politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to desert Trump as do more leading Republican

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to desert Trump as do more leading Republicans

The embattled GOP nominee is continuing his fight even though leading Republican figures are in effect disowning him. He’s now as likely to focus his anger on his own party as Hillary Clinton. He’ been particularly venomous about the leading Republican in Congress, Paul Ryan.

Read the full story here

logical_song

First?

IanB2

Second like the LibDems

TheScreamingEagles

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/ReutersLobby/status/786128316080291840

PMQs should be fun today.

Perhaps after defeating Mrs May over grammar schools in a recent encounter, Jez might have another winning performance today.

To lose one PMQs to Corbyn would be unfortunate, to lose two PMQs to Corbyn, and I'd hate to be Graham Brady's postman.

logical_song

IanB2 said:

Second like the LibDems

Sorry chaps, I agree with both of you.

rcs1000

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

theakes said:

Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.

What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.

Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.

The scenario where the LibDem wins looks like this:

1. Turnout collapses. Everyone assumes it's a safe Conservative victory, and few people go out to vote. Remember that Manchester Central in 2012 was 18.2%, and Leeds Central in 1999 was 19.6%. Perhaps Kensington & Chelsea (a similarly safe Tory seat) is the best analog, where turnout was below 30%.

2. A lot of Remain Tories lend their votes to the LibDems, either to try and discourage Hard Brexit or to reverse the result entirely.

3. Labour voters (a) see the LibDems as the challenge to the Conservatives in Witney, and/or (b) want to send a message that Mr Corbyn is not to their liking.

4. UKIP does surprisingly well, perhaps because Conservative Hard Brexit-ers want to send a message discouraging Mrs May from backsliding.

5. The LibDems do an incredible job of hoovering up the Green vote.

Do I think that's likely? No.
Am I tempted by 8-1 on the LibDems? No.

Is it possible?

Yes.

Assume 30% turnout, and UKIP on 15 to 20%, and the LibDems would need about 9,000 votes to win the by-election. That's a possible in my book, but I'd want someone to offer me 25-1!

How did you get so quickly from a scenario which you said appeared to be in the making, to an assessment that its fair price likelihood is around a 4% chance?

We could have a fun day on PB predicting scenarios that would only come about one time in twenty five!

Although come to think of it, maybe that is what we actually do?

OK. I've just chucked a fiver on Betfair at 24s!

Seems like a reasonably random bet

TheScreamingEagles

I suspect the GOP going on strike against Trump really has screwed him.

That said, were he to win, this would be the greatest Presidential victory of all time.

rcs1000

@IanB2, I deleted TSE's comment to enable your "second" to be correct

TGOHF

Any value on McMullin winning Utah ?

Alanbrooke

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/ReutersLobby/status/786128316080291840

PMQs should be fun today.

Perhaps after defeating Mrs May over grammar schools in a recent encounter, Jez might have another winning performance today.

To lose one PMQs to Corbyn would be unfortunate, to lose two PMQs to Corbyn, and I'd hate to be Graham Brady's postman.

Go Tezza ! tell the all to sod off !

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 1000, that's an example of benevolent dictatorship in action

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

I suspect the GOP going on strike against Trump really has screwed him.

That said, were he to win, this would be the greatest Presidential victory of all time.

And probably vice versa...

AlastairMeeks

Are there any markets on control of the Senate or the House?

TheScreamingEagles

AlastairMeeks said:

Are there any markets on control of the Senate or the House?

Yes

For the Senate

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=2681122

JackW

TGOHF said:

Any value on McMullin winning Utah ?

Not now and only as a trading bet previously. Trump will win the state. Enough GOPers will hold their nose and vote Donald for a comfortable win.

Theuniondivvie

UKIP rebranding is going apace.

https://twitter.com/NotTheToryPress/status/785958936595746816

FF43

Interesting article by Nate Silver on the massive, massive gender divide between Democrats and Republicans. It was there well before Trump and Gropegate.

IanB2

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/ReutersLobby/status/786128316080291840

PMQs should be fun today.

Perhaps after defeating Mrs May over grammar schools in a recent encounter, Jez might have another winning performance today.

To lose one PMQs to Corbyn would be unfortunate, to lose two PMQs to Corbyn, and I'd hate to be Graham Brady's postman.

Looks to me like the Tories are playing an awkward game.

The PM's statement looks intransigent in the run-up to a vote where some on her own side have misgivings, concerns a question that may be determined in court, and is hard to square with her proposed tactic in parliament which is (only) to qualify by amendment and then accept a Labour proposal that Parliament must have its say,

TheScreamingEagles

FF43 said:

Interesting article by Nate Silver on the massive, massive gender divide between Democrats and Republicans. It was there well before Trump and Gropegate.

I'm toying with doing a thread on that, which points if Trump does lose the White House race, with that gender divide, Monday's ICM poll had Jeremy Corbyn with an even bigger gender gap

Dromedary

The day before the second debate - so, after the "Grab 'Em" tape - John King of CNN wrote that a Trump campaign official and a long-time Trump friend had both suggested that Trump's "I'll never quit" was a negotiating ploy. If it is, we may hear a lot from Breitbart and Fox in the coming days about the possibility of the Republicans losing the Senate; and perhaps hints from McCain and Ryan that that wouldn't be as bad a prospect as might be thought.

Theuniondivvie

rcs1000 said:

@IanB2, I deleted TSE's comment to enable your "second" to be correct

You've taken that Express front page to heart.

https://twitter.com/MinistryBrexit/status/786096078349340673

ToryJim

I'm really struggling to see many scenarios now where Trump wins. I think the Presidency is decided, it's how far the Trump train wreck impacts down ticket. I think it's highly the Senate will go Dem, I suspect the Republican majority in the House is safe but will be weakened. It's going to be a fascinating night on Nov 8th that's for certain.

stodge

Morning again all

On topic, the polarisation of the US is frightening to behold. There was a time when even if one was opposed, there was an inherent respect for the office of POTUS. That seems to have ebbed away. As for a bet, I think Alaska to go for Clinton is one on which I'd invest a few pounds. Obama wasn't far away in 2012 and the latest poll gives Trump only a 3-point advantage. It's the sort of state I could imagine Johnson polling well and perhaps acting as a spoiler.

Off topic, I wholeheartedly agree there should not be a vote in parliament on triggering A50 - we voted to do that on June 23rd. There does need to be scrutiny and debate on the final deal in Parliament with a vote and I think I favour that over a second referendum though I'm not wholly convinced.

Scott_P

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/786143144706441217

SouthamObserver

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

IanB2

rcs1000 said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

david_herdson said:

theakes said:

Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.

What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.

Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.

The scenario where the LibDem wins looks like this:

1. Turnout collapses. Everyone assumes it's a safe Conservative victory, and few people go out to vote. Remember that Manchester Central in 2012 was 18.2%, and Leeds Central in 1999 was 19.6%. Perhaps Kensington & Chelsea (a similarly safe Tory seat) is the best analog, where turnout was below 30%.

2. A lot of Remain Tories lend their votes to the LibDems, either to try and discourage Hard Brexit or to reverse the result entirely.

3. Labour voters (a) see the LibDems as the challenge to the Conservatives in Witney, and/or (b) want to send a message that Mr Corbyn is not to their liking.

4. UKIP does surprisingly well, perhaps because Conservative Hard Brexit-ers want to send a message discouraging Mrs May from backsliding.

5. The LibDems do an incredible job of hoovering up the Green vote.

Do I think that's likely? No.
Am I tempted by 8-1 on the LibDems? No.

Is it possible?

Yes.

Assume 30% turnout, and UKIP on 15 to 20%, and the LibDems would need about 9,000 votes to win the by-election. That's a possible in my book, but I'd want someone to offer me 25-1!

How did you get so quickly from a scenario which you said appeared to be in the making, to an assessment that its fair price likelihood is around a 4% chance?

We could have a fun day on PB predicting scenarios that would only come about one time in twenty five!

Although come to think of it, maybe that is what we actually do?

OK. I've just chucked a fiver on Betfair at 24s!

Seems like a reasonably random bet

Having responded I see I didn't notice that you weren't the OP. My apologies!

619

JackW said:

TGOHF said:

Any value on McMullin winning Utah ?

Not now and only as a trading bet previously. Trump will win the state. Enough GOPers will hold their nose and vote Donald for a comfortable win.

I disagree, only because the important Mormon block vote will take their cue from Mitt Romney and the official church newspaper, both of whom absolutely hate Trump. This will overtake any party loyalty, especially as their state GOP are abandoning Trump. Also a lot of college eduate whites in Utah.

The 'can't stand Clinton' crowd would vote for McMullan, as a republican independent who is a Mormon with local links.

Trump still could win of course, but I would say 50/50

Stark_Dawning

Latest from the Trump trail:

There was even a new nickname. Longtime Hillary confidante Sidney Blumenthal has become “Sleazy Sid.” Not bad! Not even wrong! But the target of the epithet is telling. This is no “Low-Energy Jeb” or “Lyin’ Ted.” The average voter has no clue, and doesn’t care, who Blumenthal is. It’s Trump’s dead-enders—the ones still trudging out to rallies to cheer on a confirmed cretin and then trudging home to wallow in the latest on Breitbart—who thrill to this stuff in their shrinking bubble, in their hate-filled arenas, in the grimy dusk of a dying campaign.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/09/jonah_goldberg_on_why_he_won_t_vote_for_hillary_or_trump.html

AlastairMeeks

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

TGOHF

McMullin at 22% to Trump's 26 ?

IanB2

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, that's an example of benevolent dictatorship in action

Did I miss something?

Dromedary

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

Yes, that's the kind of thing that friends of Trump need to be saying a lot in order to raise the price of a Trump withdrawal.

TheScreamingEagles

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

I agree, but remember they need 52, because there's 2 Senators who are independent but generally vote/caucus with the Dems, who wont count with Paddy Power.

TheScreamingEagles

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, that's an example of benevolent dictatorship in action

Did I miss something?

Yes, Robert purged my comment, to make sure your second like the Lib Dems post was the second on this thread, not the third one.

Jobabob

stodge said:

Morning again all

On topic, the polarisation of the US is frightening to behold. There was a time when even if one was opposed, there was an inherent respect for the office of POTUS. That seems to have ebbed away. As for a bet, I think Alaska to go for Clinton is one on which I'd invest a few pounds. Obama wasn't far away in 2012 and the latest poll gives Trump only a 3-point advantage. It's the sort of state I could imagine Johnson polling well and perhaps acting as a spoiler.

Off topic, I wholeheartedly agree there should not be a vote in parliament on triggering A50 - we voted to do that on June 23rd. There does need to be scrutiny and debate on the final deal in Parliament with a vote and I think I favour that over a second referendum though I'm not wholly convinced.

How is the rise of Trump any different from the rise of Palin? Both are populists who appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor.

There will always be that target group in the US, but so far, in recent times, their political representatives have been soundly beaten.

Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.

It is quite possible that Trump, like Palin, becomes an irrelevance very quickly after election day.

SouthamObserver

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

TGOHF

When was the last time a state didn't vote for the Rep or Dem candidate ?

619

TGOHF said:

McMullin at 22% to Trump's 26 ?

Yup. Now that he is a valid third party candidate, I can see a lot of the 14% Johnson has jumping to him, as well as some 'holding nose' voters for the other 2

TheScreamingEagles

TGOHF said:

When was the last time a state didn't vote for the Rep or Dem candidate ?

1968 - 5 States voted for George Wallace

FF43

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

619

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Yes, but that's only worth so much. And he really is a massive piece of shit, so I would say it's not going to be deciding factor

Lennon

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

I agree, but remember they need 52, because there's 2 Senators who are independent but generally vote/caucus with the Dems, who wont count with Paddy Power.

Given that 1 of the 2 was Bernie... does he still count as an Indie - or is he now a Democrat?

FrancisUrquhart

I see the Dumb Jerks, I mean the Young Turks (who were big Bernie supporters), are making a fairly serious allegation of CNN in communication to DNC / Clinton over upcoming questions in a Town Hall they were doing.

Won't make a bit of difference, but looks very bad.

DecrepitJohnL

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Are we sure Trump particularly wants conservative justices?

TheScreamingEagles

Lennon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

I agree, but remember they need 52, because there's 2 Senators who are independent but generally vote/caucus with the Dems, who wont count with Paddy Power.

Given that 1 of the 2 was Bernie... does he still count as an Indie - or is he now a Democrat?

He's gone back to being an Independent, he joined the Dems to run in the primaries, but became Independent once he didn't get the nomination.

Jobabob

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

The decline of the use of the death penalty in the US is one of the great unwritten political stories. Its usage has been trending downwards for years, and a number of de jure retentionist states haven't performed an execution for so long that Amnesty considers them to be de facto abolitionist.

More, a number of botched executions and other horrors have led to public support wavering to a point where most Americans tell pollsters they would prefer imprisonment with no chance of parole to execution.

It is therefore quite possible that more states could become de jure abolitionist in coming years. Whether a change in the Scotus would see capital punishment abolished at the federal level – I'm not so sure. The United States is very precious about the primacy of state law over federal in many areas of policy.

FF43

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

The actual polls for the Senate majority are 50/50 and in principle take account of the Trump damage down ticket, ie they account for liklihood to vote. The question is whether large numbers of Republicans who would reliably vote that way for the Senate as well as the President, are so dismayed by Trump that they don't turn out at all and fail to vote for their Senate candidate.

Richard_Nabavi

An interesting and quite encouraging answer from Sir Jon Cunliffe on whether euro-denominated clearing could move out of London:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/oct/12/sterling-rebounds-brexit-fears-bank-of-england-business-live

11.08

IanB2

TheScreamingEagles said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 1000, that's an example of benevolent dictatorship in action

Did I miss something?

Yes, Robert purged my comment, to make sure your second like the Lib Dems post was the second on this thread, not the third one.

Odd, it wasn't there when I posted and wasn't there when I refreshed to check the second. So he must have been quick; I never saw it.

SouthamObserver

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

The decline of the use of the death penalty in the US is one of the great unwritten political stories. Its usage has been trending downwards for years, and a number of de jure retentionist states haven't performed an execution for so long that Amnesty considers them to be de facto abolitionist.

More, a number of botched executions and other horrors have led to public support wavering to a point where most Americans tell pollsters they would prefer imprisonment with no chance of parole to execution.

It is therefore quite possible that more states could become de jure abolitionist in coming years. Whether a change in the Scotus would see capital punishment abolished at the federal level – I'm not so sure. The United States is very precious about the primacy of state law over federal in many areas of policy.

SCOTUS has jurisdiction over federal law and can override state law too, I believe.

glw

Jobabob said:

How is the rise of Trump any different from the rise of Palin? Both are populists who appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor.

There will always be that target group in the US, but so far, in recent times, their political representatives have been soundly beaten.

Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.

It is quite possible that Trump, like Palin, becomes an irrelevance very quickly after election day.

I know this is a crazy idea but perhaps a President (especially a Democrat) should actually do something to help the "the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor" and then maybe they wouldn't rally round people like Palin and Trump? If the same sort of thing keeps happening, and I would add Bush to your list, perhaps there is a problem that needs tackling rather than ignoring.

SouthamObserver

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Trump wants pro-Trump justices.

Jobabob

SouthamObserver said:

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

The decline of the use of the death penalty in the US is one of the great unwritten political stories. Its usage has been trending downwards for years, and a number of de jure retentionist states haven't performed an execution for so long that Amnesty considers them to be de facto abolitionist.

More, a number of botched executions and other horrors have led to public support wavering to a point where most Americans tell pollsters they would prefer imprisonment with no chance of parole to execution.

It is therefore quite possible that more states could become de jure abolitionist in coming years. Whether a change in the Scotus would see capital punishment abolished at the federal level – I'm not so sure. The United States is very precious about the primacy of state law over federal in many areas of policy.

SCOTUS has jurisdiction over federal law and can override state law too, I believe.

It has that power, but I question whether it would go that far because of the repercussions of doing so. You may, however, be right. I am simply raising a question.

FF43

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Are we sure Trump particularly wants conservative justices?

I suspect he doesn't care. The assumption is that he would deliver them as he says he will. If people wanting conservative judges do assume that, they will vote accordingly.

FrancisUrquhart

SouthamObserver said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Trump wants pro-Trump justices.

If he could, Trump would be the supreme court, held in Trump Towers, like some Roman emperor....

logical_song

Jobabob said:

stodge said:

Morning again all

On topic, the polarisation of the US is frightening to behold. There was a time when even if one was opposed, there was an inherent respect for the office of POTUS. That seems to have ebbed away. As for a bet, I think Alaska to go for Clinton is one on which I'd invest a few pounds. Obama wasn't far away in 2012 and the latest poll gives Trump only a 3-point advantage. It's the sort of state I could imagine Johnson polling well and perhaps acting as a spoiler.

Off topic, I wholeheartedly agree there should not be a vote in parliament on triggering A50 - we voted to do that on June 23rd. There does need to be scrutiny and debate on the final deal in Parliament with a vote and I think I favour that over a second referendum though I'm not wholly convinced.

How is the rise of Trump any different from the rise of Palin? Both are populists who appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor.

There will always be that target group in the US, but so far, in recent times, their political representatives have been soundly beaten.

Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.

It is quite possible that Trump, like Palin, becomes an irrelevance very quickly after election day.

Palin's support for Trump should help him in Alaska (although she thinks he's a bit too liberal) and Nate has him 5.5% ahead.

MarqueeMark

Theuniondivvie said:

rcs1000 said:

@IanB2, I deleted TSE's comment to enable your "second" to be correct

You've taken that Express front page to heart.

https://twitter.com/MinistryBrexit/status/786096078349340673

You will silence the vast majority of the Remainers by triggering Article 50. Once it is clear we are leaving, how many are going to pipe up as Rejoiners - complete with us going into the Euro?

Personally, I'd trigger Article 50 on Christmas Eve. Give the country a Christmas present on Christmas Day 2018 of freedom for the UK to do our own thing. And piss on the Remainers flaming Christmas pudding.

PlatoSaid

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see the Dumb Jerks, I mean the Young Turks (who were big Bernie supporters), are making a fairly serious allegation of CNN in communication to DNC / Clinton over upcoming questions in a Town Hall they were doing.

Won't make a bit of difference, but looks very bad.

I saw footage earlier of two Hillary interviews where it's word for word from the script - including the questions. HillaryBot2.0 In one script - she's told when to smile/fake laugh.

I've given guidance in detail - but when to smile?

Kevin_McCandless

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

The decline of the use of the death penalty in the US is one of the great unwritten political stories. Its usage has been trending downwards for years, and a number of de jure retentionist states haven't performed an execution for so long that Amnesty considers them to be de facto abolitionist.

More, a number of botched executions and other horrors have led to public support wavering to a point where most Americans tell pollsters they would prefer imprisonment with no chance of parole to execution.

It is therefore quite possible that more states could become de jure abolitionist in coming years. Whether a change in the Scotus would see capital punishment abolished at the federal level – I'm not so sure. The United States is very precious about the primacy of state law over federal in many areas of policy.

SCOTUS has jurisdiction over federal law and can override state law too, I believe.

It has that power, but I question whether it would go that far because of the repercussions of doing so. You may, however, be right. I am simply raising a question.

The court suspended it for a few years in the 70s. It's one of those things where it happens if the political mood of the country is going one way, won't if it isn't.

rcs1000

Jobabob said:

stodge said:

Morning again all

On topic, the polarisation of the US is frightening to behold. There was a time when even if one was opposed, there was an inherent respect for the office of POTUS. That seems to have ebbed away. As for a bet, I think Alaska to go for Clinton is one on which I'd invest a few pounds. Obama wasn't far away in 2012 and the latest poll gives Trump only a 3-point advantage. It's the sort of state I could imagine Johnson polling well and perhaps acting as a spoiler.

Off topic, I wholeheartedly agree there should not be a vote in parliament on triggering A50 - we voted to do that on June 23rd. There does need to be scrutiny and debate on the final deal in Parliament with a vote and I think I favour that over a second referendum though I'm not wholly convinced.

How is the rise of Trump any different from the rise of Palin? Both are populists who appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor.

There will always be that target group in the US, but so far, in recent times, their political representatives have been soundly beaten.

Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.

It is quite possible that Trump, like Palin, becomes an irrelevance very quickly after election day.

If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.

Why?

Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.

Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.

If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.

foxinsoxuk

MarqueeMark said:

Theuniondivvie said:

rcs1000 said:

@IanB2, I deleted TSE's comment to enable your "second" to be correct

You've taken that Express front page to heart.

https://twitter.com/MinistryBrexit/status/786096078349340673

You will silence the vast majority of the Remainers by triggering Article 50. Once it is clear we are leaving, how many are going to pipe up as Rejoiners - complete with us going into the Euro?

Personally, I'd trigger Article 50 on Christmas Eve. Give the country a Christmas present on Christmas Day 2018 of freedom for the UK to do our own thing. And piss on the Remainers flaming Christmas pudding.

I do hope so. I have a green beer voucher on A50 in 2016!

Casino_Royale

On topic, if the Republicans want to win in future they will need to take a good hard look at how someone like Trump managed to capture the nomination, and how their own failings contributed to that, rather than seeing themselves as victims.

Jobabob

Kevin_McCandless said:

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

The decline of the use of the death penalty in the US is one of the great unwritten political stories. Its usage has been trending downwards for years, and a number of de jure retentionist states haven't performed an execution for so long that Amnesty considers them to be de facto abolitionist.

More, a number of botched executions and other horrors have led to public support wavering to a point where most Americans tell pollsters they would prefer imprisonment with no chance of parole to execution.

It is therefore quite possible that more states could become de jure abolitionist in coming years. Whether a change in the Scotus would see capital punishment abolished at the federal level – I'm not so sure. The United States is very precious about the primacy of state law over federal in many areas of policy.

SCOTUS has jurisdiction over federal law and can override state law too, I believe.

It has that power, but I question whether it would go that far because of the repercussions of doing so. You may, however, be right. I am simply raising a question.

The court suspended it for a few years in the 70s. It's one of those things where it happens if the political mood of the country is going one way, won't if it isn't.

Yes, that's probably true. Good point about the 1970s moratorium.

Tissue_Price

TheScreamingEagles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

I agree, but remember they need 52, because there's 2 Senators who are independent but generally vote/caucus with the Dems, who wont count with Paddy Power.

Doubt that's the case with PP, but I haven't checked their rules. Happily laying Dems on the Betfair market where they clearly need 53.

rcs1000

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Are we sure Trump particularly wants conservative justices?

He's looking for justices with particular views on eminent domain, and bankruptcy.

Abortion, not so much.

Jobabob

rcs1000 said:

Jobabob said:

stodge said:

Morning again all

On topic, the polarisation of the US is frightening to behold. There was a time when even if one was opposed, there was an inherent respect for the office of POTUS. That seems to have ebbed away. As for a bet, I think Alaska to go for Clinton is one on which I'd invest a few pounds. Obama wasn't far away in 2012 and the latest poll gives Trump only a 3-point advantage. It's the sort of state I could imagine Johnson polling well and perhaps acting as a spoiler.

Off topic, I wholeheartedly agree there should not be a vote in parliament on triggering A50 - we voted to do that on June 23rd. There does need to be scrutiny and debate on the final deal in Parliament with a vote and I think I favour that over a second referendum though I'm not wholly convinced.

How is the rise of Trump any different from the rise of Palin? Both are populists who appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor.

There will always be that target group in the US, but so far, in recent times, their political representatives have been soundly beaten.

Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.

It is quite possible that Trump, like Palin, becomes an irrelevance very quickly after election day.

If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.

Why?

Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.

Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.

If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.

You may be right there, Robert.

Paul_Bedfordshire

Jobabob said:

Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.

For anyone who thinks that global liberalism is a bigger threat than the platoite right as you put it....

..you have just made an argument for holding your nose and voting Trump.

FrancisUrquhart

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834170/I-m-sorry-ve-Lily-Allen-apologises-behalf-country-breaking-tears-visit-Jungle-Calais.html

No blame for the French?

IanB2

On a different subject, Boris's "call" for demonstrations outside the Russian embassy is being widely reported; I cannot imagine his civil servants are that happy with what looks like another of his 'speak first think later' comments. Despite the truth of his observation it does us no good in diplomatic terms, and would surely have been better coming from someone other than the FS?

MaxPB

Richard_Nabavi said:

An interesting and quite encouraging answer from Sir Jon Cunliffe on whether euro-denominated clearing could move out of London:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/oct/12/sterling-rebounds-brexit-fears-bank-of-england-business-live

11.08

Yes it does. A lot of people have been saying this as well, and the additional risk of FTT in the major financial players in the EU I don't see how London will be deposed by anywhere in Europe. If anything I can see somewhere like Singapore or New York where the EU has no reach at all become a larger threat to London.

FF43

SouthamObserver said:

Jobabob said:

SouthamObserver said:

AlastairMeeks said:

@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.

If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.

The decline of the use of the death penalty in the US is one of the great unwritten political stories. Its usage has been trending downwards for years, and a number of de jure retentionist states haven't performed an execution for so long that Amnesty considers them to be de facto abolitionist.

More, a number of botched executions and other horrors have led to public support wavering to a point where most Americans tell pollsters they would prefer imprisonment with no chance of parole to execution.

It is therefore quite possible that more states could become de jure abolitionist in coming years. Whether a change in the Scotus would see capital punishment abolished at the federal level – I'm not so sure. The United States is very precious about the primacy of state law over federal in many areas of policy.

SCOTUS has jurisdiction over federal law and can override state law too, I believe.

If state law conflicts with the US Constitution and the federal law that comes out of it. There is a lot of interpretation. States rights are a big constitutional issue as well as how interventionist the SCOTUS should be. Very similar issues to ECJ jurisdiction and national parliamentary sovereignty in the EU

Slackbladder

Casino_Royale said:

On topic, if the Republicans want to win in future they will need to take a good hard look at how someone like Trump managed to capture the nomination, and how their own failings contributed to that, rather than seeing themselves as victims.

In much the same way that Corbyn got hold of the labour leadership.

IanB2

glw said:

Jobabob said:

How is the rise of Trump any different from the rise of Palin? Both are populists who appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor.

There will always be that target group in the US, but so far, in recent times, their political representatives have been soundly beaten.

Were Hillary to win it would be a major victory for global liberalism and will stop the international nationalistic protectionist Platoite far right juggernaut in its tracks.

It is quite possible that Trump, like Palin, becomes an irrelevance very quickly after election day.

I know this is a crazy idea but perhaps a President (especially a Democrat) should actually do something to help the "the anti-intellectual, anti-'liberal elite', white poor" and then maybe they wouldn't rally round people like Palin and Trump? If the same sort of thing keeps happening, and I would add Bush to your list, perhaps there is a problem that needs tackling rather than ignoring.

Absolutely; Clinton should be better placed to pursue this than May, who said most of the right things but has yet to come forward with proposals.

nunu

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Trump wants pro-Trump justices.

If he could, Trump would be the supreme court, held in Trump Towers, like some Roman emperor....

Trumps says he will appoint Judge Judy, Judge Dredd.

But Dredd thought he was too right wing and backed out.

FrancisUrquhart

Bloody racists....

France 'has a problem with Islam' and warned France's national symbol will one day be a woman in a burka.

Ethnic minority football stars as 'guys from the estates, without references, without values, who leave France too early', it emerged today.

Said Le Pen President Hollande

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834003/President-Hollande-admitted-France-problem-Islam-warned-country-s-national-symbol-one-day-woman-burka.html

FrancisUrquhart

nunu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Trump wants pro-Trump justices.

If he could, Trump would be the supreme court, held in Trump Towers, like some Roman emperor....

Trumps says he will appoint Judge Judy, Judge Dredd.

Nah, Judge Dredd far too liberal for Trump.

rcs1000

FrancisUrquhart said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3834170/I-m-sorry-ve-Lily-Allen-apologises-behalf-country-breaking-tears-visit-Jungle-Calais.html

No blame for the French?

Maybe she should also visit parts of the UK that have problems.

PlatoSaid

Nah, hand waves away...

Fox
In an email released by Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton's top aides trash Catholicism as a “bastardization of the faith” https://t.co/AWJSawkxpz

ThreeQuidder

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Are we sure Trump particularly wants conservative justices?

He's looking for justices with particular views on eminent domain, and bankruptcy.

Abortion, not so much.

I'd vote for anyone who admits that the Supreme Court needs a balance and shouldn't be packed by partisans based on the vagaries of presidential elections. The ideal, I'd suggest, is three lefties, three righties and three centrists. Whoever is president should be appointing centrists until there are three of them.

JackW

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

..you have just made an argument for holding your nose and voting Trump.

The worry would be after voting for Trump he'd want to hold more than your nose ....

CarlottaVance

Are you feeling lucky Nicola?

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/indyref2-ultimatum-to-be-presented-to-theresa-may-at-snp-conference.23469

TGOHF

PlatoSaid said:

Nah, hand waves away...

Fox
In an email released by Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton's top aides trash Catholicism as a “bastardization of the faith” https://t.co/AWJSawkxpz

Hmm - that could sway me towards HRC

619

PlatoSaid said:

Nah, hand waves away...

Fox
In an email released by Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton's top aides trash Catholicism as a “bastardization of the faith” https://t.co/AWJSawkxpz

A) is it real?
Wasn't Clinton saying it
C) I believe they were saying how hypocritical evangelicals are. Which is a valid opinion

David_Evershed

Who are the PoliticalBetting.Com elite?

Apart from Mike Smithson, who else qualifies?

Does it include all those who write the lead articles?

Will the PB elite be overturned when the anti globalisation revolution comes?

nunu

What was everyone saying in 2004? I thought the Kerry team thought they had won Ohio? Trump can still win.

JosiasJessop

rcs1000 said:

If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.

Why?

Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.

Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.

If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.

I am not a businessman or financier (tm), but early on in his run, I did wonder whether he was trying to give himself some protection in the pubic eye from forthcoming financial and judicial problems.

He could say: "These are just issues dreamt up / caused by my political and business rivals, who are jealous of my success," etc, etc.

I think it's gone to far for that now. And yes, Trump does seem to be tarnishing his own brand. Nothing like politics for bringing out the sunlight, and long may that continue.

TheScreamingEagles

ThreeQuidder said:

rcs1000 said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Are we sure Trump particularly wants conservative justices?

He's looking for justices with particular views on eminent domain, and bankruptcy.

Abortion, not so much.

I'd vote for anyone who admits that the Supreme Court needs a balance and shouldn't be packed by partisans based on the vagaries of presidential elections. The ideal, I'd suggest, is three lefties, three righties and three centrists. Whoever is president should be appointing centrists until there are three of them.

It doesn't work like that though.

The two of the most liberal/left leaning justices in the last 40 years have been appointed by Republican Presidents.

David Souter was voted against by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry for being a right wing ideologue in the mould of Robert Bork!

PlatoSaid

Oh my word

In a December 2015 email to Podesta, Harwood bragged about his much-criticized debate performance in which he asked Trump “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/#ixzz4MrkTDmsd

nunu

FrancisUrquhart said:

nunu said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

If Hilary wins and the Democrats get hold of the Senate that will give her nominees a path to the Supreme Court. Scalia needs to be replaced and Ginsburg might consider retirement, maybe Breyer too.

That's the only thing Trump has going for him. If you are a conservative, maybe an evangelical, you want, above all, conservative judges in the Supreme court. Trump will deliver that despite being a contemptible piece of work, while Clinton will take the Supreme Court in a bad direction, from your point of view

Trump wants pro-Trump justices.

If he could, Trump would be the supreme court, held in Trump Towers, like some Roman emperor....

Trumps says he will appoint Judge Judy, Judge Dredd.

Nah, Judge Dredd far too liberal for Trump.

Did u see my edit? Lol.

GeoffM

David_Evershed said:

Who are the PoliticalBetting.Com elite?

Apart from Mike Smithson, who else qualifies?

Does it include all those who write the lead articles?

Will the PB elite be overturned when the anti globalisation revolution comes?

TSE will be first against the wall when the revolution comes

JosiasJessop

David_Evershed said:

Who are the PoliticalBetting.Com elite?

Apart from Mike Smithson, who else qualifies?

Does it include all those who write the lead articles?

Will the PB elite be overturned when the anti globalisation revolution comes?

I play Elite. Does that count?

TheScreamingEagles

GeoffM said:

David_Evershed said:

Who are the PoliticalBetting.Com elite?

Apart from Mike Smithson, who else qualifies?

Does it include all those who write the lead articles?

Will the PB elite be overturned when the anti globalisation revolution comes?

TSE will be first against the wall when the revolution comes

It's because I'm a working class northerner isn't it?

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

Are you feeling lucky Nicola?

http://www.thenational.scot/politics/indyref2-ultimatum-to-be-presented-to-theresa-may-at-snp-conference.23469

All fart and no follow through....

edmundintokyo

Trumpist Twitter is amazing.

Not only do they not believe the regular polling, they're commissioning their own *exit* poll. With a special methodology...

619

PlatoSaid said:

Oh my word

In a December 2015 email to Podesta, Harwood bragged about his much-criticized debate performance in which he asked Trump “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/#ixzz4MrkTDmsd

OH MY GOD. SHOT THE MSM DOWN. MAKE AMERICA GROPE AGAIN

FrancisUrquhart

Totally O/T....been mentioned on here about how good a game Hitman is (despite very poor sales, stupid business model). Latest episode is the best so far.

foxinsoxuk

JackW said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

..you have just made an argument for holding your nose and voting Trump.

The worry would be after voting for Trump he'd want to hold more than your nose ....

Touche!

Or perhaps that should read "touch"...we will have none of that foreign jabber here.

TheScreamingEagles

edmundintokyo said:

Trumpist Twitter is amazing.

Not only do they not believe the regular polling, they're commissioning their own *exit* poll. With a special methodology...

Donald Trump is just a dollar shop Alex Salmond

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/24/the-limits-of-private-polling/

JackW

edmundintokyo said:

Trumpist Twitter is amazing.

Not only do they not believe the regular polling, they're commissioning their own *exit* poll. With a special methodology...

Fox News viewers with dangerous liberals like Hannity and O'Reilly filtered out ?

JosiasJessop

619 said:

PlatoSaid said:

Oh my word

In a December 2015 email to Podesta, Harwood bragged about his much-criticized debate performance in which he asked Trump “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/#ixzz4MrkTDmsd

OH MY GOD. SHOT THE MSM DOWN. MAKE AMERICA GROPE AGAIN

The latest Private Eye cover's funny. Although only if you're not a Trumper ...

CarlottaVance

Brexiteers Gove & Hollobone having fun at Scottish questions asking about how the depreciation of the pound has helped Scottish exports and how important it is to stay in the Union that accounts for 60% of Scotland's trade.....

The Tezza Jezza show up next.....

http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9da7b790-789f-46f3-8fbd-b0cc29e949fb