politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The US Presidential Election: David Herdson’s guide to anal

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

isam said:

I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets

Is that to win?

Yeah... Don't go mad I am just trying out a new little system... But West Ham have won at Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City and are 3/1 to win at Palace who don't traditionally have a good home record

Betting Post

Backed New Zealand, Australia and South Africa to all win by 10 points or more at 4.5, with Ladbrokes.

Interesting piece from Dan the Man in the Telegraph on what our negotiating stance should be
http://t.co/DUZSAKbwTA

Morris_Dancer said:

Betting Post

Backed New Zealand, Australia and South Africa to all win by 10 points or more at 4.5, with Ladbrokes.

Australia should beat Scotland. France historically beat New Zealand in World Cup quarter finals though and Wales will fancy their chances against South Africa. I have bets on them both

Mr. HYUFD, not convinced by France. Historically, England do well at World Cups.

Wales scraped a victory against England, which wasn't that impressive. South Africa have been a bit off but I think they stand a decent chance of the winning margin.

It wouldn't be a staggering result if France or Wales won, but I'd be a little surprised. If Scotland win, I'd be shocked [and, money aside, delighted].

Anyway, we shall soon see.

Mr. Dair, Hardman seems to be sound.

Edited extra bit: got to say I approve of the rugby, which appears specifically scheduled to avoid clashing with Homeland.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, not convinced by France. Historically, England do well at World Cups.

Wales scraped a victory against England, which wasn't that impressive. South Africa have been a bit off but I think they stand a decent chance of the winning margin.

It wouldn't be a staggering result if France or Wales won, but I'd be a little surprised. If Scotland win, I'd be shocked [and, money aside, delighted].

Anyway, we shall soon see.

France play best as underdogs with nothing to lose and New Zealand seem to be like rabbits in the headlights against France at this stage which was where the French beat them in 1999 and 2007. Remember too New Zealand's win over France in the 2011 final was not by much. The All Blacks are strong favourites but we shall see.

South Africa lost to Japan and are the weakest of the Southern Hemisphere three

David Herdson

Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):

Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?

Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?

Thank you

Did anyone get why that wasn't a wicket, when the DRS on the big screen showed he was out?

isam said:

I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets

Leicester to win ;-)

Trust in the tinkerman, he will beat Soton away and 5.1 on Betfair.

isam said:

nigel4england said:

isam said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

isam said:

I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets

Is that to win?

Yeah... Don't go mad I am just trying out a new little system... But West Ham have won at Arsenal, Liverpool and Man City and are 3/1 to win at Palace who don't traditionally have a good home record

Agree Sam, Everton and West Ham are too long.

I had a look at Division 1 and for the life of me I cannot understand why Bury are 1.95 draw no bet

Cool.. I also backed the draw in WBA vs Sunderland, and Leicester at Southampton

My mate does both teams to score betting and I thought YES in Spurs and Everton matches, NO in west brom

Big Sam has usually done well in his first game at a new club. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mackems get their first win.

kle4 said:

Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.

PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.

My other half was very unimpressed by Sadiq, and picked up on his habit of poking his tongue out of the corner of his mouth.

Not a vote winning performance.

I am slight surprised that no one has posted this yet, as it is very relevant (!). I guess @rcs1000 must still be on his flight...

https://xkcd.com/1122/

kle4 said:

Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.

PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.

Goldsmith is better looking than Boris but less charismatic and sharp. Khan is not charismatic but is ruthless

foxinsoxuk said:

isam said:

I never really look at match odds markets in football, but did this week and think Everton and West Ham look nice bets

Leicester to win ;-)

Trust in the tinkerman, he will beat Soton away and 5.1 on Betfair.

Yeah I've backed that

I did a lucky 15! Oldskool!

peterelectionfollowr said:

May I aska few questions on US elections please which I do follow but still need further guidance please.

1. Do both major parties now consider make up of votes in Electoral College fair or is it perhaps slightly biased to Democrats? Was last change to EC 2012?
2. Do Republicans still consider Precinct (constituency) boundaries favour Democrats for the General Election also in November 2016?
3.Approximately how many primaries are Winner Takes All. I know key one is California.
4. Does each state set its own rules for the state legislature and governors elections and timing or are they also in November of years with even number?

Thanking you

1. The EC allocations change according to the US census, though not directly due to the +2 each state receives. I don't know whether the parties consider it fair but there's no meaningful effort something that's Constitutionally defined. The winner-take-all aspect of virtually all states is probably less 'fair' but again, neither party in any state seems much inclined to change it.

2. I doubt it. The Republicans have done well out of the current congressional districts, winning a comfortable majority in the House in 2012 on fewer votes than the Democrats.

3. The best resource here is (IMO) The Green Papers. To be honest, I've not been through the schedules (the details differ between Dem and Rep), with enough thoroughness yet. I usually create a spreadsheet with the relevant details on but haven't got round to it yet. California will probably not be that key though. The race is usually over by the time it gets there and there'll probably only be one candidate standing by that point.

4. Yes, they set their own rules. Election day nearly always coincides with the November Tuesday rule, though there are some run-off elections held later, and not all states hold all elections in even-numbered years.

peterelectionfollowr said:

David Herdson

Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):

Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?

Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?

Thank you

There's always a push between the party organisations, which don't like the primaries and caucuses too early, and the states, some of which like to up their prominence by moving earlier in the schedule. As Iowa and NH jealously guard their 'first in the nation' role, that can - and has - pushed them earlier and earlier. I've not followed the process this time but presumably there's been less (or none) of that kind of queue-jumping this time round, allowing a later start.

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Watching HIGNFY, Sadiq Khan is a bit lacking in charisma, even when making a potentially funny quip. I assume Goldsmith will probably be on at some point, and we'll see if he's any better in that sense. Not that charisma is the be all and end all, but still, very cold performance.

PS _ I hope someone knows the answers to peterelectionfollowr's questions, as I have no the slightest idea and they seem pretty intriguing.

Goldsmith is better looking than Boris but less charismatic and sharp. Khan is not charismatic but is ruthless

London going for a dull mayor after the first four terms I guess. Unless they go crazy and elect Galloway I suppose.

Indeed a narrow win for Khan is my best bet helped by the fact London is probably the most pro Corbyn region in the country

HYUFD said:

peterelectionfollowr said:

David Herdson

Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):

Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?

Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?

Thank you

Iowa and NH were in January 2012

There was a possibility that Iowa would end up in 2011 when Michigan (I think?) was playing silly beggars (which would have meant that Iowa would have ended up with no delegates as a consequence!), but in the end some kind of sanity prevailed.

david_herdson said:

peterelectionfollowr said:

May I aska few questions on US elections please which I do follow but still need further guidance please.

1. Do both major parties now consider make up of votes in Electoral College fair or is it perhaps slightly biased to Democrats? Was last change to EC 2012?
2. Do Republicans still consider Precinct (constituency) boundaries favour Democrats for the General Election also in November 2016?
3.Approximately how many primaries are Winner Takes All. I know key one is California.
4. Does each state set its own rules for the state legislature and governors elections and timing or are they also in November of years with even number?

Thanking you

1. The EC allocations change according to the US census, though not directly due to the +2 each state receives. I don't know whether the parties consider it fair but there's no meaningful effort something that's Constitutionally defined. The winner-take-all aspect of virtually all states is probably less 'fair' but again, neither party in any state seems much inclined to change it.

2. I doubt it. The Republicans have done well out of the current congressional districts, winning a comfortable majority in the House in 2012 on fewer votes than the Democrats.

3. The best resource here is (IMO) The Green Papers. To be honest, I've not been through the schedules (the details differ between Dem and Rep), with enough thoroughness yet. I usually create a spreadsheet with the relevant details on but haven't got round to it yet. California will probably not be that key though. The race is usually over by the time it gets there and there'll probably only be one candidate standing by that point.

4. Yes, they set their own rules. Election day nearly always coincides with the November Tuesday rule, though there are some run-off elections held later, and not all states hold all elections in even-numbered years.

peterelectionfollowr said:

David Herdson

Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):

Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?

Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?

Thank you

There's always a push between the party organisations, which don't like the primaries and caucuses too early, and the states, some of which like to up their prominence by moving earlier in the schedule. As Iowa and NH jealously guard their 'first in the nation' role, that can - and has - pushed them earlier and earlier. I've not followed the process this time but presumably there's been less (or none) of that kind of queue-jumping this time round, allowing a later start.

GOP states holding primaries and caucuses pre March 2016 must award delegates by PR after by WTA or PR

david_herdson said:

peterelectionfollowr said:

May I aska few questions on US elections please which I do follow but still need further guidance please.

1. Do both major parties now consider make up of votes in Electoral College fair or is it perhaps slightly biased to Democrats? Was last change to EC 2012?
2. Do Republicans still consider Precinct (constituency) boundaries favour Democrats for the General Election also in November 2016?
3.Approximately how many primaries are Winner Takes All. I know key one is California.
4. Does each state set its own rules for the state legislature and governors elections and timing or are they also in November of years with even number?

Thanking you

1. The EC allocations change according to the US census, though not directly due to the +2 each state receives. I don't know whether the parties consider it fair but there's no meaningful effort something that's Constitutionally defined. The winner-take-all aspect of virtually all states is probably less 'fair' but again, neither party in any state seems much inclined to change it.

2. I doubt it. The Republicans have done well out of the current congressional districts, winning a comfortable majority in the House in 2012 on fewer votes than the Democrats.

3. The best resource here is (IMO) The Green Papers. To be honest, I've not been through the schedules (the details differ between Dem and Rep), with enough thoroughness yet. I usually create a spreadsheet with the relevant details on but haven't got round to it yet. California will probably not be that key though. The race is usually over by the time it gets there and there'll probably only be one candidate standing by that point.

4. Yes, they set their own rules. Election day nearly always coincides with the November Tuesday rule, though there are some run-off elections held later, and not all states hold all elections in even-numbered years.

peterelectionfollowr said:

David Herdson

Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):

Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?

Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?

Thank you

There's always a push between the party organisations, which don't like the primaries and caucuses too early, and the states, some of which like to up their prominence by moving earlier in the schedule. As Iowa and NH jealously guard their 'first in the nation' role, that can - and has - pushed them earlier and earlier. I've not followed the process this time but presumably there's been less (or none) of that kind of queue-jumping this time round, allowing a later start.

The GOP have said that no primaries or caucuses in 2016 can take place earlier than February

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

peterelectionfollowr said:

David Herdson

Just another question if I may please ( I posted at 9.04 below):

Do you know why first Caucus at Iowa and first Primary at New Hampshire are later this time round?

Surely Iowa was Dec 2011 and NH Jan 2012?

Thank you

Iowa and NH were in January 2012

There was a possibility that Iowa would end up in 2011 when Michigan (I think?) was playing silly beggars (which would have meant that Iowa would have ended up with no delegates as a consequence!), but in the end some kind of sanity prevailed.

Indeed

Thanks, David, for an excellent article. As someone who has been on this site for 3 (coming up 4) US election cycles now, Number 1 on the list is the key. I've seen far too much extrapolation of British models onto the US system. As you say, it is 51 elections, and swing is not the measure - comparison district by district to last elections' results is how it's measured here.

MTimT said:

Thanks, David, for an excellent article. As someone who has been on this site for 3 (coming up 4) US election cycles now, Number 1 on the list is the key. I've seen far too much extrapolation of British models onto the US system. As you say, it is 51 elections, and swing is not the measure - comparison district by district to last elections' results is how it's measured here.

Only one candidate in the last 100 years has won the popular vote for the US presidency and failed to win the electoral college too, Al Gore and had he won just 500 more votes in Florida, the equivalent to the majority in a UK council by election, he would have won that too

HYUFD said:

GOP states holding primaries and caucuses pre March 2016 must award delegates by PR after by WTA or PR

Not 'pre-March'. March 15 is the first date in the GOP race for winner takes all.

HYUFD said:

MTimT said:

Thanks, David, for an excellent article. As someone who has been on this site for 3 (coming up 4) US election cycles now, Number 1 on the list is the key. I've seen far too much extrapolation of British models onto the US system. As you say, it is 51 elections, and swing is not the measure - comparison district by district to last elections' results is how it's measured here.

Only one candidate in the last 100 years has won the popular vote for the US presidency and failed to win the electoral college too, Al Gore and had he won just 500 more votes in Florida, the equivalent to the majority in a UK council by election, he would have won that too

That's probably one example of history misleading. Until not long ago, there was a much more flexible electorate - the Electoral College landslides of 1964, 1972 and 1984 were on a scale almost inconceivable now. Many states, including huge ones like California, are pretty much written off before the campaign begins. Consequently, there can be a lot of votes in CA, NY and TX, to take but three, that go a long way in the national vote but have comparatively little impact in the ECV.

Now you can argue - and to a large extent you'd be right to - that the swing in the shares in these states will still mirror the national swing and so the balance will be maintained. Quite probably. But campaigning and targeting is improving all the time and it a disproportionate swing in the key states is entirely possible.

Also, by definition, it's only the close elections that can produce a reverse result and there aren't too many that land within, say 2%.

isam said:

Sandpit said:

Right, can't be bothered with the cricket any more. It's a draw do we all agree?
Heading out of the sun to find a bar showing Spurs v Liverpool!

Misbah gone, they're effectively 84-6! Get back in there

Now Riaz too. 7 down ...

And make that 8. Babar for 1

Wow they're all out!

99 to win in 23 overs?

Athens reckons light will go in about an hour...

Wow! England set 99 to win. Who'da thunk?

Do you open with Stokes and Ali?

Good pay-day for the Pakistan lads, or is that just what their fans tell themselves to excuse being a nation of bottle merchants? A shame we have to ask.

maaarsh said:

Good pay-day for the Pakistan lads, or is that just what their fans tell themselves to excuse being a nation of bottle merchants? A shame we have to ask.

3 iffy dismissals

isam said:

tlg86 said:

isam said:

MTimT said:

Wow! England set 99 to win. Who'da thunk?

Horrendous batting by Yusuf and Misbah... Wtf were they thinking?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Our spinners just took 7 wickets in 2 sessions, I don't think knocking off 99 in 19 overs is going to be all that easy

You wouldn't need England to win to have made money today.

What's the over/under - 10 overs?

There's 40 mins of light left, and it will go dark very quickly. Can't happen, can it?

If this happens I'm gonna feel like that Liverpool fan that left Istanbul at half time to miss the airport crowds

Betfair is 1.9 v 2.1 in favour of the draw. Take your pick or even up your book. I'm on the draw, it will be dark in half an hour and the bowlers will be as slow as they can get away with being.

This would have been very different if we had declared overnight.

MikeK said:

The end is nigh!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34559706

Wild dust storm rolls over US city of Phoenix

Australia does them so much better.

http://i.imgur.com/qPCUm.jpeg
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ScreenSnapz0241-620x448.jpg

Sandpit said:

Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.

Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?

tlg86 said:

Dair said:

Sandpit said:

Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.

Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?

Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.

So it will depend if whoever paid the Pakistani team also slipped an envelope to the Umps?

Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.

And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).

david_herdson said:

Dair said:

tlg86 said:

Dair said:

Sandpit said:

Floodlights on now. Latest play in first four days was 17:37. 17 minutes to go on that basis.

Isn't the first option with the batting team, so that England and Wales can just flail it about knowing they can safely call it if they run out of wickets?

Not anymore. The umpires make the call and that's that.

So it will depend if whoever paid the Pakistani team also slipped an envelope to the Umps?

The good thing about Pakistan cheating by going so slowly now is that it means that they're not trying to lose.

Covering their tracks? Why bring on the quick when the spinners were doing alright?

The_Apocalypse said:

Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.

And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).

SeanT is rich though as statistically older men are more likely to be and as Mrs Merton said to Debbie McGee 'what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels'

@richardDodd They aren't like that on the DM comments section. Or indeed, in my exprience of them in real life.

MarkHopkins said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.

And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).

Corbyn is an older man. And I'm reasonably certain he's not right wing.

But is he scary?

Corbyn is a bit weird, and tbh some his ideas and who he is associated with, does make him scary in a way.

MarkHopkins said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Just seen the previous thread; this tax credits debate is getting messy.

And SeanT is the reason why I wouldn't touch older men with a barge pole as far dating goes. Likely to be very right wing (and a bit scary with it as well).

Corbyn is an older man. And I'm reasonably certain he's not right wing.

But is he scary?

Not as scary as SeanT for sure

Also, it looks like the changes to Sunday Trading Hours may not go through: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11936876/Conservative-MPs-rebellion-to-sink-Sunday-trading-hours-relaxation.html

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Conservatives on 102 seats and Liberals on 106 with 49 seats too close to call:

http://www.electionprediction.org/2015_fed/index.php

Today's Canadian Election Watch has the two neck and neck - Liberals at 129 and Conservatives at 128:

http://cdnelectionwatch.blogspot.ca/

Liberals have drifted slightly on Betfair to 1.18 but Conservatives still a bit of value at 5.0 IMHO

Probably only 20 seats in it either way.

CBC today projects Liberals 135, Tories 118, NDP 83

Here are the latest polls over the last two days

Nanos Liberals 37 Tories 31 NDP 23

Leger Liberals 38 Tories 30 NDP 22

Angus Reid Liberals 35 Tories 33 NDP 21

Mainstreet Liberals 38 Tories 33 NDP 21

From the betting point of view: are we going to get a further repeat of the shy Tories? Denmark, Israel, UK, Sindy ref....Canada?

Even if there was I expect Trudeau would still win. He now has a clear lead on the polls while final polls in the UK, Israel and Denmark had it tied. In Sindy final polls had No ahead. This election seems more JFK v Nixon or Obama v McCain or Rudd v Howard than Cameron v Ed Miliband or Netanyahu v Herzog

I'm wondering if NDP supporters might vote tactically for the Libs to ensure that the Tories don't get most seats. The momentum appears to be with the Pretty Boy.