politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trumpity Trump: Why Betting on Biden is the right strategy
Comments
-
Several million someones, all strangely similar....OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully if it kicks off we will have someone on the spot to provide us with a breathless and weirdly aroused commentary.eadric said:ON topic. Trump looks like the toastiest toast in Toastville.
HOWEVER, there is at least one proviso. A genuinely unprecedented economic shock is about to destabilise (even further) the western world (with the risk of a 2nd wave and a 2nd lockdown, to boot).
We could see widespread urban unrest by the end of the year. We've already seen a weird quasi-religious revival sweep the West, along with riots and iconoclasms, why not a bit of civil war?
Very hard to know who would win in that sitch.
I'd say there's a 5-10% chance of something like this happening.0 -
Or 4 different people...OnlyLivingBoy said:Hopefully if it kicks off we will have someone on the spot to provide us with a breathless and weirdly aroused commentary.
0 -
Can't see his antics going down well with the Hebridean Presbyterians from whom he is descended on his mother's side.HYUFD said:
Yet nonetheless there has been an above average swing from Trump to Biden amongst Catholics, Hillary was Methodist, Trump is Presbyterianrpjs said:
I don't think so. Before JFK many Catholics felt that the Presidency was closed to them. They'd've supported JFK as a viable Catholic candidate, even if they didn't agree with many of his political positions. Today Biden, or any other Catholic candidate's, religion is wholly unremarkable, so any Catholic who feels that their religion is an important part of their political beliefs is less likely to vote for Biden as he is relatively socially liberal.HYUFD said:Interestingly if Biden is elected President he will be the first Catholic President of the USA since JFK which might explain the swing away from Trump with Catholics
0 -
This is the US version of that critical care nurse crying outside a stripped bare supermarket, sort of. Interesting (and deep) cultural differences.
https://twitter.com/tkag2020_ann/status/1273075677454098436?s=200 -
Biden is actually the most pro life Democratic candidate since Carter, he backed the Hyde amendment which restricted federal funds for abortion for example, though he now says he is pro choice to win the Democratic nomination conservative Catholics will have noticed thatrpjs said:
I think it's more conservative Catholics realizing that Trump is the antithesis of Christian virtue, rather than Biden being one of them.HYUFD said:
Yet nonetheless there has been an above average swing from Trump to Biden amongst Catholics, Hillary was Methodist, Trump is Presbyterianrpjs said:
I don't think so. Before JFK many Catholics felt that the Presidency was closed to them. They'd've supported JFK as a viable Catholic candidate, even if they didn't agree with many of his political positions. Today Biden, or any other Catholic candidate's, religion is wholly unremarkable, so any Catholic who feels that their religion is an important part of their political beliefs is less likely to vote for Biden as he is relatively socially liberal.HYUFD said:Interestingly if Biden is elected President he will be the first Catholic President of the USA since JFK which might explain the swing away from Trump with Catholics
1 -
"Its gone viral. Thats all they care about." is the top rated comment and I think that's probably fair. A whole load of publications are in big trouble.HYUFD said:
0 -
This isn't a bad angle for Biden in November
China lied, and Trump err... believed them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmieUrXwKCc0 -
Indeed, if Trump loses an establishment Republican will likely be the candidate in 2024 eg Romney or George P Bush or Nikki Haley.rpjs said:
I don't think so. Pence is regarded as a tad weird even by other evangelicals. The only way he gets the Pres nom in 2024 is if the GOP is still in thrall to Trumpism, which is not likely if Trump does lose bigly this year. And if Trumpism is still a thing in 2024 and the GOP is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, I think it's a dead cert that Trump père, assuming he doesn't want to try a Grover Cleveland, will want one of his spawn, either Junior or Ivanka, as the candidate.JSpring said:The American liberal left should already be worrying about 2024. Why? Because, regardless of whether Biden or Trump wins in November, the Republican nominee next time is likely to be Mike Pence. Pence would be the first genuine member of the Religious Right to be a major party's nominee. The likes of Reagan, Trump, the Bushes etc are/were merely lip service providers to that tendency. And given that Pence is quite affable in public and given that the economy will still likely be in the doldrums at that point, he could well win.
Pence needs Trump to be re elected to maximise his chances of being nominee and elected in 20240 -
Haley is the GOP candidate for 2024 imho.*rpjs said:
I don't think so. Pence is regarded as a tad weird even by other evangelicals. The only way he gets the Pres nom in 2024 is if the GOP is still in thrall to Trumpism, which is not likely if Trump does lose bigly this year. And if Trumpism is still a thing in 2024 and the GOP is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, I think it's a dead cert that Trump père, assuming he doesn't want to try a Grover Cleveland, will want one of his spawn, either Junior or Ivanka, as the candidate.JSpring said:The American liberal left should already be worrying about 2024. Why? Because, regardless of whether Biden or Trump wins in November, the Republican nominee next time is likely to be Mike Pence. Pence would be the first genuine member of the Religious Right to be a major party's nominee. The likes of Reagan, Trump, the Bushes etc are/were merely lip service providers to that tendency. And given that Pence is quite affable in public and given that the economy will still likely be in the doldrums at that point, he could well win.
Assuming the jackass loses in November.1 -
Perhaps not such a bad idea after all...Peter_the_Punter said:
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....Theuniondivvie said:
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.BluestBlue said:
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/12730473151216066610 -
She certainly has a chance, Romney would also fancy his chances, both need Trump to lose.rottenborough said:
Haley is the GOP candidate for 2024 imho.*rpjs said:
I don't think so. Pence is regarded as a tad weird even by other evangelicals. The only way he gets the Pres nom in 2024 is if the GOP is still in thrall to Trumpism, which is not likely if Trump does lose bigly this year. And if Trumpism is still a thing in 2024 and the GOP is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, I think it's a dead cert that Trump père, assuming he doesn't want to try a Grover Cleveland, will want one of his spawn, either Junior or Ivanka, as the candidate.JSpring said:The American liberal left should already be worrying about 2024. Why? Because, regardless of whether Biden or Trump wins in November, the Republican nominee next time is likely to be Mike Pence. Pence would be the first genuine member of the Religious Right to be a major party's nominee. The likes of Reagan, Trump, the Bushes etc are/were merely lip service providers to that tendency. And given that Pence is quite affable in public and given that the economy will still likely be in the doldrums at that point, he could well win.
Assuming the jackass loses in November.
Though even if Trump loses Pence might take comfort from the fact Mondale was Democratic candidate in 1984 after having been Carter's VP for a term, despite Carter's defeat in 1980, though Reagan beat him easily0 -
That would imply functioning was the status quo ante.Brom said:I think Scott P has malfunctioned again.
1 -
Are these 'gloomy' epidemiologists the same ones who allegedly underestimated the severity of COVID-19 (i.e. were overly optimistic) and therefore locked down too late?rottenborough said:Also in Telegraph, Sikora imploring the government to get things open and move on from the failed modellers. Why is the rest of Europe opening up?
"But so far, our gloomy epidemiologists have been wrong on virtually everything."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/17/declare-pandemic-get-normal-lives/0 -
.
I wonder if that's due to the distribution of people in that state? There are only two big cities.Nigelb said:
Perhaps not such a bad idea after all...Peter_the_Punter said:
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....Theuniondivvie said:
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.BluestBlue said:
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/12730473151216066610 -
I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.1 -
It's just common sense, but we're dealing with people here.
Anyway here's "Something in the Air" by Thunderclap Newman. Ah, my youth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZoJ01FpD80 -
Yes, that's the official strapline. But mine fits nicely with it. The big defeat - the humiliation - is needed to both remove the offending item and remove the stench. If it's close that will be a slightly unsatisfactory ending. We want something like the exit of Mike Baldwin from Coronation St when he died in the arms of Ken Barlow.Malmesbury said:
The pitch is the restoration of sensible - Biden, the steady hand at the tiller.kinabalu said:
The abject humiliation of Donald Trump and all those who enabled him.IanB2 said:It’s a good article, with perhaps the weakness that most of us want to believe it - there is nothing so convincing as apparently objective analysis that leads to an already preferred conclusion.
The counter argument that worries me is that Biden’s election lacks a real story. Americans love a story, and to watch a story unfold, and most of their successful pitches for the presidency have been based around a strong personal narrative. The maverick outsider TV personality who becomes president was a more compelling tale than of the lifetime Washington insider working her way up toward the top job, and that is disregarding the draw of the being the first female.
Of course, the story of Trump’s re-election isn’t as compelling as the first time around, but then he now has incumbency and precedent on his side.
How are they going to package and sell Biden’s pitch for the White House?
That's a big big story and imo it's strong enough to carry this movie.0 -
This is troubling. If the US really takes off again the whole western economy is going to be in even more of a mess than it is already.Nigelb said:
Perhaps not such a bad idea after all...Peter_the_Punter said:
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....Theuniondivvie said:
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.BluestBlue said:
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/12730473151216066610 -
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?rpjs said:I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.1 -
Our best entry for years. Fully in the mould of Eurovision fluff.Sunil_Prasannan said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT6yOIC6ihIMexicanpete said:
Having read that I can't get the Scooch Eurovision disaster 'Flying the Flag' from my mind.Scott_xP said:0 -
Education, I imagine, is a tale of two chunks. Those who have seen it increase, have seen it increase a lot.HYUFD said:
0 -
Romney has an excellent chance to be the take the Republican Party back from the Trumpists candidate, but only if the GOP gets eviscerated this November. He needs Trumpism to be completely discredited and ripped out root and branch from the Party.HYUFD said:
She certainly has a chance, Romney would also fancy his chances, both need Trump to lose.rottenborough said:
Haley is the GOP candidate for 2024 imho.*rpjs said:
I don't think so. Pence is regarded as a tad weird even by other evangelicals. The only way he gets the Pres nom in 2024 is if the GOP is still in thrall to Trumpism, which is not likely if Trump does lose bigly this year. And if Trumpism is still a thing in 2024 and the GOP is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, I think it's a dead cert that Trump père, assuming he doesn't want to try a Grover Cleveland, will want one of his spawn, either Junior or Ivanka, as the candidate.JSpring said:The American liberal left should already be worrying about 2024. Why? Because, regardless of whether Biden or Trump wins in November, the Republican nominee next time is likely to be Mike Pence. Pence would be the first genuine member of the Religious Right to be a major party's nominee. The likes of Reagan, Trump, the Bushes etc are/were merely lip service providers to that tendency. And given that Pence is quite affable in public and given that the economy will still likely be in the doldrums at that point, he could well win.
Assuming the jackass loses in November.
Though even if Trump loses Pence might take comfort from the fact Mondale was Democratic candidate in 1984 after having been Carter's VP for a term, despite Carter's defeat in 1980, though Reagan beat him easily0 -
The most famous 'one hit wonder' of all time? Certainly one of them.Toms said:It's just common sense, but we're dealing with people here.
Anyway here's "Something in the Air" by Thunderclap Newman. Ah, my youth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZoJ01FpD80 -
The paint doesn't effect RCS noticeably on a conventionally shaped aircraft.rpjs said:I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
Even if you painted it in iron ball paint, you wouldn't gain much - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_RAINBOW1 -
Very good article.
This is why I sold Trump at under 200 ECVs at average odds of 8/3 the day before yesterday on PaddyPower.0 -
Yep. The aura far exceeds the musicianship. And, Trump seems to have an aura for his nuts.kinabalu said:
The most famous 'one hit wonder' of all time? Certainly one of them.Toms said:It's just common sense, but we're dealing with people here.
Anyway here's "Something in the Air" by Thunderclap Newman. Ah, my youth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZoJ01FpD80 -
OnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully if it kicks off we will have someone on the spot to provide us with a breathless and weirdly aroused commentary.eadric said:ON topic. Trump looks like the toastiest toast in Toastville.
HOWEVER, there is at least one proviso. A genuinely unprecedented economic shock is about to destabilise (even further) the western world (with the risk of a 2nd wave and a 2nd lockdown, to boot).
We could see widespread urban unrest by the end of the year. We've already seen a weird quasi-religious revival sweep the West, along with riots and iconoclasms, why not a bit of civil war?
Very hard to know who would win in that sitch.
I'd say there's a 5-10% chance of something like this happening.
0 -
I am really regretting selling out of the winning party a few days ago.0
-
Is there a tl;dr? 2 minutes listening to her feels like 2 minutes too long.Theuniondivvie said:This is the US version of that critical care nurse crying outside a stripped bare supermarket, sort of. Interesting (and deep) cultural differences.
https://twitter.com/tkag2020_ann/status/1273075677454098436?s=200 -
-
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/12731024880491929600 -
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.RobD said:
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?rpjs said:I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.0 -
Things can clearly change between now and November but the only thing that would save Trump right now would be industrial-scale voter suppression by the GOP and I certainly wouldn't rule that out given what we have seen in the past.MrEd said:Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%.
In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
How the GOP get away with it is beyond belief to most European observers who are used to the electoral mechanics being basically fair.0 -
Seems like not, based on @Malmesbury's comment.Theuniondivvie said:
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.RobD said:
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?rpjs said:I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.0 -
That's what I figured.eadric said:
She's crying about a messed up McDonald's order. That's it.MaxPB said:
Is there a tl;dr? 2 minutes listening to her feels like 2 minutes too long.Theuniondivvie said:This is the US version of that critical care nurse crying outside a stripped bare supermarket, sort of. Interesting (and deep) cultural differences.
https://twitter.com/tkag2020_ann/status/1273075677454098436?s=20
I have a lot of sympathy for the majority of decent American cops, but this is not exactly heart-breaking0 -
Not really.MrEd said:
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/12731024880491929600 -
I wonder what the same numbers for the EU-Australia trade deal are.Scott_xP said:0 -
Whatever happened to measuring government expenditures in hip operations? Did that go out of fashion with the GFC? Maybe we should express everything in summers of free school meals (SOFSM) from now on? So the repaint is ~0.0075 SOFSM.RobD said:
Less than a million quid? Talk about a rounding error.Scott_xP said:1 -
Yet we're not spiking in NYS.MrEd said:
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/12731024880491929600 -
This is an important warning.MrEd said:Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%.
In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
We Brits aren’t quite as good at US politics as we think we are. And it’s worth noting there’s a long time to go and Trump isn’t down and out yet.1 -
Why not really? Based on any evidence or because it takes away from the narrative of "Republican Governors bad, Democrat Governors good?"...Alistair said:
Not really.MrEd said:
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/12731024880491929600 -
The real question when it comes to American elections is "has Cromwell come back under and alt-account and what is his opinion?"0
-
'I've been a cop for 15 years and I've never felt such anxiety while waiting for McDonald's food'MaxPB said:
Is there a tl;dr? 2 minutes listening to her feels like 2 minutes too long.Theuniondivvie said:This is the US version of that critical care nurse crying outside a stripped bare supermarket, sort of. Interesting (and deep) cultural differences.
https://twitter.com/tkag2020_ann/status/1273075677454098436?s=20
I hate to add to her anxiety but she should probably think about what 'extras' went into her on-time McDs food for the last 15 years.0 -
I'm starting to see more and more FL polling that has Biden in the lead. I won't speculate on the religious aspect, but if that sticks Trump is in serious trouble. I'm not sure he even has a viable route if Biden takes Florida.HYUFD said:Interestingly if Biden is elected President he will be the first Catholic President of the USA since JFK which might explain the swing away from Trump with Catholics
0 -
Make America America AgainMalmesbury said:
The pitch is the restoration of sensible - Biden, the steady hand at the tiller.kinabalu said:
The abject humiliation of Donald Trump and all those who enabled him.IanB2 said:It’s a good article, with perhaps the weakness that most of us want to believe it - there is nothing so convincing as apparently objective analysis that leads to an already preferred conclusion.
The counter argument that worries me is that Biden’s election lacks a real story. Americans love a story, and to watch a story unfold, and most of their successful pitches for the presidency have been based around a strong personal narrative. The maverick outsider TV personality who becomes president was a more compelling tale than of the lifetime Washington insider working her way up toward the top job, and that is disregarding the draw of the being the first female.
Of course, the story of Trump’s re-election isn’t as compelling as the first time around, but then he now has incumbency and precedent on his side.
How are they going to package and sell Biden’s pitch for the White House?
That's a big big story and imo it's strong enough to carry this movie.
Biden 20200 -
BluestBlue said:
and the more Scott tweets the more he winds up you and Brom and the other couple of Johnson shills..1 -
It's a conundrum..Alistair said:The real question when it comes to American elections is "has Cromwell come back under and alt-account and what is his opinion?"
0 -
It’s quite funny how ScottP keeps posting tweets from ultra-Remainers on here (like the editor of the New European, or Steve Bray) like it somehow adds something to the discussion.eadric said:
lol. Is that the Remoaner idiot who used to shout through his megaphone over every interview?BluestBlue said:
That man is still being paid to Bray his nonsense outside Parliament? And you're still retweeting him? Never change!Scott_xP said:
A quintessentially tragic figure. I read that he lost his job and house because of all this. Completely mad, and sad.
In fact, I either laugh at them or scroll straight past them.2 -
You're making the mistake of looking at national vote figures when then thing that matters is state by state.MrEd said:Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvannia Dem absolute vote was down. She lost the Dems votes where it mattered. And in all those states Trump put on a tiny number of additional votes over Romney (or in the case of Wisconsin actually got less votes) so it was not a case of Dem to GOP switching.1 -
NYC is very much out on a limb here and the suggestions have been because it was the worst hit and so is a level of immunity built in already. That wouldn't be the case elsewhere where there have been demonstrations.rpjs said:
Yet we're not spiking in NYS.MrEd said:
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1273102488049192960
You would also expect thousands of people gathered closely together, shouting, screaming etc to be a far more effective transmitter of the virus than shops being opened and people walking in one at a time.
If the demonstrations haven't caused these spikes, it is a mighty fine coincidence these spikes are happening now given the timing of the demonstrations...0 -
Mmm. Great.eadric said:
I live to serve. I will be thereOnlyLivingBoy said:
Hopefully if it kicks off we will have someone on the spot to provide us with a breathless and weirdly aroused commentary.eadric said:ON topic. Trump looks like the toastiest toast in Toastville.
HOWEVER, there is at least one proviso. A genuinely unprecedented economic shock is about to destabilise (even further) the western world (with the risk of a 2nd wave and a 2nd lockdown, to boot).
We could see widespread urban unrest by the end of the year. We've already seen a weird quasi-religious revival sweep the West, along with riots and iconoclasms, why not a bit of civil war?
Very hard to know who would win in that sitch.
I'd say there's a 5-10% chance of something like this happening.
I agree with your 5% chance of off-the-scale societal unrest in America before the election. But in amongst his countless flaws - easier to try and come up with one he doesn't have rather than list them - is ineptitude. Donald Trump is stupendously inept as a politician in office. He really is a toddler in the deep end. So even if half of the country is ablaze and the superwoke liberal mafia are conspiring with #metoo harridans and frightening looking black men to feed the flames it will not (imo) do him much good at the polls.0 -
That's true, but it won't all be one way traffic. Facebook are greatly gearing up their voter registration activities compared to 2016. Remember too that in Florida around 1 million people with spent convictions have now won the right to vote, despite the best efforts of the GOP to stop them.SouthamObserver said:
My big concern is GOP voter suppression. They will do it on a massive scale and very brazenly - and they control the courts where it matters.Philip_Thompson said:Fingers crossed you're right.
I'm not betting on this, I despise Trump too much to bet rationally on it and don't have faith in Americans not to re-elect him.0 -
Phoenix doesn't exactly pack people in, but it does have a lot of air conditioning...RobD said:.
I wonder if that's due to the distribution of people in that state? There are only two big cities.Nigelb said:
Perhaps not such a bad idea after all...Peter_the_Punter said:
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....Theuniondivvie said:
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.BluestBlue said:
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/12730473151216066610 -
It was shot of the PM's car crashingCasino_Royale said:like it somehow adds something to the discussion.
In fact, I either laugh at them or scroll straight past them.
Dismissing it due to your perception of the source seems counter intuitive on a betting site, but maybe that's just me0 -
The grey is kind of visual camouflage. But then it isn't optimised for normal operations. More a doesn't-particularly-shout-at-you colour.RobD said:
Seems like not, based on @Malmesbury's comment.Theuniondivvie said:
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.RobD said:
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?rpjs said:I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile) etc - ranges of over 100nm are claimed.
The UK response to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile) can engage at extremely long range0 -
-
Yes - even LBJ had to outperform all expectations in the fair parts of the contest to enable his stuffing of the ballot to carry him to victory in Texas first time around.kinabalu said:
Yes - I'm only relaxed (relatively) because I do not think it will be close.Nigelb said:
And a fair proportion of the governors' mansions.SouthamObserver said:
My big concern is GOP voter suppression. They will do it on a massive scale and very brazenly - and they control the courts where it matters.Philip_Thompson said:Fingers crossed you're right.
I'm not betting on this, I despise Trump too much to bet rationally on it and don't have faith in Americans not to re-elect him.
I agree; this has the potential to be the most corrupt election since LBJ was around...1 -
Yeah, but you still have the same density in bars, restaurants, and their huge malls. And you are right, A/C will be running all the time this time of year.Flatlander said:
Phoenix doesn't exactly pack people in, but it does have a lot of air conditioning...RobD said:.
I wonder if that's due to the distribution of people in that state? There are only two big cities.Nigelb said:
Perhaps not such a bad idea after all...Peter_the_Punter said:
Biden has always been a bit foot-in-mouth so that is probably priced in. You are right that it might matter more against a different opponent, one who was less gaff-prone himself. I seem to recall Trump promising to build a wall around Arizona.....Theuniondivvie said:
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.BluestBlue said:
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/12730473151216066610 -
Lacks a Tim Tams momentHYUFD said:0 -
Because the status that are showing the biggest increases don't correlate with the largest/longest protests but do correlate worth who started opening up first (which is nothing to do with GOP or Dem governors)MrEd said:
Why not really? Based on any evidence or because it takes away from the narrative of "Republican Governors bad, Democrat Governors good?"...Alistair said:
Not really.MrEd said:
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/12731024880491929600 -
On topic, one effect of the coronavirus will be to turboboost inequality.
Those at the bottom have been exposed to the biggest risks, largest increases in workloads and borne the greatest job insecurity. Their kids are also likely to suffer the worst from closed education, and it could take years to make that gap up again. If not longer.
The professional middle classes, by contrast, have been able to work from home, save money and continue to get decent schooling privately or by tuition. Plus greater exercise and mental health.
If you think the long term political effects of this are obvious - yet alone the social ones - think again.
It could play out in all sorts of ways.4 -
-
Not seen the video of the US rozzer, but weren't a couple of US police harmed (only saw the headline, unsure if it was an attack or poison) when they ordered fast food?0
-
That is true on headline numbers but your argument misses an important point. In all those 3 states, the number of 3rd party votes shot up - up 180K in PA, up 200K in MI and up 150K in WI. It is likely that the majority of those (given the nature of the parties) were Republicans who wouldn't want Trump. So what is more likely to have happened is a case of Democrat voters replacing Republican voters who went for 3rd party candidates with the net balance for the Republicans being zero. The actual results would fit that hypothesis.Alistair said:
You're making the mistake of looking at national vote figures when then thing that matters is state by state.MrEd said:Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvannia Dem absolute vote was down. She lost the Dems votes where it mattered. And in all those states Trump put on a tiny number of additional votes over Romney (or in the case of Wisconsin actually got less votes) so it was not a case of Dem to GOP switching.0 -
fake newsMorris_Dancer said:Not seen the video of the US rozzer, but weren't a couple of US police harmed (only saw the headline, unsure if it was an attack or poison) when they ordered fast food?
https://twitter.com/juliareinstein/status/12729409390871347200 -
"Shruti Advani" is Sean's newest moniker. I'm 90% certain on that one.HYUFD said:4 -
Isn't Robert arguing the opposite: i.e. that Trump under 200 ECVs might be a good buy?Casino_Royale said:Very good article.
This is why I sold Trump at under 200 ECVs at average odds of 8/3 the day before yesterday on PaddyPower.0 -
I think they made the same bet, that is a bet on a fixed odds market but a sell on a spread bet.rkrkrk said:
Isn't Robert arguing the opposite: i.e. that Trump under 200 ECVs might be a good buy?Casino_Royale said:Very good article.
This is why I sold Trump at under 200 ECVs at average odds of 8/3 the day before yesterday on PaddyPower.0 -
His betting judgement on Rubio was appalling but...Alistair said:The real question when it comes to American elections is "has Cromwell come back under and alt-account and what is his opinion?"
Cromwell said:
Any one who bets on Trump winning the nomination has a crude and simplistic grasp of American politics ; furthermore , they deserve to lose their money
Trump is a ''reality TV star '' who has descended into malignant narcissism and megalomania ..he's Dr Strangelove or a cartoonish James bond villain ; he's not a demagogue , but a comedic parody of a demagogue ...TRUMPOLINI I presume ?
There are simply not that many gormless voters in the GOP ; Trump is polling lower than Bernie Sanders but only looks like a winner because the opposition have not unified ...he probably will win New Hampshire but his victories can only last until the establishment unifies
Trump is a venal opportunist who loves running for president but would be horrified if the presidency were actually forced upon him
Trump's supporters are gormless beyond belief ; if he chewed the head off a puppy on live TV they would applaud him for making the world more safer for cats !
Weirdly predicted Biden's sweep to victory in the Dem race of 2020. Just 4 years too early with his logic.0 -
Toms said:
Yep. The aura far exceeds the musicianship. And, Trump seems to have an aura for his nuts.kinabalu said:
The most famous 'one hit wonder' of all time? Certainly one of them.Toms said:It's just common sense, but we're dealing with people here.
Anyway here's "Something in the Air" by Thunderclap Newman. Ah, my youth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZoJ01FpD8
- Trump has an "aura" alright. A very strong one. It will take more than Cillit Bang 0 -
But the geographical distribution of those spikes doesn't really correlate with the locations of the protests, does it?MrEd said:
NYC is very much out on a limb here and the suggestions have been because it was the worst hit and so is a level of immunity built in already. That wouldn't be the case elsewhere where there have been demonstrations.rpjs said:
Yet we're not spiking in NYS.MrEd said:
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1273102488049192960
You would also expect thousands of people gathered closely together, shouting, screaming etc to be a far more effective transmitter of the virus than shops being opened and people walking in one at a time.
If the demonstrations haven't caused these spikes, it is a mighty fine coincidence these spikes are happening now given the timing of the demonstrations...0 -
A snazzy paint job does however make it more obvious which plane the missiles should be pointed at.Malmesbury said:
The grey is kind of visual camouflage. But then it isn't optimised for normal operations. More a doesn't-particularly-shout-at-you colour.RobD said:
Seems like not, based on @Malmesbury's comment.Theuniondivvie said:
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.RobD said:
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?rpjs said:I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile) etc - ranges of over 100nm are claimed.
The UK response to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile) can engage at extremely long range0 -
Mr. xP, ah, I hadn't heard that. On the other hand, if someone hears and believes fake news it can still influence their perspective so it could still be related to the video of the lady police officer.0
-
-
Why in US states and not London?Scott_xP said:0 -
I'm sure the current situation is good for Rubio.Theuniondivvie said:
It's a conundrum..Alistair said:The real question when it comes to American elections is "has Cromwell come back under and alt-account and what is his opinion?"
0 -
.
Not really.MrEd said:
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1273102488049192960
If there's any spike from the demonstrations (quite possible), I'd expect it to show up in the figures in a week or so. This is about the earlier reopening (as some of the recent case histories from contact tracing demonstrate).0 -
The point is that if the tanker is within 100nm of Evul Ruskies, they will be targeting it.Selebian said:
A snazzy paint job does however make it more obvious which plane the missiles should be pointed at.Malmesbury said:
The grey is kind of visual camouflage. But then it isn't optimised for normal operations. More a doesn't-particularly-shout-at-you colour.RobD said:
Seems like not, based on @Malmesbury's comment.Theuniondivvie said:
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.RobD said:
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?rpjs said:I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile) etc - ranges of over 100nm are claimed.
The UK response to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile) can engage at extremely long range
They will be shooting at blips on the screen, Visual recognition is pretty much irrelevant.1 -
Trump's campaign is screwing up, IMO, by running a campaign based on Biden's supposed mental frailty. It inevitably sets the bar for Biden in the debates very low, and Biden proved himself quite effective in the later debates among small numbers.Theuniondivvie said:
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.BluestBlue said:
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
By contrast, Trump hasn't faced a debate format for four years and has grown even more egotistical, impatient and rude in the interim. Not to mention Trump's own mental and physical decline since 2016.1 -
To a degree, Georgia is around the same, Oregon is rising sharply.Alistair said:
Because the status that are showing the biggest increases don't correlate with the largest/longest protests but do correlate worth who started opening up first (which is nothing to do with GOP or Dem governors)MrEd said:
Why not really? Based on any evidence or because it takes away from the narrative of "Republican Governors bad, Democrat Governors good?"...Alistair said:
Not really.MrEd said:
The alternative argument is that many states appear to be having spikes right in the sweet spot of what you would expect if you had a disease with a 14 day incubation period and a series of nationwide demonstrations in major towns and cities that started the end of May......Nigelb said:
If it gets bad in Texas, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to avoid blame.OllyT said:When Covid-19 hit the US I thought Trump might get away with shifting a significant amount of blame onto Democratic Governors in states like New York which were hardest hit early on.
Looking at the stats now the scary increases in infections are in the south and South West and in states like Florida where gung-ho GOP governers downplayed the problem, opened up early etc etc.
From anyone with better first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the states I would be interested to know whether recent upsurge in cases has back-fired on the anti-lockdowners and "it's all a hoax" brigade. We don't seem to hear much of them lately
Also I'd be interested to know if the daily death rates are widely being accepted as they seem very low in many states given what we know from elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/12731024880491929600 -
Biden does seem to have woken up. Maybe he is just poor at generalised political blather - issue are his thing?david_herdson said:
Trump's campaign is screwing up, IMO, by running a campaign based on Biden's supposed mental frailty. It inevitably sets the bar for Biden in the debates very low, and Biden proved himself quite effective in the later debates among small numbers.Theuniondivvie said:
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.BluestBlue said:
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
By contrast, Trump hasn't faced a debate format for four years and has grown even more egotistical, impatient and rude in the interim. Not to mention Trump's own mental and physical decline since 2016.0 -
May be related to thisrottenborough said:Why in US states and not London?
https://twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu/status/1273063977648623617
Suggest they never really had it under control0 -
He's no shill.OllyT said:BluestBlue said:
and the more Scott tweets the more he winds up you and Brom and the other couple of Johnson shills..
Doing it for love...0 -
They'll be firing well before they can see the plane.Selebian said:
A snazzy paint job does however make it more obvious which plane the missiles should be pointed at.Malmesbury said:
The grey is kind of visual camouflage. But then it isn't optimised for normal operations. More a doesn't-particularly-shout-at-you colour.RobD said:
Seems like not, based on @Malmesbury's comment.Theuniondivvie said:
Both I'd imagine, though probably of limited utility on a lump like the Voyager.RobD said:
Isn't the grey just for visual camouflage?rpjs said:I thought the reason Boris Force One is currently grey is because its primary rôle is as a tanker and so needs to be as radar un-reflective as possible for survivability in combat. The re-paint means that in the event of Vladimir Vladimirovitch deciding to make a dash for the Baltic, the RAF will be down one tanker as either it'll be a sitting duck or they won't dare to deploy it anyway.
Mind you, I'm no expert. I'd be interested in @Dura_Ace's opinion.
If anyone gets close enough to your tankers that visual camouflage is an issue, then you are probably stuffed anyway - no manoeuvrability, not much defence capability.
The Soviet/Russian response to the heavy reliance in NATO operations on tankers and AEW aircraft was (and is) to build ultra-long range air-air missiles for attacking them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-37_(missile) etc - ranges of over 100nm are claimed.
The UK response to that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile) can engage at extremely long range0 -
You can never write off a runner in a 2 horse race for the simple reason that the other one might fall.Casino_Royale said:
This is an important warning.MrEd said:Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%.
In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
We Brits aren’t quite as good at US politics as we think we are. And it’s worth noting there’s a long time to go and Trump isn’t down and out yet.
But 2.44 to lay (Trump) is a price I would put no-one off. It looks skinny in the extreme based on the weight of the evidence in the public domain.
There could be - in fact I strongly sense there is - a touch of the same thing going on here that distorted many people's assessment of our Dec 12th. The memory of a shock last time causing a serious overstatement of the chances of a shock in the same direction happening again.0 -
Who do you want to win @Casino_Royale and @MrEd ?Casino_Royale said:
This is an important warning.MrEd said:Ok, I posted a header saying Trump should win so here are my counter-arguments to Robert's well-argued piece.
1. "Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016." Not necessarily true. Clinton's actual number of votes was virtually the same as Obama in 2012 (65.9m). Yes, she got a lower % of the vote than Obama and, in the African-American population, probably less absolute numbers but she didn't "lose" votes. Also remember Clinton probably got some sort of a boost from being the first potential female President. Biden doesn't have that;
2. Trump probably has a reserve in terms of the 2016 3rd party votes. You look at the 2016 election, 7.6m more people voted than 2012. However, Trump only picked up 2m of those compared with Romney (63m vs 60.9m). Most of the extra went to 3rd party candidates who picked up 7.8m votes in 2016 vs 2.2m in 2012. Most of that 3rd party vote went to parties that you could see as boltholes for Republicans who didn't like Trump - the Libertarians and McMullin together picked up 3.8% of the vote in 2016 vs the Libertarians 1% in 2012. The Greens only came up marginally to 1.1%.
In states like NV, AZ, CO, VA etc, the shares of Libertarian / McMullin are enough to solidify Trump's position and / or swing (or nearly swing) the states from Dem to Rep. Sure, some Republicans will hate Trump and not vote for him and some may even vote Biden. But there is going to be at least some of that 3.8% that will return home, especially given what is at stake;
3. What gets forgotten about Obama's victory in 2012 is that (a) it wasn't that much wider in terms of victory than Trump's - if c. 245,000 voters had switched sides from Obama to Romney, the latter would have been President (FL, OH, NH, NV, VA) and (b) at the time, Obama's GOTV campaign was hailed as an extraordinary achievement against what many were banking against an Romney victory;
4. I get Robert's points about the polls showing waning confidence in Trump and many on here saying that the 2016 polls actually weren't that far out but there is a reason why Trump was 6/1 on the day and Clinton didn't have a concession scheme and that was because most people expected Clinton to win based on their readings (note not margin) of the polls. My point is that, if you look at what is happening on the ground (actual results, seeming enthusiasm for Trump in terms of those who turn up to his rallies and stick flags in their gardens, the confidence of Republican officials etc), it doesn't feel like a candidate that is losing.
5. Background data and what is important favour Trump. There have been some signs Trump has been picking up younger Black and Hispanic voters (https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article242358621.html) and, while that may change with Black voters with BLM (though I have my doubts given some of the comments I've heard), it is not sure why it should with Hispanic voters who don't count themselves as Black.
We Brits aren’t quite as good at US politics as we think we are. And it’s worth noting there’s a long time to go and Trump isn’t down and out yet.0 -
https://twitter.com/NikiBlasina/status/1273260307167789058matthiasfromhamburg said:"Shruti Advani" is Sean's newest moniker. I'm 90% certain on that one.
0 -
Trump/Biden to be respective nominees (settled after convention) is 1.09.
That's a decent return for 2 months.0 -
How many debates do you think there will be. I'm going to go with 1.david_herdson said:
Trump's campaign is screwing up, IMO, by running a campaign based on Biden's supposed mental frailty. It inevitably sets the bar for Biden in the debates very low, and Biden proved himself quite effective in the later debates among small numbers.Theuniondivvie said:
Ironically that'd be a more worrying scenario against any other opponent than Trump. They're going to be such a bin fire in any case, short of Sleepy Joe stripping off he'll *probably* be ok. If Biden puts in solidly mediocre performances, we may be in Dem landslide territory.BluestBlue said:
What we're left with are wild cards - let's say Biden implodes during the debates and comes across as severely mentally-impaired. What then? The voters would face an awful dilemma.
By contrast, Trump hasn't faced a debate format for four years and has grown even more egotistical, impatient and rude in the interim. Not to mention Trump's own mental and physical decline since 2016.0 -
Still too early to be sure of a Biden win IMHO. Shy Trump Voters are going to be a big thing I think.
Oh well, at least football is back to distract (some of) us.1 -
.
Absolutely spot on, with the exception of There are simply not that many gormless voters in the GOP.Pulpstar said:
His betting judgement on Rubio was appalling but...Alistair said:The real question when it comes to American elections is "has Cromwell come back under and alt-account and what is his opinion?"
Cromwell said:
Any one who bets on Trump winning the nomination has a crude and simplistic grasp of American politics ; furthermore , they deserve to lose their money
Trump is a ''reality TV star '' who has descended into malignant narcissism and megalomania ..he's Dr Strangelove or a cartoonish James bond villain ; he's not a demagogue , but a comedic parody of a demagogue ...TRUMPOLINI I presume ?
There are simply not that many gormless voters in the GOP ; Trump is polling lower than Bernie Sanders but only looks like a winner because the opposition have not unified ...he probably will win New Hampshire but his victories can only last until the establishment unifies
Trump is a venal opportunist who loves running for president but would be horrified if the presidency were actually forced upon him
Trump's supporters are gormless beyond belief ; if he chewed the head off a puppy on live TV they would applaud him for making the world more safer for cats !
Weirdly predicted Biden's sweep to victory in the Dem race of 2020. Just 4 years too early with his logic.0 -
You posted “somebody’s left leg” with only two hundred followers retweeted by a Brexit ‘resister’ fanatic this morning, on the basis the former was some sort of Aussie journalist.Scott_xP said:
It was shot of the PM's car crashingCasino_Royale said:like it somehow adds something to the discussion.
In fact, I either laugh at them or scroll straight past them.
Dismissing it due to your perception of the source seems counter intuitive on a betting site, but maybe that's just me
You’re really scraping the barrel.0 -
0
-
@Casino_Royale
CR on the last thread I made suggestion if you are lucky enough for your salary to top the £100K re the 60% effective tax. Don't know whether you saw it or not. Hope it helps. It is an easy solution to a nice problem.0 -
I have just read Robert's excellent header and am surprised – not so much by the findings, although they are interesting.
But by Robert's conclusion.
He is on record on here saying that the riots pretty much guarantee Trump's reelection.
@rcs1000 what has caused you to abandon that view?0 -
Robert, welcome to the wave election club. Biden 412 EC votes. Dems hold House, take the Senate.0
