politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unsurprisingly the betting moves against Trump serving a full
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unsurprisingly the betting moves against Trump serving a full term
Russia revelations send odds of #Trump surviving four years below 50% for the first time in nearly two months. https://t.co/RT5k7lTSiL pic.twitter.com/T7sJJiS0z4
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/10/is-mike-pence-betting-it-will-all-come-crashing-down-on-trump/?utm_term=.634e8b23311f
Of course, what really matters is whether Republicans choose to use this and other stories to get rid of Trump. It's purely about political calculation on all sides, and I tend to agree with TSE that the calculation by the Republicans will be to vote against any attempt to impeach.
Trump is dangerous because he is unpredictable, but I believe Pence is dangerous because he holds out-dated world views. I am not sure which one of the two scares me more.
1) He goes of his own accord. This would be an uncharacteristic admission of failure, and he'd lose the ability to pardon his friends and family for breaking the law.
2) He is toppled by his own cabinet. Hard to see, outside a Trump administration they'd be largely unemployable.
3) He is toppled by a Republican Senate. Not quite impossible, but the base would not be happy at this kind of display of cuckery.
4) The Republicans lose the Senate, and the Dems impeach him. Very hard to see, it's a horrible map.
Add this to the general law of politics that things generally don't happen, and the value is with "remain".
I can believe that Berlin is cheaper than London due to living costs, but I am sure that Brexit had a part in the decision too. Also the comment that Berlin "... has a lot of catching up to do" means that Berlin is a ready market for Samsung and its communications technology.
Late night comedians in New York might think he should be in jail, but it's what Republican Senators in Washington think that actually matters.
It is as simple as that for the young tech starters.
Now, is it a 50% chance that he fails to complete his first term due to health issues? Nope. But it's probably 25% or so.
And in the context of allegations of direct foreign intervention that may have flipped in an election.
Would I be indignant? No. I am not indignant now. Suspicious and concerned? Sure
That being said, for "new media" type start-ups (as opposed to "hard tech"), I would estimate Berlin is probably passing London now. Why? Living costs in Berlin are a fraction of the level of London, and a 24 year old, earning €20,000/year can afford their own flat there, something unthinkable in London.
My personal view is that the Catalan independence movement has made an error - not in calling for a referendum but in declaring that an out vote leads to an immediate unilateral declaration of independence. Given the technical difficulties associated with a sudden break (much greater, of course, that the repeal of the European Communities Act), I suspect this will cause a lot of otherwise pro-Independence oriented Catalans to not risk it (this time).
For that reason, I would bet against independence.
It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-2001_en.htm
(Good spot re the golf cart.)
Regardless of the result, I don't expect there actually to be independence
Any country that has withdrawn from the EU may apply to re-join. It would be required to go through the accession procedure.
EDIT: I see Jonathan has already drawn attention to the same article. It's a bet that can win in multiple ways - mid-term succession after impeachment/resignation/health; anointed succession; contested succession. And I don't think the Democrats are doing enough thinking about how they win; they're assuming Trump's awfulness will deliver them victory. Where have I heard a similar story before?
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/10/is-mike-pence-betting-it-will-all-come-crashing-down-on-trump/
This was true of clients and contractors and creditors throughout his business career. It was true of the sycophants and opportunists before whom he dangled cabinet appointments during the campaign and then, oh, never mind. It has been true of his cabinet members and spokesmen, whose attempts to defend and explain their boss’s conduct are gleefully undercut by the boss himself. And it should be true — for the sake of their souls, I sincerely hope it’s true — of the Republican leaders whose reputations for probity and principle he has stomped all over since winning their party’s nomination.
And now it’s true of me.
The benefit of the doubt I extended to Trump was limited, but on a rather important subject: I thought that direct collusion between his inner circle and Russian officialdom during the 2016 campaign was relatively unlikely and the odds of ever finding proof of such a conspiracy vanishingly low.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/opinion/trump-russia-collusion.html
As you probably know, the Spanish constitution currently declares the indivisibility of Spain. And polls of Catalans consistently show them preferring independence in a way that is in accordance with the Spanish constitution.
So the plan was for the Spanish government to offer Catalonia a whole country referendum on a change to the Spanish constitution which would allow Catalan independence. Polls showed Catalans massively in favour delaying the vote until after such a constitutional change.
Now, changing constitutions takes time, and the idea was to have the new constitution written about 2020, with a referendum on it in 2021 (which might not, of course, pass). The Catalans would then be free to have a referendum on independence in (say) 2023, by which time their urge to separate might be behind them.
Just a thought.
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/885138295193260032
Personally, I find the whole thing depressing. Together the state of UK politics, I can't recall politics in general being in a more miserable, broken condition.
It's probably a good idea to switch off for about 10 years.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-conservative-revival-scotland/
Hard to make substantial progress when the Dems are stalling nominees. At this rate of of up/down votes it will take just over 4 years for all his nominees to get to their desks. Which is course is the obstructionists' plan.
"agreeing to hear what a Russian lawyer has to say" It was a Russian Government attorney.
From http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/
"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump"
Most of the Donald's time seems to have involved tweeting about celebrities having face lifts.
I'm just looking at this dispassionately, and I just don't see that (based on what we know so far) there's much to get fussed over. That doesn't necessarily mean people won't get fussed over it, of course.
Also, the Russians were willing to supply it for nothing? He admits to 'talking about' the adoption act being dropped, which is related to the US sanctions against Russia
And of course, the Dems haven't done anything like this, so it seems straw man esque to say the Dems would have done the same, Would they?
Here is some useful information about what US law says:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/7/10/15950590/donald-trump-jr-new-york-times-illegal
On that basis, if the allegations are serious enough, I could easily see the GOP senators voting to convict Trump - if, and it's a big if, the timing fits. Go too early and his supporters will yell 'coup' and could cause mayhem in the mid-terms; go too late and people will ask why the decision isn't being left to the electorate in primaries or, if he's reselected, the general election. The window for an impeachment is most open in 2019. Outside of that, it really would take a slam-dunk case to convict him and while Trump being Trump, we can't rule that out, it's not close to an evens bet.
A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Offering information is hardly a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value. By the interpretation that Trump's enemies are trying to put on it, the Guardian writing a pro-Obama article before the 2012 election would have been a federal offence. In fact, didn't the Guardian actively drum up canvassing support for the Dems?
Lickspittle Piers is off the Trump train
The value now is in laying 2018 exit at 4.7 I think... It will be the same Congress up until November, and even then it would take time to go after him. And it's unlikely that they would have the votes as you said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/277774-gop-blocks-obama-judicial-nominees-amid-court-fight
Presidential approval ratings in July of first year (elected presidents only)
Donald Trump 38 3-9 July Barack Obama 57 Jul 2009 George W. Bush 57 Jul 2001 Bill Clinton 43 Jul 1993 George H.W. Bush 66 Jul 1989 Ronald Reagan 59 Jul 1981 Jimmy Carter 65 Jul 1977 Richard Nixon 62 Jul 1969 John Kennedy 75 Jul 1961 Dwight Eisenhower 71 Jul 1953Only Clinton comes close at this stage of a presidency, which may give some pointer the the mid-term elections.
But I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you are making out. This Slate article quotes four legal opinions, only one of which expresses doubt that the law would cover valuable information. And even that opinion is qualified by the statement that "I could imagine the statutory argument that “thing of value” can extend to damaging oppo research."
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/07/donald_trump_jr_isn_t_guilty_of_treason_but_he_likely_committed_this_other.html
Barack Obama had 183 nominees confirmed by that date in his first term.
George W. Bush had 130 confirmed.
This obstruction against nominees includes a demand for cloture filings for every nominee no matter how minor the position. This means a two-day waiting period and then another 30 hours of debate.
The 30-hour rule means it will take 4 years to fill those 400 positions. The cloture rule also allows the minority to halt other business during the 30-hour debate period so everything else stops too.
You are an idiot and a liar.
Even if it's a complete catastrophe (and it's a good map for Republicans in Senate) I don't think the new Congress can move on him that quickly.
To put it another way, can anyone think of an example where a tip-off has been declared as a campaign donation, in the US or anywhere else?
No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by [this law].”
There's not really any dispute that he solicited such help - that's pretty clear from the email.
Don't forget this is the US, where prosecutors are quite willing to seek long jail terms for plenty of stuff we would regard as trivial.
An in any event, this is the first prima facie evidence that a US statute has been broken. I wouldn't assume that it will be the last thing to come out.
To illustrate the point, imagine the UK does revoke A50, with the agreement of the Council. Come June 2019, a UK firm refuses to abide by a Commission directive and is prosecuted. The High Court refers the matter to the ECJ, which then rules that the revocation was invalid under the Treaty and that Britain is no longer a member. What could the member states or the Commission do about it? That's not to say that they would necessarily reach that conclusion but it is to say that in the final analysis, it's judges and not politicians who will (or would) decide.
You make a fair point about the Guardian campaign - but is there any evidence that anyone in the Obama campaign solicited that help ?
If there was evidence of a request from the official Obama campaign soliciting foreign help in that manner, it would be a clear breach of the statute.
Whether or not the canvassing has the desired effect is pretty well irrelevant - that it was a material resource isn't really in question.