Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Old White Man Mispriced In 2020 Presidential Election – a 140/

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited July 1 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Old White Man Mispriced In 2020 Presidential Election – a 140/1 shot that’s surely worth a punt

So… there’s an old white man, whose 2020 Presidential election price on Betfair is wrong. Perhaps very significantly wrong.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,905
    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883
    Plenty of Betfair prices are completely wrong on the presidential and nominee markets. This is one of them, but not the only one.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 11,905
    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead. But if he were to announce tomorrow, or next week, or next month, that he will not run again, there would surely be time for the Republican Party to run primaries. If Trump leaves it till October 2020, then yes, it would have to be Pence. How to draw that probability curve is left as an exercise for the reader.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead...
    Are we absolutely sure ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead...
    Are we absolutely sure ?
    Yes.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,637
    wrt Trump's health issues, he's had balance problems for years. It was the reason for that famous hand-holding with Theresa May a while back, he's not comfortable on stairs.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,374

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead. But if he were to announce tomorrow, or next week, or next month, that he will not run again, there would surely be time for the Republican Party to run primaries. If Trump leaves it till October 2020, then yes, it would have to be Pence. How to draw that probability curve is left as an exercise for the reader.
    If Trump doesn't stand and there is time for Republican primaries and the Democrats look like they are choosing a left winger, then the Republican leadership could well go for a centrist, not Pence, with a good chance of retaining the Presidency. Step forward John Kasich at 580/1.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    Pence would probably do worse than a generic Republican, though (particularly in the pardoning Trump scenario).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead. But if he were to announce tomorrow, or next week, or next month, that he will not run again, there would surely be time for the Republican Party to run primaries. If Trump leaves it till October 2020, then yes, it would have to be Pence. How to draw that probability curve is left as an exercise for the reader.
    If Trump doesn't stand and there is time for Republican primaries and the Democrats look like they are choosing a left winger, then the Republican leadership could well go for a centrist, not Pence, with a good chance of retaining the Presidency. Step forward John Kasich at 580/1.
    Or the old favourite :smile: ...Mitt Romney.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 23,838
    Andrew said:

    wrt Trump's health issues, he's had balance problems for years. It was the reason for that famous hand-holding with Theresa May a while back, he's not comfortable on stairs.

    iirc he actually has a phobia of stairs. Not quite the same as having a balance problem.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 1,704
    Ye gods. Hunt doing well in the "How to win friends and influence people" stakes:

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 4,374
    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead. But if he were to announce tomorrow, or next week, or next month, that he will not run again, there would surely be time for the Republican Party to run primaries. If Trump leaves it till October 2020, then yes, it would have to be Pence. How to draw that probability curve is left as an exercise for the reader.
    If Trump doesn't stand and there is time for Republican primaries and the Democrats look like they are choosing a left winger, then the Republican leadership could well go for a centrist, not Pence, with a good chance of retaining the Presidency. Step forward John Kasich at 580/1.
    Or the old favourite :smile: ...Mitt Romney.
    Mitt Romney is 1000/1. The same as Nina Turner, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie. Which is the value bet?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,427
    This provides an interesting - and objective - account of fiscal policy under successive post-war Governments.

    'The UK deficit started out in 1947 at 3 percent of GDP and then immediately went into surplus, as the Attlee government worked to reduce the huge debt racked up in World War II. The surplus peaked at 6.3 percent of GDP in 1950 and then declined to a surplus of 0.9 percent GDP in 1961.

    But then surpluses started to climb again reaching 7.6 percent GDP in 1970 during the Wilson government before declining sharply. The UK scored a deficit of 0.1 percent GDP in 1975 for the first time in nearly 20 years.

    The UK ran a budget deficit till the end of the Thatcher years, with a peak of 2.2 percent of GDP in 1981. In the mid to late 1980s deficits declined, and went into surplus in 1989 at 1.9 percent GDP.

    Deficits returned in the Major years and the ERM crisis, reaching 5.7 percent GDP in 1994. But then the deficit came down and went into surplus, maxing out at a surplus of 2.3 percent GDP in 2001.

    Moderate deficits were the rule in the mid 2000s Blair years. But the deficit rocketed upwards to 6.9 percent in 2010 in response to the Crash of 2008 and the Great Recession. In the recent recovery, the budget deficit has declined to less than one percent of GDP. '
    From ukpublicspending.co.uk.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 23,838

    Ye gods. Hunt doing well in the "How to win friends and influence people" stakes:

    If he carries on like this, then he will not Command the confidence of the House either.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    edited July 1
    Trump would have to be successfully impeached I think for Pence to be GOP nominee but that is not impossible
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,385

    Ye gods. Hunt doing well in the "How to win friends and influence people" stakes:

    If he carries on like this, then he will not Command the confidence of the House either.
    Let's see if MPs are included in those whose August leave will be cancelled. Somehow I doubt it, after all their exertions of the past few months....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 23,838
    HYUFD said:

    Trump would have to be successfully impeached I think for Pence to be GOP nominee but that is not impossible

    Doubt there is time now, even if there was the will.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 57,540
    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead. But if he were to announce tomorrow, or next week, or next month, that he will not run again, there would surely be time for the Republican Party to run primaries. If Trump leaves it till October 2020, then yes, it would have to be Pence. How to draw that probability curve is left as an exercise for the reader.
    If Trump doesn't stand and there is time for Republican primaries and the Democrats look like they are choosing a left winger, then the Republican leadership could well go for a centrist, not Pence, with a good chance of retaining the Presidency. Step forward John Kasich at 580/1.
    Or Ted Cruz who was second to Trump in 2016, Kasich was third
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    (FPT, and more relevant here)
    Why Harris understandably has a far more positive opinion of busing than does Biden....
    And as the article points out, opposing 'busing' was very much code for opposing integration:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/kamala-harris-and-busing-debate/593047/
    Berkeley’s elementary school desegregation plan started in September 1968, with over one-third of the district’s 9,000 students riding buses. Unlike many cities that placed the burden of busing on black students, Berkeley implemented a two-way busing plan that involved black, white, Asian American, and Mexican American students. The plan quickly changed the racial demographics of the city’s schools. Thousand Oaks Elementary was 95 percent white and 3 percent black in 1963. When Harris started kindergarten in 1969, the Thousand Oaks was 53 percent white and 40 percent black, and in no elementary school in Berkeley did any racial group comprise more than 60 percent of the students....


    As far as I can see, Berkeley remains fairly integrated - unlike many places, even in liberal California:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Unified_School_District
    Berkeley's voluntary integration plan, modified slightly over the years as demographics have shifted, remains in place up to the present...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,186
    Not content with boxing himself in with the EU, Hunt is repeating Corbynite talking points about money “spent” on the banks.


  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,659
    Scott_P said:
    Holy fudge. Hasn't Team UK wasted enough money on No Deal already? (And what oversight is there, if any, of who is making money out of these wasted taxes?) As I said earlier this year, parliament (or at least the government) should have to pay for No Deal preparations out of its own pockets. Since there is a majority in parliament against No Deal, the whole thing is nothing short of a scandal.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 23,838


    More insane by the day. We are now seriously planning to use billions to bail out farmers and small businesses effected by a crisis we are inflicting on ourselves for no purpose whatsoever other than a likely failed effort to shut Farage up.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883
    If Trump died, Nikki Hayley would probably shorten to something like 5-1. Betfair seems to love her for whatever reason.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766

    Ye gods. Hunt doing well in the "How to win friends and influence people" stakes:

    Is this just a miserable attempt to make Boris look more palatable to the Civil Service ?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 30,634
    Pulpstar said:

    Davey wants to abolish the House of Lords.

    twitter.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1145636092374409217

    My kind of LibDem :)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 30,634
    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Davey wants to abolish the House of Lords.

    He is almost but not as bad as Swinson, a real choice between devil and deep blue sea, the Lib Dems are as bereft of talent , if not even more so , as Tories and Labour.
    "The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,115
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead. But if he were to announce tomorrow, or next week, or next month, that he will not run again, there would surely be time for the Republican Party to run primaries. If Trump leaves it till October 2020, then yes, it would have to be Pence. How to draw that probability curve is left as an exercise for the reader.
    If Trump doesn't stand and there is time for Republican primaries and the Democrats look like they are choosing a left winger, then the Republican leadership could well go for a centrist, not Pence, with a good chance of retaining the Presidency. Step forward John Kasich at 580/1.
    Or Ted Cruz who was second to Trump in 2016, Kasich was third
    Yes, but Barnesiam did say 'centrist'.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,385



    More insane by the day. We are now seriously planning to use billions to bail out farmers and small businesses effected by a crisis we are inflicting on ourselves for no purpose whatsoever other than a likely failed effort to shut Farage up.

    If this is the so-called sensible candidate, I think it's time to put the Conservative party out to pasture. A decade in opposition would benefit them a lot more than they care to think. And might force the membership to take a long hard look at themselves as well; all this stuff about sacrificing the economy, the Union and the party just to deliver Brexit is a membership that has taken leave of its senses.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    Barnesian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead. But if he were to announce tomorrow, or next week, or next month, that he will not run again, there would surely be time for the Republican Party to run primaries. If Trump leaves it till October 2020, then yes, it would have to be Pence. How to draw that probability curve is left as an exercise for the reader.
    If Trump doesn't stand and there is time for Republican primaries and the Democrats look like they are choosing a left winger, then the Republican leadership could well go for a centrist, not Pence, with a good chance of retaining the Presidency. Step forward John Kasich at 580/1.
    Or the old favourite :smile: ...Mitt Romney.
    Mitt Romney is 1000/1. The same as Nina Turner, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie. Which is the value bet?
    Well, I just put a couple of quid on the Mittster for fun.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
  • eekeek Posts: 4,192
    edited July 1
    tpfkar said:



    More insane by the day. We are now seriously planning to use billions to bail out farmers and small businesses effected by a crisis we are inflicting on ourselves for no purpose whatsoever other than a likely failed effort to shut Farage up.

    If this is the so-called sensible candidate, I think it's time to put the Conservative party out to pasture. A decade in opposition would benefit them a lot more than they care to think. And might force the membership to take a long hard look at themselves as well; all this stuff about sacrificing the economy, the Union and the party just to deliver Brexit is a membership that has taken leave of its senses.
    Do you actually think a decade is enough - a century (or forever) looks a lot more likely
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Davey wants to abolish the House of Lords.

    He is almost but not as bad as Swinson, a real choice between devil and deep blue sea, the Lib Dems are as bereft of talent , if not even more so , as Tories and Labour.
    "The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition." - Boris, 2003.
    As opposed to a fart inside of a flatulence, surrounded by a vast eructation.

    Boris, 2019.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,383
    Much excited talk of Donald Trump dying.

    This is my sort of thread!
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    kinabalu said:

    Much excited talk of Donald Trump dying.

    This is my sort of thread!

    "Kinder, gentler....."
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,327
    The big difference with the Lib Dem leadership contest is that neither of the contenders have had to have the courts placing restraining orders on them.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 47,080
    TGOHF said:

    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.

    But it can't, and won't.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,003



    More insane by the day. We are now seriously planning to use billions to bail out farmers and small businesses effected by a crisis we are inflicting on ourselves for no purpose whatsoever other than a likely failed effort to shut Farage up.

    I thought that the Lloyd's bail in has been repaid? NatWest is still problematic?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    Indeed it is.
    But there is no 'moving on' after we leave. We still have to deal with the consequences.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,204
    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    His communication style is really poor. Long rambling sentences with lots of sub clauses that make him hard to follow.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 4,368
    I see Hunt has just declared that he knows what it's like to 'lay off staff'. Presumably he wants employers to know that he feels their pain amid the wave of mass redundancies that will follow hard Brexit.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    I see that Hunt has gone from being the anti-Boris, boring but necessary candidate to being a twat in his own right.

    What exactly the fuck are his advisors up to? If we want mad Brexit we'll vote for the full fat version in Boris.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,644
    edited July 1
    TOPPING said:

    I see that Hunt has gone from being the anti-Boris, boring but necessary candidate to being a twat in his own right.

    What exactly the fuck are his advisors up to? If we want mad Brexit we'll vote for the full fat version in Boris.

    Had your usual dose of magic mushrooms today, have you?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 3,060
    TOPPING said:

    I see that Hunt has gone from being the anti-Boris, boring but necessary candidate to being a twat in his own right.

    What exactly the fuck are his advisors up to? If we want mad Brexit we'll vote for the full fat version in Boris.

    Indeed. Message to Hunt. You can't out-twat a bunch of economy wrecking twats. Looks like we are all doomed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766

    TOPPING said:

    I see that Hunt has gone from being the anti-Boris, boring but necessary candidate to being a twat in his own right.

    What exactly the fuck are his advisors up to? If we want mad Brexit we'll vote for the full fat version in Boris.

    Had your usual dose of magic mushrooms today, have you?
    You're asking the wrong person.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543

    TOPPING said:

    I see that Hunt has gone from being the anti-Boris, boring but necessary candidate to being a twat in his own right.

    What exactly the fuck are his advisors up to? If we want mad Brexit we'll vote for the full fat version in Boris.

    Had your usual dose of magic mushrooms today, have you?
    Lentil soup actually.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,594
    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    There will be a change of government and direction before the FTA is concluded anyway.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 3,060

    TOPPING said:

    I see that Hunt has gone from being the anti-Boris, boring but necessary candidate to being a twat in his own right.

    What exactly the fuck are his advisors up to? If we want mad Brexit we'll vote for the full fat version in Boris.

    Had your usual dose of magic mushrooms today, have you?
    Funny how people who are in favour of Brexit (I assume @SquareRoot is) have the audacity to suggest anyone behaving sanely is doing something else. It is laughable. The only people eating magic mushrooms are, once again, the economic illiterates who think Brexit, and in particular the uber-insanity, no-deal Brexit is a good thing.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,834



    More insane by the day. We are now seriously planning to use billions to bail out farmers and small businesses effected by a crisis we are inflicting on ourselves for no purpose whatsoever other than a likely failed effort to shut Farage up.

    I thought that the Lloyd's bail in has been repaid? NatWest is still problematic?
    RBS is still problematic.

    £1,000bn is approximately the extent of QE, not that that was really a bailout. Or at all.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,383
    TGOHF said:

    "Kinder, gentler....."

    Mmm - 'when they go low we go high'.

    And lose.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    There will be a change of government and direction before the FTA is concluded anyway.
    Which is of course why it would be of some interest to know what the Labour Party policy on it is. How far down the line would we be or would we still be in some post-WA transition period (wherein of course the process could be stopped somehow)?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 30,634
    TOPPING said:

    I see that Hunt has gone from being the anti-Boris, boring but necessary candidate to being a twat in his own right.

    What exactly the fuck are his advisors up to? If we want mad Brexit we'll vote for the full fat version in Boris.

    "Totaler Brexit - kuerzester Brexit!" :)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,653

    Pulpstar said:

    Already on Pence at far lower odds from back when it looked like Trump might be ousted. That said, I am unconvinced there would not be time to choose an a different nominee, depending of course on when Trump did make his announcement.

    Trump's not going to run if he's dead is he ?

    I too backed Pence at around 33-1 at the same time I backed Trump for the nomination around 1-2.

    Pence at 150+ is a good bet.
    No, Trump will not run if he is dead. But if he were to announce tomorrow, or next week, or next month, that he will not run again, there would surely be time for the Republican Party to run primaries. If Trump leaves it till October 2020, then yes, it would have to be Pence. How to draw that probability curve is left as an exercise for the reader.
    But he has announced that he's running again - and will continue to campaign while he thinks it's worth it. As long as he does so, he will ensure the field against him is all-but-empty and that any opponents he does have in the primaries probably receive zero delegates.

    If Trump does want to promote Pence to bung him a pardon, the best time to withdraw on health-related grounds would be in Spring 2020, when he has the nomination already sewn up, and where he can then advise his delegates to back Pence instead.

    The chances of him doing so are low but then 30/1 bet - never mind a 150/1 bet - doesn't require them to be high in order to be value.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,883

    The big difference with the Lib Dem leadership contest is that neither of the contenders have had to have the courts placing restraining orders on them.

    I've seen this floating around twitter but have yet to find a verifiable source that he did in fact have an order placed on him. Can anyone help me out ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,383
    Nigelb said:

    Indeed it is.
    But there is no 'moving on' after we leave. We still have to deal with the consequences.

    If we leave via the WA, I can see the country to a large extent moving on.

    Brexit will remain a highly salient issue - a constant presence in our political discourse - for the many years that it will take to agree the Future Relationship.

    However, I do not expect this to exercise anything like the dominance over our politics that the existential question of leaving (or not) has done and is doing.

    This is a big plus of the WA in my view.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,653
    By the way, on Mike's previous piece, I stand by my views.

    Yes, YouGov did well in the EP elections - second only to Mori - but they were a long way out on the Brexit Party: more so than anyone else bar Opinium.

    For me, the Brexit Party share was the crucial stat because that's the one where motivation to vote is likely to have the biggest impact. That YouGov continue to report BXP higher than anyone else suggests to me that they may well be continuing to report armchair support as voting intention.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    Interesting - Mercedes could have problems at Hockenheim and Budapest, too:
    https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/144523/mercedes-explains-painful-austria-cooling-issues

    As a mark of how severely they suffered on Sunday, the Mercedes was 20kph slower than their rivals at the speed trap.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Indeed it is.
    But there is no 'moving on' after we leave. We still have to deal with the consequences.

    If we leave via the WA, I can see the country to a large extent moving on.

    Brexit will remain a highly salient issue - a constant presence in our political discourse - for the many years that it will take to agree the Future Relationship.

    However, I do not expect this to exercise anything like the dominance over our politics that the existential question of leaving (or not) has done and is doing.

    This is a big plus of the WA in my view.
    I don't disagree entirely - though the arguments about the future relationship would be intense.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,948
    I found this article interesting. On reading it, it seemed to me to be a very good description of Poujadism.

    https://unherd.com/2019/07/farage-has-found-boriss-weak-spot/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

    From Wiki

    Poujadism flourished most vigorously in the last years of the Fourth Republic, and articulated the economic interests and grievances of shopkeepers and other proprietor-managers of small businesses facing economic and social change. The main themes of Poujadism concerned the defense of the common man against the elites.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poujade

    May be this is a more apt comparison than with the BNP / Front Nationale, etc?

    I don't remember enough of my studies of the Fifth Republic to know why it faded. Perhaps Charles de Gaulle was seen as enough of a strong/populist leader that the need for representation wasn't as strong?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Indeed it is.
    But there is no 'moving on' after we leave. We still have to deal with the consequences.

    If we leave via the WA, I can see the country to a large extent moving on.

    Brexit will remain a highly salient issue - a constant presence in our political discourse - for the many years that it will take to agree the Future Relationship.

    However, I do not expect this to exercise anything like the dominance over our politics that the existential question of leaving (or not) has done and is doing.

    This is a big plus of the WA in my view.
    The biggest problem in perception of the WA (that it is the final deal, rather than a necessary first step towards a deal) would become its biggest strength - everyone would think we had left and that the WA was the "deal".
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 647
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting

    I'm genuinely surprised you or anyone else finds anything remotely 'interesting' about Formula 1.

    It's not a sport and it's deathly dull.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    edited July 1
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Indeed it is.
    But there is no 'moving on' after we leave. We still have to deal with the consequences.



    This is a big plus of the WA in my view.
    Amazing that the WA has taken 3 years to negotiate and might only last 18 months...
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,499
    rkrkrk said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    His communication style is really poor. Long rambling sentences with lots of sub clauses that make him hard to follow.
    A bit like Johnson then
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    You might not but the nation cannot focus on one topic for so long.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,955
    The Tories have gone full fruit-loop, batshit crazy, haven’t they? It’s quite extraordinary.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    You might not but the nation cannot focus on one topic for so long.

    Maybe maybe not. But it's good to know that we have right here on PB someone who can speak for the nation.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 29,955
    Nigelb said:
    And it’s only a matter of time for the other half.

  • FenmanFenman Posts: 639
    Charles said:

    I found this article interesting. On reading it, it seemed to me to be a very good description of Poujadism.

    https://unherd.com/2019/07/farage-has-found-boriss-weak-spot/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

    From Wiki

    Poujadism flourished most vigorously in the last years of the Fourth Republic, and articulated the economic interests and grievances of shopkeepers and other proprietor-managers of small businesses facing economic and social change. The main themes of Poujadism concerned the defense of the common man against the elites.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poujade

    May be this is a more apt comparison than with the BNP / Front Nationale, etc?

    I don't remember enough of my studies of the Fifth Republic to know why it faded. Perhaps Charles de Gaulle was seen as enough of a strong/populist leader that the need for representation wasn't as strong?

    It had no answer to the Algeria War. Only De Gaulle offered a solution.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,499

    Nigelb said:
    And it’s only a matter of time for the other half.

    Doe that make it a good time to buy pork belly’s ?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,281

    The Tories have gone full fruit-loop, batshit crazy, haven’t they? It’s quite extraordinary.

    Yes. And yes. The Tory party is dying before our eyes. What rough beast is being born to replace it, who can say? At the moment it looks to have adopted Corbyn’s spending plans.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,281
    Fenman said:

    Charles said:

    I found this article interesting. On reading it, it seemed to me to be a very good description of Poujadism.

    https://unherd.com/2019/07/farage-has-found-boriss-weak-spot/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

    From Wiki

    Poujadism flourished most vigorously in the last years of the Fourth Republic, and articulated the economic interests and grievances of shopkeepers and other proprietor-managers of small businesses facing economic and social change. The main themes of Poujadism concerned the defense of the common man against the elites.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poujade

    May be this is a more apt comparison than with the BNP / Front Nationale, etc?

    I don't remember enough of my studies of the Fifth Republic to know why it faded. Perhaps Charles de Gaulle was seen as enough of a strong/populist leader that the need for representation wasn't as strong?

    It had no answer to the Algeria War. Only De Gaulle offered a solution.
    De Gaulle’s solution was to tell the pieds noir that he felt their pain and then promptly betray them once in office.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 14,972
    Vanilla embed not working again on PBDOTCOM?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 2,802
    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    You might not but the nation cannot focus on one topic for so long.

    Most people in the nation are not focused on Brexit now. But politics is paralysed by it and will remain so for the forseeable future.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    You might not but the nation cannot focus on one topic for so long.

    Maybe maybe not. But it's good to know that we have right here on PB someone who can speak for the nation.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/nation-bored-brexit-uk-voters-sleepwalking-disaster
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,504

    The Tories have gone full fruit-loop, batshit crazy, haven’t they? It’s quite extraordinary.

    Thatcher's even madder successors have taken over and they seem on a par with this right-wing pressure group of 65 years ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Empire_Loyalists
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,383
    Nigelb said:

    I don't disagree entirely - though the arguments about the future relationship would be intense.

    I wonder how different in practice the objectives of Labour and Conservative would be as regards this? Perhaps not so much.

    EDIT:

    From PT - Corbyn - I am not the biggest fan of his (wouldn't mind him being replaced by someone a bit brighter, frankly) but essentially I am happy to vote Labour because I support most of the policies and I share the principles underlying the policies. I think it is time for a serious attempt to tackle inequality (of both opportunity and outcome) in Britain. It will only get worse if we don't. I recognize the risk (to the economy and to the peace of mind of many people, including myself) which comes with a majority Labour government who are ideologically committed to this, but to my mind it is worth it. It passes the risk reward test.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543

    The Tories have gone full fruit-loop, batshit crazy, haven’t they? It’s quite extraordinary.

    Two of them at least.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    You might not but the nation cannot focus on one topic for so long.

    Maybe maybe not. But it's good to know that we have right here on PB someone who can speak for the nation.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/nation-bored-brexit-uk-voters-sleepwalking-disaster
    One article expressing the author's opinion. He's as bad as you are. Or is there a "poll" hidden in there somewhere?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 31

    Nigelb said:
    And it’s only a matter of time for the other half.

    We'd better send Liz Truss over to open up new pork markets
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    edited July 1
    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    You might not but the nation cannot focus on one topic for so long.

    Maybe maybe not. But it's good to know that we have right here on PB someone who can speak for the nation.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/nation-bored-brexit-uk-voters-sleepwalking-disaster
    One article expressing the author's opinion. He's as bad as you are. Or is there a "poll" hidden in there somewhere?
    https://www.ft.com/content/db86acfe-8cf2-11e9-a24d-b42f641eca37

    "

    More than a third of Britons avoid the news, and the majority do so because reports on Brexit make them feel too angry, sad or bored to pay attention, according to a survey.

    Two years ago, roughly one in five British people claimed to sometimes or often shun news but the country has since had the highest jump in people withdrawing from following the news, according to the poll of more than 75,000 people in 38 countries, published by the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

    When UK readers were asked what kind of news they sought to avoid, 71 per cent said Brexit coverage.

    "
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 18,543
    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    You might not but the nation cannot focus on one topic for so long.

    Maybe maybe not. But it's good to know that we have right here on PB someone who can speak for the nation.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/nation-bored-brexit-uk-voters-sleepwalking-disaster
    One article expressing the author's opinion. He's as bad as you are. Or is there a "poll" hidden in there somewhere?
    https://www.ft.com/content/db86acfe-8cf2-11e9-a24d-b42f641eca37

    "

    More than a third of Britons avoid the news, and the majority do so because reports on Brexit make them feel too angry, sad or bored to pay attention, according to a survey.

    Two years ago, roughly one in five British people claimed to sometimes or often shun news but the country has since had the highest jump in people withdrawing from following the news, according to the poll of more than 75,000 people in 38 countries, published by the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

    When UK readers were asked what kind of news they sought to avoid, 71 per cent said Brexit coverage.

    "
    The nation wants a Labour Party Government.

    One third/one fifth
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 27,165
    edited July 1
    O/T

    Just had a bit of a nasty surprise in a very trivial way.

    I was reading the comments on this page where people are complaining about living in London, and I assumed the posts were from years like 2018 and 2019. But I've just noticed that I was mis-reading the year and in fact many of the posts are from 2008 and 2009.

    https://whyihatelondon.wordpress.com/about/

    I wonder if Brexit could have been predicted from the sheer level of bile and vituperativeness on that page?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,948
    HYUFD said:
    “Almost unique” is a phrase that makes my teeth grate.

    You are unique. Or you are not.

    There is no “almost”
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 20,711
    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    TOPPING said:

    TGOHF said:

    Nigelb said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:
    If Rory believes the nation is crying out to talk about Brexit for 3 more years then its no wonder he lost.
    Deal or no deal, the nation will in any event.
    Disagree - the nation is itching to move on from Brexit.
    We're not going to move on from Brexit until the last i is dotted and t crossed on the FTA with the EU and that, my friend, is years and years away.
    You might not but the nation cannot focus on one topic for so long.

    Maybe maybe not. But it's good to know that we have right here on PB someone who can speak for the nation.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/nation-bored-brexit-uk-voters-sleepwalking-disaster
    One article expressing the author's opinion. He's as bad as you are. Or is there a "poll" hidden in there somewhere?
    https://www.ft.com/content/db86acfe-8cf2-11e9-a24d-b42f641eca37

    "

    More than a third of Britons avoid the news, and the majority do so because reports on Brexit make them feel too angry, sad or bored to pay attention, according to a survey.

    Two years ago, roughly one in five British people claimed to sometimes or often shun news but the country has since had the highest jump in people withdrawing from following the news, according to the poll of more than 75,000 people in 38 countries, published by the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

    When UK readers were asked what kind of news they sought to avoid, 71 per cent said Brexit coverage.

    "
    The nation wants a Labour Party Government.

    One third/one fifth
    one is rising , one is falling...
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,948

    The big difference with the Lib Dem leadership contest is that neither of the contenders have had to have the courts placing restraining orders on them.

    Isn’t that because the candidate who was arrested for assaulting their partner didn’t stand?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 23,948

    Nigelb said:
    And it’s only a matter of time for the other half.

    The official stats are 50% of pigs in 35% of China. The industry talk is 50-70% of the herd.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,383
    TOPPING said:

    The biggest problem in perception of the WA (that it is the final deal, rather than a necessary first step towards a deal) would become its biggest strength - everyone would think we had left and that the WA was the "deal".

    Yes exactly. The deed is done. Long years of UK/EU talks lie ahead but they will not be leading the news night after night. We will have 'moved on' in this sense, and it is a real sense of that term. Many analogies spring to mind but for once in my life I will refrain.

    No, second thoughts, I won't. The Brexit Bomb will have been diffused.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,190
    Charles said:

    I found this article interesting. On reading it, it seemed to me to be a very good description of Poujadism.

    https://unherd.com/2019/07/farage-has-found-boriss-weak-spot/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3

    From Wiki

    Poujadism flourished most vigorously in the last years of the Fourth Republic, and articulated the economic interests and grievances of shopkeepers and other proprietor-managers of small businesses facing economic and social change. The main themes of Poujadism concerned the defense of the common man against the elites.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Poujade

    May be this is a more apt comparison than with the BNP / Front Nationale, etc?

    I don't remember enough of my studies of the Fifth Republic to know why it faded. Perhaps Charles de Gaulle was seen as enough of a strong/populist leader that the need for representation wasn't as strong?

    IIRC that's right. Poujade seemed to think CDG was 'his type of President'
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,766
    edited July 1
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:
    “Almost unique” is a phrase that makes my teeth grate.

    You are unique. Or you are not.

    There is no “almost”
    If you had two extremely rare teacups... and one was being played with by your toddler.
This discussion has been closed.