Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The story of the night on the betting markets

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited November 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The story of the night on the betting markets

I love these charts from Betdata.io showing the dynamic movement on the Betfair exchange elections markets.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    First like the Cruzer (though without squeaky bum)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    Overall, I should think that Republicans will be a bit happier with these results than Democrats are.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,758
    edited November 7
    Second, like Trump's opponent in 2020.

    [edit - or not, as it turns out. But I still reckon Trump should now be comfortably odds-on for re-election]
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,767

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    edited November 7

    Second, like Trump's opponent in 2020.

    [edit - or not, as it turns out. But I still reckon Trump should now be comfortably odds-on for re-election]

    I think Lads are 11/8 for him to be re-elected (down from 6/4). The probable state of his arteries would put me off.
  • I'm really getting annoyed at 538 and their models.

    If they can't cope with early results then they should review their models.

    It is like the GB exit poll being solely in Liverpool.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    edited November 7
    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    I think TSE is suggesting (rightly, IMHO) that there would be a swing back to the Republicans between now and 2020. None of MI, WI nor OH were particularly strong wins for an incumbent Senator of the opposition, in mid-term.
  • Big shout out to @Alistair for his comments/predictions on turnout.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690
    edited November 7

    I'm really getting annoyed at 538 and their models.

    If they can't cope with early results then they should review their models.

    It is like the GB exit poll being solely in Liverpool.

    As I said last night, Nate silver spends virtually no time involved and 538 now make their money from sports. They are still trading on a past that just isn’t the reality anymore.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246

    Big shout out to @Alistair for his comments/predictions on turnout.

    SMUG MODE activated.

    Shame it scared me off the rest of the markets as reality matched my betting position before I got scared off and cashed out.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690
    What was interesting was how again the CNN exit poll (or at least the bits they showed) didn’t match up to reality. The numbers for Trump / policies were absolutely terrible, pointing to a pounding like dockside hooker and that isn’t what happened.
  • Alistair said:

    Big shout out to @Alistair for his comments/predictions on turnout.

    SMUG MODE activated.

    Shame it scared me off the rest of the markets as reality matched my betting position before I got scared off and cashed out.
    You persuaded me.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,737
    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    The Dems won the popular vote by 7% which is triple what happened at WH2016
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695
    Luckily I'd gone to bed, so I wasn't tempted to try to reverse my bet on the Dems winning the House.
  • Luckily I'd gone to bed, so I wasn't tempted to try to reverse my bet on the Dems winning the House.

    I was tempted to switch but the early Texas numbers made me think, keep calm, the Dems have this in the bag.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,418
    Curse of the new thread:
    tlg86 said:

    This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.

    Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.

    Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.


    Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.

    If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.


    https://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans-suing-lawyers-over-lost-earnings-after-overturned-rape-conviction-11546473

    If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.

    Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"

    I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Very bouncy. As with previous elections, being on at the right time to alter bets could've been very tasty.

    Mr. Alistair, if it makes you feel better, I made the opposite mistake at our last election. I held onto a Con 50-70 seat majority instead of hedging at about 2.5. It's very easy to see mistakes with hindsight, alas.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,473
    According to the latest NYT figures, the popular vote is currently as follows:

    Dem 51.0%
    GOP 47.3%

    Dem lead: 3.7%

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 5,619
    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Politically a narrow Democrat majority in the House is ideal for Trump. It gives him a target to rant against, Washington insiders to blame for anything that goes wrong, prevents him from doing anything really unpopular (like repealing Obamacare). By the time of the 2020 election the Democrat House will be to blame for the massive deficit. Impeachment also feeds into his persecution pose. At the same time some of the Democrats in Republican-leaning districts will feel under pressure to vote his way to win re-election themselves.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    Shocking the way racist language is being normalised.

    "'Gammon' is added to Collins Dictionary as word of the year "

    https://tinyurl.com/y96m4sly

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,791
    AndyJS said:

    According to the latest NYT figures, the popular vote is currently as follows:

    Dem 51.0%
    GOP 47.3%

    Dem lead: 3.7%

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html

    The Dems "won" in 2016 as well...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845
    AndyJS said:

    According to the latest NYT figures, the popular vote is currently as follows:

    Dem 51.0%
    GOP 47.3%

    Dem lead: 3.7%

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    The Dems won the popular vote by 7% which is triple what happened at WH2016
    California being incredibly slow again ?
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809
    Depends if he can outspend the Republicans across the USA by 2 to 1 as he did in Texas.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,957

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020

    3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought

    4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting

    5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020

    6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020

    This is just a gut take at the moment, but to my mind the scale of the Democratic popular vote win is the most important factor, given the closeness of the 2016 vote, and therefore I don't think Trump should have shortened overnight.

    Obviously the distributional effects of that vote are hurting the Dems more and more, but Trump's was a narrow win in the first place.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    The Dems won the popular vote by 7% which is triple what happened at WH2016
    But which popular vote? If you include California, you had two Democrats running for Senate and no Republican - in the most populous state. That seriouslly skews the figures as against 2016.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,791

    I'm really getting annoyed at 538 and their models.

    If they can't cope with early results then they should review their models.

    It is like the GB exit poll being solely in Liverpool.

    Sunderland? ;)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690
    A lot is being waged on the assumption that Texas is the same Texas it has been donkeys years. The thing is that isn’t true. There has been a massive influx of people from places like California to the big cities and obviously demographic changes.

    Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,957

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    The Dems won the popular vote by 7% which is triple what happened at WH2016
    But which popular vote? If you include California, you had two Democrats running for Senate and no Republican - in the most populous state. That seriouslly skews the figures as against 2016.
    The House vote is the popular one usually referred to.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,473

    AndyJS said:

    According to the latest NYT figures, the popular vote is currently as follows:

    Dem 51.0%
    GOP 47.3%

    Dem lead: 3.7%

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html

    The Dems "won" in 2016 as well...
    47.3% is more than Trump got in 2016.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,758
    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 4,411
    Morning all :)

    OTOH, instead of a late night and a squeaky bum, you could have followed my advice from Saturday, backed CROSS COUNTER to win the Melbourne Cup at 10/1 and had a decent night's sleep and a decent profit.

    Oh well...
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809
    tlg86 said:

    Curse of the new thread:

    tlg86 said:

    This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.

    Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.

    Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.


    Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.

    If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.


    https://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans-suing-lawyers-over-lost-earnings-after-overturned-rape-conviction-11546473

    If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.

    Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"

    I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.

    Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,737

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
    Is Trump going to stand?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 19,695

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Politically a narrow Democrat majority in the House is ideal for Trump. It gives him a target to rant against, Washington insiders to blame for anything that goes wrong, prevents him from doing anything really unpopular (like repealing Obamacare). By the time of the 2020 election the Democrat House will be to blame for the massive deficit. Impeachment also feeds into his persecution pose. At the same time some of the Democrats in Republican-leaning districts will feel under pressure to vote his way to win re-election themselves.
    Whilst that's true to an extent, the Democrats will now have control of the various scrutiny committees, and if they use that power well they'll be able to poke around in various murky areas which might turn up some awkward stuff for Trump. That assumes they don't screw up by over-doing it and getting all excited without solid evidence,
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,106
    Adding a graph showing the 538 model, US market Predictit and Augur, the crypto-economic prediction market system on the Ethereum network. Not as fine-grained as it could be, unfortunately.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrX0mJdVsAEPJLY.jpg:large
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,238

    tlg86 said:

    Curse of the new thread:

    tlg86 said:

    This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.

    Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.

    Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.


    Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.

    If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.


    https://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans-suing-lawyers-over-lost-earnings-after-overturned-rape-conviction-11546473

    If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.

    Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"

    I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.

    Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
    If there has been malpractice or negligence then why shouldn't they be held to account? Doctors and other professionals are.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,739
    edited November 7
    In non-US news, there's yet another Labour anti-Semtism story:

    "Two members of the Labour Party in Peterborough have resigned, citing the party's "bullying and incompetence" in dealing with anti-Semitism.

    Richard Ferris and Matthew Mahabadi had earlier criticised the selection of a local candidate who allegedly suggested the Holocaust was a hoax.

    In a joint statement they said blowing the whistle in March had exposed them to "alienation and ignorance".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46109551

    Labour moderates really do need to drain the swamp their party has become.
  • So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    2) Based on the House and some of the gubernatorial results, the Dems have the potential to take the White House in 2020

    3) Texas is trending blue faster than we thought

    4) Florida is trending red, something I wasn't expecting

    5) If the House spends the next two years putting the kibosh on Trump's plans he might decide he can't be arsed and stands down in 2020

    6) All told, if the economy keeps on humming along Trump should be the favourite in 2020

    This is just a gut take at the moment, but to my mind the scale of the Democratic popular vote win is the most important factor, given the closeness of the 2016 vote, and therefore I don't think Trump should have shortened overnight.

    Obviously the distributional effects of that vote are hurting the Dems more and more, but Trump's was a narrow win in the first place.
    I agree with all of that.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,758

    Second, like Trump's opponent in 2020.

    [edit - or not, as it turns out. But I still reckon Trump should now be comfortably odds-on for re-election]

    I think Lads are 11/8 for him to be re-elected (down from 6/4). The probable state of his arteries would put me off.
    For a fat old bloke with an unhealthy lifestyle, I'd normally agree. But he doesn't have any great history of illness so (and I am not an actuary), I don't think the likelihood of his health intervening between now and Nov 2020 are sufficient to justify the gap between reasonably odds-on (his raw chance of winning), and Ladbrokes' 11/8.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,791
    AndyJS said:

    AndyJS said:

    According to the latest NYT figures, the popular vote is currently as follows:

    Dem 51.0%
    GOP 47.3%

    Dem lead: 3.7%

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/06/us/elections/results-house-elections.html

    The Dems "won" in 2016 as well...
    47.3% is more than Trump got in 2016.
    Hillary got less than 51%.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 15,238
    edited November 7

    In non-US news, there's yet another Labour anti-Semtism story:

    Labour moderates really do need to drain the swamp their party has become.

    The swamp creatures have taken full control. Moderates need to get out of the swamp.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690
    edited November 7

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
    Is Trump going to stand?
    He will stand. Despite all those early reports of him not liking the White House, he loves doing those rallies, he loves the adoring fans. CNN were saying last night he plans to continue to do l oads of them in the coming months despite no elections.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    A lot is being waged on the assumption that Texas is the same Texas it has been donkeys years. The thing is that isn’t true. There has been a massive influx of people from places like California to the big cities and obviously demographic changes.

    Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
    Yes. Abbot won the Governorship by 13%.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,122
    "A lot of the betting, I guess, was influenced by the commentators on the American networks most notably CNN which, of course, has a much bigger audience in the UK."

    CNN was cautiously optimistic about the House for the Dems, even Rick Santorum.

    What was not was 538, whose movements had an instant effect on the markets without as many people as you might think wondering if 538 really did have results the rest of us didn't.

    For me there was a moment VI-2 and VI-7 moved towards the blue column that I jumped on the remaining odds at 1.4, not huge sums, but pretty damn close to safe money
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,501

    tlg86 said:

    Curse of the new thread:

    tlg86 said:

    This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.

    Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.

    Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.


    Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.

    If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.


    https://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans-suing-lawyers-over-lost-earnings-after-overturned-rape-conviction-11546473

    If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.

    Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"

    I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.

    Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
    Hasn’t there been a case before of a disappointed client suing their legal advisors? Or am I thinking of something like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,501
    Sean_F said:

    A lot is being waged on the assumption that Texas is the same Texas it has been donkeys years. The thing is that isn’t true. There has been a massive influx of people from places like California to the big cities and obviously demographic changes.

    Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
    Yes. Abbot won the Governorship by 13%.
    That’s the big feature of the US isn’t it; all sorts of people coming into the country, those already there moving about in it.
    How many people are where their grandparents were?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,122

    tlg86 said:

    Curse of the new thread:

    tlg86 said:

    This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.

    Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.

    Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.


    Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.

    If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.


    https://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans-suing-lawyers-over-lost-earnings-after-overturned-rape-conviction-11546473

    If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.

    Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"

    I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.

    Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
    Hasn’t there been a case before of a disappointed client suing their legal advisors? Or am I thinking of something like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
    Many.

    The standards of professional negligence are well known and something all solicitors are insured against
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
    Is Trump going to stand?
    If he's still standing.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,659

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Politically a narrow Democrat majority in the House is ideal for Trump. It gives him a target to rant against, Washington insiders to blame for anything that goes wrong, prevents him from doing anything really unpopular (like repealing Obamacare). By the time of the 2020 election the Democrat House will be to blame for the massive deficit. Impeachment also feeds into his persecution pose. At the same time some of the Democrats in Republican-leaning districts will feel under pressure to vote his way to win re-election themselves.
    Whilst that's true to an extent, the Democrats will now have control of the various scrutiny committees, and if they use that power well they'll be able to poke around in various murky areas which might turn up some awkward stuff for Trump. That assumes they don't screw up by over-doing it and getting all excited without solid evidence,
    I think they won't be able to help themselves on the latter point. The whole Kavanaugh episode proves this.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 7,168
    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
    I suspect after last night, the Republican planners for 2020 are more confident than the Democrats. The Republicans know exactly what they have to do. Trump has not split the Republican party asunder, as seemed quite possible in 2016. And the fight as to which Democrat candidate will do best against him is likely to be bloody, as there is no obvious answer.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690
    The big thing for trumps chances is of course the economy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845
    What is it with the absolubtely glacial speed of counting in Dem strongholds :p
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 9,106
    Danny565 said:

    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.

    Have you looked at black and female candidates systematically or are you just going by the general vibe off a couple of cases?
  • If I were a Democrat I'd be taking a serious look at Amy Klobuchar after last night. Probably the most impressive Senate margin of the night winning 60% of the vote in a Midwest senate election (the open Minnesota senate race was won by the Dem with only 53% of the vote).

    I think she might be the right model candidate to take on Trump in 2020.

    She's 50/1 with Ladbrokes right now.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,957
    Regardless of the eventual 2020 outcome, this looks a good Trump-laying opportunity. Lots of potential developments will probably see his price drift, most notably a Mueller subpoena or even the House impeaching (which I continue to think would be a political mistake, unless the evidence is overwhelming).
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,473
    edited November 7
    Pulpstar said:

    What is it with the absolubtely glacial speed of counting in Dem strongholds :p

    No incentive for them to finish the job quickly. California always takes weeks to finish counting: I remember from 2012 when I was doing the spreadsheet for OGH.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,501

    tlg86 said:

    Curse of the new thread:

    tlg86 said:

    This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.

    Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.

    Evans spent two-and-a-half years in prison after being convicted of raping a 19-year-old woman in a hotel room at the end of a drunken night in north Wales in 2011, but a retrial in 2016 found him not guilty.


    Evans is now claiming he was badly advised by Brabners, the legal firm that defended him in the initial trial in 2012.

    If successful in proving malpractice, the Welsh striker could be awarded hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of pounds in damages.


    https://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans-suing-lawyers-over-lost-earnings-after-overturned-rape-conviction-11546473

    If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.

    Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"

    I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.

    Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
    Hasn’t there been a case before of a disappointed client suing their legal advisors? Or am I thinking of something like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
    Many.

    The standards of professional negligence are well known and something all solicitors are insured against
    But the law isn’t an absolute, is it. It appears to be capable of being moulded and amended as society changes. Can the ‘failure’ of Evans’ original lawyers fairly be described as ‘negligence’? If it can be, I doubt if the case will actually come to court; it’ll be a case of the insurers arguing over the amount.

    But as someone else said (sort of), if he’d kept it in his trousers until he got home none of this would have happened.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690
    edited November 7
    Danny565 said:

    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.

    I don’t know. A white man is easy for trump to repeat what he did to all the GOP candidates and just be really horrible to them without fear of backlash for being a sexist or a racist. He had a lot harder time in the debates versus Clinton, despite her being an unlikeable figure for many.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246

    Depends if he can outspend the Republicans across the USA by 2 to 1 as he did in Texas.
    That was my view as well. Ignoring the huge wall of money Beto deployed would be an error for someone looking for the next Dem nominee.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    Lewis still has a lot of work to do (though I sense even curing cancer may not be enough).

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246
    Sean_F said:

    The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.

    If Collins had voted no he would have voted no as well.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,122

    tlg86 said:

    Curse of the new thread:

    tlg86 said:

    This is a disgrace, wholly without merit, it would set a dangerous precedent and see many denied legal representation as the legal profession wouldn't take on clients due to the risk.

    Footballer Ched Evans is suing the lawyers who represented him in a rape trial in an effort to recoup a potential fortune of millions in lost earnings.

    https://news.sky.com/story/ched-evans-suing-lawyers-over-lost-earnings-after-overturned-rape-conviction-11546473

    If he had been faithful to his other half he could have avoided all of this, he should look at his own degenerate behaviour.

    Presumably he's had to seek representation from other lawyers to sue his previous lawyers. What's the phrase? "No honour among thieves"

    I guess this is all about whether or not her past was fair game. I still find it odd that the evidence that got him off was allowed to be heard in court.

    Evans has not won yet. I suspect he will have to prove negligence by his previous lawyers to win damages against them.
    Hasn’t there been a case before of a disappointed client suing their legal advisors? Or am I thinking of something like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
    Many.

    The standards of professional negligence are well known and something all solicitors are insured against
    But the law isn’t an absolute, is it. It appears to be capable of being moulded and amended as society changes. Can the ‘failure’ of Evans’ original lawyers fairly be described as ‘negligence’? If it can be, I doubt if the case will actually come to court; it’ll be a case of the insurers arguing over the amount.

    But as someone else said (sort of), if he’d kept it in his trousers until he got home none of this would have happened.
    There is no way to answer that question.

    To take you on a legal journey for a moment, there is no doubt that solicitors owe their clients a duty of care which means providing them with a reasonable standard of advice judged against what a person might reasonably expect of a qualified solicitor. Equally, a criminal solicitor will know that the wrong advice could (could) lead to their client being wrongly jailed.

    So the remaining questions are two-fold: what advice did Brabners give Evans, what actions did they take on his behalf, and in what respects did that differ to what a reasonable solicitor would have done? Only a court can decide that.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 7,168
    edited November 7

    Danny565 said:

    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Though I will say I think the Democrats need to pick a white man in 2020. Might not be pretty, but black candidates and female candidates did seem to underperform generally, not to mention how effectively the Republicans demonised Nancy Pelosi.

    Have you looked at black and female candidates systematically or are you just going by the general vibe off a couple of cases?
    Admittedly I haven't looked at House candidates at all, but in the Senate and gubernatorial races, female and ethnic minority candidates almost all underperformed their polling, especially in the South.

    I'm also going off the DIRE ratings that Nancy Pelosi had in all the exit polls, and the (largely anecdotal) signs that she swung some votes to the Republicans. Given she is pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of political positions (like Clinton was), surely there must be something else at work there.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690

    Lewis still has a lot of work to do (though I sense even curing cancer may not be enough).

    3 tennis players in top 5....where did they survey, Wimbledon?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,473
    Looks like turnout was around 50%.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,767
    I think the Dems need to run a campaign in 2020 based on raising the minimum wage and Medicare for all (the latter currently polls at 52% of Republicans in support).
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246

    A lot is being waged on the assumption that Texas is the same Texas it has been donkeys years. The thing is that isn’t true. There has been a massive influx of people from places like California to the big cities and obviously demographic changes.

    Also nobody likes ted Cruz, not sure even ted Cruz likes ted Cruz.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 9,472
    MaxPB said:

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Politically a narrow Democrat majority in the House is ideal for Trump. It gives him a target to rant against, Washington insiders to blame for anything that goes wrong, prevents him from doing anything really unpopular (like repealing Obamacare). By the time of the 2020 election the Democrat House will be to blame for the massive deficit. Impeachment also feeds into his persecution pose. At the same time some of the Democrats in Republican-leaning districts will feel under pressure to vote his way to win re-election themselves.
    Whilst that's true to an extent, the Democrats will now have control of the various scrutiny committees, and if they use that power well they'll be able to poke around in various murky areas which might turn up some awkward stuff for Trump. That assumes they don't screw up by over-doing it and getting all excited without solid evidence,
    I think they won't be able to help themselves on the latter point. The whole Kavanaugh episode proves this.
    As some pb commenters suggested, they should have let Harris and Booker continue with their lines that the Kavanaugh appointment was corrupt, rather than let it be derailed by he-said/she-said many decades ago. As David Cameron once remarked, too many tweets make a SCOTUS.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,501

    Lewis still has a lot of work to do (though I sense even curing cancer may not be enough).

    No mention of Alistair Cook? Didn’t I see somewhere that there was a suggestion of a knighthood?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    The Democrats do now have a Senate problem, as conservative States cease to return Democratic Senators.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,758

    rkrkrk said:

    So here's my take, tell me if I'm wrong.

    1) Based on the Senate results, Trump should win re-election

    Not sure about that. Dems have won comfortably in MI, WI, OH, VA, NV, PA, NM.
    That alone is enough to win in 2020.

    Yes, but it's also mid-term. The president's party nearly always takes a hit in mid-terms: you can't base the next presidential election on them any more than you could project UK local election onto the next GE.
    Is Trump going to stand?
    Unless death or physical incapacity intervene, yes, he will.

    - He needs to stand to protect his interests;
    - He believes no-one could do a better job;
    - He believes he can win;
    - He probably won't be impeached and certainly won't be convicted if he is;
    - He probably won't be challenged in the primaries and certainly won't be defeated there.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 9,418

    Lewis still has a lot of work to do (though I sense even curing cancer may not be enough).

    No mention of Alistair Cook? Didn’t I see somewhere that there was a suggestion of a knighthood?
    Not seen on terrestrial television.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 20,111
    They're going to spend seventy million to come second?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 14,758
    Sean_F said:

    The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.

    This is another under-rated point from the midterms. Manchin is a Democrat but there will be times when, as far as party-line votes go, he isn't.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 8,122
    Sean_F said:

    The Democrats do now have a Senate problem, as conservative States cease to return Democratic Senators.

    ND and MO showing a bit of a lag. I would say that compared to 2 years ago the position has improved for the Dems in those states, but compared ot 6 years ago (which is what counted) not so much
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127
    Alistair said:

    Sean_F said:

    The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.

    If Collins had voted no he would have voted no as well.
    But, then he would have lost, and the new Senate would have voted through another right wing Justice.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,191
    Danny565 said:

    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 12,501
    tlg86 said:

    Lewis still has a lot of work to do (though I sense even curing cancer may not be enough).

    No mention of Alistair Cook? Didn’t I see somewhere that there was a suggestion of a knighthood?
    Not seen on terrestrial television.
    Quite. Better to let the public see people than fiddling about with the rules.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 5,809
    edited November 7

    Lewis still has a lot of work to do (though I sense even curing cancer may not be enough).

    Hamilton 6th.

    Vettel 46th.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,099

    They're going to spend seventy million to come second?
    You expect fiscal sanity from Labour?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    Danny565 said:

    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
    In absolute terms, there may be more white felons than black felons.
  • Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
    In absolute terms, there may be more white felons than black felons.
    No may about it, there are more white felons than black felons in Florida.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565

    The big thing for trumps chances is of course the economy.

    I'm not so sure. The boom is largely a coastal, blue state, phenomenon. The rust belt is getting jealous girlfriend syndrome. And it's the rust belt he needs to keep sweet. No evidence of that on last night's numbers.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,065
    Congratulations to Mike for a cracking couple of tips which should cover this year's holidays I guess.Spread betting is not for me.If FOBS are the crack cocaine of gambling,spead betting is the billy whizz,meth-amphetamine.My strategy of 2% of betting bank per bet is a low risk one and I reduce risk by dutching in ante-post markets.
    My results is down a point on the night but up a point if the Blues win Arizona where I understand the count has been suspended it is so close.
    No damage done.
    The Blue Wave was indeed not so much a tsunami but more a big wee-wee.
    My overall impression of US politics is just how corrupt it is,and how big money de-legitimises democracy.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,325
    Wasn't there a competition to guess TX Dem vote?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,099

    In non-US news, there's yet another Labour anti-Semtism story:

    Labour moderates really do need to drain the swamp their party has become.

    The swamp creatures have taken full control. Moderates need to get out of the swamp.
    that would take honour, integrity and courage.

    So they will sit on their hands
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 23,127

    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
    In absolute terms, there may be more white felons than black felons.
    No may about it, there are more white felons than black felons in Florida.
    I'd expect turnout to be low, generally, among felons, but presumably white felons would be mostly people without college degrees, exactly the group that loves Trump.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,473
    Sean_F said:

    Danny565 said:

    I think it's a stretch to say that Trump will "comfortably" win re-election on the basis of these results. After all, the Democrats look to have won the House popular vote by a pretty healthy ~8%, and they won in most of the closest 2016 states (Florida aside).

    Democrats won in Florida too. Or at least, they "won" once you notionally adjust the results to count in the effect of the vote to amend future Florida voting law to expand the franchise, adding an estimated 1.3 million disproportionately black citizens. In terms of what that means for the next presidential election that is more important than the actual Senate and Governor results.
    In absolute terms, there may be more white felons than black felons.
    It's probably best to be sceptical about how many of them will bother to vote when overall turnout at recent presidential elections hasn't been higher than 58%.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690
    edited November 7
    Re Florida - is it still the case significant numbers of old white people retirees move there every year?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246
    edited November 7
    Sean_F said:

    Alistair said:

    Sean_F said:

    The close result in West Virginia shows that Joe Manchin was very sensible to vote for Kavanaugh. He knows his electorate, and knows he would have lost otherwise.

    If Collins had voted no he would have voted no as well.
    But, then he would have lost, and the new Senate would have voted through another right wing Justice.
    The reverberations of Kavanaugh being defeated are unknowable. For all we know it would have energised WV Dem activists and boosted Manchin's vote.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,191

    Re Florida - is it still the case significant numbers of old white people retirees move there every year?

    It is quite possibly also the case that significant numbers of old white retirees already living in Florida die each year.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    F1: repost, but still odd to me that Ricciardo is 4 to not be classified at the next race.

    He's had 4/8 recent race DNFs, and 8/19 season long. Alonso's odds are just 2.75, and that's with one fewer total DNF and the last couple being down to misfortune (accident caused by another, and debris) rather than reliability letting him down.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 30,690

    Re Florida - is it still the case significant numbers of old white people retirees move there every year?

    It is quite possibly also the case that significant numbers of old white retirees already living in Florida die each year.
    You missed the point....
This discussion has been closed.