politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2020 betting and polling continue to look good for Biden
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2020 betting and polling continue to look good for Biden
Above is the latest betting chart on the current race for the White House which has seen a big decline in the chances of a Trump victory with a corresponding increase in Joe Biden’s position
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Biden. the comeback kid
He noticed that some competitors were bidding impossibly low - literally you couldn't make it work while paying legal wages. A quick scout of the sites revealed what was going on - labouring "gangs" of non-english speakers being exploited by their fellow countrymen*. Paid less than minimum wage, treated like dirt etc.
He tried reporting this - was told by various officials that ignoring what was going on was policy. This happened under both Labour and Conservative governments
Another angle - these companies were doing domestic work for cash. Big bricks of cash. It would have been trivial to connect anyone whose property had planning permission, and withdrew large sums of cash on every Friday and sending in the tax people.....
*This sadly is familiar pattern for immigrants around the world. The first stage in their exploration is often people from their own cultural background.
Did Johnson lie to the Commons?
....FDR drew upon grand rhetoric to sell grand ideas; Boris talks big to retail small change. The idea of reform seems to energise him but not enough to make the necessary financial outlay. He is a liberal in his head but still a conservative in his pocketbook.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/boris-s-new-deal-is-nothing-of-the-sort
In seriousness, I think the chances are more than expect. As RCS pointed out, Trump's satisfaction ratings are holding up relatively well there. Moreover, there has been a lot of opposition to the Governor's statements on guns and abortion and that has really fired up a lot of opposition particularly in rural areas. I pointed out the flip of a historically Democratic city council to Republicans and, while only a city council, it may highlight Republican turnout may be more motivated.
Nevada is the other state I would keep an eye on - small Clinton majority last time, signs Biden is polling worse amongst Latinos and the importance of a reopening of the economy of Las Vegas.
Re Arizona, slightly surprised re the Gravis poll, especially with McNally ahead. However, I will say it again, if you look at the Democrat share of the vote in AZ for the Presidential election, it has been remarkably stable at 44%-45% from 2000 to 2016 despite all the talk of demographic changes helping the Dems. What hit Trump's majority last time was a large peeling off of Republican votes to the Libertarians / McMullin, which may not happen this time.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278480083423039488?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278443320700796934?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1278392207951659021?s=19
That our politicians remain so keen on our current system, where most of them have jobs for life mostly immune from electoral pressure, tells us all we need to know.
Where a government loses legitimacy is where it uses force or the fear of force to retain power.
You say “I don’t like the rules therefore the government is not legitimate” which implies that determining legitimacy is your prerogative. I respectfully disagree.
In today's money Roosevelt spent £660 billion. We're in roundings of a percentage of that territory....
Roosevelt spent £660 billion when you add all of his spending up together. Not in a single day, not in a single speech.
Yesterday's speech was £5 billion but yesterday's speech was just one single element of what the govenrment is doing. How much has the government spent when it comes to furlough? That absolutely must be included when it comes to any comparisons with Roosevelt.
As someone once said "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."
I still prefer PR and variants to pure FPTP.
I'll believe it when I see it.
First step is getting Huawei out of 5G here.
Senior politicians are much safer in PR than in FPTP.
What we are seeing now is the manifestation of the actual projects themselves. I’m expecting an announcement like we had the other day every few weeks, as the projects come to fruition. The media won’t be able to portray them all as somehow bad news.
This isn't a UK-issue. It's a Rest of the World (pretty much) Vs China issue.
Leaders and nations have been asleep at the wheel. That needs to change.
Maybe I'm unconsciously impacted by the sci fi novel I read recently where a China vs everyone conflict ended with them accidentally destroying the solar system.
Voters who voted SPD are being represented by SPD MPs in the government, for the policies that they voted for.
Voters who voted CDU are being represented by CDU MPs in the government, for the policies that they voted for.
Voters who voted CSU are being represented by CSU MPs in the government, for the policies that they voted for.
Over 50% of those who voted are being represented in government.
On the eternal legitimacy/PR/FPTP discussion - we're never going to come to an agreement because both sides are arguing from different axioms, which seem incontrovertibly true to each of them.
It all comes down to what you think “democracy” should be or should mean. It’s simply “The rule by the people” – which is a concept that admits of broad interpretation. These tend to fall down into two types, though, which lead to the Consensual or Adversarial outcomes.
- If you follow the “adversarial” philosophy (majoritarian), the largest single group should get what they want – exact and complete. If they are the majority, all well and good. If they are merely the largest minority, then a majority can be artificially created, because whomever “wins” should get all of what they wanted, exact and complete, while those who “lose” should get nothing (there are even cases in majoritarian system when the largest plurality “loses” to a smaller plurality, who then get everything at the cost of the larger group). It concentrates power in one group. It is exclusive, competitive, and adversarial. They tend to lead to “with us or against us” and two tribes (fewer effective parties, fewer genuine choices for the voter and less representation of a full suite of public opinion.). They claim better Government effectiveness, at least in achieving their agendas without compromise. They tend to be associated with lower turnouts than proportional systems.
- If you follow the “consensual” philosophy (proportional), as many people as possible should get as much of what they want – with compromises. It aims at broad participation in government and broad agreement on policies. It shares and disperses power among multiple groups. It is inclusive, compromising, and consensual. (More parties, wider choice, and wider representation of public opinion). Greater satisfaction with their governments is reported among consensus systems and is supported by multiple studies. Surprisingly, proportional electoral systems appear to enhance perceived accountability. However, there is possibly slower policy responsiveness between elections due to the need to consult and co-ordinate among partners. Proportional and consensus systems also tend to have greater representation of women and minorities.
Majoritarian models include FPTP, AV, and Second Ballot systems.
Consensus models include the various forms of proportional representation (STV, AMS/MMP, Open and Closed List systems).
One significant difference is in the friction-to-decision process if the public is genuinely split widely in outlook. In a majoritarian system, a comparatively small plurality can simply take control and impose the “winning” policy stance on all regardless of how unrepresentative it may be. In a proportional system, it can lead to executive gridlock and paralysis. It is arguable as to which of these outcomes is worse; it is inarguable that neither is desirable.
Technically Johnson Sr has not broken Greek regulations as the ban is not on visitors from the UK, but on direct flights, according to this Greek story:
https://www.iefimerida.gr/kosmos/pateras-mporis-tzonson-irthe-ellada-koronoios
Travelling without insurance as a 79 year old is "brave".....
"If a wife tells her husband that he is shirking child care responsibilities and he responds by refusing to acknowledge that it’s even happening, he is gaslighting her."
You ask "what isn't clear about that explanation?"
You did X. No I didn't do X.
That is gaslighting?
The recent law (just passed) making arbitrary life imprisonment, at the whim of the state, in HK is a direct breach of the 1997 agreement.
We only need to look in the UK. In 2010 are you claiming that Liberal Democrat voters in 2010 voted to make David Cameron Prime Minister and to have Tuition Fees trebled?
Coalitions are a great excuse for party leaders to ignore their promises and ignore the electorate.
(Did you see my note about F1 bets on the previous thread? Make sure your bookie pays out at the podium ceremony, as there’s likely to be a whole bunch of technical regulation protests afterwards).
How much of that survives post-COVID economics, time will tell.
Wait a second...
It's been a real eye opener.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hchOYs_d_Bw
Johnson sr has pots of money, so not much of an issue. He can pay cash if needed.
Freedom of movement is rarely a problem for the rich.
I do have memories from long ago of a Betfair podium bet going awry (winner, then loser) and I think Ladbrokes (maybe Shadsy here? It was about a decade ago) saying they'd pay out based on the podium as it was.
Good coalition agreeements take weeks maybe months of hard negotiation from both sides.
The LDs had been hoping for dacades to be part of a coalition government, and when they finally got the chance the showed that they here hopelessly unprepared for it,
Party leaders have ignored their promises under all forms of government.
In time, they face the electorate again and the electorate pass their judgement on what they've done in the interim.
In 2015, the electorate passed their judgement on the Lib Dems. It wasn't very positive for them. And would have been a massive downswing on their fate under any system (just like the FDP in Germany, under PR, made too many bad choices, faced the electorate, and were ejected from Government and, for a while, from the Bundestag completely.
After posting, Chrome decided to go weird and I had to close the window. Both times came after posting here, so I'm wondering if it's either a Vanilla issue or a Vanilla+Chrome problem.
Anyone else had this happen?
At the moment, when you travel to an EU country you should have both:
- a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)
- travel insurance with healthcare cover
You can use an EHIC until the end of 2020.
An EHIC is not a replacement for travel insurance. Make sure you have both before you travel.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-residents-visiting-the-eueea-and-switzerland-healthcare
I know lockdown excludes medical appointments, but it certainly makes older patients with co morbidity very reluctant to come.
And I would have thought the Tory herd here on PB was very similar to a herd of lemmings. They are rushing the whole country to the edge of the cliff.
Under STV, of course, you can ensure individual politicians get kicked out as well.
The idea you can simply add all LD voters and all Tory voters together and by magic claim a majority voted for this agreement is nonsense. Two Liberal Democrat MPs (including Charles Kennedy himself) voted against the agreement. There would have been a great many Liberal Democrat voters thinking the same as Charles Kennedy.
Same too for the Tories.
You are presuming that he actually isn't shirking childcare responsibilities. I think the unspoken assumption underlying the example is that the shirking is in fact taking place. I took that as read.
What may be happening is that the husband doesn't know he has the childcare responsibilities, simply assuming that the kid will get looked after even if he does nothing about it and failing to acknowledge the burden that places on his wife. In which case he is not gaslighting her, just being a twat.
My wife and her partner furtively opened up their dental practice for the first time in months at the weekend so that they could treat each other's husband's teeth. It felt a bit like going dogging.
Each Government is a coalition. Because each of the Big Two is a coalition.
The views represented by the Big Two depend on the infighting within each of the Red and Blue coalitions - the Corbynite faction was supreme until recently in the Red coalition; it's now been pushed down by the technocratic faction.
We, the electorate, merely get offered whatever two choices the Big Two decide internally. Whatever flavour economically, socially, nationally/internationally, pragmatically/ideologically, morally/secularly, or whatever else - we don't get to vote for what we really want to be represented. Just what they decide to offer us. All or nothing. Take it or leave it.
And they'll claim total support for their entire platform as well, no matter how much or little really represents you and your vote.
If it takes months to reach an agreement you should spend those months reaching the agreement and then put that before the voters in an election.
This is why I never go to the dentist.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12342772
The politician has been fired resigned.
It is difficult to understand how anyone other than an idiot or cult follower could vote for Trump, yet he still has a huge base, even a majority possibly amongst men. I really would like to see an explanation for this.
In particular I would love to be a fly on the wall of the house of George and Kellyanne Conway.
But our system forces the large parties to reach some form of compromise and coalition and then offer that to the voters to be endorsed or rejected.
Other systems permit parties to say whatever they want and then permits them to junk that and enter government without the public having a say.
If there's to be a compromise, a coalition, I'd rather we know what that looks like before the election than after it.
I claim that a majority voted for that collection of politicians. Those politicians then (should) negotiate the best they can for those who voted for them. That is what democratic politics is about.
This has to change.
Under our system the negotiations to form a coalition, a manifesto took place before the election and the voters go into the election fully educated on what the various internal coalitions look like and choose the most popular one of those. That is what democratic politics is about.