politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Your timetable for this historic day
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Your timetable for this historic day
November 8th 2016 (all times GMT)
Comments
-
Surely Trump should win easily in those two tiny areas in New Hampshire? They are rural and I'm guessing white which is like the only group he does well with.0
-
0
-
Third like Scottish Labour!0
-
Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.0 -
Yeah, it stinks.Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.0 -
-
What's the mood in the east bay? A write in landslide for Bernie on the cards?RobD said:
Yeah, it stinks.Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.0 -
Morning all – Cheers Mr Hayfield, much appreciated.0
-
Thanks Harry.0
-
Dixville Notch has seven voters this year, six in person and one absentee.
How it's has voted down the years:
1960: Nixon 9, Kennedy 0.
1964: Goldwater 8, Johnson 1.
1968: Humphrey 8, Nixon 4.
1972: Nixon 16, McGovern 3.
1976: Ford 13, Carter 11, McCarthy 1.
1980: Reagan 17, Carter 3, Anderson 2, Clark 1.
1984: Reagan 29, Mondale 1.
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3, Kemp 1.
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Marrou 5, Clinton 2.
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8, Perot 1, Browne 1.
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5, Nader 1.
2004: Bush 19, Kerry 7.
2008: Obama 15, McCain 6.
2012: Obama 5, Romney 5.0 -
Looks like its pretty right wing apart from for Obama. Doesn't seem like a Clinton friendly place.AndyJS said:Dixville Notch has seven voters this year, six in person and one absentee.
How it's has voted down the years:
1960: Nixon 9, Kennedy 0.
1964: Goldwater 8, Johnson 1.
1968: Humphrey 8, Nixon 4.
1972: Nixon 16, McGovern 3.
1976: Ford 13, Carter 11, McCarthy 1.
1980: Reagan 17, Carter 3, Anderson 2, Clark 1.
1984: Reagan 29, Mondale 1.
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3, Kemp 1.
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Marrou 5, Clinton 2.
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8, Perot 1, Browne 1.
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5, Nader 1.
2004: Bush 19, Kerry 7.
2008: Obama 15, McCain 6.
2012: Obama 5, Romney 5.0 -
30% decline in turnoutAndyJS said:Dixville Notch has seven voters this year, six in person and one absentee.
How it's has voted down the years:
1960: Nixon 9, Kennedy 0.
1964: Goldwater 8, Johnson 1.
1968: Humphrey 8, Nixon 4.
1972: Nixon 16, McGovern 3.
1976: Ford 13, Carter 11, McCarthy 1.
1980: Reagan 17, Carter 3, Anderson 2, Clark 1.
1984: Reagan 29, Mondale 1.
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3, Kemp 1.
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Marrou 5, Clinton 2.
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8, Perot 1, Browne 1.
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5, Nader 1.
2004: Bush 19, Kerry 7.
2008: Obama 15, McCain 6.
2012: Obama 5, Romney 5.
0 -
Severe depopulation there!AndyJS said:Dixville Notch has seven voters this year, six in person and one absentee.
How it's has voted down the years:
1960: Nixon 9, Kennedy 0.
1964: Goldwater 8, Johnson 1.
1968: Humphrey 8, Nixon 4.
1972: Nixon 16, McGovern 3.
1976: Ford 13, Carter 11, McCarthy 1.
1980: Reagan 17, Carter 3, Anderson 2, Clark 1.
1984: Reagan 29, Mondale 1.
1988: Bush 34, Dukakis 3, Kemp 1.
1992: Bush 15, Perot 8, Marrou 5, Clinton 2.
1996: Dole 18, Clinton 8, Perot 1, Browne 1.
2000: Bush 21, Gore 5, Nader 1.
2004: Bush 19, Kerry 7.
2008: Obama 15, McCain 6.
2012: Obama 5, Romney 5.0 -
Dixie notch results:
Putin write in 5 - Jamie Dimon write in 5.
Harambe 2.0 -
Morning all. Thanks Harry for the informative thread. Orders large bag of popcorn and sufficient alcohol for a very long night ahead.0
-
Ready to feel the Bern?williamglenn said:
What's the mood in the east bay? A write in landslide for Bernie on the cards?RobD said:
Yeah, it stinks.Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.0 -
0
-
CLINTON 4 / TRUMP 2.AndyJS said:Voting taking place in Dixville Notch:
http://www.livenewson.com/american/cnn-news-usa.html
4 votes still to be counted...
(sunderland would be done by now...)0 -
Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch0
-
If Clinton wins with 6 out of 8 voters being white men, that has to be a good result from her point of view.0
-
Write in for Mitt Romney!0
-
Clinton 4
Trump 2
Johnson 1
Romney (write-in) 10 -
Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)Pulpstar said:Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch
I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:
4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows0 -
I thought they could legally only declare if they had 100% turnout?Charles said:
Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)Pulpstar said:Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch
I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:
4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows0 -
That's it, Clinton has won.0
-
Do you think I'm a politics nerd or something?RobD said:
I thought they could legally only declare if they had 100% turnout?Charles said:
Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)Pulpstar said:Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch
I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:
4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows
0 -
If trump won both Romney and Johnson he would have drew. Shows he's not keeping his base.williamglenn said:Write in for Mitt Romney!
0 -
Andy says its seven this year.(before result).Charles said:
Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)Pulpstar said:Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch
I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:
4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows0 -
So in essence the results last time were 50:50 and Hillary has held up the Dem share but Trump hasn't maintained the GOP share and seen some go to Johnson and some to write in. If that is repeated nationwide then Hillary is going to have a good day.0
-
That's what they said on CNN beforehand.nunu said:
Andy says its seven this year.(before result).Charles said:
Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)Pulpstar said:Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch
I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:
4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows0 -
Josh Jordan
Josh Jordan – Verified account @NumbersMuncher
Mitt Romney currently has 12.5% of the vote in Dixville Notch... which just goes to show how completely screwed the Republican party is.0 -
That may be a tad hyperbolic. He is correct regarding the party though.nunu said:Josh Jordan
Josh Jordan – Verified account @NumbersMuncher
Mitt Romney currently has 12.5% of the vote in Dixville Notch... which just goes to show how completely screwed the Republican party is.0 -
Better news for Trump in Millsfield NH just scored a 16-4 blow out there.0
-
Trump wins Millsfield loses Hart0
-
Result from Hart's Location, New Hampshire:
Clinton 17
Trump 14
Johnson 3
Sanders 2
Result from Millsfield, New Hampshire:
Trump 16
Clinton 4
Sanders 10 -
Hart's location weirdly trended democrat judging by its primary count0
-
Bernie Sanders DESTROYING Mitt Romney right now0
-
Seems weird that some places have finished voting while Clinton and Trump's final rallies are still going on.0
-
4+2+1 = 7. I think.nunu said:
Andy says its seven this year.(before result).Charles said:
Probably true. (Although the "shy Trump" effect - if it exists - would probably be stronger here than anywhere else)Pulpstar said:Trump probably screwed, has lost Notch
I'm intrigued by the high number of abstentions/no show though. There were 10 votes:
4 clinton
2 trump
1 abstention
3 no shows 0 -
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.0 -
2016 New Hampshire midnight voting (Dixville Notch, Harts, Millsfield):
Trump 32 Clinton 25
2012:
Obama 28 Romney 14
Perhaps its NOT all over
0 -
Millsfield, NH 2012: Romney 16, Obama 5 Millsfield, NH 2016: Trump 16, Clinton 4, Sanders 1
Hart's Location election results 2012: Obama 23, Romney 9
So actually
Notch - good for Clinton
Harts - Good for Trump
Millsfield - Same
Overall +ve for Trump maybe0 -
Why would you want to modify FPTP? It is the zenith of voting systems.not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.0 -
Off-topic:
And from memory (t'Economist many, many, many moons ago) the only US state with the right to leave 'the Union' is Maine. Following the War of 1812 the UK returned northeastern Massachusetts - a loyalist stronghold - back to the Septics: Maine then sought succession from the Boston [MODERATED]!
So Maine may leave the USA but only on condition that the state returns to The Crown. One for Canada to monitor....0 -
Results not polls, people.....Pulpstar said:Millsfield, NH 2012: Romney 16, Obama 5 Millsfield, NH 2016: Trump 16, Clinton 4, Sanders 1
Hart's Location election results 2012: Obama 23, Romney 9
So actually
Notch - good for Clinton
Harts - Good for Trump
Millsfield - Same
Overall +ve for Trump maybe0 -
Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.0 -
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.0 -
Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them). </blockquotenot_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.
The top Republican candidate received around 8% of the vote in the primary. It's hardly a democratic outrage that they are not on the ballot0 -
And without the racism. "Strident rhetoric about Mexico" doesn't quite catch it.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.
0 -
And that candidate could just as well be a better version of Saunders running as a Democrat against the Clinton legacy.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.
0 -
In 2012, the last Senate election, the Republican candidate received 37.5% of the vote.Nigelb said:Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.
So about 60% of the votes should equal 100% of the seats? And c. 40% of the voters not even getting the chance to vote for a party of their choice?
I think it is outrageous that a party is prevented from standing a candidate in a general election.0 -
And maybe finding a Democrat screw-up -- Flint is a Republican scandal.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.
But what Trump has shown is, first, that the GOP establishment has just as big a sense of entitlement as Hillary Clinton, and its scions are equally poor at campaigning; second, and more importantly, that the appeal of Tea Partiers and Ted Cruz is not their policies but their outsider status.
Taken together, there is room next time for a decent GOP campaigner who is neither extremist nor bat-shit crazy.0 -
https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
0 -
Welcome back Pong! An interesting betPong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00 0 -
Hmmm... you may be being overly optimistic there. It all rather depends on the relative strength of the candidates. Arguably, given how close this election looks like being in terms of vote share, a Republican candidate with an aptitude for subtle dog-whistling (as opposed to giving serious offence to most voter groups) would be on course for victory today.Nigelb said:
And without the racism. "Strident rhetoric about Mexico" doesn't quite catch it.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.
Quite possibly, yes. I don't know if anyone has any evidence to hand about the extent of switching of support directly from Sanders to Trump after the former was beaten to the Democratic nomination, but I am given to understand that it is actually a thing.Nigelb said:And that candidate could just as well be a better version of Sanders running as a Democrat against the Clinton legacy.
0 -
Can we gleam anything from the midnight voting? I tried to compare primary voter numbers (democrat/republican) to actual results but every 'town' seemed different...0
-
Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.0 -
Probably not much.Gallowgate said:Can we gleam anything from the midnight voting? I tried to compare primary voter numbers (democrat/republican) to actual results but every 'town' seemed different...
0 -
Voters had the chance to vote Republican in the first round, and none of the Republicans were popular enough to finish in the top 2.Charles said:
In 2012, the last Senate election, the Republican candidate received 37.5% of the vote.Nigelb said:Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.
So about 60% of the votes should equal 100% of the seats? And c. 40% of the voters not even getting the chance to vote for a party of their choice?
I think it is outrageous that a party is prevented from standing a candidate in a general election.
I'm no fan of FPTP abut it's odd to see people who think it's fine for Westminster criticise essentially the same system in a different election.0 -
FPTP in Westminster only has one candidate from each party, so a big stretch to say "essentially the same system".not_on_fire said:
Voters had the chance to vote Republican in the first round, and none of the Republicans were popular enough to finish in the top 2.Charles said:
In 2012, the last Senate election, the Republican candidate received 37.5% of the vote.Nigelb said:Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.
So about 60% of the votes should equal 100% of the seats? And c. 40% of the voters not even getting the chance to vote for a party of their choice?
I think it is outrageous that a party is prevented from standing a candidate in a general election.
I'm no fan of FPTP abut it's odd to see people who think it's fine for Westminster criticise essentially the same system in a different election.0 -
I do love election reporting as it always follows a pattern of shoehorning the facts to fit a narrative rather than actually determining what the facts are telling you.0
-
Absolutely. There's a huge amount of resentment from those who don't think politics works for them in the US, a similar insurgent with fewer negatives than Trump stands a good chance in the future.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.0 -
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.0 -
Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?not_on_fire said:
Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.
0 -
No publicity, minimal turnout.not_on_fire said:
Voters had the chance to vote Republican in the first round, and none of the Republicans were popular enough to finish in the top 2.Charles said:
In 2012, the last Senate election, the Republican candidate received 37.5% of the vote.Nigelb said:Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.
So about 60% of the votes should equal 100% of the seats? And c. 40% of the voters not even getting the chance to vote for a party of their choice?
I think it is outrageous that a party is prevented from standing a candidate in a general election.
I'm no fan of FPTP abut it's odd to see people who think it's fine for Westminster criticise essentially the same system in a different election.
A proper run off system (like France) is fine although I don't like the delay. This isn't that.
0 -
They do but it's the vagaries of the jungle primaryCharles said:
Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?not_on_fire said:
Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.0 -
There was one in 1916 too.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.0 -
Come on Hillzilla ! The West needs you.
0 -
Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;
1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.0 -
Which was set up by the Democrats to bias towards themToryJim said:
They do but it's the vagaries of the jungle primaryCharles said:
Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?not_on_fire said:
Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.0 -
Guess they felt 1916/1 would be too generous...foxinsoxuk said:
There was one in 1916 too.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
0 -
Declarations of war are a bit old fashioned, most wars happen without nowadays.Pong said:
Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;
1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.0 -
If I were a democrat I would be concerned about Sanders Write-ins.0
-
And Trump can't declare War. Constitutionally that power is reserved to Congress.foxinsoxuk said:
Declarations of war are a bit old fashioned, most wars happen without nowadays.Pong said:
Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;
1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.0 -
Idiot American electoral system with polls closing stupidly early and the telly declaring the winner before they finish counting the votes...
Anyway, busy at work (with good things in the offing and people I need to continue impressing) and a choice of viewing- do I go to my friend's party and stay up late, or do I stay home go to bed really early then get up around 2am?0 -
Why would you need to declare war? We've always been at war with EurasiaYellowSubmarine said:
And Trump can't declare War. Constitutionally that power is reserved to Congress.foxinsoxuk said:
Declarations of war are a bit old fashioned, most wars happen without nowadays.Pong said:
Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;
1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.
0 -
Even if he wins the Presidency, Trump can't declare war on anyone. That power is reserved to congress.Pong said:
Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;
1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.0 -
Only in the sense that the Democrats are far more popular than the Republicans in California. Nothing to stop the Reps just running one candidate in the first round. If they are sufficiently popular, they'll make it through.Charles said:
Which was set up by the Democrats to bias towards themToryJim said:
They do but it's the vagaries of the jungle primaryCharles said:
Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?not_on_fire said:
Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.
Of course, AV would be a far better system (no joke) to use here.0 -
That was the biggest surprise about these early results. Tiny sample and being in the spotlight makes it more worthwhile to make a protest. But even so, if you are a Trump-hating Democrat but still think the Clinton Foundation has a nasty smell about it, Sanders is the way to still feel good about yourself. If he were to do this well nationwide...a tenth of the Democrat vote would be far bigger than the polls have suggested.weejonnie said:If I were a democrat I would be concerned about Sanders Write-ins.
That said, I don't know how you write in on voting machines? Is it easier to do in New Hampshire?0 -
49% turnout. If it were the GOP restricting the ease of the vote you'd be screaming bloody murdernot_on_fire said:
Only in the sense that the Democrats are far more popular than the Republicans in California. Nothing to stop the Reps just running one candidate in the first round.Charles said:
Which was set up by the Democrats to bias towards themToryJim said:
They do but it's the vagaries of the jungle primaryCharles said:
Even so why shouldn't the Republicans be allowed to put up a candidate?not_on_fire said:
Nope, just like any other state the election is held state wide. The senators are elected in different years (the other California senator will be elected in 2018.)Charles said:
My understanding is that there is a northern & a southern Senator in California (at least that's the way that we think about them).not_on_fire said:
Your logic makes no sense at all - Senators are elected state wide so why would the fact there are lots of Reps in Orange County make any difference?Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
It's just a modified from of FPTP, which I believe you're a big fan of. In any case, the very red state of Louisiana uses the same system so it balances out.0 -
Other than women, hispanics, reason....ToryJim said:
Even if he wins the Presidency, Trump can't declare war on anyone. That power is reserved to congress.Pong said:
Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;
1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.0 -
lolToryJim said:
Even if he wins the Presidency, Trump can't declare war on anyone. That power is reserved to congress.Pong said:
Yes. A reference that would probably go over the heads of most Sun readers.Charles said:
Wasn't 1846 the date of the last Mexican-American war?Pong said:https://www.sunbets.co.uk/sports/betting/Politics/competitions/US Politics
Say Your Prez
US Politics - Say Your Prez
Trump Wins & Declares War On Mexico
Stake
£10.00
Odds
1846/1
Bet Cost
£10.00
Potential Return
£18,470.00
Not likely to happen, but not 1846/1 either.
Anyway I wouldn't price that above 500/1. Worth noting it's a treble;
1 Trump wins.
2 Declares war on mexico.
3 Murdoch keeps his bookie open long enough to pay out.
Edit: See your point. They'd go to war, not declare war.0 -
Huge rural-urban divide this time, I imagine.Pulpstar said:2016 New Hampshire midnight voting (Dixville Notch, Harts, Millsfield):
Trump 32 Clinton 25
2012:
Obama 28 Romney 14
Perhaps its NOT all over0 -
Shouldn't be that hard for the GOP to get someone in the top 2, they only have to nominate a decent candidate. Anyway it's not that dissmiliar to what happens in Louisiana. Any comment on that?RobD said:
Yeah, it stinks.Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.0 -
OTOH low-education white men are a declining demographic, that's why they're losing control of the country and that in turn is why they're so angry. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on this platform in 2020, but it's getting harder all the time.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.0 -
I don't know the system in Louisiana but if it's the same my reaction would be the same.Monksfield said:
Shouldn't be that hard for the GOP to get someone in the top 2, they only have to nominate a decent candidate. Anyway it's not that dissmiliar to what happens in Louisiana. Any comment on that?RobD said:
Yeah, it stinks.Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
There should be no restricting on who wants to stand as a candidate in the full election. I don't like second round systems and especially not those that are designed to limit the choice of the voters to a single party.0 -
The US needs an electoral commission.Monksfield said:
Shouldn't be that hard for the GOP to get someone in the top 2, they only have to nominate a decent candidate. Anyway it's not that dissmiliar to what happens in Louisiana. Any comment on that?RobD said:
Yeah, it stinks.Charles said:Although that said one thing that cannot happen is a loss of California’s Senate seat to the Democrats because although Senator Boxer is standing down, she’s going to be replaced by one of two Democrats (that’s right, no Republican candidate).
When people whine about Republican gerrymandering they should remember this.
Sacremento changes the rules to have an "open primary" where both parties vote in the same election and only the top 2 candidates get to participate in the election.
They did this to explicitly to disenfrancish Orange County which - even in 2008 and 2012 - had an absolute majority for the GOP but isn't allowed to vote for anyone apart from a Democrat this time round.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/05/the_gop_screwed_themselves_the_brilliant_gerrymander_that_gave_republicans_the_congress_and_created_donald_trump/0 -
edmundintokyo said:
Railing against globalisation. How are we going to deal with AI?Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."0 -
I agree with that analysis. It is not going to get easier for the Repulicans, especially with the campaign costs to run. If only multi millionaires can afford to then it is a pretty shalllow pool to fish in.edmundintokyo said:
OTOH low-education white men are a declining demographic, that's why they're losing control of the country and that in turn is why they're so angry. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on this platform in 2020, but it's getting harder all the time.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.
0 -
Not to worry. I'm sure it will end well.edmundintokyo said:
OTOH low-education white men are a declining demographic, that's why they're losing control of the country and that in turn is why they're so angry. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on this platform in 2020, but it's getting harder all the time.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.0 -
Is it over yet? Who won?0
-
Looks like the SP is 1.22/5.5
Any other GOP candidate would have been between 1/5 and evens vs. Hillary on the day of the election, IMO.
ANY other candidate.
Even the thoroughly unlikeable Ted Cruz would have run HRC close.0 -
We all win 24 hours from now when it's finally over...Alistair said:Is it over yet? Who won?
0 -
Nate now showing both Florida and North Carolina for Hillary.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/0 -
Amnesty and a few other changes by Clinton that can be done by Executive Order and the entire voting demographics of the USA will be changed overnight and forever.edmundintokyo said:
OTOH low-education white men are a declining demographic, that's why they're losing control of the country and that in turn is why they're so angry. I'm not saying it's impossible to win on this platform in 2020, but it's getting harder all the time.Black_Rook said:Watching Trump on BBC News a few moments ago, at his final rally in Michigan:
"We used to make cars in Flint and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now they make cars in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint."
This, along with Clinton's own unpopularity, is the reason why a candidate like Donald Trump can capture in excess of 40% of the popular vote. It's also why, even if he loses this time around, we shouldn't assume that somebody running on a very similar platform (only without the misogyny, and with less strident rhetoric about Mexico) can't win the next time around.
The GOP will never win nationally again.0
