Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What 2018 could have in store for Trump (and who might he face

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 1 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What 2018 could have in store for Trump (and who might he face in 2020)

Having spent a few weeks in New Jersey, as I usually do this time of year, it will not come as much of a surprise that the news media there is wall to wall Trump. However, as a keen observer of US politics, I do enjoy being over there and watching the political comings and goings ‘live’ – you can often pick up some nuances that you might not when watching from overseas. Here are some observations from my time there over the Christmas break.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,239
    Nice analysis from Kieran.

    I did my own version of trying to predict how a Dem win in popular vote could translate into seats and came out with a much lower number than 538... when I plotted vote % against house seats it suggested 2-3% popular vote win would be enough for Dems.

    Now admittedly gerrymandering has probably got worse over time - but I suspect that within the range 538 gave (5.5-8) it should be towards the lower end...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,550
    Happy New Year everyone! All the best for 2018!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,190
    Kirsten Gillibrand's (Keiran's tip's) web page is
    https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/

    After a quick look at the video of her tax cut speech, which she highlights on that page, I am not convinced she is a good speaker -- though to be fair, she might have a cold as she sounds a bit nasal and sniffs a lot. Whether that matters at this stage is unclear -- it seems pretty usual for American politicians to learn public speaking during the primaries.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    Good morning everyone. All the best for a happy and, betting-wise, profitable New Year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313
    New Year, new username. Same old Foxy. Test.
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,629
    Happy New Year everyone.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Mandela did OK!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,403

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Mandela did OK!
    I think the spur to Mandela's winning though was him dying!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,491
    Very useful analysis from Keiran, my guess is that unless the Republicans find a few more Roy Moores to be candidates, they’ll probably do okay in the mid terms.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Fpt - rackman was a notorious landlord in London during the last rent control period

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    edited January 1
    Good morning, everyone. Let's hope 2018 is better than 2017...

    Good article, Mr. Pedley, and especially useful to have a little odds list. Harris was tipped by Mr. Smithson a year or two ago at 67 (for the job, 26 for the nomination) so that's eminently hedgeable if anyone backed it (I did but with such a tiny stake it's not really worth hedging).

    Might put a bit on Gillibrand.

    Edited extra bit: unrelated market but Five Star and PD are both evens for most seats. How do PBers see that going?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    Given the linkage in people’s minds between Brexit and Trump, a second referendum and reversal of Brexit could reverberate across the pond.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    edited January 1
    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Fpt - rackman was a notorious landlord in London during the last rent control period

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman
    I know he was notorious and my small understanding is that he moved immigrants into previously non-immigrant areas thereby lowering the value of nearby properties (and provoking white flight?) but what did he actually do that was illegal? That wiki article doesn’t make it clear.

    Edit: Happy New Year all.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Fpt - rackman was a notorious landlord in London during the last rent control period

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman
    I know he was notorious and my small understanding is that he moved immigrants into previously non-immigrant areas thereby lowering the value of nearby properties (and provoking white flight?) but what did he actually do that was illegal? That wiki article doesn’t make it clear.

    Edit: Happy New Year all.
    The moving in of immigrants was the profitable second part of his strategy:
    To maximise his profits he wanted to get rid of sitting tenants and relet the properties at much higher rents. He developed an effective three step approach to dealing with "unprofitable tenants".
    tenants were offered a modest sum to leave
    tenants' lives were made intolerable with all night music and parties in the rooms next door
    Rachman's henchmen would go in and cut off electricity and water and break locks and lavatories
    It was an effective strategy. The new tenants were usually immigrant families from the West Indies who had nowhere else to go and had to pay extortionate rents for tiny squalid rooms....
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,416
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Fpt - rackman was a notorious landlord in London during the last rent control period

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman
    I know he was notorious and my small understanding is that he moved immigrants into previously non-immigrant areas thereby lowering the value of nearby properties (and provoking white flight?) but what did he actually do that was illegal? That wiki article doesn’t make it clear.

    Edit: Happy New Year all.
    The moving in of immigrants was the profitable second part of his strategy:
    To maximise his profits he wanted to get rid of sitting tenants and relet the properties at much higher rents. He developed an effective three step approach to dealing with "unprofitable tenants".
    tenants were offered a modest sum to leave
    tenants' lives were made intolerable with all night music and parties in the rooms next door
    Rachman's henchmen would go in and cut off electricity and water and break locks and lavatories
    It was an effective strategy. The new tenants were usually immigrant families from the West Indies who had nowhere else to go and had to pay extortionate rents for tiny squalid rooms....
    A model for modern landlords to aspire to.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,130
    edited January 1
    Mr Glenn,

    "But I, being rich and know better, have my dreams;
    I have spread my dreams under your feet;
    Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."

    WB Yeats (adapted for Remainers)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,948

    Good morning, everyone. Let's hope 2018 is better than 2017...

    Good article, Mr. Pedley, and especially useful to have a little odds list. Harris was tipped by Mr. Smithson a year or two ago at 67 (for the job, 26 for the nomination) so that's eminently hedgeable if anyone backed it (I did but with such a tiny stake it's not really worth hedging).

    Might put a bit on Gillibrand.

    Edited extra bit: unrelated market but Five Star and PD are both evens for most seats. How do PBers see that going?

    A happy new year to you, Mr.D.

    67 was excellent odds, but at current prices it seems a bit early to be placing money on this race unless you have a particularly strong belief in one of the candidates. An awful lot can happen in the next twelve months...
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Fpt - rackman was a notorious landlord in London during the last rent control period

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman
    I know he was notorious and my small understanding is that he moved immigrants into previously non-immigrant areas thereby lowering the value of nearby properties (and provoking white flight?) but what did he actually do that was illegal? That wiki article doesn’t make it clear.

    Edit: Happy New Year all.
    Wasn’t the late Christine Keeler a ‘friend’ for a while?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    edited January 1
    Mr. B, indeed. Memories of not backing Obama or Corbyn are a bit haunting, though. (I did back Macron though at good rather than fantastic odds).

    Edited extra bit: oh, and happy new year :)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Fpt - rackman was a notorious landlord in London during the last rent control period

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman
    I know he was notorious and my small understanding is that he moved immigrants into previously non-immigrant areas thereby lowering the value of nearby properties (and provoking white flight?) but what did he actually do that was illegal? That wiki article doesn’t make it clear.

    Edit: Happy New Year all.
    The main thing was using fear and violence to get people to leave their rent controlled properties so he could replacement with new (unprotected) tenants. Essentially his business model was to buy secured tenancies at a low price (reflecting the low rents) and then increase the capital value by converting them into vacant possession
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,130
    edited January 1
    Mr Cole,

    Lord Adonis, in his resignation letter, reminded me of Mandy Rice-Davies' famous quip.

    A happy new year to everyone.

    Edited to be strictly accurate.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,267
    edited January 1
    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Labour Uncut struggles for a role, now Corbyn-bashing is so out of fashion within Labour.

    Its tip for the next GE appears to be Rudd v Thornberry. Whether it has a future as a tipster remains to be seen. None of its previous predictions have come to anything.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Fpt - rackman was a notorious landlord in London during the last rent control period

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman
    I know he was notorious and my small understanding is that he moved immigrants into previously non-immigrant areas thereby lowering the value of nearby properties (and provoking white flight?) but what did he actually do that was illegal? That wiki article doesn’t make it clear.

    Edit: Happy New Year all.
    The moving in of immigrants was the profitable second part of his strategy:
    To maximise his profits he wanted to get rid of sitting tenants and relet the properties at much higher rents. He developed an effective three step approach to dealing with "unprofitable tenants".
    tenants were offered a modest sum to leave
    tenants' lives were made intolerable with all night music and parties in the rooms next door
    Rachman's henchmen would go in and cut off electricity and water and break locks and lavatories
    It was an effective strategy. The new tenants were usually immigrant families from the West Indies who had nowhere else to go and had to pay extortionate rents for tiny squalid rooms....
    Ah thanks
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,628
    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Fpt - rackman was a notorious landlord in London during the last rent control period

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rachman
    I know he was notorious and my small understanding is that he moved immigrants into previously non-immigrant areas thereby lowering the value of nearby properties (and provoking white flight?) but what did he actually do that was illegal? That wiki article doesn’t make it clear.

    Edit: Happy New Year all.
    The main thing was using fear and violence to get people to leave their rent controlled properties so he could replacement with new (unprotected) tenants. Essentially his business model was to buy secured tenancies at a low price (reflecting the low rents) and then increase the capital value by converting them into vacant possession
    Thanks
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Labour Uncut struggles for a role, now Corbyn-bashing is so out of fashion within Labour.

    Its tip for the next GE appears to be Rudd v Thornberry. Whether it has a future as a tipster remains to be seen. None of its previous predictions have come to anything.
    How many of those previous winners achieved their long term objectives?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,130
    “Initial investigations indicate that an accidental fire within a vehicle caused other cars to ignite."

    From Liverpool. 1,600 cars destroyed. Is parking too close so dangerous? Any fire experts to advise?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Labour Uncut struggles for a role, now Corbyn-bashing is so out of fashion within Labour.

    Its tip for the next GE appears to be Rudd v Thornberry. Whether it has a future as a tipster remains to be seen. None of its previous predictions have come to anything.
    Indeed yes, its famous tip that Ed Miliband would lose the 2015 election is one of the great wrong forecasts, because we all remember how he thrashed Cam...ah.

    Thanks Charles. I had found Rachman but as you spelled it differently I wondered if you were referring to someone else. He sounds a right charmer.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,267
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Labour Uncut struggles for a role, now Corbyn-bashing is so out of fashion within Labour.

    Its tip for the next GE appears to be Rudd v Thornberry. Whether it has a future as a tipster remains to be seen. None of its previous predictions have come to anything.
    Indeed yes, its famous tip that Ed Miliband would lose the 2015 election is one of the great wrong forecasts, because we all remember how he thrashed Cam...ah.

    Thanks Charles. I had found Rachman but as you spelled it differently I wondered if you were referring to someone else. He sounds a right charmer.
    I didn't count a prediction that Labour isn't going to win, since that is always the default Uncut position regardless!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    It's official.

    Jeremy Corbyn is a lay for next PM and will probably be a dead duck by August.

    Labour Uncut have named him the politician of the year - the last four winners have been May, Cameron, Salmond and Mandela.

    Labour Uncut struggles for a role, now Corbyn-bashing is so out of fashion within Labour.

    Its tip for the next GE appears to be Rudd v Thornberry. Whether it has a future as a tipster remains to be seen. None of its previous predictions have come to anything.
    Indeed yes, its famous tip that Ed Miliband would lose the 2015 election is one of the great wrong forecasts, because we all remember how he thrashed Cam...ah.

    Thanks Charles. I had found Rachman but as you spelled it differently I wondered if you were referring to someone else. He sounds a right charmer.
    I didn't count a prediction that Labour isn't going to win, since that is always the default Uncut position regardless!
    You said all their predictions were wrong, without this qualification. I was pointing out this is not correct. They correctly predicted both Corbyn and Miliband would lose. Your later comment is what we call a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy - 'if you ignore all the times they're right, they're always wrong.'

    Of course, they didn't predict Corbyn would be leader or that there would be a hung parliament. But they're not bad predictors on the whole. If the message is unwelcome, that's very much Labour's problem.

    In any case it wasn't their predictions I was referring too - it was the fate of the politicians it has previously picked for this accolade, one of whom was dead at the time, two of whom had been driven out of politics altogether within 18 months, and one of whom is still there but looks shaky. If Corbyn stays true to form, he's in for a shocker.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023
    Good article apart from the Trump 'dealmaker' part. That's the same "pivot to the centre" nonsense that has been peddled since Iowa 2016.

    Don't put it past the American media to lean haaaaaaard into that narrative though.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 9,827
    Really good article from Kieran. Nearly all of it looks right to me, though without special knowledge I wonder if Gillibrand's boat-rocking is a good strategy for a Presidential run. Even from this side of the lanticI'm slightly annoyed that she's digging up the issue of whether Clinton should have resigned - won't a Democrat in the US feel the same? And I know Democrats of both sexes who are seriously annoyed that Franken was nudged out. There's a niche for an anti-establishment leftist (Sanders/Warren) or a moderate (Biden/Harris), but a dissident centrist? A lay IMO.

    But thanks for the article - and hpapy new year, everyone!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    In 2006 when they last gained the House the Democrats had a lead of 8% and won 31 more seats than the Republicans (they expanded that lead to 10% in 2008 when Obama was elected) so if they currently lead the generic ballot by 10% they should take the House. The Republicans should hold the Senate given the seats up but there is an outside chance Pence could hold the decisive vote and it is tied 50 50.

    As for who wins the Democratic nomination in 2020 I think Sanders will run again and this time will win it, as Keiran suggests his supporters are motivated and organised. If he does not run then his support base will likely shift to Warren, though she is more likely to end up Sanders running mate in my view
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    Good morning, everyone. Let's hope 2018 is better than 2017...

    Good article, Mr. Pedley, and especially useful to have a little odds list. Harris was tipped by Mr. Smithson a year or two ago at 67 (for the job, 26 for the nomination) so that's eminently hedgeable if anyone backed it (I did but with such a tiny stake it's not really worth hedging).

    Might put a bit on Gillibrand.

    Edited extra bit: unrelated market but Five Star and PD are both evens for most seats. How do PBers see that going?

    Five Star led the last Italian poll by 6%

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Italian_general_election,_2018
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 1,925
    HNY to all - even the many PB Tories!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,059

    Really good article from Kieran. Nearly all of it looks right to me, though without special knowledge I wonder if Gillibrand's boat-rocking is a good strategy for a Presidential run. Even from this side of the lanticI'm slightly annoyed that she's digging up the issue of whether Clinton should have resigned - won't a Democrat in the US feel the same? And I know Democrats of both sexes who are seriously annoyed that Franken was nudged out. There's a niche for an anti-establishment leftist (Sanders/Warren) or a moderate (Biden/Harris), but a dissident centrist? A lay IMO.

    But thanks for the article - and hpapy new year, everyone!

    I think the tip is a very good one. In the same way that Alistair Darling wasn't exactly thanked by Labour supporters for predicting a severe recession but latterly looked like a statesman for his prescience, I expect Democrats would be happy in a couple of years to support a candidate who is demonstrably not using #metoo in a purely partisan manner, especially if the Republicans haven't acted at all and are led into the next election by the pussy-grabber in chief.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    Given the linkage in people’s minds between Brexit and Trump, a second referendum and reversal of Brexit could reverberate across the pond.

    Though a Corbyn win boosting Sanders or vice-versa is more likely than a second referendum and that referendum being run by Remain
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023
    edited January 1

    Really good article from Kieran. Nearly all of it looks right to me, though without special knowledge I wonder if Gillibrand's boat-rocking is a good strategy for a Presidential run. Even from this side of the lanticI'm slightly annoyed that she's digging up the issue of whether Clinton should have resigned - won't a Democrat in the US feel the same? And I know Democrats of both sexes who are seriously annoyed that Franken was nudged out. There's a niche for an anti-establishment leftist (Sanders/Warren) or a moderate (Biden/Harris), but a dissident centrist? A lay IMO.

    But thanks for the article - and hpapy new year, everyone!

    Franken nudged out? For fricks sake he sexually molested someone. Retaining him would have been a total moral failure of the Democratic party.

    There would have been a fuck load more democrats (of both sexes) angry at him keeping his seat.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,392
    Happy New Year, all. The interesting prospect for president in 2020 would be a non-Trump Republican. There are several pathways to that happening. Trump could resign or be expelled, he could choose not to stand again or he could be replaced as Republican candidate in the primary. It's hard to identify a Republican alternative, as it is a to pick out out a Democrat one, though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. HYUFD, cheers. Have they tended to perform in line with polls?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    Mr. HYUFD, cheers. Have they tended to perform in line with polls?

    In 2013 Five Star exceeded the final polls

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Italian_general_election,_2013
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. HYUFD, thanks. Sounds like a small bet at evens might be worth a look then.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    O/T Terrible news from Sydney where the chief executive of Compass Group and his family and their pilot have been killed after the seaplane they chartered for New Year crashed

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42531669
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    edited January 1

    Mr. HYUFD, thanks. Sounds like a small bet at evens might be worth a look then.

    Quite possibly, other than the midterms the Italian election in March will probably be the biggest international betting market for politics this year (though Swedes also go to the polls in September).

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,059
    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder if there'll be a backlash in Sweden against their open borders, which appears to be having less than splendid results.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    Those figures would see the Tories and Labour almost tied on seats with 290 Labour 288 Tory and 14 LDs.

    Though if Labour gained a few more seats from the SNP they could increase that lead but they would still almost certainly need SNP confidence and supply anyway
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,911
    So basically Trump needs to engineer a 9/11 so he can get a W like boost? Should be a piece of cake according to the conspiracy theorists. Would beating up N Korea have a similar effect? Have my doubts.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,267
    edited January 1

    Mr. HYUFD, thanks. Sounds like a small bet at evens might be worth a look then.

    edit/ On Betfair you need to spot the next PM.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,846
    Best wishes for 2018 to all contributors.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,328
    Happy New Year to everyone..
    Re Poll(s) why should anyone trust them when they get things so hideously wrong? Why should 2018 be any better than 2017 or 2016 or 2015 for that matter?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 9,297
    Hope all PBers have a lucky 2018.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder if there'll be a backlash in Sweden against their open borders, which appears to be having less than splendid results.

    The last Swedish poll had the Social Democrats on 29.5%, the Moderates on 21% and the anti immigration Swedish Democrats on 17%, though a few polls have had the Swedish Democrats ahead of the Moderates

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    Happy New Year to everyone..
    Re Poll(s) why should anyone trust them when they get things so hideously wrong? Why should 2018 be any better than 2017 or 2016 or 2015 for that matter?

    To be fair to the pollsters most predicted Cameron would likely stay PM in 2015, at least in another Coalition with the LDs and in 2017 most predicted May's Tories would beat Labour, it was just in 2015 they predicted a hung parliament and in 2017 a Tory majority but it ended up the other way around.

    In 2016 Leave was leading in the penultimate week but there was a swingback to Remain in the polls in the final week
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,359
    The reaction to Trump seems pretty much settled at this point, although the Senate is tough for the Dems.

    At this point what really matters in US politics is the war. Trump has the disposition and the incentives to start one, and if it produces even a moderate rally-behind-the-flag effect it's going to be a tightrope for the Democrats.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    The reaction to Trump seems pretty much settled at this point, although the Senate is tough for the Dems.

    At this point what really matters in US politics is the war. Trump has the disposition and the incentives to start one, and if it produces even a moderate rally-behind-the-flag effect it's going to be a tightrope for the Democrats.

    Short of a full on invasion of North Korea (and while Trump likes bombing he is less of a fan of groundtroops) I doubt there will a major new war anytime soon
  • CD13 said:

    “Initial investigations indicate that an accidental fire within a vehicle caused other cars to ignite."

    From Liverpool. 1,600 cars destroyed. Is parking too close so dangerous? Any fire experts to advise?

    Yes - the Building Research Establishment ran some trials around 10 years ago and the conclusion was that fire will spread to cars in adjacent parking bays - greater separation distances prevent spread. The car park last night appears to have been close to capacity - hence the resulting damage.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,510
    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,279
    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder if there'll be a backlash in Sweden against their open borders, which appears to be having less than splendid results.

    The last Swedish poll had the Social Democrats on 29.5%, the Moderates on 21% and the anti immigration Swedish Democrats on 17%, though a few polls have had the Swedish Democrats ahead of the Moderates

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
    A bit confusing when the Moderates are Tories and the Democrats are Nazis!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    HYUFD said:

    Mr. HYUFD, I wonder if there'll be a backlash in Sweden against their open borders, which appears to be having less than splendid results.

    The last Swedish poll had the Social Democrats on 29.5%, the Moderates on 21% and the anti immigration Swedish Democrats on 17%, though a few polls have had the Swedish Democrats ahead of the Moderates

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Swedish_general_election,_2018
    A bit confusing when the Moderates are Tories and the Democrats are Nazis!
    The Democrats are more UKIP than Nazis but yes the Moderates are basically Cameroon Tories
  • tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?

    The inference was that a man with that much power and influence over an intern, coupled with the age difference meant Monica Lewinsky and others would have felt compelled to agree to Bill Clinton's requests even if they didn't want to.

    Almost like a political casting couch.

    It was in the context/aftermath of Harvey Weinstein.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,279
    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?

    Isn't it purely so that people talk about Kirsten Gillibrand?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,952
    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year to everyone..
    Re Poll(s) why should anyone trust them when they get things so hideously wrong? Why should 2018 be any better than 2017 or 2016 or 2015 for that matter?

    To be fair to the pollsters most predicted Cameron would likely stay PM in 2015, at least in another Coalition with the LDs and in 2017 most predicted May's Tories would beat Labour, it was just in 2015 they predicted a hung parliament and in 2017 a Tory majority but it ended up the other way around.

    In 2016 Leave was leading in the penultimate week but there was a swingback to Remain in the polls in the final week
    I think we should reflect on the fact that when there was a swingback to Remain Farage nand , Johnson (I think) were saying that if there was a close result with them on the wrong side, there’f have to be another referendum fairly soon.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,460
    Morning all :)

    Interesting thread from Keiran as always for which many thanks.

    I don't think the question of "leadership" of the Democrats is important at this stage. The GOP controls all three elected bodies at this time as they did from 2000-06. There are Democrat Minority leaders in the senate and House and inasmuch as they are national figures that's where you start.

    The primary process is about choosing the leader (or standard bearer or sacrificial offering, delete as appropriate) for the Presidential election. Trump could not have been described as a Republican "leader" in 2013 - indeed, most people had probably not considered him politically.

    It is true that the process often starts with the Convention by which I mean a keynote Convention speech is often the way a potential Presidential candidate first comes to the sight of both the Party and the wider electorate - that was certainly true of both Clinton and Obama - so that puts Elizabeth Warren firmly in the picture.

    That doesn't make her a leader, more a spokesperson.

    In the well-established PB tradition of boasting about how I mentioned something before everybody else and how clever that makes me, I have mentioned Kirsten Gillibrand a couple of times in the past as a possible Dem candidate and I'm on at big prices but to be honest don't expect to collect.

    The other issue for the Dems is whether they'll be facing Trump, Pence or A.N Other Republican. We've got used to two-term Presidents - Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama and before them Reagan but Ford, Carter and George H.W Bush all lost as incumbents so it's not inconceivable Trump could lose in 2020.

    I don't think Trump is a man who wants to be remembered as a loser - I think if the polls continued to look bad he'd rather stand aside, claim his work was done and let Pence (who could well reunite the GOP more effectively while also preserving the Trump legacy) take his chance in 2020. If Pence wins, fine, if he loses, well, it won't be Donald's fault, will it ?
  • On topic, this should help Trump.

    North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has warned the United States that his country's nuclear capabilities are now complete and the nuclear launch button is always on his desk.

    "The entire mainland of the US is within the range of our nuclear weapons and the nuclear button is always on the desk of my office. They should accurately be aware that this is not a threat but a reality," said Kim during his annual New Year's Day address, according to a CNN translation of the speech.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/31/asia/kim-jong-un-new-year-address-nuclear/index.html
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023
    Republicans have won the presidential popular vote once in the last 7 attempts.

    And at the moment they have a historically unpopular president.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,510

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?

    The inference was that a man with that much power and influence over an intern, coupled with the age difference meant Monica Lewinsky and others would have felt compelled to agree to Bill Clinton's requests even if they didn't want to.

    Almost like a political casting couch.

    It was in the context/aftermath of Harvey Weinstein.
    Thanks. I don't think I've once heard it suggested that it was anything other than consensual. I wonder if she would have a problem with such a large age gap involving two men?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    edited January 1
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    Interesting thread from Keiran as always for which many thanks.

    I don't think the question of "leadership" of the Democrats is important at this stage. The GOP controls all three elected bodies at this time as they did from 2000-06. There are Democrat Minority leaders in the senate and House and inasmuch as they are national figures that's where you start.

    The primary process is about choosing the leader (or standard bearer or sacrificial offering, delete as appropriate) for the Presidential election. Trump could not have been described as a Republican "leader" in 2013 - indeed, most people had probably not considered him politically.

    It is true that the process often starts with the Convention by which I mean a keynote Convention speech is often the way a potential Presidential candidate first comes to the sight of both the Party and the wider electorate - that was certainly true of both Clinton and Obama - so that puts Elizabeth Warren firmly in the picture.

    That doesn't make her a leader, more a spokesperson.

    In the well-established PB tradition of boasting about how I mentioned something before everybody else and how clever that makes me, I have mentioned Kirsten Gillibrand a couple of times in the past as a possible Dem candidate and I'm on at big prices but to be honest don't expect to collect.

    The other issue for the Dems is whether they'll be facing Trump, Pence or A.N Other Republican. We've got used to two-term Presidents - Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama and before them Reagan but Ford, Carter and George H.W Bush all lost as incumbents so it's not inconceivable Trump could lose in 2020.

    I don't think Trump is a man who wants to be remembered as a loser - I think if the polls continued to look bad he'd rather stand aside, claim his work was done and let Pence (who could well reunite the GOP more effectively while also preserving the Trump legacy) take his chance in 2020. If Pence wins, fine, if he loses, well, it won't be Donald's fault, will it ?

    Yes but Ford lost after 8 years of his party in control of the White House and George HW Bush lost after 12 years of his party in the White House. Only Jimmy Carter lost after his party had controlled the White House for just 4 years. Though of course Carter lost to Reagan who had narrowly lost the 1976 Republican nomination to Ford. Sanders will be hoping that after he narrowly lost the 2016 Democratic nomination, he is Reagan to Hillary's Ford and Trump's Carter.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    HYUFD said:

    Happy New Year to everyone..
    Re Poll(s) why should anyone trust them when they get things so hideously wrong? Why should 2018 be any better than 2017 or 2016 or 2015 for that matter?

    To be fair to the pollsters most predicted Cameron would likely stay PM in 2015, at least in another Coalition with the LDs and in 2017 most predicted May's Tories would beat Labour, it was just in 2015 they predicted a hung parliament and in 2017 a Tory majority but it ended up the other way around.

    In 2016 Leave was leading in the penultimate week but there was a swingback to Remain in the polls in the final week
    I think we should reflect on the fact that when there was a swingback to Remain Farage nand , Johnson (I think) were saying that if there was a close result with them on the wrong side, there’f have to be another referendum fairly soon.
    Farage would certainly have campaigned for another one
  • Kim Fat Wonk may have a button, but an integrated delivery system, no. I suspect if the loon targeted London he'd hit some dump like - say - Sheffield Hallam.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132

    CD13 said:

    “Initial investigations indicate that an accidental fire within a vehicle caused other cars to ignite."

    From Liverpool. 1,600 cars destroyed. Is parking too close so dangerous? Any fire experts to advise?

    Yes - the Building Research Establishment ran some trials around 10 years ago and the conclusion was that fire will spread to cars in adjacent parking bays - greater separation distances prevent spread. The car park last night appears to have been close to capacity - hence the resulting damage.
    Yet another example of why we should have sprinklers in all large capacity public buildings?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?

    The inference was that a man with that much power and influence over an intern, coupled with the age difference meant Monica Lewinsky and others would have felt compelled to agree to Bill Clinton's requests even if they didn't want to.

    Almost like a political casting couch.

    It was in the context/aftermath of Harvey Weinstein.
    Thanks. I don't think I've once heard it suggested that it was anything other than consensual. I wonder if she would have a problem with such a large age gap involving two men?
    I think, to misquote Bonar Law, is it necessary for it not only not to be exploitative but to be seen not to be exploitative.

    When I was in Israel, I was with a large number of Hilary supporters. I commented that while I thought Trump was crazy I wasn't mad keen on the Clintons, which didn't make me popular. When asked why, I asked how they would feel if I had seduced a 22-year-old NQT in my department, who was under my professional care and direct management (I carefully didn't use the example of a 19-year-old student, because obviously different rules apply there anyway) even if she was perfectly willing. I suggested that they would feel uncomfortable sitting at a table with me.

    There was a long silence and then muttered agreement. I was 33 at the time and in a far less junior position vis a vis my hypothetical girlfriend than Clinton was. But it would still, in my judgement, have been wrong. So was Clinton, although the real issue of course was that he lied about it.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 1,802
    Happy new year.I look forward to even more victories for Jezza in 2018.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207

    On topic, this should help Trump.

    North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has warned the United States that his country's nuclear capabilities are now complete and the nuclear launch button is always on his desk.

    "The entire mainland of the US is within the range of our nuclear weapons and the nuclear button is always on the desk of my office. They should accurately be aware that this is not a threat but a reality," said Kim during his annual New Year's Day address, according to a CNN translation of the speech.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/31/asia/kim-jong-un-new-year-address-nuclear/index.html

    If it's always on his desk that's great - he can't use it when out and about....
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,207
    Alistair said:

    Republicans have won the presidential popular vote once in the last 7 attempts.

    And at the moment they have a historically unpopular president.

    The first is not relevant in their system

    The second isn't hugely important if Trump isn't the candidate
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 4,234
    Charles said:

    On topic, this should help Trump.

    North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has warned the United States that his country's nuclear capabilities are now complete and the nuclear launch button is always on his desk.

    "The entire mainland of the US is within the range of our nuclear weapons and the nuclear button is always on the desk of my office. They should accurately be aware that this is not a threat but a reality," said Kim during his annual New Year's Day address, according to a CNN translation of the speech.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/31/asia/kim-jong-un-new-year-address-nuclear/index.html

    If it's always on his desk that's great - he can't use it when out and about....
    Wrong

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 7,510
    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?

    The inference was that a man with that much power and influence over an intern, coupled with the age difference meant Monica Lewinsky and others would have felt compelled to agree to Bill Clinton's requests even if they didn't want to.

    Almost like a political casting couch.

    It was in the context/aftermath of Harvey Weinstein.
    Thanks. I don't think I've once heard it suggested that it was anything other than consensual. I wonder if she would have a problem with such a large age gap involving two men?
    I think, to misquote Bonar Law, is it necessary for it not only not to be exploitative but to be seen not to be exploitative.

    When I was in Israel, I was with a large number of Hilary supporters. I commented that while I thought Trump was crazy I wasn't mad keen on the Clintons, which didn't make me popular. When asked why, I asked how they would feel if I had seduced a 22-year-old NQT in my department, who was under my professional care and direct management (I carefully didn't use the example of a 19-year-old student, because obviously different rules apply there anyway) even if she was perfectly willing. I suggested that they would feel uncomfortable sitting at a table with me.

    There was a long silence and then muttered agreement. I was 33 at the time and in a far less junior position vis a vis my hypothetical girlfriend than Clinton was. But it would still, in my judgement, have been wrong. So was Clinton, although the real issue of course was that he lied about it.
    I think you make a very fair point - and I don't think it's asking much of the POTUS to resist getting involved in such things. But I think it's interesting how things have changed. I reckon twenty years ago the do gooders would have been more concerned with liberalism and allowing people to do what they want. Now they are looking for wrong doing in every relationship.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519
    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?

    The inference was that a man with that much power and influence over an intern, coupled with the age difference meant Monica Lewinsky and others would have felt compelled to agree to Bill Clinton's requests even if they didn't want to.

    Almost like a political casting couch.

    It was in the context/aftermath of Harvey Weinstein.
    Thanks. I don't think I've once heard it suggested that it was anything other than consensual. I wonder if she would have a problem with such a large age gap involving two men?
    I think, to misquote Bonar Law, is it necessary for it not only not to be exploitative but to be seen not to be exploitative.

    When I was in Israel, I was with a large number of Hilary supporters. I commented that while I thought Trump was crazy I wasn't mad keen on the Clintons, which didn't make me popular. When asked why, I asked how they would feel if I had seduced a 22-year-old NQT in my department, who was under my professional care and direct management (I carefully didn't use the example of a 19-year-old student, because obviously different rules apply there anyway) even if she was perfectly willing. I suggested that they would feel uncomfortable sitting at a table with me.

    There was a long silence and then muttered agreement. I was 33 at the time and in a far less junior position vis a vis my hypothetical girlfriend than Clinton was. But it would still, in my judgement, have been wrong. So was Clinton, although the real issue of course was that he lied about it.
    I think you make a very fair point - and I don't think it's asking much of the POTUS to resist getting involved in such things. But I think it's interesting how things have changed. I reckon twenty years ago the do gooders would have been more concerned with liberalism and allowing people to do what they want. Now they are looking for wrong doing in every relationship.
    Clinton's behaviour was wrong, but I'm not convinced it was sufficiently bad to merit resignation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    edited January 1
    Sean_F said:

    tlg86 said:

    ydoethur said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Can someone explain why Kirsten Gillibrand thinks Bill Clinton should have resigned? Is it because he lied (ala Damian Green) or because he was having it away with a young intern?

    The inference was that a man with that much power and influence over an intern, coupled with the age difference meant Monica Lewinsky and others would have felt compelled to agree to Bill Clinton's requests even if they didn't want to.

    Almost like a political casting couch.

    It was in the context/aftermath of Harvey Weinstein.
    Thanks. I don't think I've once heard it suggested that it was anything other than consensual. I wonder if she would have a problem with such a large age gap involving two men?
    I think, to misquote Bonar Law, is it necessary for it not only not to be exploitative but to be seen not to be exploitative.

    When I was in Israel, I was with a large number of Hilary supporters. I commented that while I thought Trump was crazy I wasn't mad keen on the Clintons, which didn't make me popular. When asked why, I asked how they would feel if I had seduced a 22-year-old NQT in my department, who was under my professional care and direct management (I carefully didn't use the example of a 19-year-old student, because obviously different rules apply there anyway) even if she was perfectly willing. I suggested that they would feel uncomfortable sitting at a table with me.

    There was a long silence and then muttered agreement. I was 33 at the time and in a far less junior position vis a vis my hypothetical girlfriend than Clinton was. But it would still, in my judgement, have been wrong. So was Clinton, although the real issue of course was that he lied about it.
    I think you make a very fair point - and I don't think it's asking much of the POTUS to resist getting involved in such things. But I think it's interesting how things have changed. I reckon twenty years ago the do gooders would have been more concerned with liberalism and allowing people to do what they want. Now they are looking for wrong doing in every relationship.
    Clinton's behaviour was wrong, but I'm not convinced it was sufficiently bad to merit resignation.
    Certainly the sexual behaviour of Clinton was far less reprehensible than that of Kennedy, who not only used his office to seduce teenage girls but forced at least one of them to perform a sex act on one of his aides while he watched. But I don't think it was the sex so much as the dishonesty that nearly did for Clinton. It is ironic to reflect that today it would indeed have been his actions that were the bigger story and probably would have forced his resignation.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 616
    I suspect that the fate of Trump in 2018 will be another classic example of the old dictum that oppositions do not win elections but governments lose them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,039

    Happy new year.I look forward to even more victories for Jezza in 2018.

    There'll be another leadership challenge for him to win? Despite May's failure, I don't recall Corbyn having anything other than a moral victory last year?
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 6,276
    "The race for the House might be going the Democrat’s way but the race for the Senate is much less certain. Whereas the whole House is up for re-election every two years, only a third of the Senate is up each cycle and the 2018 map is not kind for Democrats. At the time of writing, they need a net gain of two seats to win back control of the Senate,"

    Betfair exchange punters should note that the two independents who currently caucus with the Democrats are not included, i.e. four gains are needed. I do believe both independents are restanding, although I will check at some point.

    Basically for Betfair, the Dems need to change the game by having more Republicans stand down before the election.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    stevef said:

    I suspect that the fate of Trump in 2018 will be another classic example of the old dictum that oppositions do not win elections but governments lose them.

    It is not Trump's fate on the line so much as Congressional Republicans, both Clinton and Obama were re elected despite their parties losing control of Congress in their first mid term elections and Reagan too saw his party suffer significant losses in his first mid terms where the Democrats increased their House majority but he was also re elected 2 years later.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 967
    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    “Initial investigations indicate that an accidental fire within a vehicle caused other cars to ignite."

    From Liverpool. 1,600 cars destroyed. Is parking too close so dangerous? Any fire experts to advise?

    Yes - the Building Research Establishment ran some trials around 10 years ago and the conclusion was that fire will spread to cars in adjacent parking bays - greater separation distances prevent spread. The car park last night appears to have been close to capacity - hence the resulting damage.
    Yet another example of why we should have sprinklers in all large capacity public buildings?
    Puzzlingly, the media reported that the people who lost their cars were 'stranded'. Don't things called 'trains' operate?

    Happy New Year, everyone. Given that they seem better (bettor?!) for me than other events, may there be a crisis and a snap general election ...
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 342

    "The race for the House might be going the Democrat’s way but the race for the Senate is much less certain. Whereas the whole House is up for re-election every two years, only a third of the Senate is up each cycle and the 2018 map is not kind for Democrats. At the time of writing, they need a net gain of two seats to win back control of the Senate,"

    Betfair exchange punters should note that the two independents who currently caucus with the Democrats are not included, i.e. four gains are needed. I do believe both independents are restanding, although I will check at some point.

    Basically for Betfair, the Dems need to change the game by having more Republicans stand down before the election.

    One of the 'independents' is Bernie Sanders - he and his colleague Angus KIng from Maine are in effect Democrats in all but name.

    I find it hard to see how the Democrats can take the Senate given the make up of the Seats up for grabs - they may even gain seats despite the national polls. Not every Republican senate candidate will be a Roy Moore with sexual abuse allegations against them - and he only just lost.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 89
    Bernie Sanders will probably be too old to stand .As regards Gillibrand there may be a reaction to the extremity of the me-too positioning among many women as well as men who are now confused as what is legitimate flirting.
    Would stay clear of next Democratic Nominee markets until Michele Obama and Zuckerberg`s intentions are clear.Could see either standing if Trump was to stand again and they thought they were the most likely to beat him.If the Warrens and Bidens were that good how come they did not try to be the Democratic nominee in 2016?
  • BarnamBarnam Posts: 6
    Happy New Year to everyone in PB.

    Trump is full of surprises; he may even last the term.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,692
    Happy New year all.

    Hope all you culture vultures are enjoying the New Year's Day concert from Vienna.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,359
    edited January 1
    Sean_F said:

    tlg86 said:



    I think you make a very fair point - and I don't think it's asking much of the POTUS to resist getting involved in such things. But I think it's interesting how things have changed. I reckon twenty years ago the do gooders would have been more concerned with liberalism and allowing people to do what they want. Now they are looking for wrong doing in every relationship.

    Clinton's behaviour was wrong, but I'm not convinced it was sufficiently bad to merit resignation.
    The president has a lot of discretionary powers that rely on them being basically honest. If they've committed perjury and obstructed justice then they shouldn't remain in office. For example, having got away with perjury and attempted obstruction of justice, Clinton went on to use his power to pardon criminals in a way that was obviously crooked.

    He should have resigned, and if he didn't resign, Congress should have impeached him.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,460
    HYUFD said:


    Yes but Ford lost after 8 years of his party in control of the White House and George HW Bush lost after 12 years of his party in the White House. Only Jimmy Carter lost after his party had controlled the White House for just 4 years. Though of course Carter lost to Reagan who had narrowly lost the 1976 Republican nomination to Ford. Sanders will be hoping that after he narrowly lost the 2016 Democratic nomination, he is Reagan to Hillary's Ford and Trump's Carter.

    Indeed but Trump is the biggest "outsider" (not in the betting sense) to become President since Carter who utilised the new "primary" process to prevail over more established Democratic figures.

    Trump won because he was able to get voters other Republicans would probably have not reached and this enabled him to win the big ticket states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania and hold Florida. Whether another Republican would have managed it is debatable - I think that's doubtful a more establishment GOP candidate would have.

    These voters have stayed loyal to Trump so far but is their loyalty only to Trump or to the GOP in general ? Can the GOP rely on "Trump Democrats" or "Trump Independents" if there is no Trump on the ticket - possibly with Pence, doubtful with anyone else.

    Recent history also tells us incumbency is no bar to a primary challenge - will a GOP candidate challenge Trump if the 2018 midterms are very bad ?


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,911

    "The race for the House might be going the Democrat’s way but the race for the Senate is much less certain. Whereas the whole House is up for re-election every two years, only a third of the Senate is up each cycle and the 2018 map is not kind for Democrats. At the time of writing, they need a net gain of two seats to win back control of the Senate,"

    Betfair exchange punters should note that the two independents who currently caucus with the Democrats are not included, i.e. four gains are needed. I do believe both independents are restanding, although I will check at some point.

    Basically for Betfair, the Dems need to change the game by having more Republicans stand down before the election.

    Thanks for that. I was tempted to vote on the Democrats taking both the House and the Senate because I had assumed they only needed 2 and have such a large generic lead along with a base that Trump motivates in a big way. But 4 is a very big ask unless there are some incumbents standing down.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,279

    ydoethur said:

    CD13 said:

    “Initial investigations indicate that an accidental fire within a vehicle caused other cars to ignite."

    From Liverpool. 1,600 cars destroyed. Is parking too close so dangerous? Any fire experts to advise?

    Yes - the Building Research Establishment ran some trials around 10 years ago and the conclusion was that fire will spread to cars in adjacent parking bays - greater separation distances prevent spread. The car park last night appears to have been close to capacity - hence the resulting damage.
    Yet another example of why we should have sprinklers in all large capacity public buildings?
    Puzzlingly, the media reported that the people who lost their cars were 'stranded'. Don't things called 'trains' operate?

    Happy New Year, everyone. Given that they seem better (bettor?!) for me than other events, may there be a crisis and a snap general election ...
    No, trains don't operate on lots of routes on New Year's Eve evening. Anyway, not a HNY for the car insurance companies.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,279

    Happy New year all.

    Hope all you culture vultures are enjoying the New Year's Day concert from Vienna.

    Yes indeed. I'm just puzzled as to why Guy Verhofstadt is conducting the orchestra.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023

    "The race for the House might be going the Democrat’s way but the race for the Senate is much less certain. Whereas the whole House is up for re-election every two years, only a third of the Senate is up each cycle and the 2018 map is not kind for Democrats. At the time of writing, they need a net gain of two seats to win back control of the Senate,"

    Betfair exchange punters should note that the two independents who currently caucus with the Democrats are not included, i.e. four gains are needed. I do believe both independents are restanding, although I will check at some point.

    Basically for Betfair, the Dems need to change the game by having more Republicans stand down before the election.

    Yes, there is no chance the Dems take the Senate under those betting rules.

    Frankly there is no chance even throwing in the independents with the Dems either, the map is savage.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    edited January 1

    not a HNY for the car insurance companies.

    After the way the bastards have treated me this year, I think I can harden my heart to that thought.

    I'm sorry for the owners though. Not a good night for them.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Yes but Ford lost after 8 years of his party in control of the White House and George HW Bush lost after 12 years of his party in the White House. Only Jimmy Carter lost after his party had controlled the White House for just 4 years. Though of course Carter lost to Reagan who had narrowly lost the 1976 Republican nomination to Ford. Sanders will be hoping that after he narrowly lost the 2016 Democratic nomination, he is Reagan to Hillary's Ford and Trump's Carter.

    Indeed but Trump is the biggest "outsider" (not in the betting sense) to become President since Carter who utilised the new "primary" process to prevail over more established Democratic figures.

    Trump won because he was able to get voters other Republicans would probably have not reached and this enabled him to win the big ticket states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania and hold Florida. Whether another Republican would have managed it is debatable - I think that's doubtful a more establishment GOP candidate would have.

    These voters have stayed loyal to Trump so far but is their loyalty only to Trump or to the GOP in general ? Can the GOP rely on "Trump Democrats" or "Trump Independents" if there is no Trump on the ticket - possibly with Pence, doubtful with anyone else.

    Recent history also tells us incumbency is no bar to a primary challenge - will a GOP candidate challenge Trump if the 2018 midterms are very bad ?


    Generic Republican would have taken Ohio and Florida off of Clinton easily. The question is how would they have done in the rustbelt states.

    Given the Clinton's campaign total campaigning incompetence they could have well let some of the '''firewall''' slip through their fingers into the R column.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512
    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    Which is why I think Sanders has an excellent chance of winning the Democratic nomination in 2020 as an economic populist who can appeal to the rustbelt far more than the establishment Hillary with her ties to Wall Street could.

    It also explains why Jacob Rees Mogg leads polling as to who Tory members want to succeed May as someone who can motivate the base whereas the establishment May's manifesto seemed designed precisely to turn off the Tory base.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,512

    Happy New year all.

    Hope all you culture vultures are enjoying the New Year's Day concert from Vienna.

    Yes, though am watching it on BBC2 rather than spending £5000 for a ticket
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,039
    ydoethur said:

    Am rewatching the US election coverage.

    One Clinton union supporter just before Florida declared for me summed up her problem - 'record numbers voted in Philadelphia, and in North Miami, and when the votes in cities all over America are counted I think you will see her win.'

    Only preached to the choir - and not to all of that. Never thought of the rural hinterlands that swung it for Trump.

    Once again I am struck with the parallels with May's disastrous campaign this year.

    May didn't just preach to the choir though - the dementia tax was a policy that upset the choir, taken on the assumption they could afford to take the hit and it was an idea that needed endorsement before attempting.
This discussion has been closed.