Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why betting on the 2020 Republican nomination is better value
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why betting on the 2020 Republican nomination is better value than the Trump survival market
Betdata.io
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Whatever the rights and wrongs of his treatment, it is not a good look for a former FBI director - and potential witness in the Mueller investigation - to be doing a trash talking book tour.
He was politically naive to the point of idiocy in his treatment of the Clinton emails days before the election, and doesn't appear to have acquired much wisdom since then.
The Cohen raid is a far greater threat to Trump.
The Dems seem to have one eye on the possibility of Pence being their opponent come the next presidential election...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/19/pence-lgbt-human-rights-536927
If gambling on his being gone before the next election, I'd probably take a punt on this year. The odds are far longer, but things are moving quite fast now, and if Trump is truly vulnerable to criminal charges, I think that will likely become apparent in the next few months.
And it can always be a trading bet...
To me this is mainly a bet on Donald Trump choosing not to run again.
Betting PostTennis: backed Cilic to beat Raonic 2-0 at Monte Carlo. They've met thrice, 2-1 in Cilic's favour. Both his victories have been in straight sets. He's also won their only match on clay (surface of Monte Carlo).
Edited extra bit: ahem, 2.25 with Ladbrokes, 2.35 with boost.
https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/986927566866042881
Last time he had nothing to lose and plenty of plans for capitalising on defeat. It's been a common lesson from the last few years that the narrow losers in bitter binary electoral choices have been able to ride a wave of (misplaced) grievance. On both sides of the Atlantic, and both sides of Hadrian's Wall.
What is less clear is what happens next. Many who fought on both sides of the argument have been constructively trying to argue for their version of next.
Others like yourself and David Allen Green have been looking back and wanting to endlessly rehash old battles. You especially seem to be of the naive opinion that until old battles are refought nobody is going to move on when others already are.
If David's waking up to what happens next perhaps you can start looking forwards rather than backwards too. I can live in hope.
Leavers, including yourself, seem to think that you can behave disgracefully without consequences and that the losers will just suck it up. That simply isn't going to happen. If Brexit is to be a success, Leavers will need to reconcile with Remainers. That just isn't possible until Leavers realise just how much they have alienated so many.
1. To resign her post, challenge Trump, and win. Or
2. For Pence to go as VP, and then for her to do a Gerald Ford. Or
3. For Trump to opt to not stand, and for her to win the open vacancy. Or
4. For Trump to go midterm and for Pence either to not stand or for her to challenge him for the nomination and win.
None of those seem at all likely - but then I rate Trump's survival chances much higher than the market does.
I did think she'd have been a good VP pick and still think he missed a trick there - but I don't think he likes powerful women around him.
He is commenting on the epiphany some Brexiteers are now experiencing
Ever since the vote they have been saying it has been clear. Now that some things they don't like are "clear", they are revisiting their definitions of what was always clear.
Rehashing old battles, you might say...
If Trump doesn't go and runs again then Pence won't run against him, if he does he won't win.
If Trump survives but doesn't run again then it will only be because he (and thus Pence) is so unpopular he knows he'd lose and thus Pence likely would too.
Despite his age I can't see Trump simply deciding to retire and pass the baton to Pence.
I do think some like Nigel Farage and UKIP behaved disgracefully but I have nothing to associate myself with them any more than a remain Labour voter would associate themselves with George Osborne or remain Tory would associate with Jeremy Corbyn.
Actually, I don't think her chances of being sacked are all that high: Trump sacks those closest to him. Haley - in New York - is both out of sight and, given Trump's interest in the UN, out of mind.
He is a tertiary non figure in my political life as much as you blow him up into something large in yours.
It was not do you approve of Nigel Farage, any more than it was do you approve of George Osborne, David Cameron etc?
It might just work!
Sure, he'd likely be the favourite, but given what an uninspiring and strange figure he is, not the overwhelming favourite.
You either voted with him, or against.
https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/status/986462619749011457
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/retailindustry/timeseries/j467/drsi
I voted with over 17 million people. Doesn't mean I agree or respect all of them. Doesn't mean I agree or voted "for" any of them.
Do you agree with all 16 million you voted with? Should I associate your views as being for all of them?
No incumbent President who has sought to be renominated by his party in the primaries has failed to get the nomination since WW2
The number must be huge.
You voted with him, for his campaign.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43809679
Now is this part of the persecution of immigrants I've read about here or is it because application of policy by government departments is crap ?
Who knows what Trump will have gotten the US into by the primaries.
In the binary choice we faced there were racists on both sides of the fence. There's a difference between party politics where the party leader is racist and tolerant of racists within his party and if they win the election that party leader takes over running the country ... and binary yes/no questions where we only address the question and it doesn't determine who runs the country.
The population and GDP are larger than they were thirty years ago but retail sales will still have increased significantly.
RCS would be able to give a more detailed analysis.
Do you want to elaborate on that one? Any president who doesn't seek re-election lame-ducks himself for 18 months, which is more than half his remaining term.
Discard everything that follows....
(well probably, anyway).
GDP per capita has grown well over 50% since the Lawson boom in USD. Probably more in sterling but I'm struggling to quickly find the figures.
Our population has grown by about 20% since the Lawson boom.
A 100% growth in volumes seems quite reasonable then.
(well probably, anyway).
* That's probably far too high.
The referendum was an overly simplistic if anything binary choice - for or against a single proposition. What they thought of any of an almost unlimited set of related issues is uncertain but the choice was simply for or against Brexit. What kind of Brexit is for us to determine now.
That's why the Brexiteers have been whining so heavily recently...