Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s the big one in WH2016 and the betting could be tu

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s the big one in WH2016 and the betting could be turned on its head

In previous White House Races the first debate has been seen as a sort of official start to hostilities. This is said to be the point when voters start to get engaged. This time that is much less so because public interest in the fight to succeed Obama has been far higher than anything we’ve seen before.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • First ..... again!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002

    First ..... again!

    damn you, sir.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002
    on topic.. it's gonna be yuuuuge.
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
  • This is a conundrum for people in Asian timezones. On the one hand it's an important global event, on the other 11am is too early to start drinking.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002

    This is a conundrum for people in Asian timezones. On the one hand it's an important global event, on the other 11am is too early to start drinking.

    Just head to the nearest airport ;)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    Seventh like ukip
  • I hope to flag up a betting opportunity later today based on Shadsy's market as regards how many if any of Ladbrokes' nominated "6 Big States" Trump will win ..... but they appear to have taken this down overnight.
    Meanwhile, PB punters might like to contemplate the Magic Sign's "Buzzword Bingo" (aka Shadsy's pension Fund) on which words or phrases may or may not be uttered in tonight's TV debate between the two contenders. Personally, this is a market I avoid like the plague ever since Shads took a bit of a caning on a budget speech iirc and has since been far less accommodating in his selections ...... I mean take for example "Monica Lewinsky" tonight, on offer at just 10/1 - come on, do me a favour!
  • shiney2 said:
    Millionaire not keen on death duties so we should vote for Trump on the grounds he is a liar who does not mean what he says ("pacing and leading").
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    The head of the UK's biggest trade union has said Kezia Dugdale should not have the power to appoint Scotland's representative on Labour's ruling committee.
    Unite general secretary Len McCluskey told BBC Scotland all representatives should be elected and not appointed

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37468147
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    shiney2 said:
    Interesting read, may watch his periscope
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,290
    edited September 2016
    OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"

    Personally, I'll be surprised if Trump doesn't at least tie tonight's TV debate and probably go on to win them overall - I think he's stronger and more determined. Also, I suspect that there are a greater number of shy Republicans than shy Democrats. With the polls currently very close, it seems to me that the betting value lies with Trump at Betfair's current decimal odds of 1.59 for Hillary and 2.94 for the Donald. Were they instead say at 1.75 and 2.50 respectively, or thereabouts, I might feel differently.
  • OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"

    Personally, I'll be surprised if Trump doesn't at least tie tonight's TV debate and probably go on to win them overall - I think he's stronger and more determined. Also, I suspect that there are a greater number of shy Republicans than shy Democrats. With the polls currently very close, it seems to me that the betting value lies with Trump at Betfair's current decimal odds of 1.59 for Hillary and 2.94 for the Donald. Were they instead say at 1.75 and 2.50 respectively, or thereabouts, I might feel differently.

    Fwiw I think that's an excellent response.

    I have a different issue in terms of Forex. If Trump wins the $ will sink for a time so judging how and when to make my foreign currency transactions over the next two months is tricky.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 10,174

    OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"

    Personally, I'll be surprised if Trump doesn't at least tie tonight's TV debate and probably go on to win them overall - I think he's stronger and more determined. Also, I suspect that there are a greater number of shy Republicans than shy Democrats. With the polls currently very close, it seems to me that the betting value lies with Trump at Betfair's current decimal odds of 1.59 for Hillary and 2.94 for the Donald. Were they instead say at 1.75 and 2.50 respectively, or thereabouts, I might feel differently.

    Fwiw I think that's an excellent response.

    I have a different issue in terms of Forex. If Trump wins the $ will sink for a time so judging how and when to make my foreign currency transactions over the next two months is tricky.
    I'm not an expert, but will the $ fall if Trump wins? When the US lost its AAA rating I think the $ strengthened. The logic was that if the US economy is in trouble then the world economy is in trouble and capital flees to the safe haven of the $. So it's worth remembering that the rules for the $ are different to other currencies.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826

    OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"

    Personally, I'll be surprised if Trump doesn't at least tie tonight's TV debate and probably go on to win them overall - I think he's stronger and more determined. Also, I suspect that there are a greater number of shy Republicans than shy Democrats. With the polls currently very close, it seems to me that the betting value lies with Trump at Betfair's current decimal odds of 1.59 for Hillary and 2.94 for the Donald. Were they instead say at 1.75 and 2.50 respectively, or thereabouts, I might feel differently.

    Fwiw I think that's an excellent response.

    I have a different issue in terms of Forex. If Trump wins the $ will sink for a time so judging how and when to make my foreign currency transactions over the next two months is tricky.
    If Trump wins I somehow think the $ won't be the only thing sinking!
  • JennyFreemanJennyFreeman Posts: 488
    edited September 2016

    Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

  • JennyFreemanJennyFreeman Posts: 488
    edited September 2016
    tlg86 said:

    OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"

    Personally, I'll be surprised if Trump doesn't at least tie tonight's TV debate and probably go on to win them overall - I think he's stronger and more determined. Also, I suspect that there are a greater number of shy Republicans than shy Democrats. With the polls currently very close, it seems to me that the betting value lies with Trump at Betfair's current decimal odds of 1.59 for Hillary and 2.94 for the Donald. Were they instead say at 1.75 and 2.50 respectively, or thereabouts, I might feel differently.

    Fwiw I think that's an excellent response.

    I have a different issue in terms of Forex. If Trump wins the $ will sink for a time so judging how and when to make my foreign currency transactions over the next two months is tricky.
    I'm not an expert, but will the $ fall if Trump wins? When the US lost its AAA rating I think the $ strengthened. The logic was that if the US economy is in trouble then the world economy is in trouble and capital flees to the safe haven of the $. So it's worth remembering that the rules for the $ are different to other currencies.
    Yep. If Trump wins the dollar will fall by at least 10%.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    tlg86 said:

    OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"

    Personally, I'll be surprised if Trump doesn't at least tie tonight's TV debate and probably go on to win them overall - I think he's stronger and more determined. Also, I suspect that there are a greater number of shy Republicans than shy Democrats. With the polls currently very close, it seems to me that the betting value lies with Trump at Betfair's current decimal odds of 1.59 for Hillary and 2.94 for the Donald. Were they instead say at 1.75 and 2.50 respectively, or thereabouts, I might feel differently.

    Fwiw I think that's an excellent response.

    I have a different issue in terms of Forex. If Trump wins the $ will sink for a time so judging how and when to make my foreign currency transactions over the next two months is tricky.
    I'm not an expert, but will the $ fall if Trump wins? When the US lost its AAA rating I think the $ strengthened. The logic was that if the US economy is in trouble then the world economy is in trouble and capital flees to the safe haven of the $. So it's worth remembering that the rules for the $ are different to other currencies.
    Yep. If Trump wins the dollar will fall by at least 10%.
    From the Scott Adam's piece - the references to wanting to party like Trumpers, rather than crying/moving to Canada summed it up.

    :lol:
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 2,576
    FPT - nothing I have seen since switching on news this morning alluding to possibility of an imminent Labour split, as per last night's rumours. If there is going to be an SDP moment at 7:45 this morning then it isn't being trailed!
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.

  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    Probably not, if it happens, which I doubt. As I've said before, I'm relaxed about Trump because he will not have his own team in place for Cabinet and diplomatic appointments so to a large extent the grown-ups will be running the show behind the scenes (in other words, Trump will select from options provided by the GOP establishment).
  • Moses_ said:

    The head of the UK's biggest trade union has said Kezia Dugdale should not have the power to appoint Scotland's representative on Labour's ruling committee.
    Unite general secretary Len McCluskey told BBC Scotland all representatives should be elected and not appointed

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37468147

    Yep, it's not looking good. It could be the last nail in Labour's coffin.

  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    Probably not, if it happens, which I doubt. As I've said before, I'm relaxed about Trump because he will not have his own team in place for Cabinet and diplomatic appointments so to a large extent the grown-ups will be running the show behind the scenes (in other words, Trump will select from options provided by the GOP establishment).

    Not so sure about that. A lot of GOP people will be wary of working for Trump because he is volatile and because they will not want to be associated with his Presidency.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    FPT - nothing I have seen since switching on news this morning alluding to possibility of an imminent Labour split, as per last night's rumours. If there is going to be an SDP moment at 7:45 this morning then it isn't being trailed!

    Nothing on Sky either
  • JennyFreemanJennyFreeman Posts: 488
    edited September 2016
    It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.
    SO, please don't use the 'r' word. Apparently it's not allowed, and you're going to trigger so many people ...

    Oh, and I don't think I said so, but thanks for yesterday's piece.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited September 2016
    Likely voters split 46 percent for Clinton and 44 percent for Trump, with Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson at 5 percent and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 1 percent. Among registered voters, Clinton and Trump are tied at 41 percent, with Johnson at 7 percent and Stein at 2 percent.

    In a two-way matchup between the major-party nominees, Clinton tops Trump by 49 percent to 47 percent among likely voters, and the two are tied at 46 percent among all registered voters. Clinton’s two-point edge among likely voters, in both the four-way and two-way ballot tests, is within the survey’s 4.5 percentage-point margin of sampling error.

    ...Most Americans say they are following the campaign diligently, but a higher percentage of Trump supporters appear to be paying close attention than Clinton backers. Also, more Clinton backers say they are not registered to vote, which adds to pressure on her team to get them registered and to the polls.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-clinton-trump-in-virtual-dead-heat-on-eve-of-first-debate/2016/09/24/b99c95de-81cb-11e6-8327-f141a7beb626_story.html?wpisrc=nl_most-draw6&wpmm=1
  • It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

    True enough, but not the whole story. Labour was in significant trouble anyway: look at the lacklustre candidates they had; not just in 2015, but 2010 as well. The reaction to some of 2015's candidates from within Labour shows the poison was already festering within.

    Who do I blame? Brown. He and his henchmen destroyed the careers of many rivals who might have done a good job in 2010. He could also have adjusted Labour's trajectory in Scotland which saw abuses such as Falkirk.

    He wasn't the start of the rot, but he fed the rot bucketloads of sugary drinks.
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.
    SO, please don't use the 'r' word. Apparently it's not allowed, and you're going to trigger so many people ...

    Oh, and I don't think I said so, but thanks for yesterday's piece.

    Thanks - though I think with the NEC news this morning what I wrote yesterday is already outdated.

    As for Trump, I am afraid he is a racist. Saying someone cannot do their job properly solely because of their ethnicity is racism, pure and simple. If people want to support him, that's fine. But they can't complain if I and others point out they are supporting a racist. They are. I suspect that for a fair few that is not a problem anyway.

  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    edited September 2016

    Moses_ said:

    The head of the UK's biggest trade union has said Kezia Dugdale should not have the power to appoint Scotland's representative on Labour's ruling committee.
    Unite general secretary Len McCluskey told BBC Scotland all representatives should be elected and not appointed

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37468147

    Yep, it's not looking good. It could be the last nail in Labour's coffin.

    Cheeky but I suppose they could have an election north of the border and put forward the chosen candidate. Meets Lens demand in full that those appointed should be elected not appointed.
  • It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

    No, it was the election of Ed Miliband - the politician with the worst political judgement of any politician who has ever lived - that did for Labour. Ed enabled all that has followed. I said on the day he was elected that it would be an absolute disaster and, sadly, I have been proved correct.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,215
    Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.

    I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.

    From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 28,810
    edited September 2016
    Moses_ said:

    Moses_ said:

    The head of the UK's biggest trade union has said Kezia Dugdale should not have the power to appoint Scotland's representative on Labour's ruling committee.
    Unite general secretary Len McCluskey told BBC Scotland all representatives should be elected and not appointed

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37468147

    Yep, it's not looking good. It could be the last nail in Labour's coffin.

    Cheeky but I suppose they could have an election north of the border and put forward the chosen candidate. Meets Lens demand in full that those appointed should be elected not appointed.

    The thing is that both the Scottish and Welsh leaders are as elected as Corbyn is, and the seats are for them or the person of their choosing. Corbyn is not elected onto the NEC either. Len and Corbyn are playing games because they know what those seats will mean. Sadly, it seems as if enough NEC members are prepared to accommodate them having previously voted in favour of the principles. Labour has no hope of a future in such circumstances.

  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649

    shiney2 said:
    Millionaire not keen on death duties so we should vote for Trump on the grounds he is a liar who does not mean what he says ("pacing and leading").
    er, he switched because Trumps opponent is a warmonger..
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826

    It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

    No, it was the election of Ed Miliband - the politician with the worst political judgement of any politician who has ever lived - that did for Labour. Ed enabled all that has followed. I said on the day he was elected that it would be an absolute disaster and, sadly, I have been proved correct.

    To be fair that was a slow burn, even if you are right, and there is no one thing that led from EM to JC. Whereas without the generosity of spirit of MPs Beckett, Lammy, Khan, Cruddas and others, Saturday would not have been possible.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,215

    It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

    No, it was the election of Ed Miliband - the politician with the worst political judgement of any politician who has ever lived - that did for Labour. Ed enabled all that has followed. I said on the day he was elected that it would be an absolute disaster and, sadly, I have been proved correct.
    Just catching up, good thread yesterday, a difficult time for the sensible, electable wing of the Labour Party right now.
  • It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

    Terrible political judgement, perhaps only beaten by Cameron's at O'Hare airport over a pizza.
  • It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

    No, it was the election of Ed Miliband - the politician with the worst political judgement of any politician who has ever lived - that did for Labour. Ed enabled all that has followed. I said on the day he was elected that it would be an absolute disaster and, sadly, I have been proved correct.

    Well I did use the word 'finished.' There were precursors, for sure. But however awful EdM was, Labour still had a way back with the right leader. Now they don't. They are finished as a force. The takeover by Militant (aka Momentum) will gather pace until all the old Blairites have been extinguished.

    Did you see that Derek Hatton is at the Conference, or rather Conference (I never did get the faux-working class loss of the definite article)? He was there with the approval of Corbyn's office. His rehabilitation into the party would complete the rout.

    Bye bye Labour.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016

    shiney2 said:
    Millionaire not keen on death duties so we should vote for Trump on the grounds he is a liar who does not mean what he says ("pacing and leading").
    The problem with these self made guys is that while they may have worked long hours seven days a week to get where they are they fail to realise that the reward they have received for that work is out of all proportion to the amount of work they have done to receive it.
  • 1985. Quite an incredible speech from Kinnock really. What chaos!

    30 years later and they're all back and they're in charge.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    Can I point out that it is only 45 minutes to 0745 when Labour are able to launch their WMD**

    ** words of mass destruction.

  • Sandpit said:

    It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

    No, it was the election of Ed Miliband - the politician with the worst political judgement of any politician who has ever lived - that did for Labour. Ed enabled all that has followed. I said on the day he was elected that it would be an absolute disaster and, sadly, I have been proved correct.
    Just catching up, good thread yesterday, a difficult time for the sensible, electable wing of the Labour Party right now.

    Cheers - today's NEC news looks like being the death knell for the wishy-washy likes of me in Labour. If Corbyn gets control of that it is game over for us.

  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649

    It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.

    At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.

    Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.

    No, it was the election of Ed Miliband - the politician with the worst political judgement of any politician who has ever lived - that did for Labour. Ed enabled all that has followed. I said on the day he was elected that it would be an absolute disaster and, sadly, I have been proved correct.

    Well I did use the word 'finished.' There were precursors, for sure. But however awful EdM was, Labour still had a way back with the right leader. Now they don't. They are finished as a force. The takeover by Militant (aka Momentum) will gather pace until all the old Blairites have been extinguished.

    Did you see that Derek Hatton is at the Conference, or rather Conference (I never did get the faux-working class loss of the definite article)? He was there with the approval of Corbyn's office. His rehabilitation into the party would complete the rout.

    Bye bye Labour.
    Steady on. These days Deggsy fits right in with Mandelson's instruction to get 'filthy rich'. He took a sabbatical after Militant and became a 'property developer' in North Cyprus. He's a Blairite now..
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.

    I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.

    From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.

    Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?

    And this?

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    edited September 2016
    Moses_ said:

    Can I point out that it is only 45 minutes to 0745 when Labour are able to launch their WMD**

    ** words of mass destruction.

    Well if it is a big story in an embargoed letter, then the stories will be already prepared to go up on the Internet at 0745. So not long to wait.

    Edit/ on the one hand a BBC journalist saying he has see a letter gives the story credibility. On the other, so many of the plotters were at the 'stay in labour' rally yesterday, it would be odd to start breaking away the day after?
  • Tonight's debate will be interesting. If I'very been right about how this goes it will be the point where Trump fully eclipses Clinton and the folly of the DNC railroading through such a poor and unpopular candidate becomes clear.

    Its Trump's election to lose
  • OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"

    Personally, I'll be surprised if Trump doesn't at least tie tonight's TV debate and probably go on to win them overall - I think he's stronger and more determined. Also, I suspect that there are a greater number of shy Republicans than shy Democrats. With the polls currently very close, it seems to me that the betting value lies with Trump at Betfair's current decimal odds of 1.59 for Hillary and 2.94 for the Donald. Were they instead say at 1.75 and 2.50 respectively, or thereabouts, I might feel differently.

    If Peter Hitchens, on the ground in Moscow (Idaho) is right, there may be a hell of a lot of shy Trumpers:

    "In private conversations (the only sort where people will say what they really think), you find out what this means. Democrats are holding their noses over Hillary because they despise her and wish she wasn’t their candidate.
    But many Republicans are stifling their genuine enthusiasm for Trump, because – in small towns like this – they don’t want to annoy or alienate neighbours who may also be customers, clients, patients or employers."

    "I first came to Moscow, Idaho, eight years ago when the great Obama frenzy was at its unhinged peak. This is a divided place, traditional rural conservatives living alongside a Left-wing university campus.....

    People disagreed, but they did it politely and openly..... Almost every front lawn had its partisan placard.

    Now politics has gone underground in an almost sinister way. I searched the town’s pleasant suburbs for a Trump or Clinton poster and found none, only a single defiant declaration of support for America’s Jeremy Corbyn, the Left-winger Bernie Sanders, who long ago quit the race."

    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk.

    I said this was Brexit 2.0 months ago. I still think it is.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,215
    shiney2 said:
    That's an interesting article, especially the bit about estate taxes making the point that what Hillary has written in her manifesto is deliberately misleading. I'm not sure she can possibly lose California, but estate taxes are sure to go down as well there as when Vince Cable proposed a 'mansion' tax on half of Twickenham.
  • shiney2 said:

    It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.





    Well I did use the word 'finished.' There were precursors, for sure. But however awful EdM was, Labour still had a way back with the right leader. Now they don't. They are finished as a force. The takeover by Militant (aka Momentum) will gather pace until all the old Blairites have been extinguished.

    Did you see that Derek Hatton is at the Conference, or rather Conference (I never did get the faux-working class loss of the definite article)? He was there with the approval of Corbyn's office. His rehabilitation into the party would complete the rout.

    Bye bye Labour.
    Steady on. These days Deggsy fits right in with Mandelson's instruction to get 'filthy rich'. He took a sabbatical after Militant and became a 'property developer' in North Cyprus. He's a Blairite now..
    Wasn't he always like that in the best traditions of a Trotskyite? He loved his luxury whilst running Liverpool council, including fine suits and lavish lifestyle.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    LBC leading on labour splits - possibly a clue. And the BBC journalist who claimed to have seen the letter is due on BBC local radio to talk about labour resignations at 0735.
  • JennyFreemanJennyFreeman Posts: 488
    edited September 2016

    OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"



    I said this was Brexit 2.0 months ago. I still think it is.

    Absolutely agree.

    I would vote for Trump but I wouldn't dare admit it to any pollster or anyone I know.
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.

    I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,714
    edited September 2016
    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:
    Millionaire not keen on death duties so we should vote for Trump on the grounds he is a liar who does not mean what he says ("pacing and leading").
    er, he switched because Trumps opponent is a warmonger..
    That's stupider than his endorsement if Romeny because Obama didn't legalise pot. Trump had advocated war crimes.

    Scott Adams said McCain would win and endorsed Romeny. He has no political accuem at all. I have no idea why people keep linkinh to his blog posts.
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    Probably not, if it happens, which I doubt. As I've said before, I'm relaxed about Trump because he will not have his own team in place for Cabinet and diplomatic appointments so to a large extent the grown-ups will be running the show behind the scenes (in other words, Trump will select from options provided by the GOP establishment).

    Not so sure about that. A lot of GOP people will be wary of working for Trump because he is volatile and because they will not want to be associated with his Presidency.

    That depends on the scale of his victory.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    IanB2 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Can I point out that it is only 45 minutes to 0745 when Labour are able to launch their WMD**

    ** words of mass destruction.

    Well if it is a big story in an embargoed letter, then the stories will be already prepared to go up on the Internet at 0745. So not long to wait.

    Edit/ on the one hand a BBC journalist saying he has see a letter gives the story credibility. On the other, so many of the plotters were at the 'stay in labour' rally yesterday, it would be odd to start breaking away the day after?
    Leaving mid conference would seem strange. Who is not there?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,002
    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.

    I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaig
    From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.

    Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?

    And this?

    So far as the rags go I've covered Johnson (No matter how bad he is) at 950 (He is a runner) and laid Michelle Obama at 480.0 for £2.
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.

    I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.

    It will not be pleasant.

  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Tonight's debate will be interesting. If I'very been right about how this goes it will be the point where Trump fully eclipses Clinton and the folly of the DNC railroading through such a poor and unpopular candidate becomes clear.

    Its Trump's election to lose

    I think this has been Trump's race for about a month.

    Hillary's woes over health and emails have been nibbling away at independents - whilst the terror attacks and shootings play straight into Trump's tough guy Law & Order wheelhouse.

    He's a master of the newscycle - when did Hillary last have one that was positive about her or her campaign? I can't remember one. I read a lot of trending topics on Twitter - and Hillary fans are downbeat, Trumpers are tails up.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,215
    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.

    I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.

    From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.

    Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?

    And this?

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
    Yep, that guy. Remember that most people haven't been paying much attention up until now. If both Trump and Clinton lose tonight, the American public might look around. If he can add enough points to get in a debate, his odds will come in dramatically from 949/1
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649

    shiney2 said:

    It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.





    Well I did use the word 'finished.' There were precursors, for sure. But however awful EdM was, Labour still had a way back with the right leader. Now they don't. They are finished as a force. The takeover by Militant (aka Momentum) will gather pace until all the old Blairites have been extinguished.

    Did you see that Derek Hatton is at the Conference, or rather Conference (I never did get the faux-working class loss of the definite article)? He was there with the approval of Corbyn's office. His rehabilitation into the party would complete the rout.

    Bye bye Labour.
    Steady on. These days Deggsy fits right in with Mandelson's instruction to get 'filthy rich'. He took a sabbatical after Militant and became a 'property developer' in North Cyprus. He's a Blairite now..
    Wasn't he always like that in the best traditions of a Trotskyite? He loved his luxury whilst running Liverpool council, including fine suits and lavish lifestyle.
    Keen on taxis too I understand.

    But even keener on this:

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Sandpit said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.

    I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.

    From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.

    Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?

    And this?

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
    Yep, that guy. Remember that most people haven't been paying much attention up until now. If both Trump and Clinton lose tonight, the American public might look around. If he can add enough points to get in a debate, his odds will come in dramatically from 949/1
    He does have the advantage of actually being on the ballot, unlike some of the other names bandied around.
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    Probably not, if it happens, which I doubt. As I've said before, I'm relaxed about Trump because he will not have his own team in place for Cabinet and diplomatic appointments so to a large extent the grown-ups will be running the show behind the scenes (in other words, Trump will select from options provided by the GOP establishment).

    Not so sure about that. A lot of GOP people will be wary of working for Trump because he is volatile and because they will not want to be associated with his Presidency.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/where-republicans-stand-on-donald-trump-a-cheat-sheet/481449/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,215

    Tonight's debate will be interesting. If I'very been right about how this goes it will be the point where Trump fully eclipses Clinton and the folly of the DNC railroading through such a poor and unpopular candidate becomes clear.

    Its Trump's election to lose

    The post mortems from both major parties will be fascinating. They both need to have four or five well-funded candidates in the race, and make sure they stay in for as long as possible. Trying to do it with two or twenty just doesn't work, as we've just seen.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"

    Personally, I'll be surprised if Trump doesn't at least tie tonight's TV debate and probably go on to win them overall - I think he's stronger and more determined. Also, I suspect that there are a greater number of shy Republicans than shy Democrats. With the polls currently very close, it seems to me that the betting value lies with Trump at Betfair's current decimal odds of 1.59 for Hillary and 2.94 for the Donald. Were they instead say at 1.75 and 2.50 respectively, or thereabouts, I might feel differently.

    If Peter Hitchens, on the ground in Moscow (Idaho) is right, there may be a hell of a lot of shy Trumpers:

    "In private conversations (the only sort where people will say what they really think), you find out what this means. Democrats are holding their noses over Hillary because they despise her and wish she wasn’t their candidate.
    But many Republicans are stifling their genuine enthusiasm for Trump, because – in small towns like this – they don’t want to annoy or alienate neighbours who may also be customers, clients, patients or employers."

    "I first came to Moscow, Idaho, eight years ago when the great Obama frenzy was at its unhinged peak. This is a divided place, traditional rural conservatives living alongside a Left-wing university campus.....

    People disagreed, but they did it politely and openly..... Almost every front lawn had its partisan placard.

    Now politics has gone underground in an almost sinister way. I searched the town’s pleasant suburbs for a Trump or Clinton poster and found none, only a single defiant declaration of support for America’s Jeremy Corbyn, the Left-winger Bernie Sanders, who long ago quit the race."

    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk.

    I said this was Brexit 2.0 months ago. I still think it is.

    I've a fair few black Trumpers in my timeline - I think we could be surprised by this demographic. Only a percentage or two would make a difference.
  • Alistair said:

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:
    Millionaire not keen on death duties so we should vote for Trump on the grounds he is a liar who does not mean what he says ("pacing and leading").
    er, he switched because Trumps opponent is a warmonger..
    That's stupider than his endorsement if Romeny because Obama didn't legalise pot. Trump had advocated war crimes.

    Scott Adams said McCain would win and endorsed Romeny. He has no political accuem at all. I have no idea why people keep linkinh to his blog posts.
    A weathervane that points in the direction of the prevailing wind?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,002
    edited September 2016

    Sandpit said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.

    I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.

    From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.

    Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?

    And this?

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
    Yep, that guy. Remember that most people haven't been paying much attention up until now. If both Trump and Clinton lose tonight, the American public might look around. If he can add enough points to get in a debate, his odds will come in dramatically from 949/1
    He does have the advantage of actually being on the ballot, unlike some of the other names bandied around.
    There are some massively long odds technicalities that can get Ryan into the white house, actuarial stuff could land either Pence or Kaine... Johnson is technically possible (Stein isn't, not enough states).

    Sanders, Biden should not be sub 100.0, and as for Michelle Obama's price...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,215

    Sandpit said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.

    I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.

    From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.

    Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?

    And this?

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
    Yep, that guy. Remember that most people haven't been paying much attention up until now. If both Trump and Clinton lose tonight, the American public might look around. If he can add enough points to get in a debate, his odds will come in dramatically from 949/1
    He does have the advantage of actually being on the ballot, unlike some of the other names bandied around.
    Indeed, he's on the ballot in all 50 states. I'm on for £2 at 950, hoping to lay off at 100 or 200 later.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Alistair said:

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:
    Millionaire not keen on death duties so we should vote for Trump on the grounds he is a liar who does not mean what he says ("pacing and leading").
    er, he switched because Trumps opponent is a warmonger..
    That's stupider than his endorsement if Romeny because Obama didn't legalise pot. Trump had advocated war crimes.

    Scott Adams said McCain would win and endorsed Romeny. He has no political accuem at all. I have no idea why people keep linkinh to his blog posts.
    It does perhaps show Republicans holding their nose and voting Trump. His point about death duties is odd though. It is double taxation, but so is the money I spend on beer or petrol.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826

    IanB2 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Can I point out that it is only 45 minutes to 0745 when Labour are able to launch their WMD**

    ** words of mass destruction.

    Well if it is a big story in an embargoed letter, then the stories will be already prepared to go up on the Internet at 0745. So not long to wait.

    Edit/ on the one hand a BBC journalist saying he has see a letter gives the story credibility. On the other, so many of the plotters were at the 'stay in labour' rally yesterday, it would be odd to start breaking away the day after?
    Leaving mid conference would seem strange. Who is not there?
    The only reason I can think of for doing it during conference - apart from simply being an immediate emotional response to Saturday - and I suppose to rain on Corbyn's party - is if you hope to take party members with you. Which would make it a very big story, but there weren't any signs of this yesterday.

    Poor show from the BBC guy talking publicly about the letter (if it exists), really. Normally journalists would do the right thing and keep quiet. Which of course could be a clue that there is something big unusually worth trailing.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Dan Wooton
    Joey doesn't share! Matt LeBlanc has signed a huge £2m two-year deal to be sole #TopGear host https://t.co/ReKoaYThtq https://t.co/NsjmXQRVI7
  • As for the new Limehouse declaration I can't see it. A backbench campaign group yes, a split no.

    The fact that such a rumour can be taken seriously tells you all you need to know. Having now seen the disgusting leaflet handed out at the Momentum anti-Semitism meeting one thing is clear.

    Its them or us. Momentum is the coup. They stay. We die. Its that simple.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,215
    edited September 2016
    IanB2 said:

    LBC leading on labour splits - possibly a clue. And the BBC journalist who claimed to have seen the letter is due on BBC local radio to talk about labour resignations at 0735.

    Ooh, what's this then? MPs about to resign the whip or is it SDP2 time?
    *goes to find R4 live stream*
  • alex.alex. Posts: 3,397
    What did Corbyn actually say about deselection yesterday? Did he say that he didn't think most MPs need fear deselection, or he didn't think most MPs need fear deselection battles? I read in the Guardian that he mentioned that anyone with a substantial geographic presence in a new constituency would be "shortlisted" - which is a bit different from mandatory reselection isn't it?
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Nice graphics

    Mine for Nothing
    This is how close Donald Trump is to victory. Just needs to take Colorado. Current polling very tight. https://t.co/MbHNcVZQob
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Can I point out that it is only 45 minutes to 0745 when Labour are able to launch their WMD**

    ** words of mass destruction.

    Well if it is a big story in an embargoed letter, then the stories will be already prepared to go up on the Internet at 0745. So not long to wait.

    Edit/ on the one hand a BBC journalist saying he has see a letter gives the story credibility. On the other, so many of the plotters were at the 'stay in labour' rally yesterday, it would be odd to start breaking away the day after?
    Leaving mid conference would seem strange. Who is not there?
    The only reason I can think of for doing it during conference - apart from simply being an immediate emotional response to Saturday - and I suppose to rain on Corbyn's party - is if you hope to take party members with you. Which would make it a very big story, but there weren't any signs of this yesterday.

    Poor show from the BBC guy talking publicly about the letter (if it exists), really. Normally journalists would do the right thing and keep quiet. Which of course could be a clue that there is something big unusually worth trailing.
    Why this journalist though for something that effectively ends one of the great parties of state. If he has this and if it's true and if it is more than local councillors having a hissy fit.... Lots of ifs.

    We shall find out in the next few minutes I guess?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    alex. said:

    What did Corbyn actually say about deselection yesterday? Did he say that he didn't think most MPs need fear deselection, or he didn't think most MPs need fear deselection battles? I read in the Guardian that he mentioned that anyone with a substantial geographic presence in a new constituency would be "shortlisted" - which is a bit different from mandatory reselection isn't it?

    Shortlisting is worth nothing if the members won't vote for you
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,002
    PlatoSaid said:

    Nice graphics

    Mine for Nothing
    This is how close Donald Trump is to victory. Just needs to take Colorado. Current polling very tight. https://t.co/MbHNcVZQob

    and he had a great poll in CO last night (+4).
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016

    Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.

    I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.

    It will not be pleasant.

    Rhodesia 2.0

    (actually the US is Rhodesia 1.0 and Rhodesia is 2.0 but thats bye the bye. )

    This is the eqiuvalent of the 1962 Rhodesian election when the pro UDI Rhodesian Front, later to be led by Smith unexpectedly beat the establishment United Federal Party.

    The eatablishment always wins in Rhodesia it was said. However liberal Prime Minister Sir Garfield Todd was seen to gave given too many concessions to Joshua Nkomo and suffered a shock defeat.

    Three years later in the 1965 election, the Rhodesia Front under Smith won every single seat.

    The liberal left have made the same mistake only worse by smearing all whites as racist and now electorates are going all Rhodesian.
  • PlatoSaid said:

    Tonight's debate will be interesting. If I'very been right about how this goes it will be the point where Trump fully eclipses Clinton and the folly of the DNC railroading through such a poor and unpopular candidate becomes clear.

    Its Trump's election to lose

    I think this has been Trump's race for about a month.

    Hillary's woes over health and emails have been nibbling away at independents - whilst the terror attacks and shootings play straight into Trump's tough guy Law & Order wheelhouse.

    He's a master of the newscycle - when did Hillary last have one that was positive about her or her campaign? I can't remember one. I read a lot of trending topics on Twitter - and Hillary fans are downbeat, Trumpers are tails up.
    What is your estimate now (obviously, things can change after the debates) of Trump's chance of becoming president? 40%, 60%, 80% ?
  • alex.alex. Posts: 3,397
    IanB2 said:

    alex. said:

    What did Corbyn actually say about deselection yesterday? Did he say that he didn't think most MPs need fear deselection, or he didn't think most MPs need fear deselection battles? I read in the Guardian that he mentioned that anyone with a substantial geographic presence in a new constituency would be "shortlisted" - which is a bit different from mandatory reselection isn't it?

    Shortlisting is worth nothing if the members won't vote for you
    Well that was my point...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    edited September 2016
    Moses_ said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Moses_ said:

    Can I point out that it is only 45 minutes to 0745 when Labour are able to launch their WMD**

    ** words of mass destruction.

    Well if it is a big story in an embargoed letter, then the stories will be already prepared to go up on the Internet at 0745. So not long to wait.

    Edit/ on the one hand a BBC journalist saying he has see a letter gives the story credibility. On the other, so many of the plotters were at the 'stay in labour' rally yesterday, it would be odd to start breaking away the day after?
    Leaving mid conference would seem strange. Who is not there?
    The only reason I can think of for doing it during conference - apart from simply being an immediate emotional response to Saturday - and I suppose to rain on Corbyn's party - is if you hope to take party members with you. Which would make it a very big story, but there weren't any signs of this yesterday.

    Poor show from the BBC guy talking publicly about the letter (if it exists), really. Normally journalists would do the right thing and keep quiet. Which of course could be a clue that there is something big unusually worth trailing.
    Why this journalist though for something that effectively ends one of the great parties of state. If he has this and if it's true and if it is more than local councillors having a hissy fit.... Lots of ifs.

    We shall find out in the next few minutes I guess?
    I wondered the same. Although of course it would be very career limiting for one of the top political journalists to do the same - would make Oakeshott's behaviour over Huhne look like a sideshow. This guy is a south of England local reporter - two 2015 Labour candidates have just resigned (Guildford and Surrey Heath, I think, the former defecting to the LibDems) which is possibly how the story, if indeed there is a story, came his way.
  • shiney2shiney2 Posts: 649
    Alistair said:

    shiney2 said:

    shiney2 said:
    Millionaire not keen on death duties so we should vote for Trump on the grounds he is a liar who does not mean what he says ("pacing and leading").
    er, he switched because Trumps opponent is a warmonger..
    That's stupider than his endorsement if Romeny because Obama didn't legalise pot. Trump had advocated war crimes.

    Scott Adams said McCain would win and endorsed Romeny. He has no political accuem at all. I have no idea why people keep linkinh to his blog posts.
    Romney.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 16,593
    If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).

    Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.

    I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    alex. said:

    What did Corbyn actually say about deselection yesterday? Did he say that he didn't think most MPs need fear deselection, or he didn't think most MPs need fear deselection battles? I read in the Guardian that he mentioned that anyone with a substantial geographic presence in a new constituency would be "shortlisted" - which is a bit different from mandatory reselection isn't it?

    He did wish them luck with their deselection process which I though was very nice and considerate.
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865
    DavidL said:
    Be funny if Chakrabarti was one of the first before she even got accustomed to ermine.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 50,002
    edited September 2016
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.

    I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.

    From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.

    Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?

    And this?

    ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
    Yep, that guy. Remember that most people haven't been paying much attention up until now. If both Trump and Clinton lose tonight, the American public might look around. If he can add enough points to get in a debate, his odds will come in dramatically from 949/1
    He does have the advantage of actually being on the ballot, unlike some of the other names bandied around.
    Indeed, he's on the ballot in all 50 states. I'm on for £2 at 950, hoping to lay off at 100 or 200 later.
    My sub 1000.0 (But not HRC or Trump) book in full:

    Back:

    Joe Biden 99.05 £21.00
    Gary Johnson 650.20 £4.00
    Mike Pence 1,000.00 £5.00 V green
    Paul Ryan 386.39 £7.20
    Bernie Sanders 33.41 £232.75
    Jill Stein 1,000.00 £2.00

    Lay:

    Joe Biden 52.53 £69.15 Very red
    Tim Kaine 160.00 £12.00 Quite green
    Michelle Obama 480 £2.00 V red
    Paul Ryan 220.00 £2.00 Green
    Bernie Sanders 32.52 £286.27 V red
    Elizabeth Warren 990.00 £2.00 red.

    Which adds up to £100 profit come the night itself.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.

    I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.

    It will not be pleasant.

    Rhodesia 2.0

    (actually the US is Rhodesia 1.0 and Rhodesia is 2.0 but thats bye the bye. )

    This is the eqiuvalent of the 1962 Rhodesian election when the pro UDI Rhodesian Front, later to be led by Smith unexpectedly beat the establishment United Federal Party.

    The eatablishment always wins in Rhodesia it was said. However liberal Prime Minister Sir Garfield Todd was seen to gave given too many concessions to Joshua Nkomo and suffered a shock defeat.

    Three years later in the 1965 election, the Rhodesia Front under Smith won every single seat.

    The liberal left have made the same mistake only worse by smearing all whites as racist and now electorates are going all Rhodesian.
    UDI didn't end well as I recall.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,215
    ydoethur said:

    If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).

    Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.

    I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?

    Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?

    That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
  • Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).

    Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.

    I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?

    Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?

    That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
    That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.

    Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.

    I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.

    It will not be pleasant.

    Rhodesia 2.0

    (actually the US is Rhodesia 1.0 and Rhodesia is 2.0 but thats bye the bye. )

    This is the eqiuvalent of the 1962 Rhodesian election when the pro UDI Rhodesian Front, later to be led by Smith unexpectedly beat the establishment United Federal Party.

    The eatablishment always wins in Rhodesia it was said. However liberal Prime Minister Sir Garfield Todd was seen to gave given too many concessions to Joshua Nkomo and suffered a shock defeat.

    Three years later in the 1965 election, the Rhodesia Front under Smith won every single seat.

    The liberal left have made the same mistake only worse by smearing all whites as racist and now electorates are going all Rhodesian.
    I think the trouble is that for at least twenty years centrist parties in the US and UK, of both left and right, have clustered around a consensus that has become so axiomatic that it brooks no criticism. They have been far too willing to dismiss those who disagree and plenty of warning signs. That includes immigration but also elected representatives not being seen to be putting the interests of their own nation/people first, above internationalism and those of global corporatism.

    In short: voters feeling their representatives are on their side.

    What we're seeing now is a political storm to make that sentiment fully felt. Saying that Trump is repugnant fuels it, IMHO, because the thing many voters want the most is to annoy/offend the established political players as much as possible.
  • PlatoSaid said:
    Smart to get ahead of the game. My heart bleeds for the Cameron cronies busy bleating that losing EURef wasn't their fault...
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    PlatoSaid said:

    Tonight's debate will be interesting. If I'very been right about how this goes it will be the point where Trump fully eclipses Clinton and the folly of the DNC railroading through such a poor and unpopular candidate becomes clear.

    Its Trump's election to lose

    I think this has been Trump's race for about a month.

    Hillary's woes over health and emails have been nibbling away at independents - whilst the terror attacks and shootings play straight into Trump's tough guy Law & Order wheelhouse.

    He's a master of the newscycle - when did Hillary last have one that was positive about her or her campaign? I can't remember one. I read a lot of trending topics on Twitter - and Hillary fans are downbeat, Trumpers are tails up.
    What is your estimate now (obviously, things can change after the debates) of Trump's chance of becoming president? 40%, 60%, 80% ?
    I'd give him 60% now - after tonight, who knows...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    edited September 2016
    With three minutes to go, looking back through the Twitter feed I am guessing the story may be co-ordinated member resignations - not MPs - but calling on MPs to form a separate parliamentary party
  • Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.

    I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6

    It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.

    I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.

    It will not be pleasant.

    Rhodesia 2.0

    (actually the US is Rhodesia 1.0 and Rhodesia is 2.0 but thats bye the bye. )

    This is the eqiuvalent of the 1962 Rhodesian election when the pro UDI Rhodesian Front, later to be led by Smith unexpectedly beat the establishment United Federal Party.

    The eatablishment always wins in Rhodesia it was said. However liberal Prime Minister Sir Garfield Todd was seen to gave given too many concessions to Joshua Nkomo and suffered a shock defeat.

    Three years later in the 1965 election, the Rhodesia Front under Smith won every single seat.

    The liberal left have made the same mistake only worse by smearing all whites as racist and now electorates are going all Rhodesian.
    UDI didn't end well as I recall.
    Did I say it would end well?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 14,826
    edited September 2016
    Lol Nick Ferrari asking Berger "how united do you think the Labour Party is at the current time?". If he knows, he is a very naughty boy
  • Moses_Moses_ Posts: 4,865

    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).

    Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.

    I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?

    Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?

    That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
    That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.

    Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.
    That there's fightin talk......


    Good luck anyway I can only agree with your sentiments and approach.
This discussion has been closed.