentally undemocratic and destabilising.

I think that's fairly astute. I'd add another factor: money. Spending $6-7 billion on the presidential and congressional races (as in 2012) is not only obscene; it actually prevents good government.

Yes, the desperate need for money over her career has corrupted Hilary and is bound to corrupt any politician with a long career.

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

I don't think America can stop the rot. Its hegemony has been in decline for decades.

We are looking at the flipside of globalisation, where the rich look more like each other whether in London, California, Shanghai and Mumbai, and the mob look like each other too, whether in Ohio or Kyiv.

The United States needs a better voting system, AV for example.

Sean_F said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

The population of China is over 4 times the population of the US. America being usurped by China and/or others is inevitable.

All things being equal, the bigger the population, the more powerful the country, but things rarely are equal. China spent 150 years wasting its potential, and may yet do so.

Indeed. China also faces problems, some of them structural, some of them cultural.

The UK became a world power by innovating and creating new industries. The US did the same, embracing change and using their massive resources to accelerate it.

Russia did not innovate as much, and never managed to approach the US in non-military power. China is not innovating much: they are in the perfect place to produce innovative, disruptive industries but they're still mostly coming from the US and the west.

Take SpaceX as an example. There is no reason China could not have tried to produce a disruptive reusable launcher. Instead, they just copied and improved on what the Russians had done. They've probably spent much more on their program, arguably for less.

Copying and incremental improvements can only get you so far.

Ann Coulter sounding relatively restrained (for her) on R4. Worst augury of all for Donald?

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

nielh said:

I'm tempted to put a small bet on trump. Clinton is the likely winner but because of the volatility and unpredictability trump certainly has a good chance.
Trump at 6/1 is ok value

Unfortunately he is only at 4-1 which isnt worth it alas. Seems the bookies, stung by Brexit and Leicester are being cautious.

You can get 9/2 pretty generally and 5/1 on the exchanges. Why would anyone take 4/1?

If you really want to understand how money corrupts the political system, last night had the story up in lights.

Hilary, despite being in the Whitehouse during a totally scandal hit 8 years, despite being the author of the failed healthcare reforms of the late 90's, despite a long history of proven dishonesty, despite Benghazi, the Clinton foundation, leaked emails and the lasting smell of Whitewater - is somehow the best candidate democrat money can buy.

And she's up against a bull headed know nothing businessman with a habit in young women, a loose tongue, sexual encounters of a nefarious nature and the policy experience of a two year old.

What's worse is that the two year old has the better policies and the dishonest machine politician looks clean by comparison to her odd ball opponent. The world's on its head.

Neither of them are even great speakers, at least Obama had rhetorical flair.

(As an allegory - spell check just tried to correct Whitehouse to Whorehouse!)

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

Yes, good analysis. Inter alia it's a good example of how you can overdo checks and balances, to the point that nobody can decide most things one way or the other.

The issue is masked by the fact that things are still very nice for most Americans most of the time. The normal American experience is a busy life with friendly neighbo(u)rs, reasonable prosperity and no major threats. So people have a nagging feeling that all is not well, as you say, but it's a minority who are really furious.

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

I don't think America can stop the rot. Its hegemony has been in decline for decades.

We are looking at the flipside of globalisation, where the rich look more like each other whether in London, California, Shanghai and Mumbai, and the mob look like each other too, whether in Ohio or Kyiv.

And the mob in Workington, West Virginia, Wroclaw and Vladivostok have observed that the rich in those places care only about the rich in each others places, and not a fig for the rest; and are starting to vote accordingly.

Morning all,

Another fine performance from Clinton. This is so over.

SquareRoot said:

RE pollsters/ Labour poll rating/ still too high 29% is fantasy

I wonder if at least a few % of the current Labour vote are people who still like the brand and don't really believe the party will seriously still be presenting Corbyn as leader by next GE.

nielh said:

I'm tempted to put a small bet on trump. Clinton is the likely winner but because of the volatility and unpredictability trump certainly has a good chance.
Trump at 6/1 is ok value

Doesn't it become very difficult to estimate what is good value beyond a certain point?

538's three models are currently showing Trump's chances at 12-15%, which is smaller than the betting markets imply. I wouldn't have much faith in the numerical accuracy of those models, but I'd have even less faith in a gut feeling that the figure should be 5 or 10 percent higher.

Loving how Hillary single-handedly brought in Bin Laden.

Is she also taking responsibility for the rise of ISIS on her watch?

MarkSenior said:

Alistair said:

CarlottaVance said:

DavidL said:

There are just far too many safe seats in Congress.

Talking of which, had a chance to cast your eye over the new Scottish constituencies?

Extinction level events for the Tories & Labour?

The middle bit of the South of Scotland has managed to get more stupid somehow than DCT already was.

May as well be renamed "Leftovers"

New boundaries good for Lib Dems in NE Fife and especially Edinburgh West . Edinburgh South a 3 way marginal which probably favours Labour with tactical Unionist votes , Conservatives hurt in D and G but perhaps still favourites . Berwickshire Roxburgh and Berwickshire their best bet .

Berwickshire is a nailed on Tory gain barring a Lib Dem Lazarus impression.

By the way, I've settled back in Notts, and I've just been selected as Labour candidate for Eastwood on the County Council - a former Labour stronghold which the LibDems took during a period when Labour locally was having serious personal difficulties. My argument at a personal level will be that having an energetic county councillor who knows the ropes at every level wouldn't be a bad thing.

It's in Broxtowe borough, though just on the edge of my former constituency, so I'm a reasonably familiar figure there and know the town pretty well: I used to live nearby. It's part of the new Broxtowe and Hucknall constituency which Anna Soubry is likely to contest if the boundary changes go through, but for the time being it's part of Gloria de Piero's constituency.

I have no idea how it will turn out, but it'll be good to be back in harness. The County Council is an interesting one politically as Labour won a majoity of 1 last time. First regional BBC TV interview is tomorrow.

Swindon Labour councillor leaves, joins Tories. Changes mind goes back with tail between legs.

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2016-10-19/swindon-councillor-defects-to-conservatives-after-5-months-with-labour/

Perhaps by the weekend he will have become a Lib Dem.

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

foxinsoxuk said:

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

I don't think America can stop the rot. Its hegemony has been in decline for decades.

We are looking at the flipside of globalisation, where the rich look more like each other whether in London, California, Shanghai and Mumbai, and the mob look like each other too, whether in Ohio or Kyiv.

And the mob in Workington, West Virginia, Wroclaw and Vladivostok have observed that the rich in those places care only about the rich in each others places, and not a fig for the rest; and are starting to vote accordingly.

What happens when they figure out that voting doesn't work any more?

NickPalmer said:

By the way, I've settled back in Notts, and I've just been selected as Labour candidate for Eastwood on the County Council - a former Labour stronghold which the LibDems took during a period when Labour locally was having serious personal difficulties. My argument at a personal level will be that having an energetic county councillor who knows the ropes at every level wouldn't be a bad thing.

It's in Broxtowe borough, though just on the edge of my former constituency, so I'm a reasonably familiar figure there and know the town pretty well: I used to live nearby. It's part of the new Broxtowe and Hucknall constituency which Anna Soubry is likely to contest if the boundary changes go through, but for the time being it's part of Gloria de Piero's constituency.

I have no idea how it will turn out, but it'll be good to be back in harness. The County Council is an interesting one politically as Labour won a majoity of 1 last time. First regional BBC TV interview is tomorrow.

Thanks for the update and good luck in your campaigning. Will PBers be avidly following a Sourby vs Palmer rerun then in next GE?

Glad to see Ali batting up the order.

Still should be higher, though....

NickPalmer said:

By the way, I've settled back in Notts, and I've just been selected as Labour candidate for Eastwood on the County Council - a former Labour stronghold which the LibDems took during a period when Labour locally was having serious personal difficulties. My argument at a personal level will be that having an energetic county councillor who knows the ropes at every level wouldn't be a bad thing.

It's in Broxtowe borough, though just on the edge of my former constituency, so I'm a reasonably familiar figure there and know the town pretty well: I used to live nearby. It's part of the new Broxtowe and Hucknall constituency which Anna Soubry is likely to contest if the boundary changes go through, but for the time being it's part of Gloria de Piero's constituency.

I have no idea how it will turn out, but it'll be good to be back in harness. The County Council is an interesting one politically as Labour won a majoity of 1 last time. First regional BBC TV interview is tomorrow.

Good luck Nick!

Mortimer said:

edmundintokyo said:

JosiasJessop said:

To my mind, there's a bigger question than who wins the presidency. It's whether America can stop the rot.

There are big problems in the US at the moment. Without getting all SeanT over this, it's still the greatest country in the world, but other countries are yapping at its heels, wanting its place.

The problem is that Americans cannot agree on what the problems are, yet alone the solutions. They just have a nagging feeling that their rightful position is being threatened.

America being usurped by China and/or others is not inevitable. China itself faces significant problems. But America is being thrust forwards by inertia, not leadership. And four or eight years of Trump or Clinton won't fix this. Neither have the capability of bringing the country together.

I doubt their broken political system will allow such a leader to reach a position where they could do any good. Their political system is utterly broken, and the last system you would choose if you wanted real democracy.

Having said all that, I have little doubt that Trump would accelerate the rot. As such, Clinton is the best choice for America. Which in itself is a symbol of their malaise.

The population of China is over 4 times the population of the US. America being usurped by China and/or others is inevitable.

Not an historian are you.

Nothing, on a geopolitical level, is inevitable.

China has enormous economic problems looming.