politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump failing to complete a full term now odds-on as court mov

During the current Spacey/Weinstein debacle isn't it likely that the several ladies who claimed inappropriate behaviour with Trump plus his recorded fannygate episode will be revisited?

Lock him up!

Slackbladder said:

Roger said:

During the current Spacey/Weinstein debacle isn't it likely that the several ladies who claimed inappropriate behaviour with Trump plus his recorded fannygate episode will be revisited?

Only if something new and illegal comes out.

I'm not sure. These forest fires are pretty unpredictable

Sad.

Roger said:

Slackbladder said:

Roger said:

During the current Spacey/Weinstein debacle isn't it likely that the several ladies who claimed inappropriate behaviour with Trump plus his recorded fannygate episode will be revisited?

Only if something new and illegal comes out.

I'm not sure. These forest fires are pretty unpredictable

The issue with Spacey and Weinstein is that they've admitted guilt (if that's the right word). Trump hasn't.

Ishmael_Z said:

1

A "will Trump outlast May" market would be interesting. All those words from the end of Major's time in office like "hapless" and "beleaguered" are suggesting themselves as descriptors of May.

+1

On topic, no-one ever got rich betting against Trump.

Questions:

1. What are the chances that he will be impeached and if so, will he be convicted?
2. What are the chances of him resigning?
3. What are the chances of him dying or being forced out through illness?

Of the three, 1 and 2 are connected (indeed, as with Nixon, (2) is essentially a different mechanism to (1), as to resign would be to admit himself a failure, which is something he will surely never do, unless it is crystal clear that he was going down, in which case he would resign and play the victim of an establishment closing ranks.

To take illness or death, we shouldn't ignore the possibility - he is in his 70s, overweight and in a highly stressful job - but while I'm not an actuary, I wouldn't have though the chances to be much more than low to mid single figures.

Which leaves politics. Is there a smoking gun to any aspect of his behaviour (not just Russia), and if so, does the DC politics make it worth the while for him to be turfed out - which in essence means will the Republicans play ball?

Trump undoubtedly plays politics differently from anyone else in the game but that works both ways. Career politicians are wary of that which they don't fully understand, particularly when it's been proven to be successful (and vindictive). While Trump doesn't have many friends on the Hill, nor will he have many on his own side willing to raise their flag against him so irrevocably. Yet.

There's also the 2020 election campaign itself to factor in. Once we get to autumn 2019, I would expect Republicans to refuse to co-operate with impeachment hearings on the argument that 'the people should decide'. Republican challengers would come forward in primaries and the GOP would argue that it is better for them to decide whether he's guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor than a self-interested Senate.

Will he get to autumn 2019 (which is only two years away)? My guess is that it's more likely than not. There's certainly a good chance that not only will he have done something foolish enough to merit impeachment but also that Republicans in Congress will decide it politically worthwhile to go the distance on it. But I wouldn't make it shorter than 3/1.

The interesting thing about the Mueller announcements is how carefully calculated they seem to be.

Trump, having distanced himself from Manafort et al could hardly justify pardoning someone charged with money laundering $75m - a criminal case which can hardly be classed as a political witch hunt (and a case which could also be pressed at state level, and thus pardon proof).
And Papadopoulos has already pled guilty - again, a pardon would look unconscionable; an effective admission of complicity.

At the same time the message to other possible participants is clear - come clean like Papadopoulos, and we'll do a deal; hold out like Manafort, and you could be looking at thirty years....

david_herdson said:

On topic, no-one ever got rich betting against Trump.

Questions:

1. What are the chances that he will be impeached and if so, will he be convicted?
2. What are the chances of him resigning?
3. What are the chances of him dying or being forced out through illness?

Of the three, 1 and 2 are connected (indeed, as with Nixon, (2) is essentially a different mechanism to (1), as to resign would be to admit himself a failure, which is something he will surely never do, unless it is crystal clear that he was going down, in which case he would resign and play the victim of an establishment closing ranks.

To take illness or death, we shouldn't ignore the possibility - he is in his 70s, overweight and in a highly stressful job - but while I'm not an actuary, I wouldn't have though the chances to be much more than low to mid single figures.

Which leaves politics. Is there a smoking gun to any aspect of his behaviour (not just Russia), and if so, does the DC politics make it worth the while for him to be turfed out - which in essence means will the Republicans play ball?

Trump undoubtedly plays politics differently from anyone else in the game but that works both ways. Career politicians are wary of that which they don't fully understand, particularly when it's been proven to be successful (and vindictive). While Trump doesn't have many friends on the Hill, nor will he have many on his own side willing to raise their flag against him so irrevocably. Yet.

There's also the 2020 election campaign itself to factor in. Once we get to autumn 2019, I would expect Republicans to refuse to co-operate with impeachment hearings on the argument that 'the people should decide'. Republican challengers would come forward in primaries and the GOP would argue that it is better for them to decide whether he's guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor than a self-interested Senate.

Will he get to autumn 2019 (which is only two years away)? My guess is that it's more likely than not. There's certainly a good chance that not only will he have done something foolish enough to merit impeachment but also that Republicans in Congress will decide it politically worthwhile to go the distance on it. But I wouldn't make it shorter than 3/1.

Don't forget the mid-terms. If it looks like Trump will be a significant drag on the GOP, or if he actually turns out to be, that uneasy truce will sour pretty quickly.

Nigelb said:

The interesting thing about the Mueller announcements is how carefully calculated they seem to be.

Trump, having distanced himself from Manafort et al could hardly justify pardoning someone charged with money laundering $75m - a criminal case which can hardly be classed as a political witch hunt (and a case which could also be pressed at state level, and thus pardon proof).
And Papadopoulos has already pled guilty - again, a pardon would look unconscionable; an effective admission of complicity.

At the same time the message to other possible participants is clear - come clean like Papadopoulos, and we'll do a deal; hold out like Manafort, and you could be looking at thirty years....

I do find plea-bargaining a detestable system. If I were innocent, but offered a choice of a couple of years in a comfy jail, as opposed to 20 years in a hell hole if found guilty, I'd choose the former.

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yesterday, I did switch from backing Trump to serve a full term/not be impeached to the reverse.

It's not a market I'm in, but I didn't hear a game changer yesterday.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/924992803809218560

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/925290754469134336

Oh dear, who will NK blame?

Slackbladder said:

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

I hear some publicity shy bookies are suggesting thousands of bookies shops would be closed. GASP.

Up there in the stakes of self awareness.

People don't like bookies cluttering the high st...

Yes, needs more room for tattoo and vaping shops, such is the dire state of a lot of towns.

such is the dire state of the economy with few people having spare cash.

eek said:

Slackbladder said:

Mortimer said:

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

I hear some publicity shy bookies are suggesting thousands of bookies shops would be closed. GASP.

Up there in the stakes of self awareness.

People don't like bookies cluttering the high st...

Yes, needs more room for tattoo and vaping shops, such is the dire state of a lot of towns.

such is the dire state of the economy with few people having spare cash.

People seem to have plenty of spare cash to spend on tattoos, vaping and gambling though. Those aren't charity shops.

FPT Dr. Fox what struck me about your numbers is how tenuous the link between sub-regional GDP and quality of life is. Inner London is, by some measure, the richest place in the EU, but divided between a large minority of super-rich, and a much larger number of poor, with few in between. The East Midlands, with its much lower GDP per head, has many more middle class, and skilled working class inhabitants, who can afford houses.

tlg86 said:

Roger said:

Slackbladder said:

Roger said:

During the current Spacey/Weinstein debacle isn't it likely that the several ladies who claimed inappropriate behaviour with Trump plus his recorded fannygate episode will be revisited?

Only if something new and illegal comes out.

I'm not sure. These forest fires are pretty unpredictable

The issue with Spacey and Weinstein is that they've admitted guilt (if that's the right word). Trump hasn't.

Does the tape not render an admission superfluous?

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

tlg86 said:

foxinsoxuk said:

tlg86 said:

Roger said:

Slackbladder said:

Roger said:

During the current Spacey/Weinstein debacle isn't it likely that the several ladies who claimed inappropriate behaviour with Trump plus his recorded fannygate episode will be revisited?

Only if something new and illegal comes out.

I'm not sure. These forest fires are pretty unpredictable

The issue with Spacey and Weinstein is that they've admitted guilt (if that's the right word). Trump hasn't.

I thought that Spacey denied any memory of an incident, but am not following very closely.

He's apologised.

But said that he doesn't remember it. He's given an unreserved apology for what would be inappropriate behaviour even if he doesn't remember it - he's simply taking for granted what the other guy has said and not calling him a liar.

Then he's very silly to apologise. My guess is he's apologising because he knows it may well be true.

No. he’s not silly. He’s defused the situation. If he hadn’t followed it up with gay business it’d be all over, if not by now, by Thursday.

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yesterday, I did switch from backing Trump to serve a full term/not be impeached to the reverse.

It's not a market I'm in, but I didn't hear a game changer yesterday.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/924992803809218560

But it's still not Trump. And all the charges are about stuff from years ago.

It all seems a bit Andy Coulson will bring down David Cameron.

I don't recall Coulson facing 30 years...
This is the end of a thread... and Mueller will keep pulling.

Stereotomy said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, no-one ever got rich betting against Trump.

...

Which leaves politics. Is there a smoking gun to any aspect of his behaviour (not just Russia), and if so, does the DC politics make it worth the while for him to be turfed out - which in essence means will the Republicans play ball?

Trump undoubtedly plays politics differently from anyone else in the game but that works both ways. Career politicians are wary of that which they don't fully understand, particularly when it's been proven to be successful (and vindictive). While Trump doesn't have many friends on the Hill, nor will he have many on his own side willing to raise their flag against him so irrevocably. Yet.

There's also the 2020 election campaign itself to factor in. Once we get to autumn 2019, I would expect Republicans to refuse to co-operate with impeachment hearings on the argument that 'the people should decide'. Republican challengers would come forward in primaries and the GOP would argue that it is better for them to decide whether he's guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor than a self-interested Senate.

Will he get to autumn 2019 (which is only two years away)? My guess is that it's more likely than not. There's certainly a good chance that not only will he have done something foolish enough to merit impeachment but also that Republicans in Congress will decide it politically worthwhile to go the distance on it. But I wouldn't make it shorter than 3/1.

Don't forget the mid-terms. If it looks like Trump will be a significant drag on the GOP, or if he actually turns out to be, that uneasy truce will sour pretty quickly.

If he turns out to be (i.e. if the elections have already happened), then it's too late. There probably would be less disinclination to prevent an impeachment but I think the bigger political consequence would be the desire to challenge him in the primaries, which getting involved in impeachment hearings would complicate unless there was a cast-iron case (which there isn't as yet).

I agree that if things go badly for Trump in the first half of next year, that does provide an incentive for congressional Republicans to distance themselves. It's a pretty narrow time-frame though, which is why I'd make the odds a lot longer than the bookies and markets are offering.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/925290754469134336

This may or may not be confirmed, but there have been various news sources over the last few weeks reporting Chinese concern over the test site for the Korean Nuclear Weapons program which has been over used and undermined.

The Chinese apparently fear a massive contamination incident.

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

If they cut how much I can bet, how am I going to win back all my losses?

TonyE said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/925290754469134336

This may or may not be confirmed, but there have been various news sources over the last few weeks reporting Chinese concern over the test site for the Korean Nuclear Weapons program which has been over used and undermined.

The Chinese apparently fear a massive contamination incident.

I assume it wouldn't be on the scale of a nuclear power accident like Chernoybl or Fukushima though would it?

Kaboom

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

Wow, is there a link to that?

TonyE said:

Slackbladder said:

TonyE said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/925290754469134336

This may or may not be confirmed, but there have been various news sources over the last few weeks reporting Chinese concern over the test site for the Korean Nuclear Weapons program which has been over used and undermined.

The Chinese apparently fear a massive contamination incident.

I assume it wouldn't be on the scale of a nuclear power accident like Chernoybl or Fukushima though would it?

According to Chinese Geophysicist Wen Lianxing, the mountain is in danger of imminent collapse if further bomb tests are carried out, and there have been significant landslides in the area of the tests.

With anything that comes out of China of course you have to take the political angle into consideration. However the head of their own nuclear research team suggested a 'major environmental disaster' spreading toxicity 'across the entire hemisphere'.

Crikey. That is scary.

Nigelb said:

Stereotomy said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, no-one ever got rich betting against Trump.

Questions:

1. What are the chances that he will be impeached and if so, will he be convicted?
2. What are the chances of him resigning?
3. What are the chances of him dying or being forced out through illness?

Of the three, 1 and 2 are connected (indeed, as with Nixon, (2) is essentially a different mechanism to (1), as to resign would be to admit himself a failure, which is something he will surely never do, unless it is crystal clear that he was going down, in which case he would resign and play the victim of an establishment closing ranks.

SNIP...

Will he get to autumn 2019 (which is only two years away)? My guess is that it's more likely than not. There's certainly a good chance that not only will he have done something foolish enough to merit impeachment but also that Republicans in Congress will decide it politically worthwhile to go the distance on it. But I wouldn't make it shorter than 3/1.

Don't forget the mid-terms. If it looks like Trump will be a significant drag on the GOP, or if he actually turns out to be, that uneasy truce will sour pretty quickly.

And a change of control in the Senate (just about possible) would see the intensification of any investigations.

Given the map I'm considering the Dems not losing any seats in the senate as an achievement in 2018.

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yesterday, I did switch from backing Trump to serve a full term/not be impeached to the reverse.

It's not a market I'm in, but I didn't hear a game changer yesterday.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/924992803809218560

But it's still not Trump. And all the charges are about stuff from years ago.

It all seems a bit Andy Coulson will bring down David Cameron.

We've got an email trail from George showing collusion with the upper echelons of the Trump campaign.

Alistair said:

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

Wow, is there a link to that?

It's a government review that *could* advise dropping the maximum stake to anywhere between £2 to £50. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the upper end.

Theuniondivvie said:

Alistair said:

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

Wow, is there a link to that?

It's a government review that *could* advise dropping the maximum stake to anywhere between £2 to £50. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm guessing the upper end.

If they don't pretty much ban them by reducing the stake to peanuts (standard one arm bandit stuff at the arcades), then they need to hang their heads in shame.

Tories are not 'c'onservative, if they were they would have conservative rather than neo-liberal views on such issues as gambling.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Nigelb said:

Alistair said:

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

Wow, is there a link to that?

Last I heard (R4m this morning) it was going to be reduced to either £2, or £50, so it's not a done deal yet.

Under timidity May, £50 would not surprise me.

It should be £2 and most of the posters on this site will lose the whales that subsidise their bets with Shadsy.

Do you really think Shadsy's political markets are net losers for Ladbrokes?

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Nigelb said:

Alistair said:

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

Wow, is there a link to that?

Last I heard (R4m this morning) it was going to be reduced to either £2, or £50, so it's not a done deal yet.

Under timidity May, £50 would not surprise me.

It should be £2 and most of the posters on this site will lose the whales that subsidise their bets with Shadsy.

Of course it should.
I am less than confident that May will do the right thing, but I hope to be proved wrong.

Mueller's public document releases here:
https://www.justice.gov/sco

Nigelb said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Nigelb said:

Alistair said:

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

Wow, is there a link to that?

Last I heard (R4m this morning) it was going to be reduced to either £2, or £50, so it's not a done deal yet.

Under timidity May, £50 would not surprise me.

It should be £2 and most of the posters on this site will lose the whales that subsidise their bets with Shadsy.

Of course it should.
I am less than confident that May will do the right thing, but I hope to be proved wrong.

The compromise should be £2 max a bet but 1 more machine in a shop....

brendan16 said:

rcs1000 said:

As an aside, could the Republicans lose the Alabama Senate race in December? It seems almost inconceivable, but the polls show the Republican up 6-8%, and if it's low turnout, it's just possible that the Dems grab it.

Are there odds anywhere?

The most recent poll - on a sample size five times the others - has the Republican up by 11. If turnout is low in Alabama of course it usually helps the Republicans anyway - so I expect a Republican hold.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/senate/al/alabama_senate_special_election_moore_vs_jones-6271.html

But these state polls can be a bit all over the place - in the Virginia governor race polls in the last week have had the Democrat up 17 and the Republican ahead by 8!

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/governor/va/virginia_governor_gillespie_vs_northam-6197.html

The state polls were of course notoriously duff for the 2016 presidential.

Slackbladder said:

TonyE said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/925290754469134336

This may or may not be confirmed, but there have been various news sources over the last few weeks reporting Chinese concern over the test site for the Korean Nuclear Weapons program which has been over used and undermined.

The Chinese apparently fear a massive contamination incident.

I assume it wouldn't be on the scale of a nuclear power accident like Chernoybl or Fukushima though would it?

It shouldn't be: different sort of radiation and pollution. Hiroshima is a thriving city; Chernobyl is uninhabitable basically for ever. Still, not to be taken lightly either.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/925290754469134336

I bet the lady in the pink dress won't be so quick to report this...

eek said:

Nigelb said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Nigelb said:

Alistair said:

Ishmael_Z said:

FOBT stake ≤ £2 is the best gambling news of the day.

Wow, is there a link to that?

Last I heard (R4m this morning) it was going to be reduced to either £2, or £50, so it's not a done deal yet.

Under timidity May, £50 would not surprise me.

It should be £2 and most of the posters on this site will lose the whales that subsidise their bets with Shadsy.

Of course it should.
I am less than confident that May will do the right thing, but I hope to be proved wrong.

The compromise should be £2 max a bet but 1 more machine in a shop....

The four proposals are £2, £20, £30 and £50. An absolutely classic bit of framing - I'd be surprised if the outcome wasn't £20.

rottenborough said:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-missiles-tunnel/tunnel-collapse-may-have-killed-200-after-north-korea-nuclear-test-japanese-broadcaster-idUKKBN1D0189?il=0

This is rather good news, because it happened some weeks ago and the Chinese are not reporting large amounts of airborne contamination crossing their border. Whatever accident they have had has been such that the nuclear material has been contained locally.

rcs1000 said:

I'm with David Herdson on this, I think it is unlikely that Trump resigns/is impeached. If he is to go this term, I would reckon it would likely be because of a major health issue (it doesn't have to be death, merely something serious) given the nature of the job and his level of physical fitness. (I'd guess that's a 20-25% chance.)

However, I would be very surprised if Donald Trump didn't face a primary challenger (or two). And history suggests that incumbent Presidents that face serious challenges for the nomination (George HW Bush, Carter, Ford) don't tend to get re-elected. It's not a cast iron rule (Clinton was challenged by Lyndon LaRouche... who was in prison at the time), but it is suggestive. My money is on him not running again in 2020.

I think Trump unlikely to be re-elected because he won't have the constituency. Two main groups of people voted for him last time: social conservatives and apolitical blue collar workers. We can assume most social conservatives will stick with Trump if he is the Republican contender.

It's hard to see why the blue collar workers would do so. These are people who don't care about social values, but think America is going in the wrong direction, think the country needs someone different in charge, liked Trump's message of kicking ass,putting America first and stopping factories being shut. They saw him as a businessman who got results. Next time Trump won't be the challenger. He will be the incumbent defending his record. It's unlikely he will have much of a record to defend. His legal difficulties will be a distraction at best.

So whether he will decide not to stand, another Republican contender is found or the general election goes Democrat, it comes to the same thing as all possibilities are linked. If the Republican base reckon he won't win the general election, they will choose someone else. In that case, Trump may decide to avoid the humiliation.

https://twitter.com/steven_winstone/status/925309469726298112

Nigelb said:

david_herdson said:

Slackbladder said:

TonyE said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/925290754469134336

This may or may not be confirmed, but there have been various news sources over the last few weeks reporting Chinese concern over the test site for the Korean Nuclear Weapons program which has been over used and undermined.

The Chinese apparently fear a massive contamination incident.

I assume it wouldn't be on the scale of a nuclear power accident like Chernoybl or Fukushima though would it?

It shouldn't be: different sort of radiation and pollution. Hiroshima is a thriving city; Chernobyl is uninhabitable basically for ever. Still, not to be taken lightly either.

Telegraph saying the initial collapse happened on October 10th (killing 100), and a second collapse buried 100 rescuers...

I guess one of the interesting question is were the initial 100 killed 'disposable workers' or 'valuable scientists', and therefore could the collapse have any effect on the ongoing program (apart from the abandonment of the current test site, which in itself may cause a delay in testing).

Sorry about the unpleasant definition of 'disposable workers', but trying to get into the RNK mindset!

PeterMannion said:

No chance Trump doesn't make it to 2020, and I don't see any Republican capable of beating him to the nomination again

So he loses to a Democrat?

Carolus_Rex said:

Slackbladder said:

https://order-order.com/2017/10/31/police-consider-action-scandal-hit-lavery/



Oooops....

It's often been said that Conservative scandals tend to be about sex and Labour scandals about money.

I think Jeffrey Archer combined both.

For those of a prurient bent, or - more pertinently to PB - might be considering bets on "next departure" or "next by-election", the Sun story on the Tory spreadsheet is (deliberately?) badly obscured.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4804173/sex-pest-dossier-names-six-cabinet-ministers-and-senior-allies-of-pm/

It appears that the Sun has blacked out each name proportionately to its length, rather than using the same length for all. This makes it fairly trivial, if the rule holds, to try and identify one or two of the politicians named.

For example, the ex-Cabinet Minister who is "Inappropriate with female researchers and uses prostitutes for odd sexual acts" appears to have, in the Sun's spreadsheet (...and I'm purposefully phrasing this delicately...) an unusually long name.

There's also a current Cabinet Minister, whose description is entirely blacked out, and who has a very short name.

AlastairMeeks said:

Richard Nixon faced a Democrat-controlled Congress. Donald Trump has a Republican-controlled Congress. Unless the 2018 elections produce a pretty dramatic shift in the balance of power (or the evidence against Donald Trump is incontrovertible not just to a forensic expert but also to the man in the street), he still looks a strong favourite to survive.

That said, I was amazed just how far the FBI seem to have got so far. Yesterday was a real coup.

With you, @david_herdson and @rcs1000 singing from the same hymn-sheet, I have laid off a little of yesterday's 1.96 on Trump to go.

But Mueller does look extraordinary effective, as you say. Or perhaps his quarries were just extraordinarily careless?

PeterMannion said:

No chance Trump doesn't make it to 2020, and I don't see any Republican capable of beating him to the nomination again

Is there any way the Republicans can kick him out of the party?

CarlottaVance said:

Ms Oakeshott tweets:

https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/925312634936840192

So she's seen the real spreadsheet, rather than the redacted one? Oh what it is to be connected!
I wonder if she's a betting woman?