politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If leader ratings are indeed a good guide to electoral outcome

Bugger - I was planning to do a thread on this.

But how many think unfavourably of Trump yet will vote for him anyway ?
After all, we can name a few congressmen and senators who do, and will.

FPT

If Sinn Fein swear the oath to Liz, then I reckon the Orange Order will have a parade


the OO are a very progressive organisation, they may ask Marty to join

Mr. Glenn, the electorate voted to leave the EU. At what point will the political class realise they can have democracy, or ignore the referendum, but not both?

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT - The front page of the Express, Mail, Telegraph, and Sun would be something to behold if Sinn Fein blocked Brexit.

Oh my, Mrs May's majority is getting even smaller

At what point will the Brexit mob realise that they can have Brexit or they can have Britain, but not both?

TINA

but of course there always is, you just lack imagination and ambition

You can see why Cameron has hopped swiftly out of parliament to be perfectly honest.

Walking away from the crap he's left all over the floor.

williamglenn said:

Alanbrooke said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT - The front page of the Express, Mail, Telegraph, and Sun would be something to behold if Sinn Fein blocked Brexit.

Oh my, Mrs May's majority is getting even smaller

At what point will the Brexit mob realise that they can have Brexit or they can have Britain, but not both?

TINA

but of course there always is, you just lack imagination and ambition

No, I lack the will. Brexit isn't my lookout.

Of course, but just because you have a monoscopic outlook on life doesnt mean everyone else has. That's one of the joys of this country and Europe, we have lots of variety.

Vive La Difference

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT - The front page of the Express, Mail, Telegraph, and Sun would be something to behold if Sinn Fein blocked Brexit.

Oh my, Mrs May's majority is getting even smaller

At what point will the Brexit mob realise that they can have Brexit or they can have Britain, but not both?

Sinn Fein coming to Parliament to defeat the Brexit vote would be just awesome. Win or lose they would taint the Europhiles forever and the result would be a GE where we could rightly say that the anti-Brexit crowd only won because of the support of terrorists. The Brexit campaign would have a field day.

Alanbrooke said:

FPT

If Sinn Fein swear the oath to Liz, then I reckon the Orange Order will have a parade


the OO are a very progressive organisation, they may ask Marty to join

What will a bookie offer me on McGuinness swearing the oath in a Glasgow Rangers top ?

Pulpstar said:

Alanbrooke said:

FPT

If Sinn Fein swear the oath to Liz, then I reckon the Orange Order will have a parade


the OO are a very progressive organisation, they may ask Marty to join

What will a bookie offer me on McGuinness swearing the oath in a Glasgow Rangers top ?

actually, I find Marty ok, Gerry's just a sleaze bag.

Very good set of polls for Clinton just out from PPP:

Clinton leading in all of WI, PA, NH, NC and NV.

Enough to push her 538 win % up by over 1%.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/updates/

GarethoftheVale2 said:

MikeL said:

The Brexit vote is never going to come down to 4 votes making the difference.

Where SF really could make a difference is in stopping the boundary changes. If they show up for that, then I think the boundary changes are almost certainly defeated.

The first draft of the boundary changes in NI are good for SF

Fair point - had forgotten that - they could well vote for them if they turned up.

National Tracker - Times-Picayune/Lucid - Sample 1,200 - 31 Oct - 2 Nov

Clinton 44 .. Trump 39

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/page/president_poll_daily_tracker.html#incart_std

kle4 said:

I don't why governments even bother to say they are confident of winning appeals to legal rulings. They could well win and be rightly confident of that, but obviously they're always confident of winning in the first place too.

Assume just buying time and closing down the alternatives for now and providing thinking space on their next step if the verdict goes against them.

I do wonder just what the print media will do or say if they block A50 again. Today's headlines were so over the top but judging from twitter and the broadcast media they hit a very large amount of agreement

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FPT - The front page of the Express, Mail, Telegraph, and Sun would be something to behold if Sinn Fein blocked Brexit.

Oh my, Mrs May's majority is getting even smaller

At what point will the Brexit mob realise that they can have Brexit or they can have Britain, but not both?

Why? Are any bits of Britain necessarily going anywhere because of all of this? As I think we all gather, there are some pretty huge obstacles to either Scotland or Northern Ireland going their own way.

That much said, if it comes down to a choice between the UK as either a state within a federal EU or one of its protectorates, or England (or an Anglo-Welsh Britain) outside of it, then I vote for the latter. Every time.

It's a question of priorities.

Relative decline or absolute decline?

(((Subodh Chandra)))
44m
(((Subodh Chandra))) ‏@SubodhChandra
BREAKING: US Judge Gwin is granting a temporary-restraining order against @realDonaldTrump campaign to forbid voter-intimidation! @OHDems

Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.

Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.

Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.

It's looking fun atm

Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters

Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW

Could be one of those times of change coming up

As an aside my wife and I moved in the same social circles as Gordon Anglesea who has been convicted today at the age of 79 to 12 years for abusing children in North Wales.

He was in Round Table, Rotary, Freemasons and a lay preacher as well as a Chief Superintendent of Police.

It is just awful to realise he was performing these disgusting acts while socialising with us and has upset us greatly

peter_from_putney said:

Pulpstar said:

peter_from_putney said:

"If leader ratings are indeed a good guide to electoral outcomes then Clinton should do it on Tuesday"

Here's hoping you're right Mike, for my sake as much as yours!

A dull election, with only three states changing hands. OH, IA, NC. HC wins 323 - 215.

This is my view, for the moment.

I'm staying with 308 - 229 -1 for now and *gulp* just about a break even on my spread-betting. Hopefully a few tidy pick-ups on some single state betting, like your very tasty suggestion yesterday in relation to Utah which looked like the easiest money over the entire campaign.

Yep I have to say I think it is my favourite "straight up" bet of the election, rather than any more errm nefarious stuff

I await my 1-70 on Maryland and California to arrive with enough profit for about 4 pints of beer too.

And the 1-50 on DC

Big_G_NorthWales said:

As an aside my wife and I moved in the same social circles as Gordon Anglesea who has been convicted today at the age of 79 to 12 years for abusing children in North Wales.

He was in Round Table, Rotary, Freemasons and a lay preacher as well as a Chief Superintendent of Police.

It is just awful to realise he was performing these disgusting acts while socialising with us and has upset us greatly

A schoolfriend of mine had marks - old scars - on his back. This was in 1990/1 period. When asked what they were, he replied they were where his father had hit him with a poker and other objects when he was a child.

Having met his father, and knowing a fair bit about the family, I could believe it.

His father was a JP.

Mr. NorthWales, I know (to an extent) what you mean.

I saw some time ago that a school friend of mine had been convicted of multiple sexual assaults/rape. That was a rather odd feeling.

Cilic getting soooo close now

Djokovic Out ....

Murray will be world number 1 if he reaches the final in Paris

JackW said:

Djokovic Out ....

Murray will be world number 1 if he reaches the final in Paris

I posted earlier that Clic would be tricky. When big Marin plays his A game there is no-one in mens tennis that can stay with him...

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm nucking fackered, so can anyone spot any value in this market?

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=2718290

No. They all look piss poor to me.

Black_Rook said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/794594040419381248

He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)

If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.

can we have a second vote on uni fees ?

FrancisUrquhart said:

What a charmer....

http://order-order.com/2016/11/04/sadiqs-night-czars-foul-mouthed-tory-scum-tweets/

I missed this appointment... She's a minor stand-up comedian. What on Earth is Sadiq Khan giving her a non-job for?

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alanbrooke said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.

Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.

It's looking fun atm

Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters

Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW

Could be one of those times of change coming up

Has Starmer announced today that labour support leaving the single market as rumoured as that would be a huge move and open the way to them agreeing to restrict free movement of labour

let's see him get that past the activists

He is labour's Brexit Sec and if he has said this today it is amazing volte face

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alanbrooke said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. NorthWales, quite. There is a risk the media overegg things, but most people, I think, will be surprised at least and angered at most by the ruling.

Lining up to oppose Article 50 we have the likes of Blair, Clegg, the SNP and Sinn Fein. Not a good look.

It's looking fun atm

Both Labour and the LDs are chasing the same metropolitan lefty voters

Labour are ignoring their traditional WWC constituency and the LDs are making sure they remain seatless in the SW

Could be one of those times of change coming up

Has Starmer announced today that labour support leaving the single market as rumoured as that would be a huge move and open the way to them agreeing to restrict free movement of labour

let's see him get that past the activists

The Corbyn-leaning membership, along with a large cohort of No Borders, universalist Labour MPs, will go apeshit over racist, xenophobic border controls. And who knows, perhaps Labour will split into idiot and halfway sensible factions after all...?

This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.

If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.

tyson said:

JackW said:

Djokovic Out ....

Murray will be world number 1 if he reaches the final in Paris

And Jack W....Murray looks to get a good run as Numero Uno too once he gets there. He's not protecting many points in the front half of next year.....

Indeed. Essentially just the Oz open final points

Given a majority of Americans have unfavourable views of both Clinton and Trump, I don't think these numbers are a great deal of help

FF43 said:

This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.

If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.

Who the heck is in charge of law for the government, they seem to be making a proper pig's ear of stuff.
My other half was utterly convinced the Gov't was going to lose (She knows her constitutional law) - I'll suggest she starts charging the Gov't for her advice.

Alanbrooke said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Alanbrooke said:

Black_Rook said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/794594040419381248

He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)

If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.

can we have a second vote on uni fees ?

Labour's leader in the House of Lords dismissed the Lib Dems as the party of 8 MP's and that labour will not support a second referendum in the HOL

Cleggy's on a suicide mission

And Farron

FrancisUrquhart said:

What a charmer....

http://order-order.com/2016/11/04/sadiqs-night-czars-foul-mouthed-tory-scum-tweets/

The BBC left that bit out of their puff piece, regarding her suitability for the position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37872501

FF43 said:

This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.

If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.

Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"

https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/

Mr. Gadfly, very interesting take on things, cheers for posting that.

SimonStClare said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

What a charmer....

http://order-order.com/2016/11/04/sadiqs-night-czars-foul-mouthed-tory-scum-tweets/

The BBC left that bit out on her suitability for the position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37872501

FFS another BBC report crow barring Fabic nightclub into a story...they are totally obsessed by the fact it got closed down for repeated serious issues with drugs. I can only presume it was the favourite venue for bbc employees.

Black_Rook said:

https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/794594040419381248

He's only playing follow the leader. The Lib Dems really are morphing into the anti-Ukip, a one-trick pony protest movement dedicated to stopping Brexit (or, failing that, applying to rejoin the EU as swiftly as possible.)

If you're waiting for the revival of the yellows as a significant force in the Commons, I think you may well be waiting for a very long time.

Playing follow the leader? UKIP waited a long time and then won.

Gadfly said:

FF43 said:

This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.

If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.

Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"

https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/

did any of those treaties take rights away from UK citizens?

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/794599990282874881

Ooooh... CETA: still not a done deal?

Nigel Farage - Trump is not perfect but he is the agent of change we need

'He recognises that confronting Russian President Vladimir Putin may not be that bright and says he will talk to anyone. Indeed, he went to Mexico and met the premier there. Oh, and I nearly forgot, he actually likes the United Kingdom, not a charge that could be levelled at Obama or Clinton. '
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/nigel-farage-donald-trump-is-not-perfect-but-he-is-the-agent-of-change-that-we-need-a3387151.html

Russian MP Vitaly Milonov "I officially declare that Clinton is a cursed witch"
https://lockerdome.com/6301731373984833/9232912470165780

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gadfly said:

Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"

That's a very good question.

Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!

More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.

William Hague claimed that he'd looked through ALL the legal stuff after Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty, maybe he's not at good at law as he thinks he is !

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gadfly said:

Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"

That's a very good question.

Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!

More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.

So the learn'd justices were not Europhiles after all

Meet the Law. The law of unintended consequences...

MrsB said:

on those who think LDs will get nowhere supporting EU membership, can I remind you that polls put LDs nationally on around 8% and 48% voted to remain. And no-one else appears to be fishing in those waters, in England at least.

And Leave polled 52%, but that doesn't indicate the theoretical extent of backing for Ukip.

I would contend that militancy about the EU vote, one way or the other, is not a characteristic of the majority of the electorate - and that, insofar as it is, there are many more people who loathe the EU than love it. If Ukip bumps around the low to mid teens in the polls, then a position of 8% for the Lib Dems doesn't look so very far from what one might expect if they really are going to major as the anti-Ukip going forward.

https://twitter.com/Berlaymonster/status/794585702889586688

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Gadfly said:

Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"

That's a very good question.

Brexiteers rejoice as we were never actually part of the EU in the first place!

More than that, it would mean that the EU doesn't exist.

I'm sure there was a Parliamentary vote on The Single European Act.

Calm down everybody, the EU exists.

MrsB said:

Gadfly said:

FF43 said:

This PDF gives a short and clear summary of yesterday's Article 50 judgment. The essential point of law is that parliament has sovereignty that can't be overridden by the executive except where particular powers are reserved. Making and breaking treaties is a reserved power but removal of citizen rights isn't. Some of those rights come from the EU, so triggering Article 50 will automatically remove them.

If I understand this summary correctly, it puts the government in a worse position than it would have been if it had put Article 50 in front of parliament in the first place. That's because it merges the end result with the initial procedural step, rather than keeping them separate as the government was hoping,. It focuses the debate on what happens afterwards. That's probably why the government is hoping for a reprieve from the Supreme Court.

Carl Gardner has an alternative take... "If in 1972 Parliament really did end the government’s power by prerogative to (as the court thinks) change UK law by doing anything that alters EU law, then surely every change to EU treaties agreed by Prime Ministers have been unlawful. Why, if this judgment stands, was it lawful for Mrs Thatcher to agree to the Single European Act? Why was it lawful for Mr Blair to sign up at Amsterdam to the Social Chapter?"

https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/

did any of those treaties take rights away from UK citizens?

yes, I now have to do what Angela Merkel thinks is good for me