politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020: We need a market on who will President on January 21st

What on earth has he had done to himself. It looks like someone has drawn a face on a tick.

On topic I just can’t see this. Trump is mad enough but too many he would need to pull off such a thing have too much to lose. Look how Republicans dismissed his proposal that the election be postponed out of hand.

Lock him up!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lock him up!

Surely you would be in favour of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice_for_the_trial_of_Charles_I

Pelosi becomes the actual president I believe if Trump refuses to budge. If he's lost, he's not president on Jan 21st.
Betfair will have settled on Biden by this point as he'll be projected president via ECV.

Malmesbury said:

Don't see it.

There is no power to cancel an election in the Constitution.

He can talk about it all he likes - but there is nothing that even the most partisan can build a legal argument on.

He can say "I am the President" - but if the election goes against him, he automatically ceases to become President in January.

Presidential Emergency Powers?

Taking control of the internet, military boots on the streets. The conditions for voting Biden could be less than optimal.

A strongman is only strong whilst winning.
Lose and power will drain quickly. Especially if he loses both Houses.
Under such a scenario Republicans will give his barmy ideas a wide berth.
Problem is if it is disputed.

Malmesbury said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Lock him up!

Surely you would be in favour of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice_for_the_trial_of_Charles_I

I am.

rottenborough said:

FPT: Telegraph seem to be using the local authority area data from PHE.

From the article:

The latest data from Public Health England shows the rate of infection is now above 40 per 100,000 people in Oldham, Bradford, Pendle and Trafford in the week to July 27 as cases continue to rise.

The rate in Calderdale has sprung up from 20.8 to 33.6 in the space of a week and from 13.9 to 25.9 in Manchester.

The headline was of course about the rural areas that only had four cases per 10,000.

DavidL said:

On topic I just can’t see this. Trump is mad enough but too many he would need to pull off such a thing have too much to lose. Look how Republicans dismissed his proposal that the election be postponed out of hand.

Yeah the Mitch McConnells of this world and heads of the Air Force, Navy, Army and so on won't consider him Commander in Chief on the 21st if he's lost.

BluestBlue said:

The 20th Amendment to the Constitution has something to say about this:

Section 1.

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Yeah, without a constitutional amendment it is hard to see him going beyond that date if he isn't voted in by the electoral college.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sounds like fowl play.

Man pleads guilty to having sex with chickens.

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18620366.man-pleads-guilty-sex-chickens/

Did he have a big cock?

dixiedean said:

A strongman is only strong whilst winning.
Lose and power will drain quickly. Especially if he loses both Houses.
Under such a scenario Republicans will give his barmy ideas a wide berth.
Problem is if it is disputed.

He's got the right to dispute the result, even take it to SCOTUS should he wish as Gore (Or was it Bush ?) did in 2000. It'll be settled by the 20th though. And that result is final.

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

On topic I just can’t see this. Trump is mad enough but too many he would need to pull off such a thing have too much to lose. Look how Republicans dismissed his proposal that the election be postponed out of hand.

Yeah the Mitch McConnells of this world and heads of the Air Force, Navy, Army and so on won't consider him Commander in Chief on the 21st if he's lost.

You sure about that? IIRC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs joined Trump on his recent controversial walk to church.

Something he now regrets.

Pulpstar said:

dixiedean said:

A strongman is only strong whilst winning.
Lose and power will drain quickly. Especially if he loses both Houses.
Under such a scenario Republicans will give his barmy ideas a wide berth.
Problem is if it is disputed.

He's got the right to dispute the result, even take it to SCOTUS should he wish as Gore (Or was it Bush ?) did in 2000. It'll be settled by the 20th though. And that result is final.

Gore.

But in that case, because there were problems the SCOTUS agree to hear the case.

If Trump is just trying to drag things out after losing every state bar Montana, they will tell him to do one.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

FPT it took me a moment to work out who this "Catharine Hoey" getting a peerage was...

Getting a WHAT?

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

On topic I just can’t see this. Trump is mad enough but too many he would need to pull off such a thing have too much to lose. Look how Republicans dismissed his proposal that the election be postponed out of hand.

The law and order groups - the police, the army, the CIA, the FBI - simply wouldn't obey him. Again, remember their oaths are to uphold the law of the United States, the most important of those laws being the Constitution.

America is a troubled democracy, but it's not gone that far.

Part of me is almost hoping he does try this, so he can be arrested and quietly locked away for the rest of his natural span where he can do no more trouble.

Indeed. It’s not 3rd January we need to worry about, it’s the election in November. The voter suppression techniques that may be attempted in response to the virus are a much greater risk.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

On topic I just can’t see this. Trump is mad enough but too many he would need to pull off such a thing have too much to lose. Look how Republicans dismissed his proposal that the election be postponed out of hand.

Yeah the Mitch McConnells of this world and heads of the Air Force, Navy, Army and so on won't consider him Commander in Chief on the 21st if he's lost.

You sure about that? IIRC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs joined Trump on his recent controversial walk to church.

Something he now regrets.

The public expression of that regret tells a tale, just by itself.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

My view is that at soon as he loses, virtually the entire Republican establishment will move rapidly to distance themselves from him. What is the point of Trump if he's not even a winner?

The power of pardons?

For a few of the immediate henchmen, yes. But they'll be outcasts too.

ydoethur said:

Pulpstar said:

dixiedean said:

A strongman is only strong whilst winning.
Lose and power will drain quickly. Especially if he loses both Houses.
Under such a scenario Republicans will give his barmy ideas a wide berth.
Problem is if it is disputed.

He's got the right to dispute the result, even take it to SCOTUS should he wish as Gore (Or was it Bush ?) did in 2000. It'll be settled by the 20th though. And that result is final.

Gore.

But in that case, because there were problems the SCOTUS agree to hear the case.

If Trump is just trying to drag things out after losing every state bar Montana, they will tell him to do one.

But what happens if Biden hasnt realised he's won ?

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

On topic I just can’t see this. Trump is mad enough but too many he would need to pull off such a thing have too much to lose. Look how Republicans dismissed his proposal that the election be postponed out of hand.

Yeah the Mitch McConnells of this world and heads of the Air Force, Navy, Army and so on won't consider him Commander in Chief on the 21st if he's lost.

You sure about that? IIRC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs joined Trump on his recent controversial walk to church.

Something he now regrets.

Trump is still Commander in Chief right now though, if he ordered a pre-emptive strike on Pyongyang, the military would be expected to follow through with it. If he loses the election though, noones going to follow his orders.

Isn't there something about legitimate orders?

Are we looking at the equivalent of the Curragh Mutiny, which changed the Governments policy. Allegedly, anyway.

I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

DavidL said:

On topic I just can’t see this. Trump is mad enough but too many he would need to pull off such a thing have too much to lose. Look how Republicans dismissed his proposal that the election be postponed out of hand.

Yeah the Mitch McConnells of this world and heads of the Air Force, Navy, Army and so on won't consider him Commander in Chief on the 21st if he's lost.

You sure about that? IIRC the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs joined Trump on his recent controversial walk to church.

Something he now regrets.

Trump is still Commander in Chief right now though, if he ordered a pre-emptive strike on Pyongyang, the military would be expected to follow through with it. If he loses the election though, noones going to follow his orders.

Isn't there something about legitimate orders?

Are we looking at the equivalent of the Curragh Mutiny, which changed the Governments policy. Allegedly, anyway.

Curragh was weird, because the officers concerned were asked what they would do if given a choice between marching on Belfast to restore order or resigning their commissions.

To which they replied, they would resign their commissions.

What if you are ordered to go to Belfast to restore order?

Ah, that's different, said the officers. Then we'd follow orders.

But because Seeley was the second most useless drunken twat in the cabinet, he only heard the first part and panicked.

geoffw said:

I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.

Why wonder, it isn't going to happen for Farage , and Corbyn would refuse one.

Fysics_Teacher said:

Ian Botham?

That's Lord Botham to you.

ydoethur said:

geoffw said:

I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.

Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?

K'nell Corbyn's not getting a peerage as well, is he?

DavidL said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

My view is that at soon as he loses, virtually the entire Republican establishment will move rapidly to distance themselves from him. What is the point of Trump if he's not even a winner?

The point of Trump is something that will keep historians gainfully employed for decades during which he will hopefully be seen to have been an increasingly odd aberration.

hes simply the touchstone for a reaction to globalism. If it wasnt Trump it would be someone else. The more curious question is why this reaction is coming from the right rather than the left. The left has given up on defending workers and jobs which has been its traditional raison detre

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sounds like fowl play.

Man pleads guilty to having sex with chickens.

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18620366.man-pleads-guilty-sex-chickens/

Could be nasty if they object.

Probably too scared though. You know what they are like.

Daniel Moylan (another contemporary of Philip & Theresa May) on the peerage list too. Fun that Frank Field. Kate Hoey, Ian Austin, Gisela Stuart and John Woodcock were not nominated by Corbyn!

Not going down this rabbit hole. The President on 21st January 2021 will be Joe Biden. Provided that Joe Biden still walks among us on that day.

Pulpstar said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

On topic I just can’t see this. Trump is mad enough but too many he would need to pull off such a thing have too much to lose. Look how Republicans dismissed his proposal that the election be postponed out of hand.

The law and order groups - the police, the army, the CIA, the FBI - simply wouldn't obey him. Again, remember their oaths are to uphold the law of the United States, the most important of those laws being the Constitution.

America is a troubled democracy, but it's not gone that far.

Part of me is almost hoping he does try this, so he can be arrested and quietly locked away for the rest of his natural span where he can do no more trouble.

Indeed. It’s not 3rd January we need to worry about, it’s the election in November. The voter suppression techniques that may be attempted in response to the virus are a much greater risk.

Yes, that makes sense. He's quite capable of trying to rig the election.

But even dictators usually give up when they've lost elections (especially elections they've rigged). Mugabe was a dazzling exception but does anyone think even Maduro or Putin would survive an election defeat? Apart from anything else, they would look like losers and their supporters would run like rabbits to whoever could protect them.

So in America, with independent courts and a separate elected assembly, plus a military with a strong commitment to upholding the Constitution, it just isn't going to happen.

The USA has particularly strong safeguards against dictatorship I think.
It's a two party system where neither party ever gets particularly weak - certainly at the moment both parties are in reasonable health; it's enshrined in the constitution (Which is taken very very seriously by those that matter) that noone can be president for more than 8 years. The Supreme Court and both houses are independent of the President - their SC can't be undone by an act of parliament as ours could potentially be and their elections have a history of being utterly invioble even when one could argue they don't need to take place as there is a pandemic or world war (late twenties, early 40s) on.

It'd be easier to pull off in this country quite frankly.

Yes, there are very few controls on Prime Ministers. They have extraordinary prerogative power and very few actual restraints. One key difference I suppose is that they can be instantly removed, but they only have to prorogue parliament and even that power vanishes.

One minor quibble - under the Constitution it's 10 years maximum, not eight years.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1289217784711221248?s=09

It's fun listening to interviewers going out in search of enraged voters in Vox Pops, finding most people are supportive of the government's action. Another confirmation that Twitter ≠ The Real World

squareroot2 said:

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sounds like fowl play.

Man pleads guilty to having sex with chickens.

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18620366.man-pleads-guilty-sex-chickens/

Could be nasty if they object.

Probably too scared though. You know what they are like.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Sounds like fowl play.

Man pleads guilty to having sex with chickens.

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/18620366.man-pleads-guilty-sex-chickens/

Pray humour me..., where do you find these articles? Is your search engine set to find man, sex, chickens?

Did you not see his user name? Why do you think those eagles are screaming?

ydoethur said:

geoffw said:

I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.

Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?

Or perhaps the Unnatural History Museum ?

CarlottaVance said:

Daniel Moylan (another contemporary of Philip & Theresa May) on the peerage list too. Fun that Frank Field. Kate Hoey, Ian Austin, Gisela Stuart and John Woodcock were not nominated by Corbyn!

Pretty good list all in all. Charles Moore is a bonus.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1289153840718127105

A little dig in there.....

https://twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1289218776882454528?s=20

RobD said:

ydoethur said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

geoffw said:

I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.

Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?

He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?

The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?

Probably says more about those within Westminster than without.

It was the ones without Westminster that made sure he never got there.

"Big Tech is suppressing science
Social-media platforms are cracking down on anyone who challenges the Covid narrative.
Liam Deacon"

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/30/big-tech-is-suppressing-science/

ydoethur said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

geoffw said:

I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.

Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?

He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?

The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?

So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.

The good news is that this really does not seem the most difficult virus to develop an effective vaccine against. Here's yet another one, along with clear evidence of neutralising antibodies (in mice).

Replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus vaccine vector protects against SARS-CoV-2-mediated pathogenesis in mice
https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(20)30421-2
Previously, we developed a replication-competent vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) expressing a modified form of the SARS-CoV-2 spike gene in place of the native glycoprotein gene (VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2). Here, we show that vaccination with VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2 generates neutralizing immune responses and protects mice from SARS-CoV-2. Immunization of mice with VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2 elicits high antibody titers that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 and target the receptor binding domain that engages human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 (ACE2). Upon challenge with a human isolate of SARS-CoV-2, mice expressing human ACE2 and immunized with VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2 show profoundly reduced viral infection and inflammation in the lung, indicating protection against pneumonia. Passive transfer of sera from VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2-immunized animals also protects naïve mice from SARS-CoV-2 challenge. These data support development of VSV-eGFP-SARS-CoV-2 as an attenuated, replication-competent vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.

Mr May has been knighted.

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

geoffw said:

I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.

Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?

He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?

The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?

So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.

He believes he did.

Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.

As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.

Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.

So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.

England Case data - absolute -

Richard_Tyndall said:

algarkirk said:

CarlottaVance said:

Daniel Moylan (another contemporary of Philip & Theresa May) on the peerage list too. Fun that Frank Field. Kate Hoey, Ian Austin, Gisela Stuart and John Woodcock were not nominated by Corbyn!

Pretty good list all in all. Charles Moore is a bonus.

Claire Fox is an interesting choice.

Also who isn't there....I suspect Sir Alan Duncan wouldn't have said no, but then he's on the record for calling Johnson a c*nt......

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

geoffw said:

I wonder if Nigel F was offered a peerage. He would have fitted nicely with the nominations for non-affiliated Peerages.

Surely he belongs in the Natural History Museum with Jeremy Corbyn rather than the House of Lords?

He is arguably the most effective politician of the last 30 years. If that doesn't merit a peerage what does?

The most effective politician of the last 30 years, who has never won a seat at Westminster?

So what? He achieved, via political campaigning, a seismic change in British politics against just about everyone's expectations.

He believes he did.

Just as Cummings believed that he, and he alone, thwarted John Prescott's plan for a NE Assembly.

As always, it is more complicated than that. Many factors combined to take us out of the EU of which he was one part, but not the only or even the most important part.

Ultimately, looked at with a cold eye he is a serial party hopper and egoist who campaigned on one issue and on that one issue won two minor elections with low turnouts that, rightly or wrongly, nobody took seriously. He has no friends, no influence and now he's quarelled with Banks and left the European PArliament gravy train, no money.

So no, he doesn't deserve a place in the Lords and even if he did he's so unpopular with the actual powerbrokers nobody would nominate him for one, even without the rumours swirling of dubious foreign business activities.

Sorry that's deluded. If there was one person who was responsible for Brexit it was Nigel Farage.

There wasn't.

That was the point.