Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My Beto O’Rourke spread bet that could still be winner even if

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited November 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My Beto O’Rourke spread bet that could still be winner even if Ted Cruz is re-elected

Regular PBers will know I am very keen on political spread betting simply because this offers far more betting possibilities than are available from standard bookmakers or betting exchanges like Betfair.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,847
    uno
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 47,063
    dos
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,194
    FPT:
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_P said:

    Anorak said:

    A question: what is it about a Customs Union that terrifies the Leavers so much?

    It's an admission that their entire manifesto was bullshit
    So that's one point.

    Also under the EU's "indivisibility of the trinity" doctrine, most combinations of leaving the SM but staying int eh CU are unacceptably blasphemous.
    Weirdly it is goods rather than people that is the sticking point, I'd have thought one could get good odds on that prior to Brexit.
    Well I think the fear may be that the goods come with free movement of people. But if that can be squared, then having to live with EU regulations on goods (which are 99.9% jolly sensible) seems a mere bagatelle in the scheme of things.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,811
    trece

    ... miles run today. ;)

    And according to BMI I'm overweight ...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,526
    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,194

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760
    edited November 5
    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,370
    Anorak said:

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326
    Scott_P said:
    Ridiculous. Aren’t there more pressing concerns for them to investigate?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760
    edited November 5
    Scott_P said:
    Well it's very generous of them to rubbish their own independence so comprehensively.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,194
    Scott_P said:
    Sorry, but that smacks of "please sir, the big boys have been mean to me." *blubs*

    Some undoubtedly silly comments, but "engaging in rhetoric which undermines the value placed on the rules-based international order"? Give me a break.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,347
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:
    Ridiculous. Aren’t there more pressing concerns for them to investigate?
    They'd probably rather spend their time here than in some benighted ****hole where they might get killed or kidnapped.

    Plus the pound is still quite low so they can combine their upcoming visit with a bit of xmas shopping.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292
    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059446975324655616

    Ridiculous. Aren’t there more pressing concerns for them to investigate?
    They'd probably rather spend their time here than in some benighted ****hole where they might get killed or kidnapped.

    Plus the pound is still quite low so they can combine their upcoming visit with a bit of xmas shopping.
    True, the timing is certainly convenient.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 47,063
    edited November 5

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    I've cashed on TX turnout given the early voting returns. Will let Mississippi ride (And I'd do the same for UT and TN if I was in on those) - they're nowhere near as high profile as the TX race which seems to be THE totemic campaign of the midterms.
    The spend in TX is off the charts compared to everywhere else too, particularly O'Rorke's.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,347
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
    I'd ask for one as well but poor @cyclefree will be spending so much time sending out VMs she won't have time to get out in the garden.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 47,063
    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    TX is 46-48, TN 47-49
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,194
    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    Thank you.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 4,886

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
    I'd ask for one as well but poor @cyclefree will be spending so much time sending out VMs she won't have time to get out in the garden.
    Is it not permitted for Cyclefree to post the link on here?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

    Has anyone actually argued that?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760
    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
    I'd ask for one as well but poor @cyclefree will be spending so much time sending out VMs she won't have time to get out in the garden.
    Is it not permitted for Cyclefree to post the link on here?
    I’d also want to keep the plebs off my blog. :p
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,194
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

    Has anyone actually argued that?
    Yes. Yes they have.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,004
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    The UN have employed dicks for a while. I recall the eviction, after a decade of illegal occupation, of gypsies from Dale Farm. Some UN rapporteur or group condemned it as being against human rights.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326
    Anorak said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

    Has anyone actually argued that?
    Yes. Yes they have.
    Well then they are mad, or perhaps they were doing it ironically to highlight the absurdity of some of the horror predictions!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167
    edited November 5

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    The UN have employed dicks for a while. I recall the eviction, after a decade of illegal occupation, of gypsies from Dale Farm. Some UN rapporteur or group condemned it as being against human rights.

    They seem to struggle with the concept of free speech, ie both politicians and journalists might say things that left wing UN officials disagree with.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,194
    edited November 5
    Highly, highly recommended to watch. Moving and thought provoking. Should be shown at every secondary school.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
  • Is Raab ( a ) thick ( b ) setting up impossible Red lines so he can resign over one because he thinks resigning will boost his Tory leadership chances ?
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 329
    Sean_F said:


    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.

    Rasmussen were the most accurate in 2016, if you are putting money on the sensible would look closely at their polling. I think there is a lot of attempted poll shaping going on from some of the others. With the early polling results it looks good for Trump getting at least creditable results, he might yet come out of this election very well.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760
    edited November 5
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
    We'll see. In every case the turnout predicted by 538 is much less, and the turnout last time was massively less (my two criteria). Of course turnout is going to be up a lot since 2014, but that's baked in to my assessment.

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,770
    Sean_F said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    The UN have employed dicks for a while. I recall the eviction, after a decade of illegal occupation, of gypsies from Dale Farm. Some UN rapporteur or group condemned it as being against human rights.

    They seem to struggle with the concept of free speech, ie both politicians and journalists might say things that left wing UN officials disagree with.
    I think I'd be a bit ticked off to be invited in by a government to do an independent report on something and then be told to go back to Africa.

    The UN are not calling for anyone to be arrested for criticizing them, they're just asking for a little respect, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
  • Interesting The Guardian now claims to have hit 1m ' contributions ' from readers which include one off donations as well as monthly ones. The strategy they are trying is staying paywall free but routinely asking readers online to donate cash. Only the annual profit/loss figures will tell us if it's " worked " but the early indications are some folk will voluntarily pay to sustain a free at point of use site.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/05/guardian-passes-1m-mark-in-reader-donations-katharine-viner
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 22,620

    Is Raab ( a ) thick ( b ) setting up impossible Red lines so he can resign over one because he thinks resigning will boost his Tory leadership chances ?

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 47,063

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
    We'll see. In every case the turnout predicted by 538 is much less, and the turnout last time was massively less (my two criteria). Of course turnout is going to be up a lot since 2014, but that's baked in to my assessment.

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    Does the failing New York Times use registered or eligible voters as the denominator ?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760

    Interesting The Guardian now claims to have hit 1m ' contributions ' from readers which include one off donations as well as monthly ones. The strategy they are trying is staying paywall free but routinely asking readers online to donate cash. Only the annual profit/loss figures will tell us if it's " worked " but the early indications are some folk will voluntarily pay to sustain a free at point of use site.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/05/guardian-passes-1m-mark-in-reader-donations-katharine-viner

    I would contribute if their comment pieces weren't so packed full of hatred and prejudice. I can't in all honesty contribute to them as they are, even though some of their news coverage is very good.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
    We'll see. In every case the turnout predicted by 538 is much less, and the turnout last time was massively less (my two criteria). Of course turnout is going to be up a lot since 2014, but that's baked in to my assessment.

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    I'm not rooting for you to get crushed - but Mike is already in the money on his turnout bet.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
    We'll see. In every case the turnout predicted by 538 is much less, and the turnout last time was massively less (my two criteria). Of course turnout is going to be up a lot since 2014, but that's baked in to my assessment.

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    Does the failing New York Times use registered or eligible voters as the denominator ?
    Very good question, to which I don't have a definitive answer, but I think (and hope) it's eligible voters.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167
    macisback said:

    Sean_F said:


    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.

    Rasmussen were the most accurate in 2016, if you are putting money on the sensible would look closely at their polling. I think there is a lot of attempted poll shaping going on from some of the others. With the early polling results it looks good for Trump getting at least creditable results, he might yet come out of this election very well.
    CNN, OTOH, put the Democrats 13% ahead. If Rasmussen are right, the Republicans will hold the House comfortably. If CNN are right, the Democrats will have a majority of 100.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760
    edited November 5
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
    We'll see. In every case the turnout predicted by 538 is much less, and the turnout last time was massively less (my two criteria). Of course turnout is going to be up a lot since 2014, but that's baked in to my assessment.

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    I'm not rooting for you to get crushed - but Mike is already in the money on his turnout bet.
    I can't find this market, what's the current spread?

    Edit: Perhaps I've misunderstood, I thought he had bet on the national turnout.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,526
    Anorak said:

    Highly, highly recommended to watch. Moving and thought provoking. Should be shown at every secondary school.

    Yes. Heartbreaking.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 5,160
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

    It's side-splittingly funny.
    Really? I must need a humour upgrade.

    It is, however, depressingly accurate.
  • Is Raab ( a ) thick ( b ) setting up impossible Red lines so he can resign over one because he thinks resigning will boost his Tory leadership chances ?

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
    We'll see. In every case the turnout predicted by 538 is much less, and the turnout last time was massively less (my two criteria). Of course turnout is going to be up a lot since 2014, but that's baked in to my assessment.

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    I'm not rooting for you to get crushed - but Mike is already in the money on his turnout bet.
    I can't find this market, what's the current spread?

    Edit: Perhaps I've misunderstood, I thought he had bet on the national turnout.
    I assumed he was talking about Texas - I could be wrong.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    Is Raab ( a ) thick ( b ) setting up impossible Red lines so he can resign over one because he thinks resigning will boost his Tory leadership chances ?

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
    or (d) journalists are as much in the dark as the rest of us.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292
    The South Korean chaebols are measuring up North Korea as their testbed for 21st century economics...
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/Interview/SK-chief-thinks-North-Korea-can-be-test-bed-for-future-cities
    North Korea "is a clean area where little infrastructure is set up," said Chey in an interview with the Nikkei Asian Review recently. "I think we should build a future city where people want to live, rather than establishing industrialized factories and apartments. We can share all the cars, electric vehicles from the first. And nobody needs to buy them."

    In terms of energy, he supports setting up villages and cities run by renewables only, such as solar energy and wind power. The 57-year-old business leader said there are plenty of other areas to test new economic models in North Korea -- from transportation to logistics to tourism....
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,492

    Is Raab ( a ) thick ( b ) setting up impossible Red lines so he can resign over one because he thinks resigning will boost his Tory leadership chances ?

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
    It’s been her approach throughout so unlikely to have changed now: May’s approach is generally to say whatever her core supporters and/or biggest potential challengers want to hear, and then do as little as possible until a default course of action becomes inevitable. In this case I think she genuinely doesn’t mind whether that default is BINO because the EU don’t blink, or some kind of privileged quasi-single-market-without-FoM because they do. It’s not about the destination, it’s about surviving as much of the journey as possible.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,986
    If we assume there is about a 5-10% chance of a post-election Republican House impeaching Trump, then the current betfair prices imply the chances of a Democratic House doing so are pretty much 50-50. Buy or sell?
  • Interesting The Guardian now claims to have hit 1m ' contributions ' from readers which include one off donations as well as monthly ones. The strategy they are trying is staying paywall free but routinely asking readers online to donate cash. Only the annual profit/loss figures will tell us if it's " worked " but the early indications are some folk will voluntarily pay to sustain a free at point of use site.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/05/guardian-passes-1m-mark-in-reader-donations-katharine-viner

    I would contribute if their comment pieces weren't so packed full of hatred and prejudice. I can't in all honesty contribute to them as they are, even though some of their news coverage is very good.
    I've quite a lot of sympathy with that actually Richard. I suspect we'd disagree over exactly which ones but some of their regular columnists and clickbait one offs are ghastly and trash the Guardian's brand. Which is a shame as under Viner it's well on it's way to becoming a global English language daily and the quality of much of it's factual journalism is outstanding. Viner is also more pluralist and rediscovering the ' liberal ' in the Trust Deed.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760
    Sean_F said:

    Is Raab ( a ) thick ( b ) setting up impossible Red lines so he can resign over one because he thinks resigning will boost his Tory leadership chances ?

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
    or (d) journalists are as much in the dark as the rest of us.
    As the PM's spokesman said today: "I have read in the past 24 hours that we have done a deal, that it was 50/50, that a deal was hanging by a thread and - my favourite - that we are in a ‘doom loop’."
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 329
    Sean_F said:

    macisback said:

    Sean_F said:


    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.

    Rasmussen were the most accurate in 2016, if you are putting money on the sensible would look closely at their polling. I think there is a lot of attempted poll shaping going on from some of the others. With the early polling results it looks good for Trump getting at least creditable results, he might yet come out of this election very well.
    CNN, OTOH, put the Democrats 13% ahead. If Rasmussen are right, the Republicans will hold the House comfortably. If CNN are right, the Democrats will have a majority of 100.
    I think the House will come down to individual toss-up seats where local issues will play out. The Democrats can play the old trick of tailoring the message to suit the seat, even easier to do that with no leader to be called out. On that basis I would expect them to win enough of the tight seats to take the House by a small margin. If that were the case I would lump on Trump even more for 2020.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,283
    edited November 5
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
    We'll see. In every case the turnout predicted by 538 is much less, and the turnout last time was massively less (my two criteria). Of course turnout is going to be up a lot since 2014, but that's baked in to my assessment.

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    Does the failing New York Times use registered or eligible voters as the denominator ?
    That is the massive question.

    It's the difference between, for example, in Texas a Presidental turnout of 59.39% or 46.45%.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,739
    edited November 5
    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46094938

    Always found this rather odd. In the US, it is completely standard to pre-pay for your gas either at the pump or via going into the shop first.

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It makes little difference if you first go into the shop and buy £x worth of gas prior to filling up. Most people soon have a good idea how much they will need to fill it up from current petrol gauge reading.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,599
    Sean_F said:

    Is Raab ( a ) thick ( b ) setting up impossible Red lines so he can resign over one because he thinks resigning will boost his Tory leadership chances ?

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
    or (d) journalists are as much in the dark as the rest of us.
    Nearly

    It’s

    (e) journalists have even less of a clue than @Pulpstar’s cat
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 6,415

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46094938

    Always found this rather odd. In the US, it is completely standard to pre-pay for your gas either at the pump or via going into the shop first.

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    Nobody wants to be first?
    Contrast with buying drinks here and on the continent.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,370
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
    I'd ask for one as well but poor @cyclefree will be spending so much time sending out VMs she won't have time to get out in the garden.
    And one for you too.

    This is OGH’s site so don’t want to use it for my purposes. Happy to send out VMs. Was in garden yesterday and am finishing some work today.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,526

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46094938

    Always found this rather odd. In the US, it is completely standard to pre-pay for your gas either at the pump or via going into the shop first.

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It makes little difference if you first go into the shop and buy £x worth of gas prior to filling up. Most people soon have a good idea how much they will need to fill it up from current petrol gauge reading.

    Historically, IIRC, we put in x gallons. Or just filled the tank. We aren’t ‘programmed' to put in £20 worth. Or, more likely today £50.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326
    edited November 5

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46094938

    Always found this rather odd. In the US, it is completely standard to pre-pay for your gas either at the pump or via going into the shop first.

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It makes little difference if you first go into the shop and buy £x worth of gas prior to filling up. Most people soon have a good idea how much they will need to fill it up from current petrol gauge reading.

    Historically, IIRC, we put in x gallons. Or just filled the tank. We aren’t ‘programmed' to put in £20 worth. Or, more likely today £50.
    Pre-payment doesn’t have to mean a set amount. You swipe your card which unlocks the pump, fill up, then grab your receipt. You are then just charged for the amount used.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,760

    Interesting The Guardian now claims to have hit 1m ' contributions ' from readers which include one off donations as well as monthly ones. The strategy they are trying is staying paywall free but routinely asking readers online to donate cash. Only the annual profit/loss figures will tell us if it's " worked " but the early indications are some folk will voluntarily pay to sustain a free at point of use site.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/05/guardian-passes-1m-mark-in-reader-donations-katharine-viner

    I would contribute if their comment pieces weren't so packed full of hatred and prejudice. I can't in all honesty contribute to them as they are, even though some of their news coverage is very good.
    I've quite a lot of sympathy with that actually Richard. I suspect we'd disagree over exactly which ones but some of their regular columnists and clickbait one offs are ghastly and trash the Guardian's brand. Which is a shame as under Viner it's well on it's way to becoming a global English language daily and the quality of much of it's factual journalism is outstanding. Viner is also more pluralist and rediscovering the ' liberal ' in the Trust Deed.
    I think she's improved the coverage quite a lot compared with Rusbridger. I broadly agree with you on the factual journalism, although it's a bit tiresome when they have to shove their hobbyhorses in to so many articles. They can't even do an article on the 100 Best Foreign Language Films without making it a gender issue!

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/01/seven-samurai-critics-best-foreign-language-films-akira-kurosawa
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,004
    Miss Cyclefree, you've made me curious now, as the nun said to the netball team. Could you send me the link?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,526
    O/T but the BBC has an Armistice Day related pages, with various events. The first one was the shooting down of a Zeppelin near Cuffley, Herts, which my mother used to talk about seeing from her bedroom window.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    O/T but the BBC has an Armistice Day related pages, with various events. The first one was the shooting down of a Zeppelin near Cuffley, Herts, which my mother used to talk about seeing from her bedroom window.

    My grandmother remembered it too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,739

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46094938

    Always found this rather odd. In the US, it is completely standard to pre-pay for your gas either at the pump or via going into the shop first.

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It makes little difference if you first go into the shop and buy £x worth of gas prior to filling up. Most people soon have a good idea how much they will need to fill it up from current petrol gauge reading.

    Historically, IIRC, we put in x gallons. Or just filled the tank. We aren’t ‘programmed' to put in £20 worth. Or, more likely today £50.
    You can still do that with pre-paying. Also, it really isn't hard to adjust to. If rural America can cope with it, I am sure the UK populous can.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 875

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It's deliberate to get you in the shop, where you get stuck in a queue, and have to stand next to the overpriced drinks/magazines/sweets. That's where the money is :-)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,739
    edited November 5
    Andrew said:

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It's deliberate to get you in the shop, where you get stuck in a queue, and have to stand next to the overpriced drinks/magazines/sweets. That's where the money is :-)
    And you still have to do that with pre-pay*. There is literally no difference except you give them the money before pumping the gas rather than after.

    * and obvious these days lots of supermarket gas stations have pay at pump (which is prepay), so you don't have to go to the shop.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,004
    King Cole, I read the Wonder Book of Aircraft a little while ago. Some fantastic images in it and the tone is really interesting because it's immediately post-WWI, full of patriotism and confidence, and some things that sit less well with modern eyes. One photo was of an airship going down in flames. I think the caption was rather approving, from memory.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326

    Andrew said:

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It's deliberate to get you in the shop, where you get stuck in a queue, and have to stand next to the overpriced drinks/magazines/sweets. That's where the money is :-)
    And you still have to do that with pre-pay*. There is literally no difference except you give them the money before pumping the gas rather than after.

    * and obvious these days lots of supermarket gas stations have pay at pump so you don't have to go to the shop.
    Pay at the pump is ubiquitous here in the US, far more convenient.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    King Cole, I read the Wonder Book of Aircraft a little while ago. Some fantastic images in it and the tone is really interesting because it's immediately post-WWI, full of patriotism and confidence, and some things that sit less well with modern eyes. One photo was of an airship going down in flames. I think the caption was rather approving, from memory.

    My grandmother said she felt guilty cheering, when she realised the German crew had burned alive.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684
    Sean_F said:


    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.

    Although as most of the votes will now have been cast, it may be a little on the late side
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,370

    O/T but the BBC has an Armistice Day related pages, with various events. The first one was the shooting down of a Zeppelin near Cuffley, Herts, which my mother used to talk about seeing from her bedroom window.

    My great uncle was in the Royal Army Medical Corps and died in 1915. I have his war diary. He was Irish and one of his brothers refused to see him wearing British Army uniform before he went to the front. When he was wounded the family did not realise how serious his wounds were and so his brother never got to say goodbye. He is buried in a cemetery outside Calais. He had only recently qualified as a doctor specialising in public health. What a waste. I have his certificate from Cambridge University.

    One of his other brothers was my grandfather. My father was born in April 1913 and I have a photo of him sitting between my grandfather’s legs on the beach at Youghal in August 1914 before the world changed. It is a poignant photo. He went on to fight in WW2.

    His granchildren will be living most of their lives in the 21st century and, God willing, will not have to experience war. And they will have a grandfather who was born before the war to end all wars. If only.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,004
    Mr. F, in Livy's account of Roman history, roughly the era of Titus Manlius Torquatus and Marcus Valerius Corvus, he notes approvingly of how one war ended with the Romans annihilating the adult male population of an enemy city.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 11,370

    Miss Cyclefree, you've made me curious now, as the nun said to the netball team. Could you send me the link?

    VM for you.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,684

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

    I've taken the view that, in a polarized election, we could well see both Democrats and Republican incumbents in safe seats doing better than expected, especially if they are nationally prominent. So after research on the 538 model and on previous election results, I've bought:

    Delaware: Carper (D) vs Artell @ 22.3
    Utah: Romney (R) vs Wilson @ 31.4
    NY: Gillibrand (D) vs Farley @ 27.8
    Rhode Island: Whitehouse (D) vs Flanders @ 26.2

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    Currently:

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
    We'll see. In every case the turnout predicted by 538 is much less, and the turnout last time was massively less (my two criteria). Of course turnout is going to be up a lot since 2014, but that's baked in to my assessment.

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    +1

    If I could spread bet I would be selling turnout here.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167
    edited November 5

    Mr. F, in Livy's account of Roman history, roughly the era of Titus Manlius Torquatus and Marcus Valerius Corvus, he notes approvingly of how one war ended with the Romans annihilating the adult male population of an enemy city.

    Presumably, they considered themselves to be merciful, because they took the women and children as slaves, rather than killing them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,526
    Sean_F said:

    King Cole, I read the Wonder Book of Aircraft a little while ago. Some fantastic images in it and the tone is really interesting because it's immediately post-WWI, full of patriotism and confidence, and some things that sit less well with modern eyes. One photo was of an airship going down in flames. I think the caption was rather approving, from memory.

    My grandmother said she felt guilty cheering, when she realised the German crew had burned alive.
    My mother lived on a farm, some distance from Cuffley and she only recalled seeing the airship in flames and seeing it go down. And the flames going up into the sky afterwards.

    90 or so years later I found details of the farmhouse in an estate agents in NW Essex. It had long gone from my mothers family of course. Turned out Frederick Forsyth bought it; the house is no longer, apparently, connected with the rest of the farm, although it’s still an agricultural area.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,004
    Mr. F, I believe they mostly left the women and children (it was on the battlefield, a massacre victory). The destruction of men meant there was no fear of war from that quarter for a generation.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 34,326
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:


    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.

    Although as most of the votes will now have been cast, it may be a little on the late side
    Didn’t Trump perform much better on the day compared with early voting in 2016?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,526

    Mr. F, in Livy's account of Roman history, roughly the era of Titus Manlius Torquatus and Marcus Valerius Corvus, he notes approvingly of how one war ended with the Romans annihilating the adult male population of an enemy city.

    Tamerlane could be very unforgiving about the populations of cities which opposed his advance, too.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,526
    Cyclefree said:

    O/T but the BBC has an Armistice Day related pages, with various events. The first one was the shooting down of a Zeppelin near Cuffley, Herts, which my mother used to talk about seeing from her bedroom window.

    My great uncle was in the Royal Army Medical Corps and died in 1915. I have his war diary. He was Irish and one of his brothers refused to see him wearing British Army uniform before he went to the front. When he was wounded the family did not realise how serious his wounds were and so his brother never got to say goodbye. He is buried in a cemetery outside Calais. He had only recently qualified as a doctor specialising in public health. What a waste. I have his certificate from Cambridge University.

    One of his other brothers was my grandfather. My father was born in April 1913 and I have a photo of him sitting between my grandfather’s legs on the beach at Youghal in August 1914 before the world changed. It is a poignant photo. He went on to fight in WW2.

    His granchildren will be living most of their lives in the 21st century and, God willing, will not have to experience war. And they will have a grandfather who was born before the war to end all wars. If only.
    My primary school teacher grandson asked me to write of my experiences as a primary school child in WWII for his class. The school where he teaches isn’t far from where I grew up so the place names were familiar to some at least of the children.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    Mr. F, in Livy's account of Roman history, roughly the era of Titus Manlius Torquatus and Marcus Valerius Corvus, he notes approvingly of how one war ended with the Romans annihilating the adult male population of an enemy city.

    Tamerlane could be very unforgiving about the populations of cities which opposed his advance, too.
    Our ancestors could be very rough.

    There was a general expectation that if a city came to terms, then one should honour those terms. But, if it was taken by storm, the lives and property of the inhabitants belonged to the conquerors.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 46,004
    King Cole, Tamerlane was brutal, but that brutality was perhaps more an individual quality than the Roman sternness, if we can call it that, practised by the likes of Titus Manlius Torquatus and Lucius Papirius Cursor.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,167

    King Cole, Tamerlane was brutal, but that brutality was perhaps more an individual quality than the Roman sternness, if we can call it that, practised by the likes of Titus Manlius Torquatus and Lucius Papirius Cursor.

    The Romans admired those of their ancestors who were so devoted to duty that they executed their own wives or children for unbecoming conduct.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 1,238

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46094938

    Always found this rather odd. In the US, it is completely standard to pre-pay for your gas either at the pump or via going into the shop first.

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It makes little difference if you first go into the shop and buy £x worth of gas prior to filling up. Most people soon have a good idea how much they will need to fill it up from current petrol gauge reading.

    This should be the lowest priority for the police anyway, so I don't even know why he's mentioning it.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 875
    Sean_F said:

    CNN, OTOH, put the Democrats 13% ahead. If Rasmussen are right, the Republicans will hold the House comfortably. If CNN are right, the Democrats will have a majority of 100.

    LA Times had one out today with Dems +15 generic . If you look at longterm accuracy they're not that good though (neither are Rasmussen).

    The ones to pay attention to imo: Marist, IBD, ABC, Fox. The first three have +9/+9/+8. Fox had a +7, but that's from oct13-16.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,334
    RobD said:

    Andrew said:

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It's deliberate to get you in the shop, where you get stuck in a queue, and have to stand next to the overpriced drinks/magazines/sweets. That's where the money is :-)
    And you still have to do that with pre-pay*. There is literally no difference except you give them the money before pumping the gas rather than after.

    * and obvious these days lots of supermarket gas stations have pay at pump so you don't have to go to the shop.
    Pay at the pump is ubiquitous here in the US, far more convenient.
    Although there is a feeling here that pump card-readers are far more likely to be compromised than others. We always pay in cash or by card in the shop.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,526
    The original Old King Cole was allegedly the last British ‘king’ at Colchester, where the Britons, under Boudicca later took a VERY bloody revenge for the humiliations perpetrated on the lady and her tribespeople by the Romans.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,243
    edited November 5
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:


    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.

    Although as most of the votes will now have been cast, it may be a little on the late side
    Or reflect the votes actually cast....an early exit poll?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,497
    In case this has not been posted. The timetable of polls closing:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2018-election-polls-close/?ex_cid=story-twitter
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,297
    edited November 5
    Dadge said:

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46094938

    Always found this rather odd. In the US, it is completely standard to pre-pay for your gas either at the pump or via going into the shop first.

    Driving off without paying in the UK has been an issue for donkeys years, and petrol stations have put in ANPR camera in place. I never really understood why as petrol pumps as have been upgraded etc not switch to having to pre-pay.

    It makes little difference if you first go into the shop and buy £x worth of gas prior to filling up. Most people soon have a good idea how much they will need to fill it up from current petrol gauge reading.

    This should be the lowest priority for the police anyway, so I don't even know why he's mentioning it.
    I can think of things that should be lower priorities. This is a crime still so should be a priority for the Police as should all crimes and should be a higher priority than eg taking a log of non-criminal offences

    Regardless of the reasons as to why petrol stations don't have pay at the pump, there will in general also be people who want to pay cash who can't pay at the pump and it isn't for the victim to prevent all crimes. Just because someone hasn't stopped themselves being robbed doesn't mean they deserve to be robbed or neglected by the Police if they are.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,292
    macisback said:

    Sean_F said:

    macisback said:

    Sean_F said:


    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.

    Rasmussen were the most accurate in 2016, if you are putting money on the sensible would look closely at their polling. I think there is a lot of attempted poll shaping going on from some of the others. With the early polling results it looks good for Trump getting at least creditable results, he might yet come out of this election very well.
    CNN, OTOH, put the Democrats 13% ahead. If Rasmussen are right, the Republicans will hold the House comfortably. If CNN are right, the Democrats will have a majority of 100.
    I think the House will come down to individual toss-up seats where local issues will play out. The Democrats can play the old trick of tailoring the message to suit the seat, even easier to do that with no leader to be called out. On that basis I would expect them to win enough of the tight seats to take the House by a small margin. If that were the case I would lump on Trump even more for 2020.
    Very possibly - and there are many more tossup seats being defended by Republicans, which is why they face such an uphill battle (the inverse of the Senate election).
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,509

    Interesting The Guardian now claims to have hit 1m ' contributions ' from readers which include one off donations as well as monthly ones. The strategy they are trying is staying paywall free but routinely asking readers online to donate cash. Only the annual profit/loss figures will tell us if it's " worked " but the early indications are some folk will voluntarily pay to sustain a free at point of use site.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/05/guardian-passes-1m-mark-in-reader-donations-katharine-viner

    I would contribute if their comment pieces weren't so packed full of hatred and prejudice. I can't in all honesty contribute to them as they are, even though some of their news coverage is very good.
    I've quite a lot of sympathy with that actually Richard. I suspect we'd disagree over exactly which ones but some of their regular columnists and clickbait one offs are ghastly and trash the Guardian's brand. Which is a shame as under Viner it's well on it's way to becoming a global English language daily and the quality of much of it's factual journalism is outstanding. Viner is also more pluralist and rediscovering the ' liberal ' in the Trust Deed.
    I have decided after many years of reading the Guardian , to make a monthly contribution.

    As I think it is worth every penny , not to be behind a pay wall.

    I hope my little effort keeps it open to all.
This discussion has been closed.