On Betfair you can still place bets on Biden being next president – politicalbetting.com
On Betfair you can still place bets on Biden being next president – politicalbetting.com
Chart of Betfair market from Betdata.io – 7.50pm BST
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Blimey @rcs1000 I thought you would have got the joke! Unless I have missed a subtle joke in your reply?
And I wonder what kind of restrictions would be invented if you tried to put serious money in.
But markets like ECV handicaps, vote percentages, or (with bookmakers) multiples on states probably will take longer to settle because states are still counting votes, even without Trump's legal shenanigans.
Here’s the book you were asking about on the last thread re: why Americans are different
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chosen-People-shaped-England-America/dp/0340786574
Separately I don’t think you can just state the EC is “unfair” because it overweighted small states.
It is absolutely fair to states because it treats them all equally. You just think that another metric is more appropriate
(Soz if you didn't see it)
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/1325172217668272131?s=21
"And what exactly are those shared values?" will they rage? Nah, doubt that too
Do I detect a sore loser?
Notable, though, that three of those vice-Presidents (Truman, LBJ, Ford) took the top-job because their superior was not able to complete their term - so regardless of whether the vice-President was a useful enough politician to win an election in their own right.
With Biden being the oldest ever President that is a stronger than average possibility for vice-President elect Harris too.
Now all we need is a joke about WW2 naval battles.
Also - traditionally - the job of the Presidential candidate is to win the White House while the VP candidate is focused on supporting senatorial and house candidates. How did she do on that measure?
Edit: FWIW this is the perfect outcome in my view. Trump is gone, and the manner of his going will condemn him to irrelevance. The Republicans have done well enough in the house and senate to rein in the worst excesses of the nuttier democrats
Of course, everyone wants to claim some of the glory of an election winner, but I think this is mainly Trump's defeat. His second popular vote defeat in a row. A distinction he shares with Adlai Stevenson, at least.
The US needed a ‘hard cop’ on China, Nato and immigration but his crude populism makes conservatism hard to sell
Matthew Parris" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/lets-face-it-trump-got-many-things-right-bfvf5kk02
Your figures are still correct if you include Truman himself.
You might also have mentioned three incumbent or former Vice Presidents have made unsuccessful election bids (discounting Nixon in 1960) - Humphrey in 1968, Mondale in 1984 and Gore in 2000.
Trump's failure is because he revelled in chaos rather than competence.
Electoral College votes are supposed to scale with population. So, I think there's a good case to say that Wyoming has too many relative to Texas or California (or even Kansas or Utah).
California has 40,000,000 people with 55 EVs, so roughly 1 EV per 700,000.
Good night.
That sounds like a naval battle to me.
(I'm currently reading Ian Toll's Pacific Crucible, and it's excellent.)
I also think it might be worth a tenner on the Dems to take North Carolina at 8.00 (yes, really).
All of these bets are better than the Republicans winning Alaska at 1.02, which some people are still getting excited about flipping (it won't; I ditched this fantasy yesterday).
Someone in the last thread was decrying the Senate's composition, two from each State, as unfair. Fair or not, it reflects the entire purpose of the Senate! If it were to be more proportionate, you might as well just scrap it and have a unicameral system. A knock-on effect of either abandoning the Senate or reforming so its makeup almost always shadows the House of Representatives, is that change would come much easier. Generally this favours progressives over conservatives, of course, but wouldn't be costless for someone who generally dislikes conservatism, since it means progressive actions can be more easily overturned later, and you might not like the changes a more conservative administration would be empowered to pursue.
USA isn't alone in a deliberately non-proportional set-up. Here's an extract from the OSCE report on the 2009 Norwegian election:
The number of mandates per constituency is determined every eight years by the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, using a formula established in the Constitution (Article 57), which gives weight both to the population and to the geographic size of each county. The factor of county geographic size in mandate allocation is a historical consideration intended to balance the perceived uneven
distribution of power between rural and urban citizens in national politics. The result is that the country’s rural constituencies, which are significantly larger in geographic size than the urban constituencies, are allocated a greater number of seats than would be the case if based strictly on population.
The discrepancy is particularly notable in Finnmark County where there are 7,409 registered voters per mandate, while in Vestfold, there are 18,464 per mandate. The Finnmark quotient is a 50 per cent deviation from the average quotient in the country (14,954 votes per mandate). Four other counties have a deviation of approximately 20
per cent, and a total of seven counties deviate from the norm by more than 15 percent.
While some OSCE/ODIHR EAM interlocutors accepted this structural inequality of the vote based on a constitutional formula, others advocated for a stricter or strict equality of the vote noting that the historical rationale is no longer relevant and that the deviation is an infringement of the right to equal suffrage. The Council of Europe’s Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) recommends for equal suffrage that “the permissible departure from the norm should not be more than 10 per cent, and should certainly not exceed 15 per cent except in special circumstances (protection of a concentrated minority, sparsely populated administrative entity).”
Also, keep an eye on North Carolina - I haven`t written off my Dem bet quite yet. There are a lot of votes still out there.
Off to watch now.
The question therefore is why California doesn't have more EC delegates but based on Wyoming it would have 200 and I suspect the GOP would have some issues with that.
Like many of Trump's actions.
There was a sudden re-discovery of States Rights when opposing Trump's shit.
Yet previously, under Obama, States Rights were a terrible infringement on the rights of the Federal Government.....
Rather like Blair rediscovering the value of FPTP in 1997....
I could probably just about accept keeping the Senate composition as it is if the Presidential election were switched to be being elected by a plurality of voters.
What justification is there for giving voters in a small state additional weight in Presidential elections? The President ought to e elected on a straight forward one person one vote basis.
So, much will depend on the team around him. He should be a figurehead, delegating as much as possible, and saving himself for set-piece occasions. Who he appoints to key roles will matter immensely, because they will run government; he should be bringing on the next generation of Democrat leaders. I think he'll get this right. And despite what some think, I reckon Kamala is a very smart cookie.
Biden's function was to get rid of Trump - well done on that. What happens next will largely be up to others, I think.
But it's college football, not the count. AZU went into the last three minutes with a 13pt lead but gave away two touchdowns, two EPs and fumbled a return to let USC win 28-27. A van de Velde level choke.
Biden still by 20,514, unless anyone has newer info.