politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s massive midterms gamble has been to make it about hims

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s massive midterms gamble has been to make it about himself. Now he needs to beat expectations

We are now into the final fortnight of the crucial US midterm elections and the question is whether the Republicans can hold on to both parts of Congress. Certainly the Senate looks pretty strong because of the races that are up this year but holding the House of Representatives is going to be a huge challenge.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

E pluribus unum

spudgfsh

TheScreamingEagles said:

E pluribus unum

When it comes to Donald Trump it's more a case of "nunquam scienter normalis"

Pulpstar

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

AndyJS

Interesting that the Democrats are privately conceding they will gain only between 20 and 35 seats in the House, with 23 needed for a majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/house-senate-midterms.html

Beverley_C

spudgfsh said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

E pluribus unum

When it comes to Donald Trump it's more a case of "nunquam scienter normalis"

Nutjob uber alles is more apt

Beverley_C

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Surely, standard PB wisdom is that "Peston is never right"?

HYUFD

Every President since World War Two has seen their party lose seats in their first midterms bar George W Bush I doubt Trump will be any different and on present polling his party will likely lose the House.

Trump may claim victory if the GOP hold Congress but he has refused to take the blame if the Democrats lose the House

http://time.com/5426651/trump-gop-blame-lose-house-congress/

IanB2

Falling fast, like Boris.

HYUFD

AndyJS said:

Interesting that the Democrats are privately conceding they will gain only between 20 and 35 seats in the House, with 23 needed for a majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/house-senate-midterms.html

The Democrats gained 31 seats last time they took the House in 2006 so about the same range

Pulpstar

Beverley_C said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Surely, standard PB wisdom is that "Peston is never right"?

I hope he isn't, May indicated the EU might have some flexibility on this in her statement today.

Polruan

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.

HYUFD

Steve Baker says lack of DUP support made him pull his amendments

https://mobile.twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1054430802463858688

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Beverley_C

IanB2 said:

Falling fast, like Boris.

Not fast enough - like Boris!

HYUFD

HYUFD said:

Every President since World War Two has seen their party lose seats in their first midterms bar George W Bush I doubt Trump will be any different and on present polling his party will likely lose the House.

Trump may claim victory if the GOP hold Congress but he has refused to take the blame if the Democrats lose the House

http://time.com/5426651/trump-gop-blame-lose-house-congress/

Or the Republicans lose the House rather

spudgfsh

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

MarqueeMark

Polruan said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.

Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".

I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....

Pulpstar

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

ralphmalph

HYUFD said:

Steve Baker says lack of DUP support made him pull his amendments

https://mobile.twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1054430802463858688

The tweet says other MP's say that. The tweet quite clearly says Baker said it was procedural reasons.

Barnesian

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

It would be useful to see the original source before jumping to conclusions. Barnier has said on the record that the backstop (CU plus regulatory alignment) cannot apply to the whole of the UK [without the four freedoms] because it gives the UK a free pass, but I don't think he has said it just about the CU.

spudgfsh

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

I meant that the vote of confidence would happen not that the DUP would abstain. I was just pointing out how precarious the Tories are at the moment. That it doesn't necessarily require the DUP to vote against the government for them to lose a vote of confidence.

Pulpstar

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.

MarqueeMark

AndyJS said:

Interesting that the Democrats are privately conceding they will gain only between 20 and 35 seats in the House, with 23 needed for a majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/house-senate-midterms.html

Are there any non Rep/Dem Representatives who could hold the balance?

numbertwelve

If Trump holds the House (I’m doubtful) he must be the red hot favourite for 2020. That would’ve been twice he’s gone into an election as an underdog and twice he’s pulled it off.

Big_G_NorthWales

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I think you may be grasping at straws

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

E pluribus unum

In English, please

Polruan

MarqueeMark said:

Polruan said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.

Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".

I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....

Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.

Alistair

numbertwelve said:

If Trump holds the House (I’m doubtful) he must be the red hot favourite for 2020. That would’ve been twice he’s gone into an election as an underdog and twice he’s pulled it off.

If he holds the house with another popular vote loss then the US government as a institution will have problems. But agreed, if the Reps hold the house then pile on Trump for 2020

rpjs

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

Interesting that the Democrats are privately conceding they will gain only between 20 and 35 seats in the House, with 23 needed for a majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/house-senate-midterms.html

Are there any non Rep/Dem Representatives who could hold the balance?

Bernie was the last Independent congresscritter before he upgraded to Senator.

Anazina

Norway Super Plus?

The list of brexitisms just grows longer and longer.

Presumably the goal is to deliver a deal that is described by the most tortured and wordy neologism? A worthy aim!

Polruan

Barnesian said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

It would be useful to see the original source before jumping to conclusions. Barnier has said on the record that the backstop (CU plus regulatory alignment) cannot apply to the whole of the UK [without the four freedoms] because it gives the UK a free pass, but I don't think he has said it just about the CU.

Temporary but of indefinite length (ie ending when conditions are met, not due to time elapsing) is acceptable. It may be that CU-only can apply to the whole of the UK but that still means there’s no commitment to regulatory alignment between the UK and NI, which means the DUP won’t back it, as it’s the kind of regulatory divergence between the Uk and NI they disapprove of, rather than the kind they approve of.

williamglenn

John Redwood isn't a happy man.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1054390925806526466

Beverley_C

Anazina said:

Norway Super Plus?

The list of brexitisms just grows longer and longer.

I am waiting for Brexit+++CU--SM++/EEA~EFTA+-/YesNoMaybe/Barnier to turn up in the list of concise deals

Beverley_C

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

E pluribus unum

In English, please

Ok - "Nuke the place from orbit"

Latin is so compact

Anazina

Polruan said:

Barnesian said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

It would be useful to see the original source before jumping to conclusions. Barnier has said on the record that the backstop (CU plus regulatory alignment) cannot apply to the whole of the UK [without the four freedoms] because it gives the UK a free pass, but I don't think he has said it just about the CU.

Temporary but of indefinite length (ie ending when conditions are met, not due to time elapsing) is acceptable. It may be that CU-only can apply to the whole of the UK but that still means there’s no commitment to regulatory alignment between the UK and NI, which means the DUP won’t back it, as it’s the kind of regulatory divergence between the Uk and NI they disapprove of, rather than the kind they approve of.

Yes, this is one of the great mysteries of the world. The DUP are activity responsible for causing regulatory divergence in the Irish Sea, thanks to their reactionary views on various topics.

HYUFD

numbertwelve said:

If Trump holds the House (I’m doubtful) he must be the red hot favourite for 2020. That would’ve been twice he’s gone into an election as an underdog and twice he’s pulled it off.

Not at all. Of the post WW2 Presidents who saw their party lose the House in their first midterms, Truman, IKE, Clinton and Obama all were re elected. The last President to lose his re election bid after only 1 term of his party in the White House, Carter, saw his party hold the House in 1978 despite losses. In 2002 George W Bush saw his party have the best results of any incumbent President for years and he beat Kerry by just 1 state in 2004 in the EC.

Midterms have about as much relevance to US presidential elections as UK local elections to general elections, in fact if anything US voters prefer separation of powers so you could argue if a President loses at least 1 chamber of Congress that may even boost their re election hopes

Anazina

Beverley_C said:

Anazina said:

Norway Super Plus?

The list of brexitisms just grows longer and longer.

I am waiting for Brexit+++CU--SM++/EEA~EFTA+-/YesNoMaybe/Barnier to turn up in the list of concise deals

That is surely too pithy to be a serious contender.

Polruan

Anazina said:

Polruan said:

Barnesian said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

It would be useful to see the original source before jumping to conclusions. Barnier has said on the record that the backstop (CU plus regulatory alignment) cannot apply to the whole of the UK [without the four freedoms] because it gives the UK a free pass, but I don't think he has said it just about the CU.

Temporary but of indefinite length (ie ending when conditions are met, not due to time elapsing) is acceptable. It may be that CU-only can apply to the whole of the UK but that still means there’s no commitment to regulatory alignment between the UK and NI, which means the DUP won’t back it, as it’s the kind of regulatory divergence between the Uk and NI they disapprove of, rather than the kind they approve of.

Yes, this is one of the great mysteries of the world. The DUP are activity responsible for causing regulatory divergence in the Irish Sea, thanks to their reactionary views on various topics.

This week’s Private Eye has an excellent piece on the DUP’s recent efforts to block reforms to libel laws (I think) in Northern Ireland, which broadly came down to the argument that ‘NI is a different environment to the rest of the U.K. and it’s not appropriate to have the same rules’.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.

Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.

Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves

Anazina

Polruan said:

Anazina said:

Polruan said:

Barnesian said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

It would be useful to see the original source before jumping to conclusions. Barnier has said on the record that the backstop (CU plus regulatory alignment) cannot apply to the whole of the UK [without the four freedoms] because it gives the UK a free pass, but I don't think he has said it just about the CU.

Temporary but of indefinite length (ie ending when conditions are met, not due to time elapsing) is acceptable. It may be that CU-only can apply to the whole of the UK but that still means there’s no commitment to regulatory alignment between the UK and NI, which means the DUP won’t back it, as it’s the kind of regulatory divergence between the Uk and NI they disapprove of, rather than the kind they approve of.

Yes, this is one of the great mysteries of the world. The DUP are activity responsible for causing regulatory divergence in the Irish Sea, thanks to their reactionary views on various topics.

This week’s Private Eye has an excellent piece on the DUP’s recent efforts to block reforms to libel laws (I think) in Northern Ireland, which broadly came down to the argument that ‘NI is a different environment to the rest of the U.K. and it’s not appropriate to have the same rules’.

Chortle.

Beverley_C

Anazina said:

Beverley_C said:

Anazina said:

Norway Super Plus?

The list of brexitisms just grows longer and longer.

I am waiting for Brexit+++CU--SM++/EEA~EFTA+-/YesNoMaybe/Barnier to turn up in the list of concise deals

That is surely too pithy to be a serious contender.

Polruan

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.

Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.

Hardline Brexiteers will... have nobody to blame but themselves

I have a hunch they might try regardless.

Beverley_C

williamglenn said:

John Redwood isn't a happy man. twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1054390925806526466

Headline: "Swivel-eyed-loon demands Economic Armageddon!"

Something of a "dog bites man" headline ...

AlastairMeeks

AndyJS said:

Interesting that the Democrats are privately conceding they will gain only between 20 and 35 seats in the House, with 23 needed for a majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/house-senate-midterms.html

No one ever says “we’re going to win big”. It would be terrible expectation management and terrible for getting the vote out.

HYUFD

Polruan said:

Anazina said:

Polruan said:

Barnesian said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

It would be useful to see the original source before jumping to conclusions. Barnier has said on the record that the backstop (CU plus regulatory alignment) cannot apply to the whole of the UK [without the four freedoms] because it gives the UK a free pass, but I don't think he has said it just about the CU.

Temporary but of indefinite length (ie ending when conditions are met, not due to time elapsing) is acceptable. It may be that CU-only can apply to the whole of the UK but that still means there’s no commitment to regulatory alignment between the UK and NI, which means the DUP won’t back it, as it’s the kind of regulatory divergence between the Uk and NI they disapprove of, rather than the kind they approve of.

Yes, this is one of the great mysteries of the world. The DUP are activity responsible for causing regulatory divergence in the Irish Sea, thanks to their reactionary views on various topics.

This week’s Private Eye has an excellent piece on the DUP’s recent efforts to block reforms to libel laws (I think) in Northern Ireland, which broadly came down to the argument that ‘NI is a different environment to the rest of the U.K. and it’s not appropriate to have the same rules’.

Much like gay marriage and abortion then

HYUFD

AlastairMeeks said:

AndyJS said:

Interesting that the Democrats are privately conceding they will gain only between 20 and 35 seats in the House, with 23 needed for a majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/house-senate-midterms.html

No one ever says “we’re going to win big”. It would be terrible expectation management and terrible for getting the vote out.

Indeed and only 3 midterm elections in the last 50 years have seen a party gain more than 35 seats, 1974, 1994 and 2010.

As long as the Democrats gain the House the fact they did not gain over 35 seats is irrelevant

logical_song

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

Every President since World War Two has seen their party lose seats in their first midterms bar George W Bush I doubt Trump will be any different and on present polling his party will likely lose the House.

Trump may claim victory if the GOP hold Congress but he has refused to take the blame if the Democrats lose the House

http://time.com/5426651/trump-gop-blame-lose-house-congress/

Or the Republicans lose the House rather

Trump didn't rule out standing as an Independent if the Republicans hadn't chosen him, he also was ready to claim the election was fixed if he hadn't won it. All that was left was for him to claim the popular vote was a fix.
What an absolute apology for a human being.

NickPalmer

williamglenn said:

John Redwood isn't a happy man.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1054390925806526466

Not exactly packed Chamber, is it?

Barnesian

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

ydoethur

AlastairMeeks said:

AndyJS said:

Interesting that the Democrats are privately conceding they will gain only between 20 and 35 seats in the House, with 23 needed for a majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/house-senate-midterms.html

No one ever says “we’re going to win big”. It would be terrible expectation management and terrible for getting the vote out.

Certainly Stormy Daniels didn't think she'd won big...

ydoethur

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?

One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

Every President since World War Two has seen their party lose seats in their first midterms bar George W Bush I doubt Trump will be any different and on present polling his party will likely lose the House.

Trump may claim victory if the GOP hold Congress but he has refused to take the blame if the Democrats lose the House...

Of course he has - just as he would take the credit in the unlikely event of their winning.

The man is an enormous arse, but even he can’t really deny that the Republicans have become the party of Trump.

Anazina

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

HYUFD said:

Every President since World War Two has seen their party lose seats in their first midterms bar George W Bush I doubt Trump will be any different and on present polling his party will likely lose the House.

Trump may claim victory if the GOP hold Congress but he has refused to take the blame if the Democrats lose the House

http://time.com/5426651/trump-gop-blame-lose-house-congress/

Or the Republicans lose the House rather

Trump didn't rule out standing as an Independent if the Republicans hadn't chosen him, he also was ready to claim the election was fixed if he hadn't won it. All that was left was for him to claim the popular vote was a fix.
What an absolute apology for a human being.

Trumpton just bores me these days. There is only some much perverse entertainment one can glean from following the antics of a delusional moron.

Barnesian

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?

One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.

These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.

Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!

archer101au

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.

Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.

Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves

You are determined to miss the point.

The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?

The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.

The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.

Polruan

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.

Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.

Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves

You are determined to miss the point.

The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?

The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.

The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Big_G_NorthWales

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.

Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.

Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves

You are determined to miss the point.

The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?

The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.

The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.

You have no idea what the deal will be, as does anyone else, and your portrayal of ERG would do Comical Ali justice

They have shot themselves in the foot and been hit by a backlash that empowers TM

Big_G_NorthWales

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.

Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.

Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves

You are determined to miss the point.

The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?

The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.

The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.

You have no idea what the deal will be, as does anyone else, and your portrayal of ERG would do Comical Ali justice

They have shot themselves in the foot and been hit by a backlash that empowers TM

Anazina

Barnesian said:

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?

One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.

These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.

Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!

Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.

Pulpstar

Biggest news in America today is Amari Cooper being traded to the boys.

Pulpstar

Anazina said:

Barnesian said:

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?

One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.

These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.

Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!

Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.

Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Anazina said:

Barnesian said:

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?

One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.

These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.

Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!

Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.

Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.

Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Every President since World War Two has seen their party lose seats in their first midterms bar George W Bush I doubt Trump will be any different and on present polling his party will likely lose the House.

Trump may claim victory if the GOP hold Congress but he has refused to take the blame if the Democrats lose the House...

Of course he has - just as he would take the credit in the unlikely event of their winning.

The man is an enormous arse, but even he can’t really deny that the Republicans have become the party of Trump.

He will blame it on 'RINOs' like Ryan who have led the House for the last 2 years

williamglenn

https://twitter.com/standup4brexit/status/1054455020987600901?s=21

HYUFD

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Pulpstar said:

spudgfsh said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

Nope, if we go to No Deal even Remain would be better than the economic damage and risk of the Union breaking up that would result from No Deal. Voters prefer Remain to No Deal 55% to 45%.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-voters-would-rather-remain-in-eu-than-accept-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-7

In any case most Northern Irish voters want to stay in the single market and customs union, it would be far better to agree the backstop (with a break if a technical solution is found to the Irish border) and work for a FTA for GB

Whatever politicians say, no-deal will lead to another vote. all it would take is for the DUP to abstain from a vote of confidence (which would happen). it would be as tight as 1979 but without the DUP (even if they abstain) the tories would lose. a defeat of the government by a no confidence motion will make the Tory vote share drop by enough for Labour to win (even if not outright).

I don't see why the DUP would not back the government in the event of no deal, it is if a NI only backstop is agreed they will not back the Govt.

In the event of no deal it'd potentially be Grieve, Soubry and some others no confidence get the Govt.

Then Corbyn PM or EUref2 and Remain.

Hardline Brexiteers will have killed the chance of a FTA for GB beyond BINO by their refusal to compromise and will have nobody to blame but themselves

You are determined to miss the point.

The ERG have forced May to set out criteria today that the EU will never agree. Surely you can see that?

The ERG are not going to have to vote down May’s deal at this rate - she simply won’t get one.

The backstop is not the ERGs fault, nor their idea. But they have played it beautifully against her and she is now going to end up vetoing her own deal. She can’t backtrack on her latest ‘four point plan’ but nor can she deliver it. No need to get rid of her right now.

Firstly there was nothing May said today which prevents her agreeing a backstop with a break clause e.g. a technical solution is found to the Irish border.

Secondly May also refused to rule out a second EU referendum for the first time today if negotiations break down so as I said if the ERG push it too far they may end with No Brexit at all

solarflare

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/standup4brexit/status/1054455020987600901?s=21

Why do I have visions of Boris sitting in a bathtub full of baked beans to help achieve Brexit

Big_G_NorthWales

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/standup4brexit/status/1054455020987600901?s=21

He has become a sad failure and is a lost cause

NickPalmer

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

Casino_Royale

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

My gut instinct is that the Dems are going to win big in the House.

I’m not sure if I should bet on my gut instinct:

ydoethur

<

solarflare said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/standup4brexit/status/1054455020987600901?s=21

Why do I have visions of Boris sitting in a bathtub full of baked beans to help achieve Brexit

I don't know. Nor do I know why you felt the need to share that with the rest of us.

Big_G_NorthWales

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

I think you may have got it in one Nick

dixiedean

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

Probably true. Doubt the 'peacefully' bit though.

FF43

NickPalmer said:

williamglenn said:

John Redwood isn't a happy man.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1054390925806526466

Not exactly packed Chamber, is it?

The conservative benches are typically empty for Brexit debates. You have a small huddle of Pro EU MPs and a bigger group of headbangers. The others stay away or if they do attend, have a worried distracted look.

Barnesian

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Anazina said:

Barnesian said:

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?

One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.

These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.

Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!

Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.

Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.

Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in

California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.

Andy_Cooke

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

E pluribus unum

In English, please

He pooed on the bus and went numb.

Barnesian

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

My gut instinct is that the Dems are going to win big in the House.

I’m not sure if I should bet on my gut instinct:

Follow the models not your gut or any anti-model sentiment.

Alistair

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

My gut instinct is that the Dems are going to win big in the House.

I’m not sure if I should bet on my gut instinct:

Have to say after exiting the market with nice green next to both outcomes I am tempted to dive back in if Betfair are going with 65%.

That seems like punters being driven by stories rather than data.

spudgfsh

Barnesian said:

California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.

wouldn't make much difference. the net result would be +2 EC votes.

The only thing that the Dems can do is propose a straight vote and abolish the EC

Big_G_NorthWales

FF43 said:

NickPalmer said:

williamglenn said:

John Redwood isn't a happy man.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1054390925806526466

Not exactly packed Chamber, is it?

The conservative benches are typically empty for Brexit debates. You have a small huddle of Pro EU MPs and a bigger group of headbangers. The others stay away or if they do attend, have a worried distracted look.

Actually at the start of the debate the benches were quite full apart from the SNP but of course as time went on (over an hour) mps drifted away

Barnesian

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

I think you may have got it in one Nick

Agreed. But it means she leaves a growing trail of aggrieved people who though she meant what she said. Grieve (the next temporary PM) is an important example.

EDIT: Oddly you can bet on Caroline Lucas or David Cameron as next PM but not Dominic Grieve.

Anazina

Pulpstar said:

Anazina said:

Barnesian said:

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?

One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.

These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.

Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!

Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.

Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.

I am aware of that, but I dare say winning the PV by 3m but losing the EC would have been a pretty long odds bet. By one vote, not so much.

Casino_Royale

Barnesian said:

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

My gut instinct is that the Dems are going to win big in the House.

I’m not sure if I should bet on my gut instinct:

Follow the models not your gut or any anti-model sentiment.

Wise advice, although I should say it’s “informed” gut and not what I want to happen.

Pulpstar

Barnesian said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Anazina said:

Barnesian said:

ydoethur said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

Because punters don't know what to think after recent events?

One of those said Clinton had a 100% chance of winning, remember.

These are simulation models so I doubt if either of them had Clinton at 100% chance of winning. From memory, 538 had her at about 70%.

Both modelling companies have their reputations at stake so they are trying their best to use up-to-date data and follow reasonable and tested assumptions. They recognise the uncertainty and each give a wide spread. They are the best estimate available. If punters "don't know what to think" they shouldn't bet!

Given that Trumpton lost the popular vote by three million votes, it’s hardly surprising that many models gave it to Hillary. I’m not sure what the odds of a 3m PV win - EC loss are, but I suspect they are very long.

Not so long, TX is way less GOP than CA is Democrat but both are safe. It's the Dems running up the score in CA in particular that produces the disparity.

Yes, Trump actually led the popular vote until the California votes came in

California should split into two states and get two more senators and more EC votes.

California has about the right number of ECVs actually. It is just that it is so heavily Democrat that creates the national vote ECV imbalance.

Big_G_NorthWales

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

I think you may have got it in one Nick

Agreed. But it means she leaves a growing trail of aggrieved people who though she meant what she said. Grieve (the next temporary PM) is an important example.

Well that is a first. I haven't heard Grieve mentioned by anyone. He would have far too many mps against him. They may as well co-op Vince, well maybe not

stodge

Evening all

Spent a glorious afternoon enjoying the racing at Plumpton and not following politics so I can't say Theresa May has had a good day or whether she's played into the hands of the ERG and to be honest I don't really care.

As for Trump he's very much a "Heads I win, Tails you lose" kind of chap.

Anazina

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

I think you may have got it in one Nick

Agreed. But it means she leaves a growing trail of aggrieved people who though she meant what she said. Grieve (the next temporary PM) is an important example.

Well that is a first. I haven't heard Grieve mentioned by anyone. He would have far too many mps against him. They may as well co-op Vince, well maybe not

Leave means Grieve?

Barnesian

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

My gut instinct is that the Dems are going to win big in the House.

I’m not sure if I should bet on my gut instinct:

Follow the models not your gut or any anti-model sentiment.

Wise advice, although I should say it’s “informed” gut and not what I want to happen.

Fair enough. I think a combination of "informed" gut and modelling is betting wisdom.

Anazina

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

Casino_Royale said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

My gut instinct is that the Dems are going to win big in the House.

I’m not sure if I should bet on my gut instinct:

Follow the models not your gut or any anti-model sentiment.

Wise advice, although I should say it’s “informed” gut and not what I want to happen.

You would prefer Trumpton to prosper?

viewcode

AndyJS said:

Interesting that the Democrats are privately conceding they will gain only between 20 and 35 seats in the House, with 23 needed for a majority.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/us/politics/house-senate-midterms.html

Was that a sarcastic "interesting" or a genuine "interesting"?

Recidivist

Polruan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Polruan said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.

Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".

I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....

Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.

Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.

viewcode

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

1. Gamblers are not a representative sample of voters
2. Gamblers do not have equality of votes: rich gamblers can bet more than poor gamblers
3. Casual political gamblers do not bet to maximise their income but to advocate a party. (Serious political gamblers bet on value, but there aren't enough of them).

Sunil_Prasannan

Clinton's popular vote win was also the largest ever margin by a candidate who lost the electoral college.

Barnesian

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

I think you may have got it in one Nick

Agreed. But it means she leaves a growing trail of aggrieved people who though she meant what she said. Grieve (the next temporary PM) is an important example.

Well that is a first. I haven't heard Grieve mentioned by anyone. He would have far too many mps against him. They may as well co-op Vince, well maybe not

If there is no deal and parliament wants to take control to prevent it, they first need a VONC in the government. The government falls and the LOTO has 14 days to show he can form a government with the confidence of the house - which he can't. Meanwhile the clock is ticking towards no deal. The polls indicate that neither party will get a majority in a GE and chaos faces us. In this circumstance I think it is possible that a cross-party group could command the confidence of the house if they
a) made it clear that it was temporary, for say six months
b) asked the EU for an extension of A50 for six months
c) agreed to hold a referendum (leave or remain) within the six months with a commitment that this would be the final say on it for twenty years. NB Leave would mean no deal crash out.
d) were led by someone who was competent, a parliamentarian, had the respect of the house and was without personal ambition.

Barnesian

viewcode said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

1. Gamblers are not a representative sample of voters
2. Gamblers do not have equality of votes: rich gamblers can bet more than poor gamblers
3. Casual political gamblers do not bet to maximise their income but to advocate a party. (Serious political gamblers bet on value, but there aren't enough of them).

What a betting opportunity!

Sunil_Prasannan

Recidivist said:

Polruan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Polruan said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.

Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".

I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....

Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.

Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.

Only me!

People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000
People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000

Barnesian

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Recidivist said:

Polruan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Polruan said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.

Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".

I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....

Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.

Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.

Only me!

People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000
People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000

People who post nonsensical comparisons = 1

EDIT: That's not fair. There are 2 or 3.

Recidivist

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

I think you may have got it in one Nick

Agreed. But it means she leaves a growing trail of aggrieved people who though she meant what she said. Grieve (the next temporary PM) is an important example.

EDIT: Oddly you can bet on Caroline Lucas or David Cameron as next PM but not Dominic Grieve.

Would that be the 'wishful thinking is the bookies' friend' effect in action again?

solarflare

Barnesian said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Recidivist said:

Polruan said:

MarqueeMark said:

Polruan said:

Pulpstar said:

Sorry to go off topic, but if Preston is right and the EU red line is that the UK must be divided then we MUST leave with no deal:
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1054415569896792065

I don’t think he’s quite right - my reading is that the EU will also be satisfied if the para 49 backstop commitment to ‘full alignment’ is met by the U.K. agreeing to maintain SM/CU alignment in a way which doesn’t seek to divide the four freedoms or take the benefits of market access without the corresponding obligations. So that means financial contributions and continued freedom of movement and will probably have a snappy name like ‘Norway Super Plus’. Or perhaps ‘Not Leaving’.

Or perhaps, "Brexit Not Settled".

I really thought it would be impossible to get anybody fired up about re-opening the 2019 Brexit settlement. Well, May looks set to do the impossible....

Rather like Osborne with austerity, the Tories need to redefine Brexit as a journey rather than a destination. Then they can fight future elections claiming that it’s too risky to elect Labour, because the job is only half done, and Labour will throw away all the progress that has been made. Brexit: a present continuous verb, not a noun.

Great idea, and it could work. But I think the Tories are losing their ability to set the agenda.

Only me!

People who attended People's Vote Rally 2018 = 700,000
People who voted Leave in 2016 = 17,400,000

People who post nonsensical comparisons = 1

Surely "People who post nonsensical comparisons = fish cushions"?

Recidivist

Barnesian said:

viewcode said:

Barnesian said:

Any ideas why there is such a mismatch on the chances of the Democrats winning the House between Betfair (65%) and the models?

538 has it as a 86% chance.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/house/

0ptimus has it as a 93% chance.
https://0ptimus.decisiondeskhq.com/

1. Gamblers are not a representative sample of voters
2. Gamblers do not have equality of votes: rich gamblers can bet more than poor gamblers
3. Casual political gamblers do not bet to maximise their income but to advocate a party. (Serious political gamblers bet on value, but there aren't enough of them).

What a betting opportunity!

Good point.

Big_G_NorthWales

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Barnesian said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

NickPalmer said:

Polruan said:

I’ve just been trying to summarise today’s statement for a client newsletter and reached roughly the same conclusion, but still wonder if I’m missing something. Did May really say that her ‘improved offer’ was to keep the UK in partial alignment with NI, but that it could only be temporary and there could be no barriers between the UK and NI? Because that doesn’t seem to offer anything new at all to meet the concerns raised the EU.

Her modus operandi is to say whatever is needed to satisfy the current audience, and kick any awkward decisions down the road. I imagine she will agree a plausible scenario with the EU on how the backstop will end, everyone will solemnly confirm that they don't want it to go on indefinitely, and Parliament will let it through. Then we can spend the next few years peacefully debating whether the necessary conditions have been met.

I think you may have got it in one Nick

Agreed. But it means she leaves a growing trail of aggrieved people who though she meant what she said. Grieve (the next temporary PM) is an important example.

Well that is a first. I haven't heard Grieve mentioned by anyone. He would have far too many mps against him. They may as well co-op Vince, well maybe not

If there is no deal and parliament wants to take control to prevent it, they first need a VONC in the government. The government falls and the LOTO has 14 days to show he can form a government with the confidence of the house - which he can't. Meanwhile the clock is ticking towards no deal. The polls indicate that neither party will get a majority in a GE and chaos faces us. In this circumstance I think it is possible that a cross-party group could command the confidence of the house if they
a) made it clear that it was temporary, for say six months
b) asked the EU for an extension of A50 for six months
c) agreed to hold a referendum (leave or remain) within the six months with a commitment that this would be the final say on it for twenty years. NB Leave would mean no deal crash out.
d) were led by someone who was competent, a parliamentarian, had the respect of the house and was without personal ambition.

TM said she will bring back her deal and it is upto the HOC to decide.

No deal is unacceptable and in those circumstances a second referendum becomes almost inevitable