Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest political betting round-up: the main markets

SystemSystem Posts: 12,682
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Latest political betting round-up: the main markets

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    Le Pen value now?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,750
    Macron is value. A lot of left wingers might switch to him to ensure it isn't a hard right vs far right race.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    There has been a small movement away from Zac Goldsmith in Richmond today on Betfair . Last price matched 1.46 . Lib Dems last matched 3.7
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    MaxPB said:

    Macron is value. A lot of left wingers might switch to him to ensure it isn't a hard right vs far right race.

    Macron is excellent value.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2016/09/why-emmanuel-macron-france-s-answer-tony-blair
  • theakestheakes Posts: 967
    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    O/T whatever happened to 619?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,374
    Sean_F said:

    O/T whatever happened to 619?

    Busy crowd funding for a recount in Pennsylvania?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Macron was tipped earlier at 21. He's only 13 on Ladbrokes. Too short?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,750
    Sean_F said:

    O/T whatever happened to 619?

    I expect his contract ran out at midnight on the night. There was a Super PAC called "Correct The Record" which hired people to spam for Hillary on the internet. Much of her "grassroots support" was actually paid astroturfing. CTR probably picked PB because PB has been shown to move betting markets before and because they had a lot of money to spend after Soros donated over $1m.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    MaxPB said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T whatever happened to 619?

    I expect his contract ran out at midnight on the night. There was a Super PAC called "Correct The Record" which hired people to spam for Hillary on the internet. Much of her "grassroots support" was actually paid astroturfing. CTR probably picked PB because PB has been shown to move betting markets before and because they had a lot of money to spend after Soros donated over $1m.
    I did point this out before the election, only to be attacked by JackW who seemed convinced that 619 was genuine. And a few others, but I forget who they were. JackW was the only one who stood out for me because I thought he had more sense than to be taken in by such an obvious 'turfer.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,925
    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Movements in betting markets are nearly always herding - just as in financial markets. The number of movements in either that are actually responses to actual data are few and far between.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    Sean_F said:

    O/T whatever happened to 619?

    Still discussing Hillary's ground game with IOS
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    Come on Spurs!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited November 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T whatever happened to 619?

    Still discussing Hillary's ground game with IOS
    You missed out the word 'superior' before 'ground' and 'game'
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    edited November 2016


    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    O/T whatever happened to 619?

    Still discussing Hillary's ground game with IOS
    In both cases, the excellent ground game meant winning big in places they already held. Winning California by 3.8 m is no better than winning it by 38,000.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Betting Post

    F1: the last pre-race piece of the year is up here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/abu-dhabi-pre-race-2016.html

    The bet within is one that regular readers may be able to guess.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Come on Spurs!

    Cracking game at the moment.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rkrkrk said:

    Le Pen value now?

    I think so. She is pretty certain to make the last 2. Then it is a matter of whether the other choice is any more transfer friendly, and they may well not be.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,328
    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    Managing expectations really isn't in the Lib dem playbook, is it...
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    The betting still looks good for Zac.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    A plague on both their houses!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,374
    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    In a variation on their usual theme perhaps the LibDems could point at piles of deer poo in the park?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rkrkrk said:



    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?

    The USA election is just the latest example of how the PB consensus is usually wrong. Since I retired I don't gamble much and only in cash with the bookies. However, I have found it a good rule of thumb to have a few quid on the opposite of what the majority of people on this site are saying in advance of an event.

    Pity really, when I first came on here in 2007 the opposite was true, and there were lots of good tips for the gee gees as well.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    F1: been a bloody odd season for me. I'll muse properly later, but I had one astounding bet, lots of poor judgement, and some bad luck.

    But it'll still be my best ever season. Despite getting almost everything wrong.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Mortimer said:

    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    Managing expectations really isn't in the Lib dem playbook, is it...
    Nope . The Lib Dem priority is to try and convince voters they are in with a chance at least of winning . The Conservatives , on the other hand , give up before they start and do not even stand a candidate .
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    In case anyone missed it a couple of days ago, I have helpfully compiled reasons why people of all political persuasions ought to buy Kingdom Asunder:
    Are you a modern, inclusive, diversity-approving and LGBTQIA-sensitive person?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    As well as boasting multiple female protagonists and an in-depth portrayal of the inherent masculine violence endemic in patriarchy, there are numerous sensitive depictions of characters of non-binary gender, disability, lesbianism and transvestitism.


    Are you an old-fashioned, no-nonsense Conservative?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Delight in the glorious bloodshed as the conflicting sides are matched in a battle of wits and steel. Welcome to a world where the health & safety executive would have a broadsword shoved up its bunghole and the closest thing to an all-woman shortlist is a lesbian’s carnal menu.



    Are you a Liberal Democrat?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Enjoy the escapism of 2016’s most fantastic story, replete with characters from multiple ethnicities all working together on a common cause*. There’s a whole race of vegetarians, coupled with a metropolitan cocktail of English, French, German and Welsh references.

    *The common cause being to kill everyone on the other side.


    Are you a Labour supporter?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Hark back to the terrible days of class hierarchy and subservience of the proletariat and marvel at how terrible things were before socialism. See how the arrogance and violence of the wealthy few causes untold suffering to the working man, and be glad you live in more enlightened times.


    Are you none of the above?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    The grim reality of warfare and power politics is effortlessly portrayed through morally grey characters, with an emphasis on gritty realism and the fractious relationships that are hallmarks of real life. Treachery, brutality and a ruthless streak a mile wide make this the most compelling novel of the year.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Morris_Dancer said:

    In case anyone missed it a couple of days ago, I have helpfully compiled reasons why people of all political persuasions ought to buy Kingdom Asunder:
    Are you a modern, inclusive, diversity-approving and LGBTQIA-sensitive person?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    As well as boasting multiple female protagonists and an in-depth portrayal of the inherent masculine violence endemic in patriarchy, there are numerous sensitive depictions of characters of non-binary gender, disability, lesbianism and transvestitism.


    Are you an old-fashioned, no-nonsense Conservative?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Delight in the glorious bloodshed as the conflicting sides are matched in a battle of wits and steel. Welcome to a world where the health & safety executive would have a broadsword shoved up its bunghole and the closest thing to an all-woman shortlist is a lesbian’s carnal menu.



    Are you a Liberal Democrat?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Enjoy the escapism of 2016’s most fantastic story, replete with characters from multiple ethnicities all working together on a common cause*. There’s a whole race of vegetarians, coupled with a metropolitan cocktail of English, French, German and Welsh references.

    *The common cause being to kill everyone on the other side.


    Are you a Labour supporter?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Hark back to the terrible days of class hierarchy and subservience of the proletariat and marvel at how terrible things were before socialism. See how the arrogance and violence of the wealthy few causes untold suffering to the working man, and be glad you live in more enlightened times.


    Are you none of the above?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    The grim reality of warfare and power politics is effortlessly portrayed through morally grey characters, with an emphasis on gritty realism and the fractious relationships that are hallmarks of real life. Treachery, brutality and a ruthless streak a mile wide make this the most compelling novel of the year.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/

    :D
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    MikeSmithson said:

    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    The betting still looks good for Zac.
    I think a low turnout Zac win.

    Shadsy has 5/1 on Zac majority less than 2500. I think that is reasonable value, what with this being a pointless vanity byelection.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Dr. Foxinsox, I think Goldsmith deserves some kudos for keeping his election promise.

    And a lot of censure for making such a bloody stupid promise in the first place.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,451
    MikeSmithson said:

    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    The betting still looks good for Zac.
    As it did for Hillary and Remain. If there's one thing to take away from 2016 it's that the myth of "wisdom of the Betfair crowds" has been throroughly debunked
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Mr. Fire, or, that hubris is followed by nemesis. Saw it here at the referendum, saw it in the US by Clinton.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,343
    edited November 2016
    foxinsoxuk said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    The betting still looks good for Zac.
    I think a low turnout Zac win.

    Shadsy has 5/1 on Zac majority less than 2500. I think that is reasonable value, what with this being a pointless vanity byelection.
    I think that is good value.

    For what it's worth, here is my Nate Silver type 1,000 simulations of the RP majorities.

    Zac >5000 108 10.8%
    Zac >2500 402 40.2%
    Zac > 1000 579 57.9%
    Zac > 500 649 64.9%
    Zac >0 710 71.0%
    Sar > 0 290 29.0%
    Sar>500 232 23.2%
    Sar>1000 164 16.4%
    Sar>2500 21 2.1%
    Sar>5000 0 0.0%

    I heard last night that CCHQ's estimate is a 4,000-5,000 majority for Zac based on canvass returns - but what do they know. They are not involved.

    I think Zac is now playing a "poor me" sympathy game. "I did the honorable thing and those horrid LibDems are being nasty to me".

    Edit: My simulation shows Zac with a 31.2% chance of a majority less than 2,500. 2/1 against.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,750
    rkrkrk said:



    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?

    Because there was no one willing to actually support Hillary, most of it came with "I'd vote for her but only because Trump is so loathsome". Very few people actually liked Hillary either as a person or candidate.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,397
    Barnesian said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    The betting still looks good for Zac.
    I think a low turnout Zac win.

    Shadsy has 5/1 on Zac majority less than 2500. I think that is reasonable value, what with this being a pointless vanity byelection.
    I think that is good value.

    For what it's worth, here is my Nate Silver type 1,000 simulations of the RP majorities.

    Zac >5000 108 10.8%
    Zac >2500 402 40.2%
    Zac > 1000 579 57.9%
    Zac > 500 649 64.9%
    Zac >0 710 71.0%
    Sar > 0 290 29.0%
    Sar>500 232 23.2%
    Sar>1000 164 16.4%
    Sar>2500 21 2.1%
    Sar>5000 0 0.0%

    I heard last night that CCHQ's estimate is a 4,000-5,000 majority for Zac based on canvass returns - but what do they know. They are not involved.

    I think Zac is now playing a "poor me" sympathy game. "I did the honorable thing and those horrid LibDems are being nasty to me".

    Edit: My simulation shows Zac with a 31.2% chance of a majority less than 2,500. 2/1 against.
    I would be very surprised if Zac topped a 5,000 majority.
    I would be quite surprised if he lost.

    Which means I'm forecasting low turnout and 1-3,000 for Zac.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,374
    Reflecting on the Donald, while I agree that he was probably the worst possible candidate the GOP could have put forward, I also believe he was the only GOP candidate who could have won.

    How so?

    Well I can't see how a mainstream conservative Republican could possibly have won the rust belt states that Trump won. Cruz might have won Florida, NC and the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Hillary.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2016
    Barnesian said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    The betting still looks good for Zac.
    I think a low turnout Zac win.

    Shadsy has 5/1 on Zac majority less than 2500. I think that is reasonable value, what with this being a pointless vanity byelection.
    I think that is good value.

    For what it's worth, here is my Nate Silver type 1,000 simulations of the RP majorities.

    Zac >5000 108 10.8%
    Zac >2500 402 40.2%
    Zac > 1000 579 57.9%
    Zac > 500 649 64.9%
    Zac >0 710 71.0%
    Sar > 0 290 29.0%
    Sar>500 232 23.2%
    Sar>1000 164 16.4%
    Sar>2500 21 2.1%
    Sar>5000 0 0.0%

    I heard last night that CCHQ's estimate is a 4,000-5,000 majority for Zac based on canvass returns - but what do they know. They are not involved.

    I think Zac is now playing a "poor me" sympathy game. "I did the honorable thing and those horrid LibDems are being nasty to me".

    Edit: My simulation shows Zac with a 31.2% chance of a majority less than 2,500. 2/1 against.
    The combination of a Dec by-election, and a choice of 2 anti-runway candidates, with no Tory on the ballot paper should depress turnout and majority.

    I would love to see Olney in, but think it will be close but no cigar.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,537
    Corbyn, asked about Castro’s human rights abuses – summary executions, decades of impoverishment, gays sent to concentration camps – replies: “There are problems of excesses by all regimes”. Mad.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,537
    I see the lefties fav world leader Justin Trudeau has really gone OTT of his praise of Castro. What is wrong with these people.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Mr. Urquhart, I RT'ed this:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/802533873770962945
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    MikeSmithson said:

    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    The betting still looks good for Zac.
    Most people who bet on Betfair don`t live in Richmond Park, Mr Smithson. Or do they?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,537
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Urquhart, I RT'ed this:
    https://twitter.com/timothy_stanley/status/802533873770962945

    I don't recommend he goes on any trips to Miami anytime soon!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,537
    edited November 2016
    Given some of the coverage of castro, I can see Assad being described after his death as at times being a little naughty given a tough situation.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Come on Spurs!

    my 5-1 dread still looks plausible
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    edited November 2016
    Trump calls Castro a brutal dictator.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38118739

    And he is absolutely right.

    Corbyn calls him a huge figure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38117068

    What can you say? Idiot is too kind.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    edited November 2016
    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Come on Spurs!

    my 5-1 dread still looks plausible
    Cheer up, I've been knocked off my Fantasy football perch.

    By a phooqing Brexiter, the ignominy, the SHAME
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,537
    DavidL said:

    Trump calls Castro a brutal dictator.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38118739

    And he is absolutely right.

    Again the way it is being reported it is as if that is somehow controversial post-truth up there with his Mexican rapists comments.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    MaxPB said:

    rkrkrk said:



    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?

    Because there was no one willing to actually support Hillary, most of it came with "I'd vote for her but only because Trump is so loathsome". Very few people actually liked Hillary either as a person or candidate.
    I was keen on Hilary and there were a few others I think.
    But at the end of the day- paying someone to post on a forum where almost no one can vote just doesn't seem like something any campaign would do.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    So seemingly, there will be be no more of the UK going to the back of the line, sorry queue, as we were so graciously informed would be the case by the outgoing President of our supposed closest ally.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    SandyRentool said:

    Reflecting on the Donald, while I agree that he was probably the worst possible candidate the GOP could have put forward, I also believe he was the only GOP candidate who could have won.

    How so?

    Well I can't see how a mainstream conservative Republican could possibly have won the rust belt states that Trump won. Cruz might have won Florida, NC and the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Hillary.

    Logically, Kasich should have done better against Hillary in all the usual states, and should have had a chance in the Rust Belt. For example, I think he could have won both NV and NH, and run very well in CO. But he underperformed in the Rust Belt in the primaries so probably would have done worse not just in WI, MI and PA, but also IA and OH. So you may be right - The Donald was the only GOPer who could have won the Rust Belt, ergo the EC.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    Haven't you heard - we're getting the free trade deal in spite of Brexit ;)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    Trump calls Castro a brutal dictator.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38118739

    And he is absolutely right.

    Corbyn calls him a huge figure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38117068

    What can you say? Idiot is too kind.

    It may be an age thing in this country, and a political thing in America. My guess is that for most people, and especially most middle-aged or younger people, who do not remember the 50s and 60s, this is small earthquake in Chile news.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    MTimT said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Reflecting on the Donald, while I agree that he was probably the worst possible candidate the GOP could have put forward, I also believe he was the only GOP candidate who could have won.

    How so?

    Well I can't see how a mainstream conservative Republican could possibly have won the rust belt states that Trump won. Cruz might have won Florida, NC and the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Hillary.

    Logically, Kasich should have done better against Hillary in all the usual states, and should have had a chance in the Rust Belt. For example, I think he could have won both NV and NH, and run very well in CO. But he underperformed in the Rust Belt in the primaries so probably would have done worse not just in WI, MI and PA, but also IA and OH. So you may be right - The Donald was the only GOPer who could have won the Rust Belt, ergo the EC.
    If Hilary's problem was complacency... then perhaps she would have fared better against a more conventional candidate.

    No way Ted Cruz would have won the popular vote.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    peter_from_putney said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    So seemingly, there will be be no more of the UK going to the back of the line, sorry queue, as we were so graciously informed would be the case by the outgoing President of our supposed closest ally.
    The proposed terms probably include handing the Wentworth Estate to the Trump Corporation. ;)
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited November 2016
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump calls Castro a brutal dictator.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38118739

    And he is absolutely right.

    Corbyn calls him a huge figure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38117068

    What can you say? Idiot is too kind.

    It may be an age thing in this country, and a political thing in America. My guess is that for most people, and especially most middle-aged or younger people, who do not remember the 50s and 60s, this is small earthquake in Chile news.
    Has the BBC announced yet when its prime time tribute to Castro is due to be aired?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,750
    rkrkrk said:

    MaxPB said:

    rkrkrk said:



    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?

    Because there was no one willing to actually support Hillary, most of it came with "I'd vote for her but only because Trump is so loathsome". Very few people actually liked Hillary either as a person or candidate.
    I was keen on Hilary and there were a few others I think.
    But at the end of the day- paying someone to post on a forum where almost no one can vote just doesn't seem like something any campaign would do.
    Given how awful the Clinton campaign was I think it wouldn't be out of the question.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    HurstLlama said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    In case anyone missed it a couple of days ago, I have helpfully compiled reasons why people of all political persuasions ought to buy Kingdom Asunder:
    Are you a modern, inclusive, diversity-approving and LGBTQIA-sensitive person?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    As well as boasting multiple female protagonists and an in-depth portrayal of the inherent masculine violence endemic in patriarchy, there are numerous sensitive depictions of characters of non-binary gender, disability, lesbianism and transvestitism.


    Are you an old-fashioned, no-nonsense Conservative?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Delight in the glorious bloodshed as the conflicting sides are matched in a battle of wits and steel. Welcome to a world where the health & safety executive would have a broadsword shoved up its bunghole and the closest thing to an all-woman shortlist is a lesbian’s carnal menu.



    Are you a Liberal Democrat?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Enjoy the escapism of 2016’s most fantastic story, replete with characters from multiple ethnicities all working together on a common cause*. There’s a whole race of vegetarians, coupled with a metropolitan cocktail of English, French, German and Welsh references.

    *The common cause being to kill everyone on the other side.


    Are you a Labour supporter?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Hark back to the terrible days of class hierarchy and subservience of the proletariat and marvel at how terrible things were before socialism. See how the arrogance and violence of the wealthy few causes untold suffering to the working man, and be glad you live in more enlightened times.


    Are you none of the above?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    The grim reality of warfare and power politics is effortlessly portrayed through morally grey characters, with an emphasis on gritty realism and the fractious relationships that are hallmarks of real life. Treachery, brutality and a ruthless streak a mile wide make this the most compelling novel of the year.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/

    :D
    Just purchased for $2.99 no VAT on amazon.com, vs GBP2.39 plus VAT on amazon.co.uk
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 45,166
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Given some of the coverage of castro, I can see Assad being described after his death as at times being a little naughty given a tough situation.

    I think there are several on here who take that position already?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,539
    Just seen the full Corbyn tribute to Castro.
    Gushing, absolutely gushing.

    It's difficult to get the right tone here. Castro was a world-historical figure, but an enemy of the West, and ran a repressive regime.

    Corbyn didn't even try to strike a balance. He was clearly upset at the death of a personal hero.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Scrapheap_as_was said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Come on Spurs!

    my 5-1 dread still looks plausible
    Cheer up, I've been knocked off my Fantasy football perch.

    By a phooqing Brexiter, the ignominy, the SHAME
    The cream rises to the top.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    HurstLlama said:

    rkrkrk said:



    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?

    The USA election is just the latest example of how the PB consensus is usually wrong. Since I retired I don't gamble much and only in cash with the bookies. However, I have found it a good rule of thumb to have a few quid on the opposite of what the majority of people on this site are saying in advance of an event.

    Pity really, when I first came on here in 2007 the opposite was true, and there were lots of good tips for the gee gees as well.
    Well either way- at least you can still make money from reading what is written here!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    https://twitter.com/imrankhanpti/status/802396962918113280
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Mr. T, cheers, hope you enjoy it.

    The EU's VAT nonsense aimed at apparently hitting firms like Amazon has worked about as well as one might expect...
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    MTimT said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Reflecting on the Donald, while I agree that he was probably the worst possible candidate the GOP could have put forward, I also believe he was the only GOP candidate who could have won.

    How so?

    Well I can't see how a mainstream conservative Republican could possibly have won the rust belt states that Trump won. Cruz might have won Florida, NC and the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Hillary.

    Logically, Kasich should have done better against Hillary in all the usual states, and should have had a chance in the Rust Belt. For example, I think he could have won both NV and NH, and run very well in CO. But he underperformed in the Rust Belt in the primaries so probably would have done worse not just in WI, MI and PA, but also IA and OH. So you may be right - The Donald was the only GOPer who could have won the Rust Belt, ergo the EC.
    In the end the most successful candidate of the primaries had the greatest chances of victory.

    The primaries are still a good indicator at which states and demographics candidates would have a problem.

    The only thing that stuck out was Arizona, Trump didn't do well there despite winning the primary easily (though McCain and Flake were against him all the way) , and Wisconsin where Trump did badly but still won in the general (with less support from Waukesha county though).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Incidentally, PBers may enjoy the hashtag 'trudeaueulogies'.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    MTimT said:

    HurstLlama said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    In case anyone missed it a couple of days ago, I have helpfully compiled reasons why people of all political persuasions ought to buy Kingdom Asunder:
    Are you a modern, inclusive, diversity-approving and LGBTQIA-sensitive person?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    As well as boasting multiple female protagonists and an in-depth portrayal of the inherent masculine violence endemic in patriarchy, there are numerous sensitive depictions of characters of non-binary gender, disability, lesbianism and transvestitism.


    Are you an old-fashioned, no-nonsense Conservative?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Delight in the glorious bloodshed as the conflicting sides are matched in a battle of wits and steel. Welcome to a world where the health & safety executive would have a broadsword shoved up its bunghole and the closest thing to an all-woman shortlist is a lesbian’s carnal menu.



    Are you a Liberal Democrat?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Enjoy the escapism of 2016’s most fantastic story, replete with characters from multiple ethnicities all working together on a common cause*. There’s a whole race of vegetarians, coupled with a metropolitan cocktail of English, French, German and Welsh references.

    *The common cause being to kill everyone on the other side.


    Are you a Labour supporter?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    Hark back to the terrible days of class hierarchy and subservience of the proletariat and marvel at how terrible things were before socialism. See how the arrogance and violence of the wealthy few causes untold suffering to the working man, and be glad you live in more enlightened times.


    Are you none of the above?

    Kingdom Asunder is the novel for you.

    The grim reality of warfare and power politics is effortlessly portrayed through morally grey characters, with an emphasis on gritty realism and the fractious relationships that are hallmarks of real life. Treachery, brutality and a ruthless streak a mile wide make this the most compelling novel of the year.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingdom-Asunder-Bloody-Crown-Trilogy-ebook/dp/B01N8UF799/

    :D
    Just purchased for $2.99 no VAT on amazon.com, vs GBP2.39 plus VAT on amazon.co.uk
    See, thanks to the all but ready to be signed-up trade deals, things are set to stay as they are - Americans pay in dollars the amount we pay in pounds.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,541
    rkrkrk said:

    HurstLlama said:

    rkrkrk said:



    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?

    The USA election is just the latest example of how the PB consensus is usually wrong. Since I retired I don't gamble much and only in cash with the bookies. However, I have found it a good rule of thumb to have a few quid on the opposite of what the majority of people on this site are saying in advance of an event.

    Pity really, when I first came on here in 2007 the opposite was true, and there were lots of good tips for the gee gees as well.
    Well either way- at least you can still make money from reading what is written here!
    I think most of us recognised that Trump was the value bet, like Brexit.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    MaxPB said:

    rkrkrk said:

    MaxPB said:

    rkrkrk said:



    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?

    Because there was no one willing to actually support Hillary, most of it came with "I'd vote for her but only because Trump is so loathsome". Very few people actually liked Hillary either as a person or candidate.
    I was keen on Hilary and there were a few others I think.
    But at the end of the day- paying someone to post on a forum where almost no one can vote just doesn't seem like something any campaign would do.
    Given how awful the Clinton campaign was I think it wouldn't be out of the question.
    Indeed, I read that they even spent money on adds in California instead of Wisconsin and Michigan.

    It's like they had a secret plan to win the popular vote but lose the election anyway.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,893
    Mr. Speedy, sounds utterly mad.

    Anyway, I'm off now. My pre-race ramble is up here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/abu-dhabi-pre-race-2016.html
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump calls Castro a brutal dictator.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38118739

    And he is absolutely right.

    Corbyn calls him a huge figure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38117068

    What can you say? Idiot is too kind.

    It may be an age thing in this country, and a political thing in America. My guess is that for most people, and especially most middle-aged or younger people, who do not remember the 50s and 60s, this is small earthquake in Chile news.
    I doubt many 30-somethings have heard of Fidel Castro. Trump being 70 knows the history of Cuba post-1959 but fails to say that many countries have brutal dictators, some of them installed or bankrolled by the USA.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,397
    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    The thing is South Korea, Australia, and Japan are all indispensable allies to the US.

    And there will never be a deal more advantageous to the US than the TPP.

    Can we get a free trade deal with America under Trump?

    Probably.

    Will it be any "kinder" than the TPP, which would require us to lose all sovereignty in areas such as intellectual property law, and require us to have domestic laws subject to US ISDS tribunals?

    I doubt it.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    rural_voter said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump calls Castro a brutal dictator.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38118739

    And he is absolutely right.

    Corbyn calls him a huge figure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38117068

    What can you say? Idiot is too kind.

    It may be an age thing in this country, and a political thing in America. My guess is that for most people, and especially most middle-aged or younger people, who do not remember the 50s and 60s, this is small earthquake in Chile news.
    I doubt many 30-somethings have heard of Fidel Castro. Trump being 70 knows the history of Cuba post-1959 but fails to say that many countries have brutal dictators, some of them installed or bankrolled by the USA.
    Only so much you can say in one tweet ;)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,925
    foxinsoxuk said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    PClipp said:

    theakes said:

    Lib Dems seem pretty bullish and confident. Is there something going on we are unaware of or is it a con?

    Lots of pictures on the social media today of Mr Goldsmith wandering around aimlessly and friendless. Equally, lots of pictures of hundreds of motivated Lib Dems campaigning hard in Richmond Park. There isn`t really much point in voting for Mr Goldsmith.

    Perhaps the message is getting through.
    The betting still looks good for Zac.
    I think a low turnout Zac win.

    Shadsy has 5/1 on Zac majority less than 2500. I think that is reasonable value, what with this being a pointless vanity byelection.
    As someone who lives near by, and was actually in Richmond today...

    Locally there is no sense that this was a pointless by-election. The threat of it put a hold on the third runway for years. It also strengthened the hand of the group of West London MPs who oppose the runway. Even opponents of Zac compliment him on not selling out.

    This is an excellent example of people not wanting to understand the point of view of their opponents. The anti-runway protests are based on decades of lies, under hand behaviour and out right dirty tricks by the owners of Heathrow. It's not even the third runway itself - it's about halting Heathrow's infinite expansion. If Zac wins it will be seen as reinforcing that block of West London MPs.

    Saying that the MP should have done "the right thing" and sold his support in return for a minor political office - typical behaviour for politicians in this matter of the years - misses the fact that actual people oppose this.

    I know that these people are opposing The Will Of The Managerial Class - and so are racist scum to dealt with like lice - but you might want to try and understand their point of view.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2016
    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HurstLlama said:

    rkrkrk said:



    The message board was pretty anti-Trump anyway?
    PB.com ability to move the market surely not a big factor in the largest gambling event ever?
    In any case the market was very pro Clinton... Not that that made any difference.
    Finally... Why would Clinton campaign need to pay people to write on message boards slagging off Trump when there are so many who would do it for free!?

    The USA election is just the latest example of how the PB consensus is usually wrong. Since I retired I don't gamble much and only in cash with the bookies. However, I have found it a good rule of thumb to have a few quid on the opposite of what the majority of people on this site are saying in advance of an event.

    Pity really, when I first came on here in 2007 the opposite was true, and there were lots of good tips for the gee gees as well.
    Well either way- at least you can still make money from reading what is written here!
    I think most of us recognised that Trump was the value bet, like Brexit.
    I only gave him a 10% chance from the Conventions until Monday evening before the election.

    Then I revised it up at 33%, then that he won based on the national exit poll until the state exit polls came out, when everyone agreed that Trump had lost, and then back up again at around 01:30 as I realized from the results that the state exit polls were crap.

    Trump's campaign was a rollercoaster right up till the last minute, just like his life, and I expect his presidency to be too.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,216
    So Spurs' unbeaten run ends at 12. Good effort, just 37 short of the record.
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Dr. Foxinsox, I think Goldsmith deserves some kudos for keeping his election promise.

    And a lot of censure for making such a bloody stupid promise in the first place.

    Amen.

    It's interesting that it's Lib Dems who seem to be most confused by the concept of a politician keeping his promise. Can't think why.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,598
    rcs1000 said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    The thing is South Korea, Australia, and Japan are all indispensable allies to the US.

    And there will never be a deal more advantageous to the US than the TPP.

    Can we get a free trade deal with America under Trump?

    Probably.

    Will it be any "kinder" than the TPP, which would require us to lose all sovereignty in areas such as intellectual property law, and require us to have domestic laws subject to US ISDS tribunals?

    I doubt it.

    Is there any reason, other than multinationals lobbying hard for it, that a trade deal *needs* to have all that stuff? Could a deal not just be implemented whereby tariffs were lifted?

  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited November 2016
    Speedy said:

    MTimT said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Reflecting on the Donald, while I agree that he was probably the worst possible candidate the GOP could have put forward, I also believe he was the only GOP candidate who could have won.

    How so?

    Well I can't see how a mainstream conservative Republican could possibly have won the rust belt states that Trump won. Cruz might have won Florida, NC and the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Hillary.

    Logically, Kasich should have done better against Hillary in all the usual states, and should have had a chance in the Rust Belt. For example, I think he could have won both NV and NH, and run very well in CO. But he underperformed in the Rust Belt in the primaries so probably would have done worse not just in WI, MI and PA, but also IA and OH. So you may be right - The Donald was the only GOPer who could have won the Rust Belt, ergo the EC.
    In the end the most successful candidate of the primaries had the greatest chances of victory.

    The primaries are still a good indicator at which states and demographics candidates would have a problem.

    The only thing that stuck out was Arizona, Trump didn't do well there despite winning the primary easily (though McCain and Flake were against him all the way) , and Wisconsin where Trump did badly but still won in the general (with less support from Waukesha county though).
    Should Trump prove to be a competent POTUS over the next 4 years, but he were to decide on account of age or whatever not to run for a second term, then Ohio's John Kasich must be in with a chance - his big error this time around was entering the race too casually and too late. The Magic Sign's odds of 100/1 against his chances in 2020 look pretty fair value to me for a modest fun punt.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    edited November 2016
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    The thing is South Korea, Australia, and Japan are all indispensable allies to the US.

    And there will never be a deal more advantageous to the US than the TPP.

    Can we get a free trade deal with America under Trump?

    Probably.

    Will it be any "kinder" than the TPP, which would require us to lose all sovereignty in areas such as intellectual property law, and require us to have domestic laws subject to US ISDS tribunals?

    I doubt it.

    Is there any reason, other than multinationals lobbying hard for it, that a trade deal *needs* to have all that stuff? Could a deal not just be implemented whereby tariffs were lifted?

    Trade deals are really about the removal of NTBs. Tariffs really are the easy bit. My favourite is still the Japanese claiming they had a different kind of snow which made foreign skis dangerous.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited November 2016
    peter_from_putney said:

    Speedy said:

    MTimT said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Reflecting on the Donald, while I agree that he was probably the worst possible candidate the GOP could have put forward, I also believe he was the only GOP candidate who could have won.

    How so?

    Well I can't see how a mainstream conservative Republican could possibly have won the rust belt states that Trump won. Cruz might have won Florida, NC and the popular vote but lost the electoral college to Hillary.

    Logically, Kasich should have done better against Hillary in all the usual states, and should have had a chance in the Rust Belt. For example, I think he could have won both NV and NH, and run very well in CO. But he underperformed in the Rust Belt in the primaries so probably would have done worse not just in WI, MI and PA, but also IA and OH. So you may be right - The Donald was the only GOPer who could have won the Rust Belt, ergo the EC.
    In the end the most successful candidate of the primaries had the greatest chances of victory.

    The primaries are still a good indicator at which states and demographics candidates would have a problem.

    The only thing that stuck out was Arizona, Trump didn't do well there despite winning the primary easily (though McCain and Flake were against him all the way) , and Wisconsin where Trump did badly but still won in the general (with less support from Waukesha county though).
    Should Trump prove to be a competent POTUS over the next 4 years, but he were to decide on account of age or whatever not to run for a second term, then Ohio's John Kasich must be in with a chance - his big error this time around was entering the race too casually and too late. The Magic Sign's odds of 100/1 against his chances look pretty fair value to me for a modest fun punt.

    Forget it.

    Kasich is dead meat.

    He is very unpopular with Republicans even with Ohio Republicans, though he is very popular with democrats.

    The way he conducted himself through the primaries and after till election day terminated his political influence, he is still governor of Ohio but he doesn't carry enough votes to change any outcome even in his state (Trump still won it by 10 points more than the national average).

    He is the GOP version of Jim Webb, a man who is in the wrong party.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    RobD said:

    rural_voter said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump calls Castro a brutal dictator.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38118739

    And he is absolutely right.

    Corbyn calls him a huge figure: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38117068

    What can you say? Idiot is too kind.

    It may be an age thing in this country, and a political thing in America. My guess is that for most people, and especially most middle-aged or younger people, who do not remember the 50s and 60s, this is small earthquake in Chile news.
    I doubt many 30-somethings have heard of Fidel Castro. Trump being 70 knows the history of Cuba post-1959 but fails to say that many countries have brutal dictators, some of them installed or bankrolled by the USA.
    Only so much you can say in one tweet ;)
    You can fit 'Always keep a hold of nurse for fear of finding someone worse' into about 70 characters. It can be invaluable, if unpalatable advice.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    @peter_from_putney

    Regarding Kasich's odds:
    https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/801801424183103488
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Oh dear, Balls.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Excellent Obit on Castro from the Miami Herald:

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117186483.html

    Castro's daughter points out he wasn't a dictator but a tyrant.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/802599932838428672
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    Len Goodman called Ed Balls the people's champion.

    Beat that Jeremy
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    CarlottaVance said:

    Excellent Obit on Castro from the Miami Herald:

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/fidel-castro-en/article117186483.html

    Castro's daughter points out he wasn't a dictator but a tyrant.

    There's a reason why I want to be the UK's first Directly Elected Dictator, and not Directly Elected Tyrant
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,705
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Len Goodman called Ed Balls the people's champion.

    Beat that Jeremy

    You sure he didn't call him the people's champignon?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 32,598
    DavidL said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    The thing is South Korea, Australia, and Japan are all indispensable allies to the US.

    And there will never be a deal more advantageous to the US than the TPP.

    Can we get a free trade deal with America under Trump?

    Probably.

    Will it be any "kinder" than the TPP, which would require us to lose all sovereignty in areas such as intellectual property law, and require us to have domestic laws subject to US ISDS tribunals?

    I doubt it.

    Is there any reason, other than multinationals lobbying hard for it, that a trade deal *needs* to have all that stuff? Could a deal not just be implemented whereby tariffs were lifted?

    Trade deals are really about the removal of NTBs. Tariffs really are the easy bit. My favourite is still the Japanese claiming they had a different kind of snow which made foreign skis dangerous.
    I don't find that ridiculous. If there's a Japanese spec for skis, there's a Japanese spec for skis.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,376
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    DavidL said:

    Luckyguy1983 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    The thing is South Korea, Australia, and Japan are all indispensable allies to the US.

    And there will never be a deal more advantageous to the US than the TPP.

    Can we get a free trade deal with America under Trump?

    Probably.

    Will it be any "kinder" than the TPP, which would require us to lose all sovereignty in areas such as intellectual property law, and require us to have domestic laws subject to US ISDS tribunals?

    I doubt it.

    Is there any reason, other than multinationals lobbying hard for it, that a trade deal *needs* to have all that stuff? Could a deal not just be implemented whereby tariffs were lifted?

    Trade deals are really about the removal of NTBs. Tariffs really are the easy bit. My favourite is still the Japanese claiming they had a different kind of snow which made foreign skis dangerous.
    I don't find that ridiculous. If there's a Japanese spec for skis, there's a Japanese spec for skis.
    It is nothing to do with spec. It is everything to do with preventing competition for the local industry. If this is achieved tariffs are completely irrelevant.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    Re Castro, I thought Tories defending Pinochet was cringe inducing, but Corbyn defending Castro's excesses is just as bad
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,397
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    All very interesting, but doesn't this headline from The Daily Telegraph warrant a thread?

    " Donald Trump ally backs free trade deal with Britain to show America's 'solidarity with our indispensable ally'

    The thing is South Korea, Australia, and Japan are all indispensable allies to the US.

    And there will never be a deal more advantageous to the US than the TPP.

    Can we get a free trade deal with America under Trump?

    Probably.

    Will it be any "kinder" than the TPP, which would require us to lose all sovereignty in areas such as intellectual property law, and require us to have domestic laws subject to US ISDS tribunals?

    I doubt it.

    Is there any reason, other than multinationals lobbying hard for it, that a trade deal *needs* to have all that stuff? Could a deal not just be implemented whereby tariffs were lifted?

    Of course not; but the point is that when the US opens up its markets, it comes with a price.

    They know that between big and small countries, when it comes to trade or anything else, it is the smaller country that makes the concessions.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    RobD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Len Goodman called Ed Balls the people's champion.

    Beat that Jeremy

    You sure he didn't call him the people's champignon?
    He's a fun guy!
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/802599932838428672

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJrWFoq2GIQ

    My apologies if anyone is eating supper….
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Andrew Roberts on the Castro obits:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/fidel-castro-cruel-dictator-ignore-revisionists/
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,760
    Voting is now open and closes at 8.35 pm GMT
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,750
    COME ON ED!
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025