Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to rate Trump as having a near 50% chance of
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to rate Trump as having a near 50% chance of winning a second term
Betdata.io chart of Betfair exchange
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Warren and Sanders in between beating Trump by 5% and 7% respectively.
It is no surprise therefore Biden is the candidate camp Trump still most fears, I think though the Democrats will pick Warren as their nominee
It's just like Labour and the Tories piling up huge majorities in a few seats here; you need to win the marginals.
"A point which is getting lost is that a genuine 'No Outsiders' programme must ensure that it does not accidentally make 'Outsiders' of minorities with strongly held convictions which go against mainstream opinion. Progressives can sometimes give the impression that their benign tolerance extends to everyone who shares their worldview. Being open to all shades of opinion is difficult - as the extremist bigots show only too well. But what about quiet thoughtful people, religious or non-religious, who don't share every detail of the progressive moral code?"
You raise an interesting and important point. We must beware of creating a sort of illiberal liberalism whereby there can only be one received opinion on any topic.
But the answer surely is this: the No Outsiders programme is not seeking to stop people practising their religion or having a different view of morality and teaching it to their children. What it is seeking to do is teaching children something in addition to what they will learn from their parents etc. It is an addition not a substitute.
Minorities are entitled to their freedoms to think and believe what they like. They are entitled not to be bullied for thinking differently subject to the proviso that they cannot use that freedom to deny others rights which the law has given them. So their freedom also imposes obligations and the most important obligation is that they cannot use their freedom to bully others and make them feel unwanted in their turn. You cannot demand the right not to be bullied while bullying others. You cannot demand the right not to be made to feel an outsider while at the same time seeking to make another minority feel an outsider.
My objection to the Parkfield protestors is that they are vocal in demanding rights for themselves while at the same time seeking to deny rights to others. Just no.
The No Outsiders programme is not seeking to deny the parents the right to pass on their children. But it is informing the children that what their religion teaches is not the be all and end all of what they need to know about life, that there is more information out there which they also need to know. Some of the parents want to limit; the No Outsiders programme wants to enlarge.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/opinion/trump-aoc-omar-pelosi.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
If Kasich or Bloomberg or Hickenlooper stood as a third party candidate though I might consider voting for them
There's also too much back history.
Like him or not Biden is who they should pick . The Dems seem in danger of picking the latter .
Indeed you could stick a Dem rosette on bubbles the chimp and it would win all the normal Dem states , just as you could do the same with the GOP in their solid states.
Hillary Clinton lost because instead of going for the win she wanted to trounce Trump spending time campaigning in normal red states like Georgia .
If any white American other than Trump reads that and takes offence they are snowflakes.
A more interesting take away is that Trump doesn't get more than 44% under any match-up.
Doesn't mean he won't win (he might), but those match ups mostly just refect name recognition.
Name recognition polls give little real illumination.
https://twitter.com/isabeloakeshott/status/1150871825913647104?s=21
Harris and Warren got extensive coverage from the first Democratic debates
Picking someone like Warren might appeal to people like me and see huge wins in more Liberal areas of the USA but will make getting to 270 EVs much harder .
Hilary margin in the USA 2,868,686
Hilary margin in California 4,269,978
The Dems need to get 270 electoral college votes. Fixating entirely on Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan simply because they were the surprises last time, does not necessarily get you the easiest route to 270.
Of the rust belt, I think Wisconsin, which voted overwhelmingly to get rid of their Republican Governor, and which last year elected a lesbian senator with more votes than Trump got in 2016 should be the easiest to regain.
But Arizona is probably an easier pickup for the Dems than Pennsylvania or Michigan. It's following the path of New Mexico, which is now reliably Blue.
And Iowa has been hammered by Trump's trade war. The Democrats topped the Congressional ballot there in 2018. Obama won it; why not AN Democrat?
If WI, AZ and IA flip... then it's a wide open race.
10% of the US population (at least) still has no idea who Kamala Harris is.
This really isn't rocket science.
So 90% does have a view of Harris.
Biden leads Trump by 4% with independents and 6% with suburbanites, the key swing voters.
Trump however is even or narrowly leads Harris, Warren and Sanders with independents and suburbanites.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/14/biden-sanders-and-warren-lead-trump-in-2020-presidential-matchup-poll.html
The Democrats would be making the same mistake as 2004 when they picked the left liberal Kerry over say Joe Lieberman if they overlook Biden
To chase wins in states that have less EVs and were lost by more . I’m not saying ignore the states you mentioned but clearly the Dems need someone who has a good chance of taking back at least two of those they lost .
Biden 49% Trump 44%
Trump 48% Harris 39%
Trump 46% Sanders 37%
Trump 47% Warren 42%
https://ohpredictive.com/press-releases/biden-bumps-trump-to-take-the-lead-in-arizona/
It's difficult but you have to try to predict the key flip states that change the result. They're rarely the same states two elections in a row.
"A point which is getting lost is that a genuine 'No Outsiders' programme must ensure that it does not accidentally make 'Outsiders' of minorities with strongly held convictions which go against mainstream opinion. Progressives can sometimes give the impression that their benign tolerance extends to everyone who shares their worldview. Being open to all shades of opinion is difficult - as the extremist bigots show only too well. But what about quiet thoughtful people, religious or non-religious, who don't share every detail of the progressive moral code?"
I note Cyclefrees response above and wish to comment further. It is a genuine problem for which her solution (additive information, not information denial) is a good but not complete solution. An obvious counter-example would be if the state published on the Internet real-time GPS tracking of every adult and child: plainly additive information but not one we would want.
It often comes as a surprise to nice people that the rules apply to them: that good, kind, thoughtful people can transgress and be punished for it. When gay marriage was legalised many people sought a conscience exception to the law and some quiet thoughtful people did lose their jobs for disagreeing, a stance that they considered honourable. The Blair administration (correctly IMHO) did not grant a conscience exception and refusing to marry gay people for being gay is not legal.
The question is not "what does one do with people who transgress the moral code" since the answer is simple: if the code is enshrined in law, one prosecutes them via the law. The question is "who decides what the moral code is, and who decides what the laws to enforce them are?" Those questions are decided by power, and not within my grasp alas.
I will add one more point tho. One of my bugbears is the rich and powerful often adopt contradictory law, demanding free speech to say things they like and demanding privacy or morality to stop other people saying what they don't like. An obvious example concerns rude words or drug advocacy. When I am made demiurge (hat-tip @geoffw ) I will impose all rules equally to all...
The basic maths are against Trump but the Democrats need to avoid tearing themselves to bits and critically need to avoid 3rd party runs. Trumps base is solid but that solid base isn't enough to see him home, the Democrats have the winning of the swing voters alright but the people that will take them over the top are more frothy and a 3rd party run from either side will hurt them plenty.
On another US note, a story is doing the rounds that Kim Darroch may have been passing on classified info to a US media outlet. The story does appear to have some cred.
I wonder if he would be tempted? He would actually be pretty good IMO and he probably carried the States that handed Trump the WH.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1150874781744607232
Pretty sure a few % of that will go Biden's way now.
Call one to journo from phone box; ring mole back on this number from a burner phone (gives different phone box no). Mole has a lead on a story about footballer cheating on wife. Will splash on front cover. Ring from a long way away from your usual phone and daily routes.
Call two from journo's burner. Mole has info of this nature. Footballer cover story was a cover story. Fresh burner phone is available at (location). Don't bring your phone to it, or this burner phone.
Call three, burner to burner. Meeting point is a pub in the sticks without CCTV. Get two different black cabs from different taxi firms there, hail to hire, not Ubers, pay cash. Don't bring phone.
Mole prints documents using second hand computer and printer without internet connection
Meet, no phones, take printed docs, reverse steps.
How do the boys and girls at box 500 catch the mole?
I am singing at a wedding on Pall Mall - and I think we need to change our transport plans to deal with the protest (which marches right by the venue!)
Appears to be succeeding.
Reagan was an excellent speech maker - the acting must have helped - while Clinton and Obama in their different ways were two of the best speakers of modern times
I have no idea whether she was involved but it would not surprise me.
Regardless, I hope they find and prosecute whoever it was.
That is a step back to a pre-Wolfenden world.
My view is that moral codes & law should not be one & the same, partly because there are different moral codes & partly because law based on one religion's moral code is effectively a theocracy rather than a democracy. That is not a world I want to live in.
So the question then arises: how does the law determine what is / is not legal when it comes to matters of general morality. What are the limits of allowable conscience exceptions. That is a matter of power & numbers. If, for instance, the Muslim population grew to a significant extent & did not change its views in - say - a world of PR it is possible to imagine a situation where reversal of some rights for some minorities might be a price that a government has to pay to get & stay in power. It is not inconceivable. That is why it is both important to keep on making the case for the rights that we do have & try and change attitudes. Otherwise we could well find that having abandoned our own Christian-determined law we end up substituting it for another law informed by a very different religion.
Which perhaps proves their point ?
So far 9 Labour MPs have told the party HQ they do not intend to seek re-selection in the upcoming "trigger ballot" procedure:
Geoffrey Robinson (Coventy NW): born 1938; MP since 1976
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): born in 1943, MP since 1987
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): born in 1946, MP since 1983
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): born in 1946; MP since 1989
Stephen Pound (Ealing North): born in 1948; MP since 1997
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse): born in 1952, MP since 1997
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead): born in 1955, MP since 2010
Roberta Blackman- Woods (City of Durham): born in 1957, MP since 2005
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool West Derby): born in 1966, MP from 1997 to 2005 and then since 2010.
MP can draw their parliamentary pension at 65.
Particularly if Boris put in a kind word.
In any event, you are (a) not American, and (b) a conservative. I think President Harris can perhaps succeed without your vote.
It is the only Committee without Chair, after 2 attempts.
The Chairs elected in other committes are as follow:
Foreign Affairs: David McAllister (Germany, CDU) unopposed
Agriculture and Rural Development: Norbert Lins (Germany, CDU) defeats Maxette Pirbakas (France, RN) 36 to 11
Budgets: Johan Van Overtveldt (Belgium, NVA) unopposed
Culture and Education: Sabine Verheyen (Germany, CDU) unopposed
Development: Tomas Tobé (Sweden, Moderates) unopposed
Economic and Monetary Affairs: Roberto Gualtieri (Italy, PD) unopposed
Employment and Social Affairs: post-poned
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety: Pascal Canfin (France, LREM) unopposed
Internal Market and Consumer Protection: Petra De Sutte (Belgium, Greens) unopposed
International Trade: Bernd Lange (Germany, SPD) unopposed
Industry, Research and Energy: Adina-Ioana Vălean (Romania, National Liberal Party) unopposed
Legal Affairs: Lucy Nethsingha (UK, LibDems) defeats Gilles Lebreton (France, RN) 15 to 6 votes
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs: Juan F López Aguilar (Spain, PSOE) unopposed
Regional Development: Younous Omarjee (France, La France Insoumise) unopposed
Transport and Tourism: Karima Delli (France, Greens) unopposed
Constitutional Affairs: Antonio Tajani (Italy, Forza Italia) unopposed
Fisheries: Chris Davies (UK, Libdems) unopposed
Petitions: Dolors Montserrat (Spain, PP) unopposed
Women’s Rights and Gender Equality: Evelyn Regner (Austria, SDP) unopposed
Budgetary Control:Isabel García Muñoz (Spain, PSOE) unopposed
Human Rights (Subcommittee): Marie Arena (Belgium, Parti Socialiste)
Security and Defence (Subcommittee): Nathalie Loiseau (France, LREM)
https://leave.eu/deselect-these-shameful-tory-mps/
1. Will the Dems be able to resist the temptation of assuming that the whole electorate is as horrified by Trump as they are?
2. Will Trump manage to avoid tipping the US economy into a significant slowdown by his economically illiterate obsession with starting trade wars?
I think the answer to both questions will probably be 'No', which makes it hard to call.
Sounds about right.
The Act is clear in its definition of race. Race means being part of a group of people who are identified by their nationality, citizenship, colour, national or ethnic origins.
https://www.eoc.org.uk/race-discrimination/
What you have described up there can be tracked though it takes time and effort. And you forget that much of the effort will be directed at working out who accessed the document which will be trackable, as well as lots of other evidence which helps corroborate other pieces. Then there is the biggest risk of all for the leakers: the fact that the whole leak (from taking the document to publication) was not done by one person but by two and possibly more. So you find the weakest link or put pressure on one of the links. Once you have more than one person involved, they each have to trust the others not to let them down. They each have different agendas and they are all vulnerable to worrying that their trust may be misplaced and that maybe they need to be the one to get first mover advantage.
Don't think for a moment that experienced investigators don't know and use that.
If the Democrats go woke, my betting bank could end up broke
They ignore @AndyJS analysis at their peril..
Religion should be treated no more special than any other belief system.
You wouldn't call it racist to attack fascists based on what they believe, so why not the religious based on what they believe?