Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Trump’s troubles mount punters now give him just a 30% chan

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited December 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As Trump’s troubles mount punters now give him just a 30% chance of being re-elected

Although it is not two years since Trump was inaugurated as President the focus is starting to be placed on WH2020. The next six months should see contenders starting to their hats into the ring all building up to the first primaries in little more than a year.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,064
    1
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,183
    It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690
    Beginning to think I could have got better odds on this than I did.
  • Hmm. That's still significantly higher than his forecast chance on the election night.

    But I do think it'll be a Democrat victory next time around.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,183
    DavidL said:

    Beginning to think I could have got better odds on this than I did.

    On what, precisely ?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,690
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Beginning to think I could have got better odds on this than I did.

    On what, precisely ?
    Trump being re-elected. From memory I got something like 4/5 from Hills.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,183
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Beginning to think I could have got better odds on this than I did.

    On what, precisely ?
    Trump being re-elected. From memory I got something like 4/5 from Hills.
    Ouch.
    FWIW, I’ve been laying him. I think fair value could be anything up to 10/1 at this point (though I accept my views of Trump might somewhat skew that estimate).
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074
    California coming early could give Kamela quite a headstart.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,527
    How long has this thread been here?
    Scott_P said:
    I wonder which is more childish?
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 626
    Nigelb said:

    It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in

    Beto plays very well with Hispanics. Califormia moving could give him a boost when others are running out of steam and money. Don't forget, he's a fundraiser of Obama class. Got to be worth a few quid.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,457
    Fenman said:

    Nigelb said:

    It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in

    Beto plays very well with Hispanics. Califormia moving could give him a boost when others are running out of steam and money. Don't forget, he's a fundraiser of Obama class. Got to be worth a few quid.
    Fairly low numbers on both sides there so must be lots of don't knows - suspect a lot of Americans have barely heard of O'Rourke, while Biden is a familiar face.

    But I'm not sure Trump's trroubles are any worse than they've been and he seems to weather most of them and take apart any specific opponent. I'd rather be backing than laying at current odds.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,806
    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 26,870
    "The Dignity of the Humble

    Chaim Soutine’s consoling portraiture
    Theodore Dalrymple"

    https://www.city-journal.org/chaim-soutine
  • viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
  • viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    FAKE NEWS!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    Though he runs quite good campaign against himself!
  • Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    Though he runs quite good campaign against himself!
    I'm amazed that he received more than 10% of the vote for so many reasons. And yet he did. There's not that much that is new now that wasn't evident in November 2016. If it didn't stop people from voting for him then it won't stop them in 2020.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 8,806

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    Yes, I think so too.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    Though he runs quite good campaign against himself!
    I'm amazed that he received more than 10% of the vote for so many reasons. And yet he did. There's not that much that is new now that wasn't evident in November 2016. If it didn't stop people from voting for him then it won't stop them in 2020.
    It doesn't need to be many fewer to reverse the result, the EC is highly leveraged. Relative turnout between Dems and Republicans could be crucial, and if the mid terms point the right direction then his goose may well be cooked.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,344
    Presidents do generally get re-elected, but they also often lose some support between election one and re-election. Trump won very narrowly in terms of how few voters would have been needed to change the Electoral College winner, I think it's easy to forget that holding onto his base only works if he reconstructs it entirely (or his opponent loses some Clinton voters).

    That isn't to say that he can't win, and I think Betfair is close to right and possibly a tad bearish, but I worry for his chances the more he keeps a hyper-partisan approach. As a Presidential Election approaches I have no doubt more voters than at the midterms will revert to their usual party, but focusing so heavily on his base makes it even harder to win any defectors and can put off independents; depending on who and how the Democrats run.

    More than ever the Republicans dominate rural america and Democrats urban america. Rural america is heavily (and intentionally) over-represented in the Senate, but it's only slightly over-represented in the Electoral College. IMHO the suburbs are still crucial, and this year the Democrats have been taking control of those too.

    Firing up his base is all well and good, but Trump does need some non-heartland support to win. He is tough to campaign against, but he isn't really reaching out to independents. Betting his presidency on the Democrats not learning how to balance their base and suburban swing voters (when Trump isn't even trying to) is risky.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    I am not sure this is right. Pelosi and Schumer both made Trump look to be an idiot over this shutdown, and even Fox and Friends have slammed him over Syria.

    One thing that the mid-terms should have taught Trump is that is base is not enough for the GOP to hold the House, or the States Trump relied upon to win his own victory.

    1. Women have turned vehemently against Trump's government, and hence against the GOP while Trump is dominating it.
    2. Trump may fire up his base, but he is also firing up minorities and the young to vote in unprecedented numbers. The math of Trump, given the narrowness of his 2016 victory, is not favoured by this dynamic.
    3. I am not convinced that Trump's based is holding quite so firm - at least at the edges - as the polling is capturing. Anecdotally, I am hearing more people who voted for him being turned off and now there is also clear talk, even amongst this group, about whether Trump is fit to be President.

    I now expect either a serious candidate to run against Trump in the primaries or a spoiler candidate to run as an independent in the GE to prevent any possibility of his re-election.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,344
    MTimT said:

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    I am not sure this is right. Pelosi and Schumer both made Trump look to be an idiot over this shutdown, and even Fox and Friends have slammed him over Syria.

    One thing that the mid-terms should have taught Trump is that is base is not enough for the GOP to hold the House, or the States Trump relied upon to win his own victory.

    1. Women have turned vehemently against Trump's government, and hence against the GOP while Trump is dominating it.
    2. Trump may fire up his base, but he is also firing up minorities and the young to vote in unprecedented numbers. The math of Trump, given the narrowness of his 2016 victory, is not favoured by this dynamic.
    3. I am not convinced that Trump's based is holding quite so firm - at least at the edges - as the polling is capturing. Anecdotally, I am hearing more people who voted for him being turned off and now there is also clear talk, even amongst this group, about whether Trump is fit to be President.

    I now expect either a serious candidate to run against Trump in the primaries or a spoiler candidate to run as an independent in the GE to prevent any possibility of his re-election.
    Agreed, I also feel the idea that Trump is impossible to campaign against (or that Democrats are rubbish at it) isn't really evidenced. He didn't make mincemeat of Hillary, he narrowly won. Seeing that as a huge blunder on her part or a huge achievement on his assumes he *should* have lost - but as a major party candidate the playing field was never that far from even. And ever since he's been in office the GOP have had some really bad election results.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,963
    Quincel said:

    Presidents do generally get re-elected, but they also often lose some support between election one and re-election. Trump won very narrowly in terms of how few voters would have been needed to change the Electoral College winner, I think it's easy to forget that holding onto his base only works if he reconstructs it entirely (or his opponent loses some Clinton voters).

    That isn't to say that he can't win, and I think Betfair is close to right and possibly a tad bearish, but I worry for his chances the more he keeps a hyper-partisan approach. As a Presidential Election approaches I have no doubt more voters than at the midterms will revert to their usual party, but focusing so heavily on his base makes it even harder to win any defectors and can put off independents; depending on who and how the Democrats run.

    More than ever the Republicans dominate rural america and Democrats urban america. Rural america is heavily (and intentionally) over-represented in the Senate, but it's only slightly over-represented in the Electoral College. IMHO the suburbs are still crucial, and this year the Democrats have been taking control of those too.

    Firing up his base is all well and good, but Trump does need some non-heartland support to win. He is tough to campaign against, but he isn't really reaching out to independents. Betting his presidency on the Democrats not learning how to balance their base and suburban swing voters (when Trump isn't even trying to) is risky.

    Wrote my comment before seeing yours. I am more bearish on Trump's reelection than you, but agree entirely with the thrust of your analysis.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,118
    Trump is clearly not holding together his coalition. He swept up support in white suburban America, especially in the rust belt.

    That has inverted in the mid terms.

    He won with incredible vote efficiency, losing only fractions of a percent kills his chances.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,246
    Scott_P said:
    No, the revoking of Article 50 has to come from and be initiated by the Conservatives.
  • Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:
  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 696
    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648
    stodge said:

    Scott_P said:
    No, the revoking of Article 50 has to come from and be initiated by the Conservatives.
    There are however ways for Parliament to provide them with a strong incentive.
  • RobD said:

    How long has this thread been here?

    Scott_P said:
    I wonder which is more childish?
    Trump, of course.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 3,214

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
  • RobD said:

    How long has this thread been here?

    Scott_P said:
    I wonder which is more childish?
    One is a satirical show with a natural element of peurilty, the other is the POTUS. I know which one's childishness is more consequential.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,346
    Usually a vacuum in leadership gets filled and at the moment on anyone's reckoning the UK and the US are in possession of the three worst leaders most of us have known. If any of the three are successful at an election it'll be a miracle.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 3,214
    Roger said:

    Usually a vacuum in leadership gets filled and at the moment on anyone's reckoning the UK and the US are in possession of the three worst leaders most of us have known. If any of the three are successful at an election it'll be a miracle.

    The US has a President, the UK has a PM. I don't see where you get three.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074
    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
  • RobD said:

    How long has this thread been here?

    Scott_P said:
    I wonder which is more childish?
    One is a satirical show with a natural element of peurilty, the other is the POTUS. I know which one's childishness is more consequential.
    That statement works either way around!
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,616
    Foxy said:


    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate....

    He can once they conclude he's going to drag them all down with him.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,183
    Foxy said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
    Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,118
    Andrew said:

    Foxy said:


    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate....

    He can once they conclude he's going to drag them all down with him.

    Nixon had a hard core of support. Trump's hard core is larger. Senate Republicans have to factor in a primary challenge from the true believers.
  • Anyway, I'm off for the evening.

    Hope you all get many nice presents for Christmas.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited December 2018
    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
  • grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
    Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.
    The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,118

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    If she wasn't an ardent Unionist she'd be a ScotNat.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 56,070
    edited December 2018
    Much depends on who Trump's opponent is, against Biden he would likely lose, against Sanders, Warren or Harris it would depend on who is able to mobilise their base more.

    Iowa and New Hampshire still vote before California in the nomination battle so are still important for building momentum
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,183

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
    Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.
    The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.
    No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 56,070
    edited December 2018
    Nigelb said:

    It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in

    Biden comfortably beats Trump 42% to 36%, Sanders just beats Trump 38% to 37% and Trump beats O'Rourke 37% to 30%
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 12,183
    Omnium said:

    Roger said:

    Usually a vacuum in leadership gets filled and at the moment on anyone's reckoning the UK and the US are in possession of the three worst leaders most of us have known. If any of the three are successful at an election it'll be a miracle.

    The US has a President, the UK has a PM. I don't see where you get three.
    I presume for the UK, were talking May, Cable and Corbyn.
    The choice for the US is rather broader.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
    Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.
    The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.
    No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.

    I think Trump will be Primaried, There are sane Republicans out there.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,457
    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!
  • Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    LibDems on the slide?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    LibDems on the slide?
    Those changes are all just noise.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
    Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.
    The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.
    No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.

    I think Trump will be Primaried, There are sane Republicans out there.
    What were those sane Republicans doing last time?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 52,473
    I like Trump to run, Pence's odds, generic Democrat victory
  • Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Harry Squatter :lol:
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,595

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    LibDems on the slide?
    Those changes are all just noise.
    Yes but its nice to think of Vince's LD's on the slide, just like thinking Labour's vote isn't solid.. ;)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
    Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.
    The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.
    No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.

    I think Trump will be Primaried, There are sane Republicans out there.
    What were those sane Republicans doing last time?
    They ran against him, though I take your point about Cruz.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Harry Squatter :lol:
    I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 6,595

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Harry Squatter :lol:
    I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.
    DOH.. Harry Potter
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,074

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Harry Squatter :lol:
    I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.
    A reference to Ms Rowling, I imagine.
  • Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
    Trump doesn’t have to be impeached to be ditched. Bit if he isn’t the candidate, I seriously doubt Pence will be.
    The 25th Amendment provides probably the most convenient pathway for removing Trump. I don't think he'll need to continue his descent into insanity much further before the calls to Amendment 25-ing him become hard for the cabinet to ignore.
    No, the easiest way to remove him, from the Republican pov, is during the primaries. The 25th procedure would be a huge leap into the unknown.

    I think Trump will be Primaried, There are sane Republicans out there.
    Are there? That's all well and good but surely the sane Republican wants someone else to run against Trump, and not to be seen to wield the dagger themselves. The sane Republican's best hope might be that bad polls lead Trump to withdraw rather than risk a humiliating defeat.
  • Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Harry Squatter :lol:
    I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.
    Play on Harry Potter? Rowling?

    Oh never mind :lol:
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Harry Squatter :lol:
    I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil. Not for the first time.
    Then you'll have to wait for the inevitable repeats?
  • it's the only way I can be sure of intelligent conversation around here!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,402
    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 18,648
    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    in office.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 11,402
    IanB2 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    in office.
    We’re not struggling to pass legislation, and still have more councillors than any other party.

    I’d say that’s power, myself.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,177

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    LibDems pollling the same as fruit-bat loony-tune racist UKIP.

    Merry Christmas........
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 11,896
    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    It’s 3 years.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 626
    I see RBS have applied for a German banking licence. I hope that means that the Germans get to bail them out next time....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,457



    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.

    A curious thing about the Greens is that they've gone through the same trajectory on the EU as Corbyn - strongly opposed in the old days (capitalist design) - now critical but on balance favourable. It's not obvious to me that they've much to offer anyone on the left - a bit more systematically environmental, but politically very similar to Labour's current leadership. Everyone likes Caroline Lucas, but she benefits from not being a contender for Number 10.

    What does puzzle me is the continuing LibDem weakness. I'd have thought centrist pro-EU Labour supporters would be jolly tempted, but there's not much sign of it. Possibly politics is now simply too polarised to enable life in the interevening territory to flourish.
  • Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    It’s 3 years.
    Brown left office in 2010.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603
    edited December 2018
    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    Not really.

    After similar periods in office (it's actually 8 years 7 months) the government (Tories) were by 6% ahead in Dec 1987...

    And the Labour government were ahead by 8%, also after 8y 7m in power, in Dec 2006 .

    (Source the Guardian/ICM poll series)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512
    Nigelb said:

    It’s early days, but as I posted on the previous thread, O’Rourke is not looking great in the matchup:
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/422735-trump-beats-beto-nearly-ties-bernie-but-loses-to-biden-in

    Those polls have enormous "don't know" numbers. Beto is barely known outside Texas (and outsize political obsessive circles...). Biden only scores best because he is best known.

    What is notable is that 42% of voters are sticking with Trump no matter what. That should give him *some* comfort.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603
    Jonathan said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    It’s 3 years.
    It probably does help the Tories that their policies were softened by the coalition during the 2010-2015 period. Look at the mess they've made of things since then!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    I think we:

    (a) don't know who the Democratic nominee will be
    (b) don't know if the US economy will be humming or in recession
    (c) don't know how the various investigations into Trump will turn out
    (d) don't know if his health will hold out

    Given those uncertainties, anyone reckoning him winning is either a 10% or a 90% shot is massively overconfident.

    I had thought him more likely than not to be re-elected a year ago. I now would reckon he is slightly less than a 50% shot, but no worse than 40%.
  • Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    To be in a consistent and unassailable lead after 11 years must really be something.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512
    RobD said:

    How long has this thread been here?

    Scott_P said:
    I wonder which is more childish?
    Isn't one of them on The Comedy Channel, immediately preceding a show where puppets make prank calls?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,242

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Very likely most would return to Labour in an election campaign.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603
    Mortimer said:

    IanB2 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    in office.
    We’re not struggling to pass legislation, and still have more councillors than any other party.

    I’d say that’s power, myself.
    Struggling to get the Finance Bill passed though - even after accepting numerous amendments.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 626



    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.

    A curious thing about the Greens is that they've gone through the same trajectory on the EU as Corbyn - strongly opposed in the old days (capitalist design) - now critical but on balance favourable. It's not obvious to me that they've much to offer anyone on the left - a bit more systematically environmental, but politically very similar to Labour's current leadership. Everyone likes Caroline Lucas, but she benefits from not being a contender for Number 10.

    What does puzzle me is the continuing LibDem weakness. I'd have thought centrist pro-EU Labour supporters would be jolly tempted, but there's not much sign of it. Possibly politics is now simply too polarised to enable life in the interevening territory to flourish.
    Cable needs to stand down. With Layla Moran the LDs would start to make headway.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603
    justin124 said:

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Very likely most would return to Labour in an election campaign.
    Probably but that depends on the timing of the election relative to Brexit and Labour's position on Brexit. This time next year for example Brexit could be an irrelevance for a GE.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,242
    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    The Tories under Macmillan were ahead in 1961 - after 10 years in power.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,207
    edited December 2018


    But I'm not sure Trump's trroubles are any worse than they've been and he seems to weather most of them and take apart any specific opponent. I'd rather be backing than laying at current odds.

    Polling-wise I agree, but the economy heading south, and for reasons that are traceably his fault, is a big deal. There are two elements to Trump's support: The nativist base is the core of it, but they represent less than 30% of the electorate. What got him the rest of the way is voters who thought that as a successful businessman, he'd be good at managing the economy. If the economy is strong come the election, he has a clear path to victory. If it isn't, he doesn't.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,242

    justin124 said:

    Omnium said:

    Meanwhile, in "What the hell has happened to the Labour Party?" news:

    I think this is what the hell has happened to the Guardian.

    Labour and someone like Rowling are nowhere near one another. It's only the (dubious) glue that the likes of the Guardian oozes that has them akin.

    These are natural Clegg voters - liberal but sensible-ish economically. And thus distant from the LDs who are not very liberal and are socialist economically. (A combination that has never been tried... I wonder why)
    But the thing is, until very recently Labour *was* Joanne Rowling's party. She was perfectly happy, and both she and her money was perfectly welcome in the Labour Party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband.

    But I just can't stand the pathetic whining of people like Rowling, or other centrists that Labour has left them politically "homeless"?

    Grow up.

    Plenty of other parties are available. I'm sure the Greens would be be more than happy to bring Rowling into their fold.
    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.
    Very likely most would return to Labour in an election campaign.
    Probably but that depends on the timing of the election relative to Brexit and Labour's position on Brexit. This time next year for example Brexit could be an irrelevance for a GE.
    Lessons were probably learnt from 2015 when Green votes are likely to have delivered Cameron his small overall majority.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512

    Foxy said:

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    Though he runs quite good campaign against himself!
    I'm amazed that he received more than 10% of the vote for so many reasons. And yet he did. There's not that much that is new now that wasn't evident in November 2016. If it didn't stop people from voting for him then it won't stop them in 2020.
    If President Trump's policies revitalise the rust belt, then he will win those states handsomely, and his path to a second term (assuming no health issues, etc.) will be assured.

    But the regional GDP data for Q2 showed that the slowest growing states in the US were... in the rust belt again. Idaho and New Mexico were the slowest growers, but after that it was Wisconsin, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Only Michigan bucked the trend in the rust belt.

    President Trump needs these states to - if not be leading the pack - then at least not be falling further behind.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603
    justin124 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    The Tories under Macmillan were ahead in 1961 - after 10 years in power.
    So in fact the last three times a government had been in power for 8 1/2 years they were ahead in the polls.

    If anything this government is struggling, only being roughly neck and neck.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,474



    I could see the Greens picking up a lot of disaffected Labour supporters.

    A curious thing about the Greens is that they've gone through the same trajectory on the EU as Corbyn - strongly opposed in the old days (capitalist design) - now critical but on balance favourable. It's not obvious to me that they've much to offer anyone on the left - a bit more systematically environmental, but politically very similar to Labour's current leadership. Everyone likes Caroline Lucas, but she benefits from not being a contender for Number 10.

    What does puzzle me is the continuing LibDem weakness. I'd have thought centrist pro-EU Labour supporters would be jolly tempted, but there's not much sign of it. Possibly politics is now simply too polarised to enable life in the interevening territory to flourish.
    This seems inaccurate. Some like Corbyn seem not to have changed one iota since 1975.

    Others who voted No in the 1st EU referendum have since grown up and become more pro-EU, e.g. Ken Livingstone.

    It appears that Caroline Lucas wasn't old enough to vote in 1975. Jenny Jones in the HoL who probably was, is still anti-EU. So neither party is 100% pro-EU and not everyone who voted No in their youth has changed their mind.

    Who'd have thought it though? Jeremy Corbyn and Bill Cash potentially to go through the same voting lobby.

    Michael Foot and Enoch Powell also agreed in 1975, from opposite ends of the political spectrum, that we should leave the EU. Powell sacrificed his career for it.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 8,603


    But I'm not sure Trump's trroubles are any worse than they've been and he seems to weather most of them and take apart any specific opponent. I'd rather be backing than laying at current odds.

    Polling-wise I agree, but the economy heading south, and for reasons that are traceably his fault, is a big deal. There are two elements to Trump's support: The nativist base is the core of it, but they represent less than 30% of the electorate. What got him the rest of the way is voters who thought that as a successful businessman, he'd be good at managing the economy. If the economy is strong come the election, he has a clear path to victory. If it isn't, he doesn't.
    Very hard to see that the economy will be on good shape in 2020. We are due a global recession without the added impact of Trump's protectionism and Brexit uncertainties.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,512
    Foxy said:

    Rexel56 said:

    Pence at c.3% looks value to me... 30% probability that Trump resigns before 2020 in order to kill impeachment, having got commitments that Jr and Ivanka are pardoned... +10% probability that he dies... gives 40% that Pence is President before 2020, then 50% that he wins nomination, then 40% that Pence beats Dem in 2020 gives combined probability of c.8% that Pence is President in 2020...

    Trump cannot be successfully impeached while the Republicans control the Senate, and actuarily I would put the chance of death as 1-2% rather than 10%. I reckon 3% for Pence is about right.
    It's not only death: a significant health event - cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc - would likely lead to a resignation too.

    That might not be 10%, but it's probably more than 5%.

    (And for the record, I reckon the 50% on Pence, as then sitting President, winning the nomination is way low.)
  • rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    I think we:

    (a) don't know who the Democratic nominee will be
    (b) don't know if the US economy will be humming or in recession
    (c) don't know how the various investigations into Trump will turn out
    (d) don't know if his health will hold out

    Given those uncertainties, anyone reckoning him winning is either a 10% or a 90% shot is massively overconfident.

    I had thought him more likely than not to be re-elected a year ago. I now would reckon he is slightly less than a 50% shot, but no worse than 40%.
    These things are uncertain but we can put probabilities on them that clearly leave him below 40%, imho.

    The Democrats haven't shown any signs of wanting to elect someone terrible. They managed to pick reasonably centrist candidates where they needed to (except Florida), the candidates who look like turn-offs by being too far left (Sanders, Warren) are getting very little traction and there's no Hillaryesque weak candidate with a grip on the machine. So it's likely they'll have a generally competent candidate.

    The economy is a bit hard to read but it's not looking great, and like you say, it's particularly not looking great in the rust belt.

    If you just take those two, I think he'd be well below a 40% chance. Then you have the investigations and health, neither if which I'd expect to be important, but they can only surprise on the down side.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,828


    But I'm not sure Trump's trroubles are any worse than they've been and he seems to weather most of them and take apart any specific opponent. I'd rather be backing than laying at current odds.

    Polling-wise I agree, but the economy heading south, and for reasons that are traceably his fault, is a big deal. There are two elements to Trump's support: The nativist base is the core of it, but they represent less than 30% of the electorate. What got him the rest of the way is voters who thought that as a successful businessman, he'd be good at managing the economy. If the economy is strong come the election, he has a clear path to victory. If it isn't, he doesn't.
    I would agree with this. However, turnout is notoriously difficult to poll. In the US they basically exclude you if you didn't vote last time. The midterms showed Trump motivates his base, but also his opponents. A large group of previous non-voters cannot be discounted.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,242

    justin124 said:

    Mortimer said:

    Foxy said:

    Apologies if posted before:

    CON: 39% (+1) LAB: 39% (-) LDEM: 6% (-2) UKIP: 6% (-) GRN: 4% (-) via @OpiniumResearch, 18 - 20 Dec Chgs. w/ 14 Dec

    Clearly a quiet period in British politics!

    For all the fuss, no real change from GE 17.

    Stalemate and Trench warfare.

    Absolutely remarkable for a Govt to be leading/tied in the polls after nearly 9 years in power
    The Tories under Macmillan were ahead in 1961 - after 10 years in power.
    So in fact the last three times a government had been in power for 8 1/2 years they were ahead in the polls.

    If anything this government is struggling, only being roughly neck and neck.
    History never quite repeats itself in that way, but I have never gone along with the view that the Opposition needs to be well ahead in the polls in years 1 and 2 of a Parliament if it is to have a realistic shout of winning the subsequent General Election. I say that on the basis that a Government facing unpopularity at that stage has plenty of time available to it to recover. Serious unpopularity in years 3 and 4 on the other hand present it with much greater difficulties.
  • rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    What are the current thoughts on trump 2020? I still think he's going to run and that he's going to win.

    My thinking is that Democrats still don't know how to campaign against Trump without insulting his [potential] supporters, thus helping him to win again.
    I think we:

    (a) don't know who the Democratic nominee will be
    (b) don't know if the US economy will be humming or in recession
    (c) don't know how the various investigations into Trump will turn out
    (d) don't know if his health will hold out

    Given those uncertainties, anyone reckoning him winning is either a 10% or a 90% shot is massively overconfident.

    I had thought him more likely than not to be re-elected a year ago. I now would reckon he is slightly less than a 50% shot, but no worse than 40%.
    I think this is right, and would also add that we have no idea how his foreign policy is going to pan out, and it's so much harder to predict what's going to happen because his approach is so different and there is literally no precedent.

    Scenario 1, autumn 2020 - the USA is in recession, big companies have left, Trump is dogged by impeachment proceedings as a result of previous corrupt behaviour, ISIS is on the rise and North Korea has shown that they have gamed Trump.

    Scenario 2 - the US economy has continued to grow at a rapid rate, wages have risen, companies have returned to the rust belt, Trump has been subject to impeachment proceedings but the case against him has been shown to be vanishingly weak and politically motivated, more troops have come home without significant kickback, and the Korean peninsula has taken more steps towards reunification.

    I think both of these scenarios are entirely possible, one of which would give a clear Dem victory and the other a Trump landslide. So basically, we do not know, and for that reason I find 30 per cent too low.
This discussion has been closed.