politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Trump’s troubles mount punters now give him just a 30% chan
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Trump’s troubles mount punters now give him just a 30% chance of being re-elected
Although it is not two years since Trump was inaugurated as President the focus is starting to be placed on WH2020. The next six months should see contenders starting to their hats into the ring all building up to the first primaries in little more than a year.
Comments
-
10
-
It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in0 -
Beginning to think I could have got better odds on this than I did.0
-
Hmm. That's still significantly higher than his forecast chance on the election night.
But I do think it'll be a Democrat victory next time around.0 -
-
Ouch.DavidL said:
FWIW, I’ve been laying him. I think fair value could be anything up to 10/1 at this point (though I accept my views of Trump might somewhat skew that estimate).
0 -
California coming early could give Kamela quite a headstart.0
-
How long has this thread been here?
I wonder which is more childish?Scott_P said:0 -
Beto plays very well with Hispanics. Califormia moving could give him a boost when others are running out of steam and money. Don't forget, he's a fundraiser of Obama class. Got to be worth a few quid.Nigelb said:It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in0 -
Fairly low numbers on both sides there so must be lots of don't knows - suspect a lot of Americans have barely heard of O'Rourke, while Biden is a familiar face.Fenman said:
Beto plays very well with Hispanics. Califormia moving could give him a boost when others are running out of steam and money. Don't forget, he's a fundraiser of Obama class. Got to be worth a few quid.Nigelb said:It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in
But I'm not sure Trump's trroubles are any worse than they've been and he seems to weather most of them and take apart any specific opponent. I'd rather be backing than laying at current odds.0 -
What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.0
-
-
"The Dignity of the Humble
Chaim Soutine’s consoling portraiture
Theodore Dalrymple"
https://www.city-journal.org/chaim-soutine0 -
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
0 -
-
FAKE NEWS!viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
0 -
Though he runs quite good campaign against himself!OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
0 -
I'm amazed that he received more than 10% of the vote for so many reasons. And yet he did. There's not that much that is new now that wasn't evident in November 2016. If it didn't stop people from voting for him then it won't stop them in 2020.Foxy said:
Though he runs quite good campaign against himself!OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
0 -
Yes, I think so too.OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
0 -
It doesn't need to be many fewer to reverse the result, the EC is highly leveraged. Relative turnout between Dems and Republicans could be crucial, and if the mid terms point the right direction then his goose may well be cooked.OblitusSumMe said:
I'm amazed that he received more than 10% of the vote for so many reasons. And yet he did. There's not that much that is new now that wasn't evident in November 2016. If it didn't stop people from voting for him then it won't stop them in 2020.Foxy said:
Though he runs quite good campaign against himself!OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
0 -
That's funny!!!Scott_P said:0 -
Presidents do generally get re-elected, but they also often lose some support between election one and re-election. Trump won very narrowly in terms of how few voters would have been needed to change the Electoral College winner, I think it's easy to forget that holding onto his base only works if he reconstructs it entirely (or his opponent loses some Clinton voters).
That isn't to say that he can't win, and I think Betfair is close to right and possibly a tad bearish, but I worry for his chances the more he keeps a hyper-partisan approach. As a Presidential Election approaches I have no doubt more voters than at the midterms will revert to their usual party, but focusing so heavily on his base makes it even harder to win any defectors and can put off independents; depending on who and how the Democrats run.
More than ever the Republicans dominate rural america and Democrats urban america. Rural america is heavily (and intentionally) over-represented in the Senate, but it's only slightly over-represented in the Electoral College. IMHO the suburbs are still crucial, and this year the Democrats have been taking control of those too.
Firing up his base is all well and good, but Trump does need some non-heartland support to win. He is tough to campaign against, but he isn't really reaching out to independents. Betting his presidency on the Democrats not learning how to balance their base and suburban swing voters (when Trump isn't even trying to) is risky.0 -
I am not sure this is right. Pelosi and Schumer both made Trump look to be an idiot over this shutdown, and even Fox and Friends have slammed him over Syria.OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
One thing that the mid-terms should have taught Trump is that is base is not enough for the GOP to hold the House, or the States Trump relied upon to win his own victory.
1. Women have turned vehemently against Trump's government, and hence against the GOP while Trump is dominating it.
2. Trump may fire up his base, but he is also firing up minorities and the young to vote in unprecedented numbers. The math of Trump, given the narrowness of his 2016 victory, is not favoured by this dynamic.
3. I am not convinced that Trump's based is holding quite so firm - at least at the edges - as the polling is capturing. Anecdotally, I am hearing more people who voted for him being turned off and now there is also clear talk, even amongst this group, about whether Trump is fit to be President.
I now expect either a serious candidate to run against Trump in the primaries or a spoiler candidate to run as an independent in the GE to prevent any possibility of his re-election.0 -
Agreed, I also feel the idea that Trump is impossible to campaign against (or that Democrats are rubbish at it) isn't really evidenced. He didn't make mincemeat of Hillary, he narrowly won. Seeing that as a huge blunder on her part or a huge achievement on his assumes he *should* have lost - but as a major party candidate the playing field was never that far from even. And ever since he's been in office the GOP have had some really bad election results.MTimT said:
I am not sure this is right. Pelosi and Schumer both made Trump look to be an idiot over this shutdown, and even Fox and Friends have slammed him over Syria.OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
One thing that the mid-terms should have taught Trump is that is base is not enough for the GOP to hold the House, or the States Trump relied upon to win his own victory.
1. Women have turned vehemently against Trump's government, and hence against the GOP while Trump is dominating it.
2. Trump may fire up his base, but he is also firing up minorities and the young to vote in unprecedented numbers. The math of Trump, given the narrowness of his 2016 victory, is not favoured by this dynamic.
3. I am not convinced that Trump's based is holding quite so firm - at least at the edges - as the polling is capturing. Anecdotally, I am hearing more people who voted for him being turned off and now there is also clear talk, even amongst this group, about whether Trump is fit to be President.
I now expect either a serious candidate to run against Trump in the primaries or a spoiler candidate to run as an independent in the GE to prevent any possibility of his re-election.0 -
Wrote my comment before seeing yours. I am more bearish on Trump's reelection than you, but agree entirely with the thrust of your analysis.Quincel said:Presidents do generally get re-elected, but they also often lose some support between election one and re-election. Trump won very narrowly in terms of how few voters would have been needed to change the Electoral College winner, I think it's easy to forget that holding onto his base only works if he reconstructs it entirely (or his opponent loses some Clinton voters).
That isn't to say that he can't win, and I think Betfair is close to right and possibly a tad bearish, but I worry for his chances the more he keeps a hyper-partisan approach. As a Presidential Election approaches I have no doubt more voters than at the midterms will revert to their usual party, but focusing so heavily on his base makes it even harder to win any defectors and can put off independents; depending on who and how the Democrats run.
More than ever the Republicans dominate rural america and Democrats urban america. Rural america is heavily (and intentionally) over-represented in the Senate, but it's only slightly over-represented in the Electoral College. IMHO the suburbs are still crucial, and this year the Democrats have been taking control of those too.
Firing up his base is all well and good, but Trump does need some non-heartland support to win. He is tough to campaign against, but he isn't really reaching out to independents. Betting his presidency on the Democrats not learning how to balance their base and suburban swing voters (when Trump isn't even trying to) is risky.0 -
Trump is clearly not holding together his coalition. He swept up support in white suburban America, especially in the rust belt.
That has inverted in the mid terms.
He won with incredible vote efficiency, losing only fractions of a percent kills his chances.0 -
No, the revoking of Article 50 has to come from and be initiated by the Conservatives.Scott_P said:0 -
Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/10771513423413411840
-
Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...0
-
-
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)0 -
Usually a vacuum in leadership gets filled and at the moment on anyone's reckoning the UK and the US are in possession of the three worst leaders most of us have known. If any of the three are successful at an election it'll be a miracle.0
-
The US has a President, the UK has a PM. I don't see where you get three.Roger said:Usually a vacuum in leadership gets filled and at the moment on anyone's reckoning the UK and the US are in possession of the three worst leaders most of us have known. If any of the three are successful at an election it'll be a miracle.
0 -
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
0 -
That statement works either way around!Theuniondivvie said:0 -
Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
0 -
Nixon had a hard core of support. Trump's hard core is larger. Senate Republicans have to factor in a primary challenge from the true believers.Andrew said:
He can once they conclude he's going to drag them all down with him.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate....0 -
Anyway, I'm off for the evening.
Hope you all get many nice presents for Christmas.0 -
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.Nigelb said:
Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
0 -
If she wasn't an ardent Unionist she'd be a ScotNat.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
Much depends on who Trump's opponent is, against Biden he would likely lose, against Sanders, Warren or Harris it would depend on who is able to mobilise their base more.
Iowa and New Hampshire still vote before California in the nomination battle so are still important for building momentum0 -
No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.grabcocque said:
The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.Nigelb said:
Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
0 -
Biden comfortably beats Trump 42% to 36%, Sanders just beats Trump 38% to 37% and Trump beats O'Rourke 37% to 30%Nigelb said:It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in0 -
I presume for the UK, were talking May, Cable and Corbyn.Omnium said:
The US has a President, the UK has a PM. I don't see where you get three.Roger said:Usually a vacuum in leadership gets filled and at the moment on anyone's reckoning the UK and the US are in possession of the three worst leaders most of us have known. If any of the three are successful at an election it'll be a miracle.
The choice for the US is rather broader.
0 -
I think Trump will be Primaried, There are sane Republicans out there.Nigelb said:
No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.grabcocque said:
The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.Nigelb said:
Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
0 -
Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!0 -
LibDems on the slide?NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!0 -
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
Those changes are all just noise.Sunil_Prasannan said:
LibDems on the slide?NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!0 -
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.
0 -
What were those sane Republicans doing last time?Foxy said:
I think Trump will be Primaried, There are sane Republicans out there.Nigelb said:
No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.grabcocque said:
The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.Nigelb said:
Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
0 -
I like Trump to run, Pence's odds, generic Democrat victory0
-
Harry SquatterBenpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
0 -
Yes but its nice to think of Vince's LD's on the slide, just like thinking Labour's vote isn't solid..Benpointer said:
Those changes are all just noise.Sunil_Prasannan said:
LibDems on the slide?NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
0 -
They ran against him, though I take your point about Cruz.Benpointer said:
What were those sane Republicans doing last time?Foxy said:
I think Trump will be Primaried, There are sane Republicans out there.Nigelb said:
No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.grabcocque said:
The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.Nigelb said:
Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
0 -
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Harry SquatterBenpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
DOH.. Harry PotterBenpointer said:
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Harry SquatterBenpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
A reference to Ms Rowling, I imagine.Benpointer said:
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Harry SquatterBenpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
Are there? That's all well and good but surely the sane Republican wants someone else to run against Trump, and not to be seen to wield the dagger themselves. The sane Republican's best hope might be that bad polls lead Trump to withdraw rather than risk a humiliating defeat.Foxy said:
I think Trump will be Primaried, There are sane Republicans out there.Nigelb said:
No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.grabcocque said:
The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.Nigelb said:
Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
0 -
Play on Harry Potter? Rowling?Benpointer said:
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Harry SquatterBenpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
Oh never mind 0 -
Then you'll have to wait for the inevitable repeats?Benpointer said:
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Harry SquatterBenpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
it's the only way I can be sure of intelligent conversation around here!0
-
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.0 -
in office.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.0 -
We’re not struggling to pass legislation, and still have more councillors than any other party.IanB2 said:
in office.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.
I’d say that’s power, myself.0 -
LibDems pollling the same as fruit-bat loony-tune racist UKIP.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Merry Christmas........0 -
It’s 3 years.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.0 -
I see RBS have applied for a German banking licence. I hope that means that the Germans get to bail them out next time....0
-
A curious thing about the Greens is that they've gone through the same trajectory on the EU as Corbyn - strongly opposed in the old days (capitalist design) - now critical but on balance favourable. It's not obvious to me that they've much to offer anyone on the left - a bit more systematically environmental, but politically very similar to Labour's current leadership. Everyone likes Caroline Lucas, but she benefits from not being a contender for Number 10.Benpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
What does puzzle me is the continuing LibDem weakness. I'd have thought centrist pro-EU Labour supporters would be jolly tempted, but there's not much sign of it. Possibly politics is now simply too polarised to enable life in the interevening territory to flourish.0 -
Brown left office in 2010.Jonathan said:
It’s 3 years.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.0 -
Not really.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.
After similar periods in office (it's actually 8 years 7 months) the government (Tories) were by 6% ahead in Dec 1987...
And the Labour government were ahead by 8%, also after 8y 7m in power, in Dec 2006 .
(Source the Guardian/ICM poll series)0 -
Those polls have enormous "don't know" numbers. Beto is barely known outside Texas (and outsize political obsessive circles...). Biden only scores best because he is best known.Nigelb said:It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in
What is notable is that 42% of voters are sticking with Trump no matter what. That should give him *some* comfort.0 -
It probably does help the Tories that their policies were softened by the coalition during the 2010-2015 period. Look at the mess they've made of things since then!Jonathan said:
It’s 3 years.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.0 -
I think we:OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
(a) don't know who the Democratic nominee will be
(b) don't know if the US economy will be humming or in recession
(c) don't know how the various investigations into Trump will turn out
(d) don't know if his health will hold out
Given those uncertainties, anyone reckoning him winning is either a 10% or a 90% shot is massively overconfident.
I had thought him more likely than not to be re-elected a year ago. I now would reckon he is slightly less than a 50% shot, but no worse than 40%.0 -
To be in a consistent and unassailable lead after 11 years must really be something.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.0 -
Very likely most would return to Labour in an election campaign.Benpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
Struggling to get the Finance Bill passed though - even after accepting numerous amendments.Mortimer said:
We’re not struggling to pass legislation, and still have more councillors than any other party.IanB2 said:
in office.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.
I’d say that’s power, myself.0 -
Cable needs to stand down. With Layla Moran the LDs would start to make headway.NickPalmer said:
A curious thing about the Greens is that they've gone through the same trajectory on the EU as Corbyn - strongly opposed in the old days (capitalist design) - now critical but on balance favourable. It's not obvious to me that they've much to offer anyone on the left - a bit more systematically environmental, but politically very similar to Labour's current leadership. Everyone likes Caroline Lucas, but she benefits from not being a contender for Number 10.Benpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
What does puzzle me is the continuing LibDem weakness. I'd have thought centrist pro-EU Labour supporters would be jolly tempted, but there's not much sign of it. Possibly politics is now simply too polarised to enable life in the interevening territory to flourish.0 -
Probably but that depends on the timing of the election relative to Brexit and Labour's position on Brexit. This time next year for example Brexit could be an irrelevance for a GE.justin124 said:
Very likely most would return to Labour in an election campaign.Benpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
The Tories under Macmillan were ahead in 1961 - after 10 years in power.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.0 -
Polling-wise I agree, but the economy heading south, and for reasons that are traceably his fault, is a big deal. There are two elements to Trump's support: The nativist base is the core of it, but they represent less than 30% of the electorate. What got him the rest of the way is voters who thought that as a successful businessman, he'd be good at managing the economy. If the economy is strong come the election, he has a clear path to victory. If it isn't, he doesn't.NickPalmer said:
But I'm not sure Trump's trroubles are any worse than they've been and he seems to weather most of them and take apart any specific opponent. I'd rather be backing than laying at current odds.
0 -
Lessons were probably learnt from 2015 when Green votes are likely to have delivered Cameron his small overall majority.Benpointer said:
Probably but that depends on the timing of the election relative to Brexit and Labour's position on Brexit. This time next year for example Brexit could be an irrelevance for a GE.justin124 said:
Very likely most would return to Labour in an election campaign.Benpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.grabcocque said:
But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.Omnium said:
I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news: https://twitter.com/JoshuaYJackson/status/1077151342341341184
Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.
These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?
Grow up.
Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.0 -
If President Trump's policies revitalise the rust belt, then he will win those states handsomely, and his path to a second term (assuming no health issues, etc.) will be assured.OblitusSumMe said:
I'm amazed that he received more than 10% of the vote for so many reasons. And yet he did. There's not that much that is new now that wasn't evident in November 2016. If it didn't stop people from voting for him then it won't stop them in 2020.Foxy said:
Though he runs quite good campaign against himself!OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
But the regional GDP data for Q2 showed that the slowest growing states in the US were... in the rust belt again. Idaho and New Mexico were the slowest growers, but after that it was Wisconsin, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Only Michigan bucked the trend in the rust belt.
President Trump needs these states to - if not be leading the pack - then at least not be falling further behind.0 -
So in fact the last three times a government had been in power for 8 1/2 years they were ahead in the polls.justin124 said:
The Tories under Macmillan were ahead in 1961 - after 10 years in power.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.
If anything this government is struggling, only being roughly neck and neck.0 -
This seems inaccurate. Some like Corbyn seem not to have changed one iota since 1975.NickPalmer said:
A curious thing about the Greens is that they've gone through the same trajectory on the EU as Corbyn - strongly opposed in the old days (capitalist design) - now critical but on balance favourable. It's not obvious to me that they've much to offer anyone on the left - a bit more systematically environmental, but politically very similar to Labour's current leadership. Everyone likes Caroline Lucas, but she benefits from not being a contender for Number 10.Benpointer said:
I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
What does puzzle me is the continuing LibDem weakness. I'd have thought centrist pro-EU Labour supporters would be jolly tempted, but there's not much sign of it. Possibly politics is now simply too polarised to enable life in the interevening territory to flourish.
Others who voted No in the 1st EU referendum have since grown up and become more pro-EU, e.g. Ken Livingstone.
It appears that Caroline Lucas wasn't old enough to vote in 1975. Jenny Jones in the HoL who probably was, is still anti-EU. So neither party is 100% pro-EU and not everyone who voted No in their youth has changed their mind.
Who'd have thought it though? Jeremy Corbyn and Bill Cash potentially to go through the same voting lobby.
Michael Foot and Enoch Powell also agreed in 1975, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, that we should leave the EU. Powell sacrificed his career for it.0 -
Very hard to see that the economy will be on good shape in 2020. We are due a global recession without the added impact of Trump's protectionism and Brexit uncertainties.edmundintokyo said:
Polling-wise I agree, but the economy heading south, and for reasons that are traceably his fault, is a big deal. There are two elements to Trump's support: The nativist base is the core of it, but they represent less than 30% of the electorate. What got him the rest of the way is voters who thought that as a successful businessman, he'd be good at managing the economy. If the economy is strong come the election, he has a clear path to victory. If it isn't, he doesn't.NickPalmer said:
But I'm not sure Trump's trroubles are any worse than they've been and he seems to weather most of them and take apart any specific opponent. I'd rather be backing than laying at current odds.0 -
It's not only death: a significant health event - cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc - would likely lead to a resignation too.Foxy said:
Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.Rexel56 said:Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
That might not be 10%, but it's probably more than 5%.
(And for the record, I reckon the 50% on Pence, as then sitting President, winning the nomination is way low.)0 -
These things are uncertain but we can put probabilities on them that clearly leave him below 40%, imho.rcs1000 said:
I think we:OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
(a) don't know who the Democratic nominee will be
(b) don't know if the US economy will be humming or in recession
(c) don't know how the various investigations into Trump will turn out
(d) don't know if his health will hold out
Given those uncertainties, anyone reckoning him winning is either a 10% or a 90% shot is massively overconfident.
I had thought him more likely than not to be re-elected a year ago. I now would reckon he is slightly less than a 50% shot, but no worse than 40%.
The Democrats haven't shown any signs of wanting to elect someone terrible. They managed to pick reasonably centrist candidates where they needed to (except Florida), the candidates who look like turn-offs by being too far left (Sanders, Warren) are getting very little traction and there's no Hillaryesque weak candidate with a grip on the machine. So it's likely they'll have a generally competent candidate.
The economy is a bit hard to read but it's not looking great, and like you say, it's particularly not looking great in the rust belt.
If you just take those two, I think he'd be well below a 40% chance. Then you have the investigations and health, neither if which I'd expect to be important, but they can only surprise on the down side.0 -
I would agree with this. However, turnout is notoriously difficult to poll. In the US they basically exclude you if you didn't vote last time. The midterms showed Trump motivates his base, but also his opponents. A large group of previous non-voters cannot be discounted.edmundintokyo said:
Polling-wise I agree, but the economy heading south, and for reasons that are traceably his fault, is a big deal. There are two elements to Trump's support: The nativist base is the core of it, but they represent less than 30% of the electorate. What got him the rest of the way is voters who thought that as a successful businessman, he'd be good at managing the economy. If the economy is strong come the election, he has a clear path to victory. If it isn't, he doesn't.NickPalmer said:
But I'm not sure Trump's trroubles are any worse than they've been and he seems to weather most of them and take apart any specific opponent. I'd rather be backing than laying at current odds.0 -
History never quite repeats itself in that way, but I have never gone along with the view that the Opposition needs to be well ahead in the polls in years 1 and 2 of a Parliament if it is to have a realistic shout of winning the subsequent General Election. I say that on the basis that a Government facing unpopularity at that stage has plenty of time available to it to recover. Serious unpopularity in years 3 and 4 on the other hand present it with much greater difficulties.Benpointer said:
So in fact the last three times a government had been in power for 8 1/2 years they were ahead in the polls.justin124 said:
The Tories under Macmillan were ahead in 1961 - after 10 years in power.Mortimer said:
Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in powerFoxy said:
For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.NickPalmer said:Apologies if posted before:
CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec
Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
Stalemate and Trench warfare.
If anything this government is struggling, only being roughly neck and neck.0 -
I think this is right, and would also add that we have no idea how his foreign policy is going to pan out, and it's so much harder to predict what's going to happen because his approach is so different and there is literally no precedent.rcs1000 said:
I think we:OblitusSumMe said:
My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.viewcode said:What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
(a) don't know who the Democratic nominee will be
(b) don't know if the US economy will be humming or in recession
(c) don't know how the various investigations into Trump will turn out
(d) don't know if his health will hold out
Given those uncertainties, anyone reckoning him winning is either a 10% or a 90% shot is massively overconfident.
I had thought him more likely than not to be re-elected a year ago. I now would reckon he is slightly less than a 50% shot, but no worse than 40%.
Scenario 1, autumn 2020 - the USA is in recession, big companies have left, Trump is dogged by impeachment proceedings as a result of previous corrupt behaviour, ISIS is on the rise and North Korea has shown that they have gamed Trump.
Scenario 2 - the US economy has continued to grow at a rapid rate, wages have risen, companies have returned to the rust belt, Trump has been subject to impeachment proceedings but the case against him has been shown to be vanishingly weak and politically motivated, more troops have come home without significant kickback, and the Korean peninsula has taken more steps towards reunification.
I think both of these scenarios are entirely possible, one of which would give a clear Dem victory and the other a Trump landslide. So basically, we do not know, and for that reason I find 30 per cent too low.0
