politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on who will win the US Presidential race in 2020

Options
System
System Posts: 12,578
edited October 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on who will win the US Presidential race in 2020

No, that headline wasn’t a typo, even before the winner of the 2016 race has been decided, Ladbrokes really do have a market up on who will win the 2020 White House race. I do wonder if both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, by choice, will be voluntary one term Presidents.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    First!
  • peter_from_putney
    peter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    Aargh .... second!
  • SimonStClare
    SimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    2020?

    Ye Gods! – These US Presidential races appear to be getting longer and longer...
  • peter_from_putney
    peter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    This is akin to Ladbrokes' "Buzzword Bingo" markets and really represents a licence to print money, since it is more than likely that none of the so-called contenders will get anywhere near the White House in 2020, not to mention that one is providing them with a 4 year interest free loan in the meantime!
    Still, as long as it's helping to maintain Shadsy in the manner to which he has grown accustomed then that's OK!
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    @TSE is right to highlight that Kaine is probably a little long in this market, but as Mr Putney says it's four years away and has the air of Shadsy's Christmas bonus fund about it!
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    peter_from_putney said:

    Aargh .... second!

    A darn sight better than my sixth :(
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    England's fielders are not having the best of mornings. Three dropped catches in the first hour, and only the one wicket. Ban 213/4, lead by 189.
  • PeteD
    PeteD Posts: 8
    I worry it will be someone like Sarah Palin. Assuming Trump loses this time round, whoever is takes on the mantle of heir to Trump in 2020 must surely have a great chance of sweeping the Republican primaries.

    Then, in the General, they may be up against a very weak Clinton. Come 2020, the Dems will have had 12 years in the White House, so the "time for change" argument will be very powerful. Hillary will be 73 or so. And she will very likely be weakened after facing a primary challenge to her left (the Bernie supporters are far too motivated now to give her a free pass). Someone like Palin would have the charisma and shamelessness of Trump, but possibly without the extensive baggage.
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited October 2016
    peter_from_putney said:

    This is akin to Ladbrokes' "Buzzword Bingo" markets and really represents a licence to print money, since it is more than likely that none of the so-called contenders will get anywhere near the White House in 2020, not to mention that one is providing them with a 4 year interest free loan in the meantime!
    Still, as long as it's helping to maintain Shadsy in the manner to which he has grown accustomed then that's OK!

    Normally true, albeit the favourite in 2012 to be Next President in 2016 will almost certainly become President in a little over a week now.
  • PeteD
    PeteD Posts: 8
    Philip_Thompson said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    This is akin to Ladbrokes' "Buzzword Bingo" markets and really represents a licence to print money, since it is more than likely that none of the so-called contenders will get anywhere near the White House in 2020, not to mention that one is providing them with a 4 year interest free loan in the meantime!
    Still, as long as it's helping to maintain Shadsy in the manner to which he has grown accustomed then that's OK!

    Normally true, albeit the favourite in 2012 to be Next President in 2016 will almost certainly become President in a little over a week now.
    True, but only really because her opponent is someone who was never even considered a contender in 2012 - if it had been someone who was seen as a credible contender (eg Rubio), she wouldn't have a prayer.
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    Welcome to PB, Pete!
  • PeteD
    PeteD Posts: 8
    RobD said:

    Welcome to PB, Pete!

    Thanks Rob! I've been a long-time lurker but want to get more engaged. Only another 17740 posts and I'll have caught you up...
  • RobD
    RobD Posts: 60,609
    PeteD said:

    RobD said:

    Welcome to PB, Pete!

    Thanks Rob! I've been a long-time lurker but want to get more engaged. Only another 17740 posts and I'll have caught you up...
    Something about quality vs. quantity!
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    PeteD said:

    I worry it will be someone like Sarah Palin. Assuming Trump loses this time round, whoever is takes on the mantle of heir to Trump in 2020 must surely have a great chance of sweeping the Republican primaries.

    Then, in the General, they may be up against a very weak Clinton. Come 2020, the Dems will have had 12 years in the White House, so the "time for change" argument will be very powerful. Hillary will be 73 or so. And she will very likely be weakened after facing a primary challenge to her left (the Bernie supporters are far too motivated now to give her a free pass). Someone like Palin would have the charisma and shamelessness of Trump, but possibly without the extensive baggage.

    Good post, and Welcome. I don't think it will be Palin, but it could well be someone like her.

    Assuming they lose next week, the Republicans need to do a lot of thinking about how they stage the primaries next time. Personally I'd do them in 2018, and allow their pick to be "Shadow President" for a couple of years, with a clear policy programme ready to implement. After 12 years of Democrats most Americans will think it's time for a change.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Finally a couple of wickets. We're going to have to chase at least 250 though, it's going to be a long day for England's batsmen.
  • Roger
    Roger Posts: 20,744
    edited October 2016
    OT. Don't we all


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/724642/Graham-Norton-slams-brexit-voters?utm_source=externaloutbrain&utm_medium=recommendations&utm_term=paid&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=2016&utm_term=5526078
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    Welcome aboard, Pete!

    The trouble with this market is that the choice of possible candidates is more or less infinite, so laying the favourites (which unfortunately one can't do with Ladbrokes) makes more sense then backing individuals - by 2020 who knows what Trumpish figure may emerge? I broadly agree with TSE's analysis, though. I don't think the email server will be an issue in 2020, though, unless Clinton has been prosecuted and convicted in the meantime.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    Incidentally, the Icelandic elections showed two familiar trends - a last-minute switch from radicals to centre-right parties, and a big shift from social democrats to far-left (last time: 13% each; this time: 6 and 17% respectively).

    http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/elections2016/

    (hat-tip Andy JS)
  • nielh
    nielh Posts: 1,307
    edited October 2016
    NickPalmer said:

    Incidentally, the Icelandic elections showed two familiar trends - a last-minute switch from radicals to centre-right parties, and a big shift from social democrats to far-left (last time: 13% each; this time: 6 and 17% respectively).

    http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/elections2016/

    (hat-tip Andy JS)

    Iceland is a microstate (electorate of 250,000), but its politics are still very interesting.
    The centrist social democratic party led the very successful coalition government 2009-2013 - it now has less than 6% of the vote.
    I don't know if there was a last minute switch from radicals to centre right parties. The four centre left parties agreed prior to the vote to go in to a coalition which was seemingly being led by the anarchist pirate party, who at one point were polling 40%, although their actual result was 14.5%.
    So what happened was that people got spooked (quite correctly, in my view), by the prospect of the pirate party being in government and switched from one of the other centre left parties to the independence party, the establishment right wing party which controls the main newspapers and protects the powerful interests in the fishing industry.
    It looks like the government will have a right wing coalition although a breakaway party from the independence party (regeneration) will hold the balance of power. They are pro EU, liberal, free trade etc.
    A common theme is that there is a 52% majority for establishment parties.
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,275
    Michelle Obama? Or is she for 2024?

    I suspect after four years of either Hillary or The Donald the country will want someone energetic and sane.
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    OldKingCole said:

    Michelle Obama? Or is she for 2024?

    I suspect after four years of either Hillary or The Donald the country will want someone energetic and sane.

    The Obamas have been so constant and firm in their statements that Michelle doesn't want to run for any office never mind President that there would be a year's worth of attack ads if she did run.

    So she won't.
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Alistair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Michelle Obama? Or is she for 2024?

    I suspect after four years of either Hillary or The Donald the country will want someone energetic and sane.

    The Obamas have been so constant and firm in their statements that Michelle doesn't want to run for any office never mind President that there would be a year's worth of attack ads if she did run.

    So she won't.
    Never believe anything until it's been officially denied.
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Alistair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Michelle Obama? Or is she for 2024?

    I suspect after four years of either Hillary or The Donald the country will want someone energetic and sane.

    The Obamas have been so constant and firm in their statements that Michelle doesn't want to run for any office never mind President that there would be a year's worth of attack ads if she did run.

    So she won't.
    Never believe anything until it's been officially denied.
    They've literally said Michelle doesn't have the temperament to run for office. It's a killer line that would kill any run stone dead.
  • AndyJS
    AndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited October 2016
    The fact that the leading party in the Icelandic election has polled only 40,728 votes so far brings home how small the population of the country is, even if one was already aware of it.
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Alistair said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Alistair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Michelle Obama? Or is she for 2024?

    I suspect after four years of either Hillary or The Donald the country will want someone energetic and sane.

    The Obamas have been so constant and firm in their statements that Michelle doesn't want to run for any office never mind President that there would be a year's worth of attack ads if she did run.

    So she won't.
    Never believe anything until it's been officially denied.
    They've literally said Michelle doesn't have the temperament to run for office. It's a killer line that would kill any run stone dead.
    Until it doesn't.
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,275
    edited October 2016
    Alistair said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Michelle Obama? Or is she for 2024?

    I suspect after four years of either Hillary or The Donald the country will want someone energetic and sane.

    The Obamas have been so constant and firm in their statements that Michelle doesn't want to run for any office never mind President that there would be a year's worth of attack ads if she did run.

    So she won't.
    2024 she’ll still be only 60, and her daughters will either have finished college or be doing further degrees. She’s an extremly able person so I wouldn't be too surprised to see her changing her mind. The last report was that her husband said she’d never stand, so experience suggests that could well be taken with a pinch oif salt!
  • nunu
    nunu Posts: 6,024
    Josh Jordan ‏@NumbersMuncher
    Craciun Research Alaska poll:
    Clinton 47
    Trump 43
    Johnson 7

    Oh my.
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,275
    Bangladesh all out. England need 273 to win. Plenty of time, but it’d be their highest chase in Asia.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    OldKingCole said:

    Bangladesh all out. England need 273 to win. Plenty of time, but it’d be their highest chase in Asia.

    Luckily their tail doesn't wag - it's going to be a very long day for our batsmen on the deteriorating pitch.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    OldKingCole said:

    Bangladesh all out. England need 273 something of a miracle to win.

    Fixed it for you.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    Sandpit said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Bangladesh all out. England need 273 to win. Plenty of time, but it’d be their highest chase in Asia.

    Luckily their tail doesn't wag - it's going to be a very long day for our batsmen on the deteriorating pitch.
    Or a very short one...
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,275
    ydoethur said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Bangladesh all out. England need 273 something of a miracle to win.

    Fixed it for you.
    LOL.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    nunu said:

    Josh Jordan ‏@NumbersMuncher
    Craciun Research Alaska poll:
    Clinton 47
    Trump 43
    Johnson 7

    Oh my.

    Duff poll.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Bangladesh all out. England need 273 to win. Plenty of time, but it’d be their highest chase in Asia.

    Luckily their tail doesn't wag - it's going to be a very long day for our batsmen on the deteriorating pitch.
    Or a very short one...
    I try to be an optimistic sort!

    That can often be a bad idea when supporting England at cricket, but fingers crossed!
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    Battleground States - Emerson - Samples 400-800 - All 26-27 Oct

    OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
    FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
    NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
    WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
    NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: just checked and was quite surprised to see that Vettel apparently has no penalty for blocking.

    Weird qualifying. Anyway, shall start writing up the pre-race piece.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    JackW said:

    Battleground States - Emerson - Samples 400-800 - All 26-27 Oct

    OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
    FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
    NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
    WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
    NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf

    So if this poll is correct even before the latest row the race was extremely tight, and while the trend is for Clinton to be ahead it's mostly MoE stuff.

    Not exactly a dazzling performance given she's up against the egregious Mr Trump.
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,275
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    Battleground States - Emerson - Samples 400-800 - All 26-27 Oct

    OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
    FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
    NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
    WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
    NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf

    So if this poll is correct even before the latest row the race was extremely tight, and while the trend is for Clinton to be ahead it's mostly MoE stuff.

    Not exactly a dazzling performance given she's up against the egregious Mr Trump.
    Underlines, does it not, the weakness of a system where money is allowed to talk as loudly as it does.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    National Tracker - IBD/TIPP - Sample 1,013 - 23-28 Oct

    Clinton 45 .. Trump 41

    Note - 1 point move to Clinton since "Dickiegate"

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: just checked and was quite surprised to see that Vettel apparently has no penalty for blocking.

    Weird qualifying. Anyway, shall start writing up the pre-race piece.

    It's difficult to prove when the guy who was 'blocked' set the fastest lap of the session a few seconds later!
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    Battleground States - Emerson - Samples 400-800 - All 26-27 Oct

    OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
    FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
    NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
    WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
    NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf

    So if this poll is correct even before the latest row the race was extremely tight, and while the trend is for Clinton to be ahead it's mostly MoE stuff.

    Not exactly a dazzling performance given she's up against the egregious Mr Trump.
    538 adjust these Emerson polls by Clinton +2. Neither candidate is Mother Theresa of US politics !!
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    I'm starting to think of the Unionist leadership struggle of 1923. All the strong candidates - Chamberlain, Birkenhead, Horne - were unavailable, leaving the choice between Curzon and Baldwin, both of whom were severely flawed and potentially very divisive candidates. Eventually, the King himself had to make the call as none of his advisers could agree on which was least bad.

    Ultimately Baldwin managed to become leader and remained leader for 14 years, facing down two major challenges along the way - but he continues to be excoriated (sometimes unfairly) for his leadership or lack thereof.

    Could Trump be Baldwin? No. Baldwin's temperament was wholly different. But Clinton's beginning to resemble Curzon, the experienced fixer with the big political heritage whom nobody trusts and whose judgment may be politely described as suspect.
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    Battleground States - Emerson - Samples 400-800 - All 26-27 Oct

    OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
    FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
    NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
    WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
    NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf

    So if this poll is correct even before the latest row the race was extremely tight, and while the trend is for Clinton to be ahead it's mostly MoE stuff.

    Not exactly a dazzling performance given she's up against the egregious Mr Trump.
    Emerson are a landline only poller.
  • Monksfield
    Monksfield Posts: 2,905
    edited October 2016
    2020 Warren or Gillibrand vs whoever is last standing in the Clown Car..
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,356
    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Sandpit, come on. Vettel admitted it, Hamilton complained of it, it was clear as day.

    Anyway, back to the pre-race piece...
  • rcs1000
    rcs1000 Posts: 60,717
    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    Battleground States - Emerson - Samples 400-800 - All 26-27 Oct

    OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
    FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
    NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
    WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
    NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf

    So if this poll is correct even before the latest row the race was extremely tight, and while the trend is for Clinton to be ahead it's mostly MoE stuff.

    Not exactly a dazzling performance given she's up against the egregious Mr Trump.
    Emerson are a landline only poller.
    ???

    How can you be a landline only pollster in the US given there is no difference between the two types of number?
  • nunu
    nunu Posts: 6,024
    JackW said:

    National Tracker - IBD/TIPP - Sample 1,013 - 23-28 Oct

    Clinton 45 .. Trump 41

    Note - 1 point move to Clinton since "Dickiegate"

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/

    A hardening of her support....
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Jaw dropping if true. To the level of completely unbelievable.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,356
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Sandpit, come on. Vettel admitted it, Hamilton complained of it, it was clear as day.

    Anyway, back to the pre-race piece...

    It was a clear block, but in the event without negative consequences for Hamilton. I think the stewards can still penalise in that circumstance, but they tend to be lenient with the top drivers - F1 stewarding is pretty arbitrary ar best.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    Battleground States - Emerson - Samples 400-800 - All 26-27 Oct

    OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
    FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
    NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
    WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
    NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf

    So if this poll is correct even before the latest row the race was extremely tight, and while the trend is for Clinton to be ahead it's mostly MoE stuff.

    Not exactly a dazzling performance given she's up against the egregious Mr Trump.
    Emerson are a landline only poller.
    ???

    How can you be a landline only pollster in the US given there is no difference between the two types of number?
    I was just surprised to learn that landlines had votes :wink:
  • Monksfield
    Monksfield Posts: 2,905
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Jaw dropping if true. To the level of completely unbelievable.
    And idiotic, given the charged and febrile climate at the moment. Comey's head will be served on a plate.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,356
    England going along smoothly at 44 for no wicket. I get the feeling that we're one wicket away from a collapse...
  • Alistair
    Alistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    Battleground States - Emerson - Samples 400-800 - All 26-27 Oct

    OH - Clinton 45 .. Trump 45
    FL - Clinton 46 .. Trump 45
    NC - Clinton 48 .. Trump 45
    WI - Clinton 48 .. Trump 42
    NV - Clinton 44 .. Trump 42

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161029_1.pdf

    So if this poll is correct even before the latest row the race was extremely tight, and while the trend is for Clinton to be ahead it's mostly MoE stuff.

    Not exactly a dazzling performance given she's up against the egregious Mr Trump.
    Emerson are a landline only poller.
    ???

    How can you be a landline only pollster in the US given there is no difference between the two types of number?
    They don't do random digit dialling they do random selection from a supplied list of phone numbers that is landlines.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    With polls in Utah showing a tight three way race Trump takes aim at McMullin :

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303467-trump-goes-after-puppet-evan-mcmullin

    And McMullin hits back :

    https://twitter.com/Evan_McMullin/status/792557975328227328
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. B, arbitrary indeed.
  • Charles
    Charles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
  • PlatoSaid
    PlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    One could reason that it's precisely why he did it. The DOJ are obstructing the FBI and there's what looks like a power struggle going on. So Comey's flushed them out.

    There's also this report

    Emails Found on Huma & Weiner devices were in file titled 'Life Insurance'

    https://t.co/VirycCAqnM
  • Moses_
    Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Sandpit, come on. Vettel admitted it, Hamilton complained of it, it was clear as day.

    Anyway, back to the pre-race piece...

    I think he had other things on his mind .....

    https://twitter.com/LauraLeslie23/status/792435713895698434
  • Innocent_Abroad
    Innocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    TSE working for the bookies, apparently. Site still running on BST, certainly...
  • Innocent_Abroad
    Innocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Innocent_Abroad said:

    TSE working for the bookies, apparently. Site still running on BST, certainly...

    Oh, that's been fixed :)

  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Sandpit, come on. Vettel admitted it, Hamilton complained of it, it was clear as day.

    Anyway, back to the pre-race piece...

    ;)

    It might have been investigated if it had made a difference, but it didn't so there's no point.

    If Vettel had qualified in front of Rosberg then Lewis would have very quickly asked them to drop it!
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Mr. Moses, https://twitter.com/wtf1couk/status/792453819686850560
  • another_richard
    another_richard Posts: 27,927
    Roger said:

    OT. Don't we all


    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/724642/Graham-Norton-slams-brexit-voters?utm_source=externaloutbrain&utm_medium=recommendations&utm_term=paid&utm_content=news&utm_campaign=2016&utm_term=5526078

    For someone involved in advertising ** I find it curious you have such little understanding of the majority of people in this country, are willing to show it and seem unwilling to learn.

    ** I found your advertising articles on PB most interesting.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,356
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    To effectively state the reopening of an investigation eleven days before a presidential election without access to any evidence - and the distinct possibility that will still be the case in eleven days time - is absolutely extraordinary, whatever you think of the merits of the case.
    Either way he is misleading the public.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    nunu said:

    JackW said:

    National Tracker - IBD/TIPP - Sample 1,013 - 23-28 Oct

    Clinton 45 .. Trump 41

    Note - 1 point move to Clinton since "Dickiegate"

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/

    A hardening of her support....
    We'll have to wait a few days for most polls to reflect the implications, if any, of Dickieleaks but the most favourable Clinton tracker, ABC, is trending against her, the most pro Donald IBD/TIPP is trending against him .... :smile:

    That said there is no Clinton upside to the latest revelations except perhaps it will drive out any potential complacency from her campaign and supporters.
  • edmundintokyo
    edmundintokyo Posts: 17,735
    edited October 2016
    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    So various random bits of background to this decision:
    1) Republicans were on his case for going too easy on Hillary
    2) The wife of the number 2 guy in the investigation previously ran for the Virginia state legislature, and got a large donation from the (Clintonite) governor, Terry McAuliffe. This got a lot of play when it showed up in the Podesta leaks.
    3) He'd (arguably foolishly) promised to update the committee investigating Hillary on any developments
    4) The FBI New York office was investigating the Weiner issue, and even if Comey had kept quiet, they might have leaked it.

    So it may be that Comey was scared that something would get leaked, then he'd be on the end of all kinds of crazy, some of it potentially homicidal, for not keeping the committee in the loop.
  • Nigelb
    Nigelb Posts: 79,356
    PlatoSaid said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    One could reason that it's precisely why he did it. The DOJ are obstructing the FBI and there's what looks like a power struggle going on. So Comey's flushed them out.

    There's also this report

    Emails Found on Huma & Weiner devices were in file titled 'Life Insurance'

    https://t.co/VirycCAqnM
    One could reason all sorts of things. It doesn't make Comey right - and more pertinently goes against all accepted procedure.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    Nigelb said:

    England going along smoothly at 44 for no wicket. I get the feeling that we're one wicket away from a collapse...

    Shh, say it very quietly but we are doing okay so far...
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    F1: small chance I may have a three figure tip. Hmm.
  • Charles
    Charles Posts: 35,758
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    To effectively state the reopening of an investigation eleven days before a presidential election without access to any evidence - and the distinct possibility that will still be the case in eleven days time - is absolutely extraordinary, whatever you think of the merits of the case.
    Either way he is misleading the public.
    The options appear to be:

    (1) Reopen the investigation, but tell no one, thereby allowing the voters to make their choice believing that it remains closed [and risking an even more damaging leak]

    (2) Reopen the investigation and inform the public even though he hasn't seen the emails in question [the route chosen]

    (3) Ignore the new evidence until after the election [which appears to be the DoJ preference]

    There are no good options, but I personally believe he took the most honourable option open to him.
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    F1: there are two types of annoyance: when none of your ideas have good odds, and when they all seem to... Still, better than having the first problem.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    England going along smoothly at 44 for no wicket. I get the feeling that we're one wicket away from a collapse...

    Shh, say it very quietly but we are doing okay so far...
    Ben Duckett cementing his place for the first two Tests in India?

    He's nearly equalled James Vince's highest Test score...
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    edmundintokyo said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    So various random bits of background to this decision:
    1) Republicans were on his case for going too easy on Hillary
    2) The wife of the number 2 guy in the investigation previously ran for the Virginia state legislature, and got a large donation from the (Clintonite) governor, Terry McAuliffe. This got a lot of play when it showed up in the Podesta leaks.
    3) He'd (arguably foolishly) promised to update the committee investigating Hillary on any developments
    4) The FBI New York office was investigating the Weiner issue, and even if Comey had kept quiet, they might have leaked it.

    So it may be that Comey was scared that something would get leaked, then he'd be on the end of all kinds of crazy, some of it potentially homicidal, for not keeping the committee in the loop.
    Yes, there was a lot going on behind the scenes that threatened to implicate Comey for FBI inaction if it came out.

    The Director is surely toast whoever wins though, he really doesn't want to be around for the aftermath of being used as a political football in a presidential election.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    Probably much of the Dickieleaks story is backed in. Clinton and Trump both have horrible fav/unfav ratings, albeit Donald's are worse. In the final analysis you wouldn't want Clinton in charge of your computer security and neither would you leave your teenage daughter alone in a room with Trump for a nano second.

    US voters have the unenviable choice of picking the least worst of two appalling candidates.
  • Sandpit
    Sandpit Posts: 56,045
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    England going along smoothly at 44 for no wicket. I get the feeling that we're one wicket away from a collapse...

    Shh, say it very quietly but we are doing okay so far...
    Ben Duckett cementing his place for the first two Tests in India?

    He's nearly equalled James Vince's highest Test score...
    He's certainly atoning for his atrocious performance with the bat a couple of days ago!

    Right, work to do, much as I would love to watch the cricket all day!
  • Gadfly
    Gadfly Posts: 1,205
    edited October 2016
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    To effectively state the reopening of an investigation eleven days before a presidential election without access to any evidence - and the distinct possibility that will still be the case in eleven days time - is absolutely extraordinary, whatever you think of the merits of the case.
    Either way he is misleading the public.
    The options appear to be:

    (1) Reopen the investigation, but tell no one, thereby allowing the voters to make their choice believing that it remains closed [and risking an even more damaging leak]

    (2) Reopen the investigation and inform the public even though he hasn't seen the emails in question [the route chosen]

    (3) Ignore the new evidence until after the election [which appears to be the DoJ preference]

    There are no good options, but I personally believe he took the most honourable option open to him.
    Whilst I agree with your conclusion I suspect that we should avoid using the word "reopen".

    Apologies if this has already been posted, but this article from Newsweek seems to sum up what has happened...

    http://europe.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-comey-donald-trump-anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-514918?rm=eu

    Edit: I now see that you earlier used the phrase "FBI investigations are rarely formally closed".
  • HYUFD
    HYUFD Posts: 128,924
    JackW said:

    nunu said:

    JackW said:

    National Tracker - IBD/TIPP - Sample 1,013 - 23-28 Oct

    Clinton 45 .. Trump 41

    Note - 1 point move to Clinton since "Dickiegate"

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/

    A hardening of her support....
    We'll have to wait a few days for most polls to reflect the implications, if any, of Dickieleaks but the most favourable Clinton tracker, ABC, is trending against her, the most pro Donald IBD/TIPP is trending against him .... :smile:

    That said there is no Clinton upside to the latest revelations except perhaps it will drive out any potential complacency from her campaign and supporters.
    You will not be able to tell anything until at least tomorrow and probably Tuesday, remember gropegate did not impact Trump's support in tracking polls until a few days after, at present tracking polls are mostly pre Dickiegate
  • Morris_Dancer
    Morris_Dancer Posts: 62,742
    Just as an aside, how do the multiples on Ladbrokes work?
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    To effectively state the reopening of an investigation eleven days before a presidential election without access to any evidence - and the distinct possibility that will still be the case in eleven days time - is absolutely extraordinary, whatever you think of the merits of the case.
    Either way he is misleading the public.
    He said that they are investigating, which they are, so how is that misleading?
  • PlatoSaid
    PlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    IIRC - it's the NYPD that seized all the Weiner electronics in relation to their child pron investigation - they discovered the emails and contacted the FBI - both organisations now have them.

    However, the FBI needs a warrant to actually read them - the NYPD already has that power.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    Nigelb said:

    England going along smoothly at 44 for no wicket. I get the feeling that we're one wicket away from a collapse...

    I do agree that when wickets come they will come in clumps but this is an excellent start.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    I'm conflicted here. Obviously I want England to win. But at the same time it would be really great for Bangladesh to register a first Test win against a big side, and it might lead to them playing more Tests, which would be great if they play in this exciting way all the time.

    Why couldn't they have saved this performance for Australia so I could cheer them on uninhibitedly?
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    PlatoSaid said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    IIRC - it's the NYPD that seized all the Weiner electronics in relation to their child pron investigation - they discovered the emails and contacted the FBI - both organisations now have them.

    However, the FBI needs a warrant to actually read them - the NYPD already has that power.
    No - the original warrant covered Weiner's emails, not Abedin's. That requires a separate warrant which is what the FBI have applied for.
  • Moses_
    Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Nigelb said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    One could reason that it's precisely why he did it. The DOJ are obstructing the FBI and there's what looks like a power struggle going on. So Comey's flushed them out.

    There's also this report

    Emails Found on Huma & Weiner devices were in file titled 'Life Insurance'

    https://t.co/VirycCAqnM
    One could reason all sorts of things. It doesn't make Comey right - and more pertinently goes against all accepted procedure.
    "Goes against all accepted procedure"

    I am trying to avoid commenting on the utter farce going on in the USA at the moment. I have to say on this you, other supporters and the Democratic Party cannot have it both ways.

    Last night on this very site Clinton fans were claiming even if she had used a private email / server then she never gave away " Americas Nuclear secrets" . She probably didn't however she knew full well the process in which she engaged was " against all accepted procedures" and having been around government for many years would have certainly known this ( despite her denial or saying she didn't understand in which case she is just completely incompetent ).

    HRC's troubles are of her own making by "going against all accepted procedures" . It's not what's in the emails that an issue here its the fact that these emails even exist most importantly where they do. Any lesser person would be out of a job now and potentially facing a prison sentence. Of course there are some that are always above the laws that us plebs have to adhere to under threat of serious punishment. Like I say you either follow accepted procedure or you don't but if you don't then you do so at your own risk and must accept the consequences of your actions.

    In saying that I have to agree the latest Comey letter intervention does seem quite extraordinary given that such a letter has been written without apparently viewing the evidence of email content. It might be when asked for full disclosure previously these string of emails were not mentioned? Or it could be something entirely different such as quite simply CYA.
  • Monksfield
    Monksfield Posts: 2,905
    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    To effectively state the reopening of an investigation eleven days before a presidential election without access to any evidence - and the distinct possibility that will still be the case in eleven days time - is absolutely extraordinary, whatever you think of the merits of the case.
    Either way he is misleading the public.
    The options appear to be:

    (1) Reopen the investigation, but tell no one, thereby allowing the voters to make their choice believing that it remains closed [and risking an even more damaging leak]

    (2) Reopen the investigation and inform the public even though he hasn't seen the emails in question [the route chosen]

    (3) Ignore the new evidence until after the election [which appears to be the DoJ preference]

    There are no good options, but I personally believe he took the most honourable option open to him.
    He took an option which leaves him extremely exposed. Given the lack of real information one has to assume this was a partisan act. There was nothing there that could not have waited two weeks.
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Sample 3,220 - 30 Oct

    Clinton 44.1 .. Trump 46.0

    Note - Half point to Clinton over the past 24 hours.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,275
    Moses_ said:

    Nigelb said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    One could reason that it's precisely why he did it. The DOJ are obstructing the FBI and there's what looks like a power struggle going on. So Comey's flushed them out.

    There's also this report

    Emails Found on Huma & Weiner devices were in file titled 'Life Insurance'

    https://t.co/VirycCAqnM
    One could reason all sorts of things. It doesn't make Comey right - and more pertinently goes against all accepted procedure.
    "Goes against all accepted procedure"

    I am trying to avoid commenting on the utter farce going on in the USA at the moment. I have to say on this you, other supporters and the Democratic Party cannot have it both ways.

    Last night on this very site Clinton fans were claiming even if she had used a private email / server then she never gave away " Americas Nuclear secrets" . She probably didn't however she knew full well the process in which she engaged was " against all accepted procedures" and having been around government for many years would have certainly known this ( despite her denial or saying she didn't understand in which case she is just completely incompetent ).

    HRC's troubles are of her own making by "going against all accepted procedures" . It's not what's in the emails that an issue here its the fact that these emails even exist most importantly where they do. Any lesser person would be out of a job now and potentially facing a prison sentence. Of course there are some that are always above the laws that us plebs have to adhere to under threat of serious punishment. Like I say you either follow accepted procedure or you don't but if you don't then you do so at your own risk and must accept the consequences of your actions.

    In saying that I have to agree the latest Comey letter intervention does seem quite extraordinary given that such a letter has been written without apparently viewing the evidence of email content. It might be when asked for full disclosure previously these string of emails were not mentioned? Or it could be something entirely different such as quite simply CYA.
    Mr Moses, I raely agree with your posts but on this occasion I do. Totally.Surely to god HRC knew what she was doing.
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    England going along smoothly at 44 for no wicket. I get the feeling that we're one wicket away from a collapse...

    I do agree that when wickets come they will come in clumps but this is an excellent start.
    If wickets come. Although this will be the highest run chase in Asia one of the prior highest chases was for the loss of only one wicket.
  • ydoethur
    ydoethur Posts: 74,263
    Duckett gets 50.
  • Charles
    Charles Posts: 35,758
    edited October 2016
    Monksfield said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    To effectively state the reopening of an investigation eleven days before a presidential election without access to any evidence - and the distinct possibility that will still be the case in eleven days time - is absolutely extraordinary, whatever you think of the merits of the case.
    Either way he is misleading the public.
    The options appear to be:

    (1) Reopen the investigation, but tell no one, thereby allowing the voters to make their choice believing that it remains closed [and risking an even more damaging leak]

    (2) Reopen the investigation and inform the public even though he hasn't seen the emails in question [the route chosen]

    (3) Ignore the new evidence until after the election [which appears to be the DoJ preference]

    There are no good options, but I personally believe he took the most honourable option open to him.
    He took an option which leaves him extremely exposed. Given the lack of real information one has to assume this was a partisan act. There was nothing there that could not have waited two weeks.
    So why did he announce publicly back in July that there would be no charges?

    He's a reputation for being absolutely straight, and I think he's tried to be equally fair to everyone. He doesn't know what's in the emails, and waiting 2 weeks would allow a vote on incorrect information.

    Fundamentally the mistake he made - under pressure - was to make the announcement he did in July. But there was no criticism from the Democrats about that (arguably partisan) act
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Monksfield said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Charles said:

    Nigelb said:

    Apparently, the FBI did not have a warrant to view the emails when Comey wrote his letter, which is why he has no idea what is in them:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

    Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.

    Not really

    The issue is very simple.

    FBI investigations are rarely formally closed. Comey had announced that there would be no prosecutions in the Clinton case (hence "closing" the investigation). The Democrats took political advantage.

    Now new evidence has come to light he has to correct the impression that the case is "closed" otherwise he would be misleading the public.

    If he'd never made the first announcement (presumably under a degree of politocal pressure) he wouldn't have needed to make this one either.
    To effectively state the reopening of an investigation eleven days before a presidential election without access to any evidence - and the distinct possibility that will still be the case in eleven days time - is absolutely extraordinary, whatever you think of the merits of the case.
    Either way he is misleading the public.
    The options appear to be:

    (1) Reopen the investigation, but tell no one, thereby allowing the voters to make their choice believing that it remains closed [and risking an even more damaging leak]

    (2) Reopen the investigation and inform the public even though he hasn't seen the emails in question [the route chosen]

    (3) Ignore the new evidence until after the election [which appears to be the DoJ preference]

    There are no good options, but I personally believe he took the most honourable option open to him.
    He took an option which leaves him extremely exposed. Given the lack of real information one has to assume this was a partisan act. There was nothing there that could not have waited two weeks.
    Caught between a rock and a hard place though.

    He'd previously been pushed into both saying that the investigation was closed AND that he would keep the committee in the loop for further developments.

    To have the investigation reopened without honouring the commitment to keep the committee in the loop would have been a partisan act too.
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,275
    England 100-0 just before tea.
  • DavidL
    DavidL Posts: 55,867
    I cannot believe that Comey would have written his letter unless he had a steer, possibly from NYPD, that the contents of the e-mails were at least pertinent to the original investigation. He almost certainly did not know their content in detail but he surely knew, at the very least, that they were not simply duplicates of those already disclosed.

    I was very critical of the speed of the FBI investigation much earlier in the year, principally for the reasons were are seeing now. They have got themselves involved at a horribly politically sensitive time. Given the source of these e-mails and the closeness with Clinton it is truly remarkable that this has only come out now. To really turn the race though there is going to have to be a smoking gun in this material.
  • Philip_Thompson
    Philip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    OldKingCole said:

    England 100-0 just before at tea.

    Fixed ;)
  • JackW
    JackW Posts: 14,787
    Jon Ralston continues to monitor Nevada early voting through yesterday. Much like in 2012. Obama won +6 :

    https://twitter.com/RalstonReports?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
  • HYUFD
    HYUFD Posts: 128,924
    JackW said:

    National Panel Tracker - LA Times - Sample 3,220 - 30 Oct

    Clinton 44.1 .. Trump 46.0

    Note - Half point to Clinton over the past 24 hours.

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/

    LA Times gives the average of all the week's responses so again barely any of the sample post Dickieleaks as yet. You will not be able to tell the full impact, if any, until well into next week
  • OldKingCole
    OldKingCole Posts: 35,275
    Philip_Thompson said:

    OldKingCole said:

    England 100-0 just before at tea.

    Fixed ;)
    Both posts were accurate. Cook sensibly batted out the last over before tea as a maiden.

    Which must be an almost incomprehensible sentence to an American.
  • NickPalmer
    NickPalmer Posts: 21,724
    OldKingCole said:

    Moses_ said:



    HRC's troubles are of her own making by "going against all accepted procedures" . It's not what's in the emails that an issue here its the fact that these emails even exist most importantly where they do. Any lesser person would be out of a job now and potentially facing a prison sentence. Of course there are some that are always above the laws that us plebs have to adhere to under threat of serious punishment. Like I say you either follow accepted procedure or you don't but if you don't then you do so at your own risk and must accept the consequences of your actions.

    Mr Moses, I raely agree with your posts but on this occasion I do. Totally.Surely to god HRC knew what she was doing.
    There is a certain form of arrogance that I've seen in both public and private sectors among hard-driving leaders that rules are there to be broken when necessary, bureaucracy is always an unnecessary nuisance, stuff the formalities, let's get on with the job ("Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" is a much-admired attitude of this kind). Their experience of life is that it doesn't usually lead to bad consequences, unless people want to get rid of them for other reasons. Dismissal and even prosecution are relatively rare, I think, even at lower levels.

    I have a Teutonic affection for following agreed procedures so this is all quite alien to me, but it goes with the leader types to a degree that most people may not realise. I don't think it should be treated as a uniquely awful disqualifying trait. Trump's erratic behaviour seems much more objectively worrying.

    I doubt if the latest developments will affect the polls much. People either care about shoddy server security or they don't. They understand that Hillary has a slipshod record in that regard, and have factored it in already.
  • Charles
    Charles Posts: 35,758
    OldKingCole said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    OldKingCole said:

    England 100-0 just before at tea.

    Fixed ;)
    Both posts were accurate. Cook sensibly batted out the last over before tea as a maiden.

    Which must be an almost incomprehensible sentence to an American.
    Cook - name or job?
    sensibly - surely at least literary appreciation of the concept?
    batted out - ??
    the last over - still nothing
    before tea - something to do with England, perhaps?
    as a maiden - WTF?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories