politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

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

SystemSystem Posts: 11,005
edited November 2018 in General

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

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

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    uno
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    dos
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    FPT:
    Pulpstar said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Scott_P said:

    Anorak said:

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

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

    Also under the EU's "indivisibility of the trinity" doctrine, most combinations of leaving the SM but staying int eh CU are unacceptably blasphemous.
    Weirdly it is goods rather than people that is the sticking point, I'd have thought one could get good odds on that prior to Brexit.
    Well I think the fear may be that the goods come with free movement of people. But if that can be squared, then having to live with EU regulations on goods (which are 99.9% jolly sensible) seems a mere bagatelle in the scheme of things.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,880
    trece

    ... miles run today. ;)

    And according to BMI I'm overweight ...
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Totally O/t, but I have been reading Ms Cyclefree’s excellent blog. There is a section in the latest post which, were I still involved in professional CPD I would use as the basis for a reflective essay. I would also counsel others to use it, and so far as my advice listened to nowadays, will still do.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    OldKingCole said:

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

    Would you mind providing a link?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited November 2018
    Kudos to Sporting Index for coming up with a full range of markets on both vote share/supremacy and on turnout, for all the Senate contests. That allows one to bet meaningfully on contests which are not the obvious closely-fought ones.

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

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

    I've also (perhaps unwisely!) taken the view that some of the expected rise in turnout won't materialise to the extent expected. So I've sold on the turnout markets in Texas, Utah, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Bit nervous about those!
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059446975324655616
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152
    Anorak said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059446975324655616

    Ridiculous. Aren’t there more pressing concerns for them to investigate?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited November 2018
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059446975324655616

    Well it's very generous of them to rubbish their own independence so comprehensively.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059446975324655616

    Sorry, but that smacks of "please sir, the big boys have been mean to me." *blubs*

    Some undoubtedly silly comments, but "engaging in rhetoric which undermines the value placed on the rules-based international order"? Give me a break.
  • Options
    Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059446975324655616

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

    Plus the pound is still quite low so they can combine their upcoming visit with a bit of xmas shopping.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,336
    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Carolus_Rex said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059446975324655616

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

    Plus the pound is still quite low so they can combine their upcoming visit with a bit of xmas shopping.
    True, the timing is certainly convenient.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1059448695064801281
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    edited November 2018
    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

    I've cashed on TX turnout given the early voting returns. Will let Mississippi ride (And I'd do the same for UT and TN if I was in on those) - they're nowhere near as high profile as the TX race which seems to be THE totemic campaign of the midterms.
    The spend in TX is off the charts compared to everywhere else too, particularly O'Rorke's.
  • Options
    Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
    I'd ask for one as well but poor @cyclefree will be spending so much time sending out VMs she won't have time to get out in the garden.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,336
    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

    What are the market's expected turnout figures for Texas and Tennessee ?
    TX is 46-48, TN 47-49
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    Thank you.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,560
    Carolus_Rex said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
    I'd ask for one as well but poor @cyclefree will be spending so much time sending out VMs she won't have time to get out in the garden.
    Is it not permitted for Cyclefree to post the link on here?
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

    Has anyone actually argued that?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Benpointer said:

    Carolus_Rex said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

    Would you mind providing a link?
    VM for you.
    If my view on coffee don't disqualify me, could I get the link, too ?
    I'd ask for one as well but poor @cyclefree will be spending so much time sending out VMs she won't have time to get out in the garden.
    Is it not permitted for Cyclefree to post the link on here?
    I’d also want to keep the plebs off my blog. :p
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

    It's side-splittingly funny.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

    Has anyone actually argued that?
    Yes. Yes they have.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    The UN have employed dicks for a while. I recall the eviction, after a decade of illegal occupation, of gypsies from Dale Farm. Some UN rapporteur or group condemned it as being against human rights.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    FPT I see Rasmussen have just put the Republicans 1% ahead in the generic ballot.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    Anorak said:

    RobD said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

    Has anyone actually argued that?
    Yes. Yes they have.
    Well then they are mad, or perhaps they were doing it ironically to highlight the absurdity of some of the horror predictions!
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    edited November 2018
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

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

    They seem to struggle with the concept of free speech, ie both politicians and journalists might say things that left wing UN officials disagree with.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Anyone rocking out to BOR's band ?

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/beto-orourke-band-foss-717227/

  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited November 2018
    Highly, highly recommended to watch. Moving and thought provoking. Should be shown at every secondary school.
    https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1058682704332447745
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,336
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

    Texas: 46-48 (I sold at 47)
    Tennessee: 47-49 (I sold at 48)
    Mississippi: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 44)
    Utah: 42.5-44.5 (I sold at 43.5)
    I think I prefer Mike's bets...
    :smile:
  • Options
    YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Is Raab ( a ) thick ( b ) setting up impossible Red lines so he can resign over one because he thinks resigning will boost his Tory leadership chances ?
  • Options
    macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    Sean_F said:


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

    Rasmussen were the most accurate in 2016, if you are putting money on the sensible would look closely at their polling. I think there is a lot of attempted poll shaping going on from some of the others. With the early polling results it looks good for Trump getting at least creditable results, he might yet come out of this election very well.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited November 2018
    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,905
    Sean_F said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, everyone.

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

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

    The UN are not calling for anyone to be arrested for criticizing them, they're just asking for a little respect, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    edited November 2018
    https://twitter.com/Greg_Palast/status/1059449759616909312
  • Options
    YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Interesting The Guardian now claims to have hit 1m ' contributions ' from readers which include one off donations as well as monthly ones. The strategy they are trying is staying paywall free but routinely asking readers online to donate cash. Only the annual profit/loss figures will tell us if it's " worked " but the early indications are some folk will voluntarily pay to sustain a free at point of use site.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/05/guardian-passes-1m-mark-in-reader-donations-katharine-viner
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    YellowSubmarine said:

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

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,899
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    Does the failing New York Times use registered or eligible voters as the denominator ?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    YellowSubmarine said:

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

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

    I would contribute if their comment pieces weren't so packed full of hatred and prejudice. I can't in all honesty contribute to them as they are, even though some of their news coverage is very good.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,336
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    I'm not rooting for you to get crushed - but Mike is already in the money on his turnout bet.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I think people are being a bit misled by the early voting figures. There's a long term trend for increasing numbers of Americans to vote early, and I suspect the figures are further flattered by increased enthusiasm by people (almost by definition, the most partisan) who have would voted tomorrow anyway. Of course I might be expensively wrong!
    Does the failing New York Times use registered or eligible voters as the denominator ?
    Very good question, to which I don't have a definitive answer, but I think (and hope) it's eligible voters.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,336
    Dadge said:

    https://twitter.com/Greg_Palast/status/1059449759616909312

    In other Kemp rated news...
    https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/05/02/brian-kemp-pointing-gun-teen-daughters.hln
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    macisback said:

    Sean_F said:


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

    Rasmussen were the most accurate in 2016, if you are putting money on the sensible would look closely at their polling. I think there is a lot of attempted poll shaping going on from some of the others. With the early polling results it looks good for Trump getting at least creditable results, he might yet come out of this election very well.
    CNN, OTOH, put the Democrats 13% ahead. If Rasmussen are right, the Republicans will hold the House comfortably. If CNN are right, the Democrats will have a majority of 100.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited November 2018
    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit: Perhaps I've misunderstood, I thought he had bet on the national turnout.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Anorak said:

    Highly, highly recommended to watch. Moving and thought provoking. Should be shown at every secondary school.
    https://twitter.com/BBCArchive/status/1058682704332447745

    Yes. Heartbreaking.
  • Options
    Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1059424745337356294

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

    It is, however, depressingly accurate.
  • Options
    YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    williamglenn said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

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

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,336
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Edit: Perhaps I've misunderstood, I thought he had bet on the national turnout.
    I assumed he was talking about Texas - I could be wrong.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    YellowSubmarine said:

    williamglenn said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

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

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
    or (d) journalists are as much in the dark as the rest of us.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,336
    The South Korean chaebols are measuring up North Korea as their testbed for 21st century economics...
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/Interview/SK-chief-thinks-North-Korea-can-be-test-bed-for-future-cities
    North Korea "is a clean area where little infrastructure is set up," said Chey in an interview with the Nikkei Asian Review recently. "I think we should build a future city where people want to live, rather than establishing industrialized factories and apartments. We can share all the cars, electric vehicles from the first. And nobody needs to buy them."

    In terms of energy, he supports setting up villages and cities run by renewables only, such as solar energy and wind power. The 57-year-old business leader said there are plenty of other areas to test new economic models in North Korea -- from transportation to logistics to tourism....
  • Options
    PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    YellowSubmarine said:

    williamglenn said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

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

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
    It’s been her approach throughout so unlikely to have changed now: May’s approach is generally to say whatever her core supporters and/or biggest potential challengers want to hear, and then do as little as possible until a default course of action becomes inevitable. In this case I think she genuinely doesn’t mind whether that default is BINO because the EU don’t blink, or some kind of privileged quasi-single-market-without-FoM because they do. It’s not about the destination, it’s about surviving as much of the journey as possible.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    If we assume there is about a 5-10% chance of a post-election Republican House impeaching Trump, then the current betfair prices imply the chances of a Democratic House doing so are pretty much 50-50. Buy or sell?
  • Options
    YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

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

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

    I would contribute if their comment pieces weren't so packed full of hatred and prejudice. I can't in all honesty contribute to them as they are, even though some of their news coverage is very good.
    I've quite a lot of sympathy with that actually Richard. I suspect we'd disagree over exactly which ones but some of their regular columnists and clickbait one offs are ghastly and trash the Guardian's brand. Which is a shame as under Viner it's well on it's way to becoming a global English language daily and the quality of much of it's factual journalism is outstanding. Viner is also more pluralist and rediscovering the ' liberal ' in the Trust Deed.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Sean_F said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    williamglenn said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

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

    Or (c), May wants to trigger a no deal crisis to focus minds and is using him to play for time.
    I was coming to that ! I think you are spot on actually. I think ( C ) is exactly what she's doing and in the circumstances it's her least worst option.
    or (d) journalists are as much in the dark as the rest of us.
    As the PM's spokesman said today: "I have read in the past 24 hours that we have done a deal, that it was 50/50, that a deal was hanging by a thread and - my favourite - that we are in a ‘doom loop’."
  • Options
    macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    Sean_F said:

    macisback said:

    Sean_F said:


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

    Rasmussen were the most accurate in 2016, if you are putting money on the sensible would look closely at their polling. I think there is a lot of attempted poll shaping going on from some of the others. With the early polling results it looks good for Trump getting at least creditable results, he might yet come out of this election very well.
    CNN, OTOH, put the Democrats 13% ahead. If Rasmussen are right, the Republicans will hold the House comfortably. If CNN are right, the Democrats will have a majority of 100.
    I think the House will come down to individual toss-up seats where local issues will play out. The Democrats can play the old trick of tailoring the message to suit the seat, even easier to do that with no leader to be called out. On that basis I would expect them to win enough of the tight seats to take the House by a small margin. If that were the case I would lump on Trump even more for 2020.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited November 2018
    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It's the difference between, for example, in Texas a Presidental turnout of 59.39% or 46.45%.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2018
    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

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

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

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

    It makes little difference if you first go into the shop and buy £x worth of gas prior to filling up. Most people soon have a good idea how much they will need to fill it up from current petrol gauge reading.
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Sean_F said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

    williamglenn said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

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

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

    It’s

    (e) journalists have even less of a clue than @Pulpstar’s cat
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,703
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

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

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

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

    Nobody wants to be first?
    Contrast with buying drinks here and on the continent.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

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

    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Anorak said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

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

    This is OGH’s site so don’t want to use it for my purposes. Happy to send out VMs. Was in garden yesterday and am finishing some work today.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

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

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

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

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

    Historically, IIRC, we put in x gallons. Or just filled the tank. We aren’t ‘programmed' to put in £20 worth. Or, more likely today £50.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    edited November 2018
    OldKingCole said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

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

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

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

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

    Historically, IIRC, we put in x gallons. Or just filled the tank. We aren’t ‘programmed' to put in £20 worth. Or, more likely today £50.
    Pre-payment doesn’t have to mean a set amount. You swipe your card which unlocks the pump, fill up, then grab your receipt. You are then just charged for the amount used.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    YellowSubmarine said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

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

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

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

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/01/seven-samurai-critics-best-foreign-language-films-akira-kurosawa
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Miss Cyclefree, you've made me curious now, as the nun said to the netball team. Could you send me the link?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    O/T but the BBC has an Armistice Day related pages, with various events. The first one was the shooting down of a Zeppelin near Cuffley, Herts, which my mother used to talk about seeing from her bedroom window.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    OldKingCole said:

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

    My grandmother remembered it too.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    OldKingCole said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

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

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

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

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

    Historically, IIRC, we put in x gallons. Or just filled the tank. We aren’t ‘programmed' to put in £20 worth. Or, more likely today £50.
    You can still do that with pre-paying. Also, it really isn't hard to adjust to. If rural America can cope with it, I am sure the UK populous can.
  • Options
    AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    FrancisUrquhart said:

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

    It's deliberate to get you in the shop, where you get stuck in a queue, and have to stand next to the overpriced drinks/magazines/sweets. That's where the money is :-)
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2018
    Andrew said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

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

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

    * and obvious these days lots of supermarket gas stations have pay at pump (which is prepay), so you don't have to go to the shop.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    King Cole, I read the Wonder Book of Aircraft a little while ago. Some fantastic images in it and the tone is really interesting because it's immediately post-WWI, full of patriotism and confidence, and some things that sit less well with modern eyes. One photo was of an airship going down in flames. I think the caption was rather approving, from memory.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Andrew said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

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

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

    * and obvious these days lots of supermarket gas stations have pay at pump so you don't have to go to the shop.
    Pay at the pump is ubiquitous here in the US, far more convenient.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    Morris_Dancer said:

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

    My grandmother said she felt guilty cheering, when she realised the German crew had burned alive.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    Sean_F said:


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

    Although as most of the votes will now have been cast, it may be a little on the late side
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152
    OldKingCole said:

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

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

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

    His granchildren will be living most of their lives in the 21st century and, God willing, will not have to experience war. And they will have a grandfather who was born before the war to end all wars. If only.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. F, in Livy's account of Roman history, roughly the era of Titus Manlius Torquatus and Marcus Valerius Corvus, he notes approvingly of how one war ended with the Romans annihilating the adult male population of an enemy city.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152
    Morris_Dancer said:

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

    VM for you.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,919
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    If I could spread bet I would be selling turnout here.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    edited November 2018
    Morris_Dancer said:

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

    Presumably, they considered themselves to be merciful, because they took the women and children as slaves, rather than killing them.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Sean_F said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

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

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

    90 or so years later I found details of the farmhouse in an estate agents in NW Essex. It had long gone from my mothers family of course. Turned out Frederick Forsyth bought it; the house is no longer, apparently, connected with the rest of the farm, although it’s still an agricultural area.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. F, I believe they mostly left the women and children (it was on the battlefield, a massacre victory). The destruction of men meant there was no fear of war from that quarter for a generation.
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,961
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:


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

    Although as most of the votes will now have been cast, it may be a little on the late side
    Didn’t Trump perform much better on the day compared with early voting in 2016?
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Morris_Dancer said:

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

    Tamerlane could be very unforgiving about the populations of cities which opposed his advance, too.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    Cyclefree said:

    OldKingCole said:

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

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

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

    His granchildren will be living most of their lives in the 21st century and, God willing, will not have to experience war. And they will have a grandfather who was born before the war to end all wars. If only.
    My primary school teacher grandson asked me to write of my experiences as a primary school child in WWII for his class. The school where he teaches isn’t far from where I grew up so the place names were familiar to some at least of the children.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    OldKingCole said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

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

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

    There was a general expectation that if a city came to terms, then one should honour those terms. But, if it was taken by storm, the lives and property of the inhabitants belonged to the conquerors.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    King Cole, Tamerlane was brutal, but that brutality was perhaps more an individual quality than the Roman sternness, if we can call it that, practised by the likes of Titus Manlius Torquatus and Lucius Papirius Cursor.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789
    Morris_Dancer said:

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

    The Romans admired those of their ancestors who were so devoted to duty that they executed their own wives or children for unbecoming conduct.
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

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

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

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

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

    This should be the lowest priority for the police anyway, so I don't even know why he's mentioning it.
  • Options
    AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Sean_F said:

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

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

    The ones to pay attention to imo: Marist, IBD, ABC, Fox. The first three have +9/+9/+8. Fox had a +7, but that's from oct13-16.
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    RobD said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Andrew said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

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

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

    * and obvious these days lots of supermarket gas stations have pay at pump so you don't have to go to the shop.
    Pay at the pump is ubiquitous here in the US, far more convenient.
    Although there is a feeling here that pump card-readers are far more likely to be compromised than others. We always pay in cash or by card in the shop.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,916
    The original Old King Cole was allegedly the last British ‘king’ at Colchester, where the Britons, under Boudicca later took a VERY bloody revenge for the humiliations perpetrated on the lady and her tribespeople by the Romans.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    edited November 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:


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

    Although as most of the votes will now have been cast, it may be a little on the late side
    Or reflect the votes actually cast....an early exit poll?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    In case this has not been posted. The timetable of polls closing:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2018-election-polls-close/?ex_cid=story-twitter
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2018
    Dadge said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Make drivers pay for fuel in advance, says police chief

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

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

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

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

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

    Regardless of the reasons as to why petrol stations don't have pay at the pump, there will in general also be people who want to pay cash who can't pay at the pump and it isn't for the victim to prevent all crimes. Just because someone hasn't stopped themselves being robbed doesn't mean they deserve to be robbed or neglected by the Police if they are.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,336
    macisback said:

    Sean_F said:

    macisback said:

    Sean_F said:


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

    Rasmussen were the most accurate in 2016, if you are putting money on the sensible would look closely at their polling. I think there is a lot of attempted poll shaping going on from some of the others. With the early polling results it looks good for Trump getting at least creditable results, he might yet come out of this election very well.
    CNN, OTOH, put the Democrats 13% ahead. If Rasmussen are right, the Republicans will hold the House comfortably. If CNN are right, the Democrats will have a majority of 100.
    I think the House will come down to individual toss-up seats where local issues will play out. The Democrats can play the old trick of tailoring the message to suit the seat, even easier to do that with no leader to be called out. On that basis I would expect them to win enough of the tight seats to take the House by a small margin. If that were the case I would lump on Trump even more for 2020.
    Very possibly - and there are many more tossup seats being defended by Republicans, which is why they face such an uphill battle (the inverse of the Senate election).
  • Options
    YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    YellowSubmarine said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    YellowSubmarine said:

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

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

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

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

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