politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton versus Trump: What men say their spouses will do and w

SystemSystem Posts: 11,006
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton versus Trump: What men say their spouses will do and what women in partnership actually say

Via @williamjordann Happy US families ahead of WH2016YouGov US: 33% of men say spouse supports Clinton compared with 45% who say they are pic.twitter.com/3XoNjKLW86

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,217
    edited November 2016
    First like Farron....again!
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2016
    Second like, erm, a sixtieth of a minute.
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,285
    IanB2 said:

    First like Farron....again!

    https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/793385256820871168
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2016
    Quite a clever mug design - by simply scraping of the "ame" you can sell them following a Trump victory, too.

    EDIT: second mug in three threads. Has OGH got an interest to declare?
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tories nc
    Labour +1

    Sleazy blah, blah, slide, etc.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,285
    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Brits and Yanks, a common people only separated by language
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited November 2016
    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Those who care about reading my responses (to Peter, Jack etc) can find them on the old thread.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,285
    Anorak said:

    Quite a clever mug design - by simply scraping of the "ame" you can sell them following a Trump victory, too.

    EDIT: second mug in three threads. Has OGH got an interest to declare?

    Mike's got an impressive collection of political mugs and I'm not just talking about the posters below the line on PB
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Oh dear, Jill Stien appears to be totally ignored by both domestic partners…
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    It's referring to Carla Bruni's late tilt at the presidency.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,097
    Alistair said:

    Chris said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    TonyE said:

    Jobabob said:


    Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.

    That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
    Only in Trumpland could someone reply to a comment saying the FBI hadn't read the emails by saying "that's not what the FBI are looking for". Why did Alec Baldwin have to take a week off?
    To say nothing of the bizarre statement that the FNBI "declared that she had committed a criminal act ... but had failed the test of criminal intention."

    Of course the FBI declared no such thing. But how could anyone think such a declaration could even make sense?
    Comey admitted to the congressional committee that Clinton had committed acts that broke the law, but concluded he could not prove intent and so did not recommend a grand jury/indictment. Problem is successful convictions for the same crimes have been made with less evidence of intent.
    A breach of the law would require either intent or gross negligence. Comey testified that there was insufficient evidence of intent, and said that in the circumstances no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case focused on gross negligence.

    Of course he didn't testify that Clinton had broken the law. Read the transcript:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
    By pointing out a factual accuracy you will be labeled a Hilary sycophant
    I had a fun evening of Hillary-ramping last night, and I can certainly see the appeal.

    But this stuff about Comey is more downright absurd than factually inaccurate.Is it likely that the director of the FBI would testify to Congress that no prosecution should be brought against someone, but "declare" that they were guilty?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,969
    Doesn't this work just as well the other way around?

    Good morning, Miss JGP.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Anorak said:

    Quite a clever mug design - by simply scraping of the "ame" you can sell them following a Trump victory, too.

    :lol:
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    That's tempting fate.

    Anyway,
    FPT
    Chris said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    TonyE said:

    Jobabob said:


    Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.

    That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
    Only in Trumpland could someone reply to a comment saying the FBI hadn't read the emails by saying "that's not what the FBI are looking for". Why did Alec Baldwin have to take a week off?
    To say nothing of the bizarre statement that the FNBI "declared that she had committed a criminal act ... but had failed the test of criminal intention."

    Of course the FBI declared no such thing. But how could anyone think such a declaration could even make sense?
    Comey admitted to the congressional committee that Clinton had committed acts that broke the law, but concluded he could not prove intent and so did not recommend a grand jury/indictment. Problem is successful convictions for the same crimes have been made with less evidence of intent.
    A breach of the law would require either intent or gross negligence. Comey testified that there was insufficient evidence of intent, and said that in the circumstances no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case focused on gross negligence.

    Of course he didn't testify that Clinton had broken the law. Read the transcript:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
    I didn't say he testified that, he wouldn't say that because he claimed he could not prove intent. I said the things he admitted Clinton had done would be illegal if he could prove intent. Clinton rampers are trying to make out she did nothing wrong just because Comey wouldn't go for an indictment, but the reason not to go for an indictment has nothing to do with what she actually did.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    The numbers suggest the Hillary's popularity with women is a figament of the male imagination. Reassuringly, women hate her as well.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,573
    edited November 2016
    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    The mugs wrong.

    Clinton was 'Madam Secretary of State' - she doesn't turn French by becoming President....

    And good morning to you too!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,902
    edited November 2016
    I'm reading this is "Mɑːdɑːrm" rather than "Mədəm" with the added "e", as in a woman who heads up a brothel rather than the polite address form.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,961
    Anorak said:

    Quite a clever mug design - by simply scraping of the "ame" you can sell them following a Trump victory, too.

    EDIT: second mug in three threads. Has OGH got an interest to declare?

    As a sharp bettor I guess he would have an interest in mugs!
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2016
    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    edited November 2016
    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    The numbers suggest the Hillary's popularity with women is a figament of the male imagination. Reassuringly, women hate her as well.

    So you support Mr Putin's puppy?

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,285
    edited November 2016
    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    No. Not everyone in America is married, this is merely a subsample of married voters, even those who live in sin and fornicate have a vote
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anorak said:

    Quite a clever mug design - by simply scraping of the "ame" you can sell them following a Trump victory, too.

    EDIT: second mug in three threads. Has OGH got an interest to declare?

    Mike's got an impressive collection of political mugs and I'm not just talking about the posters below the line on PB
    Indeed I collect political mugs and have a collection going back to the Great Reform Act in 1832.

  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    No. Not everyone in America is married, this is merely a subsample of married voters, even those who live in sin and fornicate have a vote
    Indeed, and married voters are much more likely to vote Republican, especially women. Trump's 7% lead is low by historic standards for a Republican candidate.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    It's a poll of people capable of maintaining domestic relationships. Hillary probably does quite well with the.emotionally incompetent.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,902
    MikeSmithson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anorak said:

    Quite a clever mug design - by simply scraping of the "ame" you can sell them following a Trump victory, too.

    EDIT: second mug in three threads. Has OGH got an interest to declare?

    Mike's got an impressive collection of political mugs and I'm not just talking about the posters below the line on PB
    Indeed I collect political mugs and have a collection going back to the Great Reform Act in 1832.

    Nice of @JackW to pick one up for you there.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,573
    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    The Clinton campaign are selling $6 buttons, which say “Madam President” – it sounds better.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,606
    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    Not all women are married!
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,097
    brokenwheel said:

    That's tempting fate.

    Anyway,
    FPT

    Chris said:

    brokenwheel said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    TonyE said:

    Jobabob said:


    Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.

    That's not what the FBI are looking for in all probability. When they dropped the investigation they declared that she had committed a criminal act (in using the unsecured server) but had failed the test of criminal intent in doing so. In the new emails, they will be looking for the intent element - the motive behind the use of the 'Bleaching' software, or any admission that Clinton and her staff knew that the operation of the server was illegal.
    Only in Trumpland could someone reply to a comment saying the FBI hadn't read the emails by saying "that's not what the FBI are looking for". Why did Alec Baldwin have to take a week off?
    To say nothing of the bizarre statement that the FNBI "declared that she had committed a criminal act ... but had failed the test of criminal intention."

    Of course the FBI declared no such thing. But how could anyone think such a declaration could even make sense?
    Comey admitted to the congressional committee that Clinton had committed acts that broke the law, but concluded he could not prove intent and so did not recommend a grand jury/indictment. Problem is successful convictions for the same crimes have been made with less evidence of intent.
    A breach of the law would require either intent or gross negligence. Comey testified that there was insufficient evidence of intent, and said that in the circumstances no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case focused on gross negligence.

    Of course he didn't testify that Clinton had broken the law. Read the transcript:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
    I said the things he admitted Clinton had done would be illegal if he could prove intent.
    You didn't. You said
    "Comey admitted to the congressional committee that Clinton had committed acts that broke the law, but concluded he could not prove intent."

    The point is that the acts would not have broken the law in the absence of intent or gross negligence.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    not_on_fire said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    No. Not everyone in America is married, this is merely a subsample of married voters, even those who live in sin and fornicate have a vote
    Indeed, and married voters are much more likely to vote Republican, especially women. Trump's 7% lead is low by historic standards for a Republican candidate.
    Um. Yes, got it now. *feels burning shame*
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,961
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    It's a poll of people capable of maintaining domestic relationships. Hillary probably does quite well with the.emotionally incompetent.
    Does this mean thrice married pussy grabbers will tend to vote for Hillary?
  • Options
    Lucian_FletcherLucian_Fletcher Posts: 793
    Interesting thought that being married (in USA) makes you more likely to be disappointed with your life and blame the Mexicans for your life being said disappointment.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,692
    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2016
    MaxPB said:

    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    Not all women are married!
    But surely they're not allowed to vote! Who would inform them of the correct person to vote for?
  • Options
    AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Brits and Yanks, a common people only separated by language
    Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that was one of our differences. Do they pronounce it the French way or say it like we do & simply spell it differently?
  • Options
    Lucian_FletcherLucian_Fletcher Posts: 793
    Anorak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    Not all women are married!
    But surely they're not allowed to vote! Who would inform them of the correct person to vote for?
    The nice men with baseball bats, caps and pickup trucks outside the polling stations.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,969
    Mr. Fletcher, one of the charming ways Sir Edric describes his wife is 'the wicked witch of wedlock'.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,606
    Anorak said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    Not all women are married!
    But surely they're not allowed to vote! Who would inform them of the correct person to vote for?
    The Donald, of course!
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    This discrepancy shows why cameras are normally banned from polling booths (to answer a Trump conspiracy theory from a few threads back).
  • Options
    Lucian_FletcherLucian_Fletcher Posts: 793
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Fletcher, one of the charming ways Sir Edric describes his wife is 'the wicked witch of wedlock'.

    Rather good. Hope you are well this fine (cold, dark) morning.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,573
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
    According to American English dictionaries....'Madame' refers to a married French lady...

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3891996/Lib-Dem-donor-Rolls-Royce-bribery-scandal-Adviser-Tim-Farron-arrested-links-firms-receiving-payouts-engineering-giant.html
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,573
    AnneJGP said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Brits and Yanks, a common people only separated by language
    Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that was one of our differences. Do they pronounce it the French way or say it like we do & simply spell it differently?

    It isn't - just shows there are misinformed both sides of the pond.....

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madam

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    CarlottaVance said:

    AnneJGP said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Brits and Yanks, a common people only separated by language
    Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that was one of our differences. Do they pronounce it the French way or say it like we do & simply spell it differently?

    It isn't - just shows there are misinformed both sides of the pond.....

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madam

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    According to that it would be Madam President, then. But I can't help but think that what Clinton (if elected) says will go.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,969
    Mr. Fletcher, thanks. I'm quite well... trying to juggle writing with nagging/pestering/approaching in a subtle and prudent manner potential reviewers for Kingdom Asunder.

    [Unlikely, but if any are lurking here, ARCs are available].

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,285
    AnneJGP said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Brits and Yanks, a common people only separated by language
    Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that was one of our differences. Do they pronounce it the French way or say it like we do & simply spell it differently?
    When I was in New Orleans and other Southern states I noted the regular use of 'Madame'

    Less so in places like California, New York, Boston, and the rest of New England
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    MikeSmithson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anorak said:

    Quite a clever mug design - by simply scraping of the "ame" you can sell them following a Trump victory, too.

    EDIT: second mug in three threads. Has OGH got an interest to declare?

    Mike's got an impressive collection of political mugs and I'm not just talking about the posters below the line on PB
    Indeed I collect political mugs and have a collection going back to the Great Reform Act in 1832.

    Do you own the infamous Labour immigration mug? I am gutted I never bought one when I had the chance.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AnneJGP said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Brits and Yanks, a common people only separated by language
    Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that was one of our differences. Do they pronounce it the French way or say it like we do & simply spell it differently?
    When I was in New Orleans and other Southern states I noted the regular use of 'Madame'

    Less so in places like California, New York, Boston, and the rest of New England
    Elsewhere I assume it is too tainted by the association with prostitution.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    MP_SE said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anorak said:

    Quite a clever mug design - by simply scraping of the "ame" you can sell them following a Trump victory, too.

    EDIT: second mug in three threads. Has OGH got an interest to declare?

    Mike's got an impressive collection of political mugs and I'm not just talking about the posters below the line on PB
    Indeed I collect political mugs and have a collection going back to the Great Reform Act in 1832.

    Do you own the infamous Labour immigration mug? I am gutted I never bought one when I had the chance.
    I don't get whats the big deal with that Labour mug, I agree with it?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,573
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    AnneJGP said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AnneJGP said:

    Why 'Madame' President and not 'Madam' President?

    Good morning, everyone.

    The Brits and Yanks, a common people only separated by language
    Oh, OK, I wasn't aware that was one of our differences. Do they pronounce it the French way or say it like we do & simply spell it differently?

    It isn't - just shows there are misinformed both sides of the pond.....

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madam

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    According to that it would be Madam President, then. But I can't help but think that what Clinton (if elected) says will go.
    She's selling buttons saying 'Madam'.....I suspect 'Madame' might sound pretentious to some ears.....
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    MonikerDiCanio said:

    Anorak said:

    That poll gives trump a 7% lead, assuming 50:50 gender split. Odd, no?

    It's a poll of people capable of maintaining domestic relationships. Hillary probably does quite well with the.emotionally incompetent.
    You really are a nasty piece of work.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    I think the extra "e" on Madame is so that nobody thinks the FBI have accused her of running a brothel too.....
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,606
    MarqueeMark said:

    I think the extra "e" on Madame is so that nobody thinks the FBI have accused her of running a brothel too.....

    :D
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    CarlottaVance said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
    According to American English dictionaries....'Madame' refers to a married French lady...

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    Indeed. The mug is plain wrong.

    P.S. Check out Carlotta's early post this morning about Trump failing to pay his pollster – he owes this guy about $700k or something. Doesn't like the results he has been getting, won't pay. Required reading.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Jobabob said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
    According to American English dictionaries....'Madame' refers to a married French lady...

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    Indeed. The mug is plain wrong.

    P.S. Check out Carlotta's early post this morning about Trump failing to pay his pollster – he owes this guy about $700k or something. Doesn't like the results he has been getting, won't pay. Required reading.
    Well when he doesn't pay a dishwasher what do you expect.........
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    nunu said:

    Jobabob said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
    According to American English dictionaries....'Madame' refers to a married French lady...

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    Indeed. The mug is plain wrong.

    P.S. Check out Carlotta's early post this morning about Trump failing to pay his pollster – he owes this guy about $700k or something. Doesn't like the results he has been getting, won't pay. Required reading.
    Well when he doesn't pay a dishwasher what do you expect.........
    Well quite.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,127
    Tim Bernard Lee on R4 this morning re internet security and investigatory powers: "Governments always trust themselves just a little bit more than we should trust them."

    The man truly is a national treasure.
  • Options
    Lucian_FletcherLucian_Fletcher Posts: 793
    George Ford's England career will be over if he joins Toulon. Can we have a whip round for the flight?
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited November 2016
    https://twitter.com/johnnyvalues01/status/793402003825299456
    Partisan split alive and kicking in the US of A.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    ***** Betting Post *****

    Anyone fancy a safety first combination bet, hopefully to return a 64% profit in 8 days time?
    Back the Democrats to win:

    330 - 359 ECVs staking 38.74% at 4.40 (4.23 net) with BetfairEx
    300 - 329 ECVs staking 37.85% at 4.33 with SkyBet
    270 - 299 ECVs staking 23.41% at 7.0 with SyBet

    Do your own research.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    MikeSmithson said:

    MonikerDiCanio said:

    The numbers suggest the Hillary's popularity with women is a figament of the male imagination. Reassuringly, women hate her as well.

    So you support Mr Putin's puppy?

    The only person with proven links to Russia is Mr Podesta who made a nice packet out of Uranium sales to Russia. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/20/wikileaks-bombshell-john-podestas-daughter-received-75000-shares-putin-connected-energy-company/
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    That would be like the Nazis invading via the Ardennes, thus avoiding the area where the other side had put most of their resources. It would never happen.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    SimonStClare said:

    https://twitter.com/johnnyvalues01/status/793402003825299456
    Partisan split alive and kicking in the US of A.

    It's the independents that are important - I do note that the LA Poll Tracker now has Trump +3.6 - even the change in the vote of the single AA won't account for that.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    That would be like the Nazis invading via the Ardennes, thus avoiding the area where the other side had put most of their resources. It would never happen.
    When your tanks take the form of TV ads it's quite hard to do a surprise attack without the other side noticing.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,097
    edited November 2016
    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    Nate Silver looked at this a couple of days ago, and suggested a scenario in which Trump could just reach 270 by winning Wisconsin and Michigan, even without North Carolina and Nevada:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-what-if-clinton-wins-north-carolina-and-loses-pennsylvania/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited November 2016
    Is the "e" on the end of "Madam" meant to remind the first gentleman (someone FGOTUS?) that he doesn't have to call Monica if he wants French?
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    The "Cook Political Report" EC Projection & Map :

    Clinton 293 .. Trump 185 .. Toss-Up 60

    http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,127
    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    It would have to be Colorado and Nevada with the latter looking vanishingly unlikely. And he would need FL, Az, NC, Iowa, and Ohio as well of course.

    He still needs a swing of at least 3-4% to be in the game. Looks unlikely.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    That would be like the Nazis invading via the Ardennes, thus avoiding the area where the other side had put most of their resources. It would never happen.
    And the Nazis lost that campaign too ...
  • Options
    GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 1,995
    It is interesting that the massive poll leads for the Cons have become almost unremarkable. I was looking at UK electoral maps since 1997 and the change has been dramatic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1997#/media/File:UK_General_Election,_1997.svg

    In 1997, Labour had a massive block of seats stretching all the way across the country from Conwy to Cleethorpes and down to Corby. Another block stretched from Fishguard to Stroud. there was also a big Thames Estuary cluster and another around Northampton and Milton Keynes. Of course Scotland was still strongly Lab and there were some surprise seats like NW Norfolk

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005#/media/File:2005UKElectionMap.svg

    By 2005 the Northants block has mostly disappeared and Lab has lost ground in the Thames Estuary. Most of the surprise seats like NW Norfolk and Inverness have gone but Lab still looks very strong in the Northern block

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#/media/File:2015UKElectionMap.svg

    By 2015, the biggest change is the disappearance of all but one seat in Scotland. The Tories have broken up the big Northern block by gaining Calder and Colne Valleys. The Thames Estuary cluster has disappeared and Lab are reduced to a few red spots in Southern England outside London.

    On current polling and current boundaries Lab could be wiped out in N Wales (losing 4 to Con and 1 to Plaid) and lose 2 each in Coventry and the Potteries. With a small further swing the Cons could become the largest party in Wales and the largest party in the former West Midlands county. The only good news for Lab is that Merseyside, Greater Manchester and S Yorkshire still look rock solid, while Lab would still be largest party in London.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Chris said:

    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    Nate Silver looked at this a couple of days ago, and suggested a scenario in which Trump could just reach 270 by winning Wisconsin and Michigan, even without North Carolina and Nevada:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-what-if-clinton-wins-north-carolina-and-loses-pennsylvania/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
    Again in theory yes but it ain't happening.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    JackW said:

    The "Cook Political Report" EC Projection & Map :

    Clinton 293 .. Trump 185 .. Toss-Up 60

    http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

    Doesn't tell us much that we don't already know.

    i.e. Trump won't win unless he picks off the toss-ups and at least two (probably 3) of the lean D states.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    DavidL said:

    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    It would have to be Colorado and Nevada with the latter looking vanishingly unlikely. And he would need FL, Az, NC, Iowa, and Ohio as well of course.

    He still needs a swing of at least 3-4% to be in the game. Looks unlikely.
    Indeed.

    Colorado and Nevada are being closed down. Clinton's early scores are encouraging. She's swinging through there in the next few days and has a visit to Arizona being planned too.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    Jobabob said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
    According to American English dictionaries....'Madame' refers to a married French lady...

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    Indeed. The mug is plain wrong.

    P.S. Check out Carlotta's early post this morning about Trump failing to pay his pollster – he owes this guy about $700k or something. Doesn't like the results he has been getting, won't pay. Required reading.
    TBF the "doesn't like the results he's been getting" angle is pure speculation.
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    weejonnie said:

    JackW said:

    The "Cook Political Report" EC Projection & Map :

    Clinton 293 .. Trump 185 .. Toss-Up 60

    http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

    Doesn't tell us much that we don't already know.
    True enough, but it certainly highlights the attraction of the "safety first" bet I suggested on this thread.

  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    JackW said:

    The "Cook Political Report" EC Projection & Map :

    Clinton 293 .. Trump 185 .. Toss-Up 60

    http://cookpolitical.com/presidential/charts/scorecard

    *Checks betting slip*
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    JackW said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    That would be like the Nazis invading via the Ardennes, thus avoiding the area where the other side had put most of their resources. It would never happen.
    And the Nazis lost that campaign too ...
    They won the campaign. They lost the rematch four years later.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    National Tracker - IBD/TIPP - Sample 1,018 - 26-31 Oct

    Clinton 45 .. Trump 44

    http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited November 2016
    DavidL said:

    It would have to be Colorado and Nevada with the latter looking vanishingly unlikely. And he would need FL, Az, NC, Iowa, and Ohio as well of course.

    He still needs a swing of at least 3-4% to be in the game. Looks unlikely.

    That kind of swing looks unlikely in your crystal ball. Mine predicts another big surprise that damages Clinton in the days that remain. It could be related to Weiner or Abedin. Abedin is a Muslim, not like Obama but in reality: that isn't going to play well. Weiner had absolutely no idea about computer security, his and Abedin's computers were linked, and I shudder to think what a state-backed hacker may have inserted.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited November 2016
    david_herdson said:

    JackW said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    JackW said:

    FF43 said:

    JackW said:

    peter_from_putney said:

    It seems to me very likely that whoever wins both Florida & Ohio will be the next POTUS. Perhaps that's an over-simplification, but it's the way I see it.

    FOP DENIER !!!!!!!!!

    There is no viable route for Trump without all elements of FOP .. :smile:
    Not QUITE the case. Trump can win if he overturns two states with similar Clinton margins to those those she has with Pennsylvania. The point is, he needs to do 5% better than his current average position in the polls, then a whole bunch of states will fall to him.
    In theory possibly .... but not in practice. Which two viable states make up for a Trump Pennsylvania loss?
    That would be like the Nazis invading via the Ardennes, thus avoiding the area where the other side had put most of their resources. It would never happen.
    And the Nazis lost that campaign too ...
    They won the campaign. They lost the rematch four years later.
    Clinton beats Trump in 2020 ... :smile:
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Bill Mitchell
    IBD ridiculous reweight: Party identification breakdown:(Unweighted) 323 Democrats/354 Republicans/327 Independents; (Weighted) 400/329/273
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    PlatoSaid said:

    Bill Mitchell
    IBD ridiculous reweight: Party identification breakdown:(Unweighted) 323 Democrats/354 Republicans/327 Independents; (Weighted) 400/329/273

    You can't tell if that's appropriate just from the figures.

    Shouldn't be difficult to get the national numbers of party ID?
  • Options
    619619 Posts: 1,784
    https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/793282113114034176
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Oh so tragic for those desperate to make a Trump Russia link

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Dromedary said:

    DavidL said:

    It would have to be Colorado and Nevada with the latter looking vanishingly unlikely. And he would need FL, Az, NC, Iowa, and Ohio as well of course.

    He still needs a swing of at least 3-4% to be in the game. Looks unlikely.

    That kind of swing looks unlikely in your crystal ball. Mine predicts another big surprise that damages Clinton in the days that remain. It could be related to Weiner or Abedin. Abedin is a Muslim, not like Obama but in reality: that isn't going to play well. Weiner had absolutely no idea about computer security, his and Abedin's computers were linked, and I shudder to think what a state-backed hacker may have inserted.
    I think that's more a treatise on what you hope against hope will happen, rather than what is actually likely to happen.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    619 said:

    https://twitter.com/matthaig1/status/793282113114034176

    Since Clinton has a proven record for embroiling the USA in wars I think this is hypocritical of her - but she's a Democrat so that's not unexpected.
  • Options
    JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    weejonnie said:

    SimonStClare said:

    https://twitter.com/johnnyvalues01/status/793402003825299456
    Partisan split alive and kicking in the US of A.

    It's the independents that are important - I do note that the LA Poll Tracker now has Trump +3.6 - even the change in the vote of the single AA won't account for that.

    Yes, that's the highest Trump score since, um, 3 October. It really is shit or bust for the LA Times tracker...
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Umm

    Ben
    Micheal Heseltine choked his Mum's dog to death.
    https://t.co/iesOmerMQA https://t.co/yK5muUmuWw
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,419
    Jobabob said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
    According to American English dictionaries....'Madame' refers to a married French lady...

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    Indeed. The mug is plain wrong.

    P.S. Check out Carlotta's early post this morning about Trump failing to pay his pollster – he owes this guy about $700k or something. Doesn't like the results he has been getting, won't pay. Required reading.
    'Madam' is what this website, which appears to be an authority on these things, goes with:

    http://www.formsofaddress.info/FOA_president_US.html
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    National Tracker - Langer Research/ABC - Sample 1,128 - 26-30 Oct

    Clinton 45 .. Trump 46

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-leads-clinton-point-poll-enthusiasm-declines/story?id=43199459
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,961
    edmundintokyo said:

    Jobabob said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
    According to American English dictionaries....'Madame' refers to a married French lady...

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    Indeed. The mug is plain wrong.

    P.S. Check out Carlotta's early post this morning about Trump failing to pay his pollster – he owes this guy about $700k or something. Doesn't like the results he has been getting, won't pay. Required reading.
    TBF the "doesn't like the results he's been getting" angle is pure speculation.
    Yep, it's a complete slur to suggest that Trump isn't just as likely to bilk a service provider who had done a good job for him.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,363
    edmundintokyo said:

    Jobabob said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    not_on_fire said:

    Surely it will be Mrs President not Madame President? Male presidents are called Mr President, not Sir President

    No. 'Madam'.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._President_(title)
    According to some random person who wrote in to the Guardian.

    Right...
    According to American English dictionaries....'Madame' refers to a married French lady...

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madame
    Indeed. The mug is plain wrong.

    P.S. Check out Carlotta's early post this morning about Trump failing to pay his pollster – he owes this guy about $700k or something. Doesn't like the results he has been getting, won't pay. Required reading.
    TBF the "doesn't like the results he's been getting" angle is pure speculation.
    The preferred explanation is that he's a deadbeat billionaire.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,843
    Morning all. Random US question, does anyone know of any markets that are actually for the name of the next president, i.e. to be settled on Inauguration Day rather than just after the election?

    I have a feeling that a lot might happen between November and January, and the next president isn't who we think it will be.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,703
    "According to exit polls, 53 percent of voters in the 2012 elections were women"
    https://voterunlead.org/go-vote/womens-vote/
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    Jobabob said:

    Dromedary said:

    DavidL said:

    It would have to be Colorado and Nevada with the latter looking vanishingly unlikely. And he would need FL, Az, NC, Iowa, and Ohio as well of course.

    He still needs a swing of at least 3-4% to be in the game. Looks unlikely.

    That kind of swing looks unlikely in your crystal ball. Mine predicts another big surprise that damages Clinton in the days that remain. It could be related to Weiner or Abedin. Abedin is a Muslim, not like Obama but in reality: that isn't going to play well. Weiner had absolutely no idea about computer security, his and Abedin's computers were linked, and I shudder to think what a state-backed hacker may have inserted.
    I think that's more a treatise on what you hope against hope will happen, rather than what is actually likely to happen.
    No - I want Clinton to win! But I think the momentum is with Trump and that the Clinton side's responses to the Comey story have been punily weak.
This discussion has been closed.