Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the year of Trump’s impeachment

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited January 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on the year of Trump’s impeachment

Paddy Power have a market up on the year that Donald Trump is impeached. The Paddy Power terms are very clear, this bet doesn’t require the Senate to vote to convict, just the House of Representatives to vote to impeach

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,267
    edited January 7
    First? Unlike Trump or May, given time.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,279
    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937
    edited January 7

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Eight.
    I think it's an omission rather than an error per se.

    Edit - now you've got me doing it - it's eight this year....twenty one in 2020.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 61,036
    edited January 7

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,502
    Carter, Bush snr, Ford.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,460
    Given that there’s currently a Republican majority in the House, and those elected in November 2018 don’t get sworn in until 2019, there would have to be a big smoking bomb to see Trump impeached this year. TSE is correct in his assumption that 2019 or 2020 are much more likely.

    Is this market void or a loser if Trump survives the full term?
  • Jonathan said:

    Carter, Bush snr, Ford.

    Ford doesn’t count.

    I said Only twice in the last year 88 years has an elected incumbent President lost in a general election.

    Ford was never elected President.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 61,036
    edited January 7
    Sandpit said:

    Given that there’s currently a Republican majority in the House, and those elected in November 2018 don’t get sworn in until 2019, there would have to be a big smoking bomb to see Trump impeached this year. TSE is correct in his assumption that 2019 or 2020 are much more likely.

    Is this market void or a loser if Trump survives the full term?

    A loser.

    But at 33/1 I’m prepared to take the loss.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    Impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanours, not being an arse. Interfering with an investigation into the Russian contacts just might qualify but the Democrats should be careful. The attempts to impeach Clinton did the GOP no favours.

    This market is a lay for me.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,502

    Jonathan said:

    Carter, Bush snr, Ford.

    Ford doesn’t count.

    I said Only twice in the last year 88 years has an elected incumbent President lost in a general election.

    Ford was never elected President.
    Quite so. Apologies. In fact he was never elected to anything. Remarkable really.
  • FPT: What adults should say.

    I have tested my IQ recently and I am not a genius*: Instead I am a mere ultra-intelligent guy. Now I have studied Stats, Econ-Stats and Econometrics and - whilst correlation =/= causation - I expect it is fair to say that people exist within the other end-of-the-curve**.

    I am also fascinated by Psychology: Yep, I follow 'psuedo-sciences'. Human thoughts and empathy are complex: To expect a 'hive' mentality and conformity does not sound to me as something any liberal*** should believe in.

    * I had only drunk eight-cans of Scrumpi-Jack so I was probably too sober.
    ** Bell-End is under petition.
    *** Lib-Dhimmies would not understand such complex thoughts.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,460

    Sandpit said:

    Given that there’s currently a Republican majority in the House, and those elected in November 2018 don’t get sworn in until 2019, there would have to be a big smoking bomb to see Trump impeached this year. TSE is correct in his assumption that 2019 or 2020 are much more likely.

    Is this market void or a loser if Trump survives the full term?

    A loser.

    But at 33/1 I’m prepared to take the loss.
    Shame, I was hoping to be able to lay the evens.

    I might see if my friend in the UK can pass by a Paddy’s shop with a fiver on the 33s.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,386

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
    This is key. The GOP have written off 2018 but because only a handful of Republican senators are up for election the damage should be contained. 2020 is a different matter. Many or most Republican senators want Trump out the way by then, I believe. But I am not sure they want an impeachment either. The best thing would be for Trump to decide not to stand for re-election.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937
    More inventions from the utterly dishonest Wolff, regarding the motivations of the stable genius in the White House...
    https://www.politico.eu/article/us-uk-special-relationship-in-doubt-if-trump-doesnt-get-royal-wedding-invite-says-wolff/
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    FF43 said:

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
    This is key. The GOP have written off 2018 but because only a handful of Republican senators are up for election the damage should be contained. 2020 is a different matter. Many or most Republican senators want Trump out the way by then, I believe. But I am not sure they want an impeachment either. The best thing would be for Trump to decide not to stand for re-election.
    My expectations at the moment is that Trump will stand in 2020 and that he will win. I doubt he gives a damn about what Republican senators think. He certainly didn’t the last time.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,460
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
    This is key. The GOP have written off 2018 but because only a handful of Republican senators are up for election the damage should be contained. 2020 is a different matter. Many or most Republican senators want Trump out the way by then, I believe. But I am not sure they want an impeachment either. The best thing would be for Trump to decide not to stand for re-election.
    My expectations at the moment is that Trump will stand in 2020 and that he will win. I doubt he gives a damn about what Republican senators think. He certainly didn’t the last time.
    I’ve always said that the key to Trump’s presidency is his tax bill, which will lead to huge numbers of infrastructure jobs in the rust belt. If this now happens, he’s safe in 2020 no matter what the media try and throw at him.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
    This is key. The GOP have written off 2018 but because only a handful of Republican senators are up for election the damage should be contained. 2020 is a different matter. Many or most Republican senators want Trump out the way by then, I believe. But I am not sure they want an impeachment either. The best thing would be for Trump to decide not to stand for re-election.
    My expectations at the moment is that Trump will stand in 2020 and that he will win. I doubt he gives a damn about what Republican senators think. He certainly didn’t the last time.
    I’ve always said that the key to Trump’s presidency is his tax bill, which will lead to huge numbers of infrastructure jobs in the rust belt. If this now happens, he’s safe in 2020 no matter what the media try and throw at him.
    His tax bill is through and will boost consumption in the short term for the US although the consequences for the Federal deficit are concerning. I guess you are talking about the putative deal with Apple & Co re overseas revenue being repatriated? I agree that may well be key, especially in the rust bucket states.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,460
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
    This is key. The GOP have written off 2018 but because only a handful of Republican senators are up for election the damage should be contained. 2020 is a different matter. Many or most Republican senators want Trump out the way by then, I believe. But I am not sure they want an impeachment either. The best thing would be for Trump to decide not to stand for re-election.
    My expectations at the moment is that Trump will stand in 2020 and that he will win. I doubt he gives a damn about what Republican senators think. He certainly didn’t the last time.
    I’ve always said that the key to Trump’s presidency is his tax bill, which will lead to huge numbers of infrastructure jobs in the rust belt. If this now happens, he’s safe in 2020 no matter what the media try and throw at him.
    His tax bill is through and will boost consumption in the short term for the US although the consequences for the Federal deficit are concerning. I guess you are talking about the putative deal with Apple & Co re overseas revenue being repatriated? I agree that may well be key, especially in the rust bucket states.
    Yes, the effect from repatriation of overseas assets by multinationals, potentially a trillion-dollar windfall for the Fed to tax. If, as he promised, Trump puts that money to work on infrastructure in poorer areas, he’s a shoo-in for re-election no matter what anyone else thinks. The federal deficit is another issue of course, it seems uncontrollable no matter who’s in charge. Eventually it’s gonna catch up with the politicians but they’ve probably got a few more years yet.
  • RhubarbRhubarb Posts: 249
    It'll start this year or not at all.

    2019 is the start of the Long Campaign and, if an impeachment attempt comes after Trump has declared an intention to stand again, then elements on the right that might have been ok with hanging him out to dry after a midterm beating will rally and circle the wagons - especially if there are no other big republican players making noises about challenging him.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 347
    TSE getting his maths wrong again. FDR defeated Hoover in November 1932, which is 85 and a bit years ago, not 88.
  • HHemmelig said:

    TSE getting his maths wrong again. FDR defeated Hoover in November 1932, which is 85 and a bit years ago, not 88.

    Should have gone to grammar-school....
  • HHemmelig said:

    TSE getting his maths wrong again. FDR defeated Hoover in November 1932, which is 85 and a bit years ago, not 88.

    Oops I meant by 2020 it’ll have been 88 years.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,050
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Bought a tin candle as a late Christmas gift replacement (prior gift was not ok because the recipient's health has taken a turn for the worst) and the damned lid wasn't included. Humbug!

    On-topic: Trump won't be impeached. He's a stable genius.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,947
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Carter, Bush snr, Ford.

    Ford doesn’t count.

    I said Only twice in the last year 88 years has an elected incumbent President lost in a general election.

    Ford was never elected President.
    Quite so. Apologies. In fact he was never elected to anything. Remarkable really.
    Hoover in 1932?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,947
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
    This is key. The GOP have written off 2018 but because only a handful of Republican senators are up for election the damage should be contained. 2020 is a different matter. Many or most Republican senators want Trump out the way by then, I believe. But I am not sure they want an impeachment either. The best thing would be for Trump to decide not to stand for re-election.
    My expectations at the moment is that Trump will stand in 2020 and that he will win. I doubt he gives a damn about what Republican senators think. He certainly didn’t the last time.
    I’ve always said that the key to Trump’s presidency is his tax bill, which will lead to huge numbers of infrastructure jobs in the rust belt. If this now happens, he’s safe in 2020 no matter what the media try and throw at him.
    His tax bill is through and will boost consumption in the short term for the US although the consequences for the Federal deficit are concerning. I guess you are talking about the putative deal with Apple & Co re overseas revenue being repatriated? I agree that may well be key, especially in the rust bucket states.
    Yes, the effect from repatriation of overseas assets by multinationals, potentially a trillion-dollar windfall for the Fed to tax. If, as he promised, Trump puts that money to work on infrastructure in poorer areas, he’s a shoo-in for re-election no matter what anyone else thinks. The federal deficit is another issue of course, it seems uncontrollable no matter who’s in charge. Eventually it’s gonna catch up with the politicians but they’ve probably got a few more years yet.
    Will he win enough EC votes though, if the benefits are in the rust-bucket states?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,020
    The tax bill is phenomenally unpopular.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,020
    The repatriated money will be used for stock buy backs
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,460
    edited January 7
    Alistair said:

    The tax bill is phenomenally unpopular.

    ...in New York and California, where the rescinding of the offset against high local taxes has led to higher bills for the well paid in entertainment and journalism. Everywhere else though, people are getting a tax cut.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,460
    edited January 7
    Alistair said:

    The repatriated money will be used for stock buy backs

    And acquisitions. What’s more important politically is where the taxes paid on the repatriated money will go. That’s Trump’s re-election fund right there.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    Alistair said:

    The repatriated money will be used for stock buy backs

    In part and also buying up other American companies which is why US IT minnows are such a buy. But I won't be surprised to see an onshoring requirement for manufacturing built in. Trump will be anxious to be seen to have addressed the trade deficit, at least to some degree.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,776
    Sandpit said:

    Alistair said:

    The tax bill is phenomenally unpopular.

    ...in New York and California, where the rescinding of the offset against high local taxes has led to higher bills for the well paid in entertainment and journalism. Everywhere else though, people are getting a tax cut.
    "This tax bill remains historically unpopular. According to an average of nine surveys taken this month, 33 percent of Americans are in favor of it, and 52 percent are opposed."

    Source:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-passing-the-tax-bill-help-the-gop-in-2018-probably-not/

    So not just New York and California. Far from it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,050
    Mr. Dean, also important is strength of feeling. If people dislike something but it doesn't really matter, they may as well (electorally) have no opinion.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,389

    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Bought a tin candle as a late Christmas gift replacement (prior gift was not ok because the recipient's health has taken a turn for the worst) and the damned lid wasn't included. Humbug!

    On-topic: Trump won't be impeached. He's a stable genius.

    I'm still looking for a stable genius - to give me racing tips.....
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 4,560
    Former Guardian editor Peter Preston has died at 79.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879
    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Alistair said:

    The tax bill is phenomenally unpopular.

    ...in New York and California, where the rescinding of the offset against high local taxes has led to higher bills for the well paid in entertainment and journalism. Everywhere else though, people are getting a tax cut.
    "This tax bill remains historically unpopular. According to an average of nine surveys taken this month, 33 percent of Americans are in favor of it, and 52 percent are opposed."

    Source:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-passing-the-tax-bill-help-the-gop-in-2018-probably-not/

    So not just New York and California. Far from it.
    Its the economy stupid (not you of course). If this tax cut is successful in generating additional growth (and Trump's economic record to date is already not too shoddy, even if it is inherited) Trump will gain from it. I think it will, at least in the short term. And that's all Trump will ever think about.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,776

    Mr. Dean, also important is strength of feeling. If people dislike something but it doesn't really matter, they may as well (electorally) have no opinion.

    Indeed, but the reverse can also be true. Most of the tax cuts for average earners are very small. So people can like the cut, without it making much difference to their finances.

    Problem is the President is so Marmite. His fans will say look at my small tax cut! He is great!
    His opponents will take their small tax cut and point to the huge cuts for billionaires.

    Whether he is re-elected will depend on who can motivate their voters.

  • DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
    This is key. The GOP have written off 2018 but because only a handful of Republican senators are up for election the damage should be contained. 2020 is a different matter. Many or most Republican senators want Trump out the way by then, I believe. But I am not sure they want an impeachment either. The best thing would be for Trump to decide not to stand for re-election.
    My expectations at the moment is that Trump will stand in 2020 and that he will win. I doubt he gives a damn about what Republican senators think. He certainly didn’t the last time.
    I’ve always said that the key to Trump’s presidency is his tax bill, which will lead to huge numbers of infrastructure jobs in the rust belt. If this now happens, he’s safe in 2020 no matter what the media try and throw at him.
    His tax bill is through and will boost consumption in the short term for the US although the consequences for the Federal deficit are concerning. I guess you are talking about the putative deal with Apple & Co re overseas revenue being repatriated? I agree that may well be key, especially in the rust bucket states.
    What if the repatriated money is used to invest in automation, losing even more jobs in the rust bucket states?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,050
    Mr. Dean, indeed. Added to that is our inherent tendency to forget kindnesses (particularly small ones) and cling to grudges. It's why prolonged incumbency is a problem for parties, as the baggage builds up.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,050
    Mr. Alan, there was a story (posted here) of automation at a McDonalds, or similar, actually increasing jobs because more kitchen staff were needed to keep up with the orders.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 4,399

    HHemmelig said:

    TSE getting his maths wrong again. FDR defeated Hoover in November 1932, which is 85 and a bit years ago, not 88.

    Should have gone to grammar-school....
    Hyphen in grammar school? Should have gone to SpecSavers.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,947

    Mr. Alan, there was a story (posted here) of automation at a McDonalds, or similar, actually increasing jobs because more kitchen staff were needed to keep up with the orders.

    Automation in the cotton industry in the 19th C produced more jobs but the working conditions went downhill.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,025
    DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Alistair said:

    The tax bill is phenomenally unpopular.

    ...in New York and California, where the rescinding of the offset against high local taxes has led to higher bills for the well paid in entertainment and journalism. Everywhere else though, people are getting a tax cut.
    "This tax bill remains historically unpopular. According to an average of nine surveys taken this month, 33 percent of Americans are in favor of it, and 52 percent are opposed."

    Source:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-passing-the-tax-bill-help-the-gop-in-2018-probably-not/

    So not just New York and California. Far from it.
    Its the economy stupid (not you of course). If this tax cut is successful in generating additional growth (and Trump's economic record to date is already not too shoddy, even if it is inherited) Trump will gain from it. I think it will, at least in the short term. And that's all Trump will ever think about.
    I presume that's likely, as the BBC and I would guess other outlets with no reason to like Trump, have suggested the republicans and so Trump have a decent chance of a good result, economically.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,188

    Mr. Alan, there was a story (posted here) of automation at a McDonalds, or similar, actually increasing jobs because more kitchen staff were needed to keep up with the orders.

    The drive-through McDonalds just up the road recently automated and service is noticeably slower. It would not surprise me if they end up taking on more staff.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,879

    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    Error in the header: How many of the 33 senate seats up in 2020 are being defended by the GOP?

    Well spotted, fixed now.

    The GOP are defending 22 of the 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2020.
    This is key. The GOP have written off 2018 but because only a handful of Republican senators are up for election the damage should be contained. 2020 is a different matter. Many or most Republican senators want Trump out the way by then, I believe. But I am not sure they want an impeachment either. The best thing would be for Trump to decide not to stand for re-election.
    My expectations at the moment is that Trump will stand in 2020 and that he will win. I doubt he gives a damn about what Republican senators think. He certainly didn’t the last time.
    I’ve always said that the key to Trump’s presidency is his tax bill, which will lead to huge numbers of infrastructure jobs in the rust belt. If this now happens, he’s safe in 2020 no matter what the media try and throw at him.
    His tax bill is through and will boost consumption in the short term for the US although the consequences for the Federal deficit are concerning. I guess you are talking about the putative deal with Apple & Co re overseas revenue being repatriated? I agree that may well be key, especially in the rust bucket states.
    What if the repatriated money is used to invest in automation, losing even more jobs in the rust bucket states?
    What if Trump has the next generation of I phones manufactured in the USA? There are a range of possibilities.

    In the meantime the tax changes effectively punish the higher spending democratic states and benefit the lower taxed republican states: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/business/high-tax-states-law.html

    Or to put it another way, the cross subsidy of higher spending states from the Federal Budget is being limited to $10K per tax payer. The consequences for Democrats are likely to be severe.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,127
    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,589
    On topic, I think the odds to impeach Trump are ridiculously short in 2018.

    It certainly won't be this year. Even if the Democrats have a landslide in the House, they won't be able to take their seats in the 116th Congress (and do anything about it) until 3rd January 2019.

    But, as the test for the Paddy Power market is just that the House of Representatives pass a vote of impeachment (rather than impeachment succeeding) 6/1 in 2019, and 33/1 in 2020, is actually quite good.

    Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury to a grand jury (by a 228–206 vote) and obstruction of justice (by a 221–212 vote) in a House where the Republicans had 223 seats, and the Democrats 211 seats.

    So these things are pretty partisan.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 978
    edited January 7
    It would be incredibly politically dangerous, as things currently stand, for the Democrats to try and impeach Trump if they get a majority in the House (let’s for the moment assume they won’t hold the Senate, which is a much bigger ask).

    The qualification “as things currently stand” is an important one because all sorts could come out of the various investigations which make things much more serious for Trump.

    But at the moment, impeachment proceedings would look like partisan posturing on the basis that the Dems don’t like Trump, rather than anything concrete and substantial. This would further polarise the US political divide in a way that would allow the GOP to claim the Dems are on a witch hunt and energise their base for 2020. Bad idea for the Dems. That’s assuming of course that they don’t have the numbers to convict in the Senate but, even if they did, they could be leading themselves down an even more dangerous path and open up room for a Pence victory in 2020.

    The Democrats have a much better chance winning in 2020 if they take their objections to Trump to the 2020 campaign stump rather than through congressional intrigue. 2020 gives them a golden opportunity to paint themselves as unifiers, healers, a return to sanity.. if they’ve spent the last two years squabbling about impeachment, they hand so many cards back to the GOP.
  • HHemmelig said:

    TSE getting his maths wrong again. FDR defeated Hoover in November 1932, which is 85 and a bit years ago, not 88.

    Should have gone to grammar-school....
    Hyphen in grammar school? Should have gone to SpecSavers.
    I went Compo; innit. If Public-School then Grammer-School makes sense dunnit?
  • Mr. Alan, there was a story (posted here) of automation at a McDonalds, or similar, actually increasing jobs because more kitchen staff were needed to keep up with the orders.

    Automation in the cotton industry in the 19th C produced more jobs but the working conditions went downhill.
    I blame the canal-system. Bloody railways are always late.
  • hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,357
    Martin Armstrong has done an excellent paper on impeachment with his conclusion being that the rules over impeachment can pretty much be made up as you go along - the you being as the 'powers' wish.

    I don't think it's a certainty that the Democrats take back the house. The US economy will do pretty well this year as it responds to the Trump tax cuts, and is pretty much holding the rest of the world economy up. And what do the Democrats stand for these days? All they stand for is just trying to impeach Trump, absolutely nothing else. The Russia conspiracy nonsense has pretty much run its course now - if there was anything then it would have been found by now. And the Democrats have plenty of skeletons of their own in the cupboard.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,494
    Even if the Democrats take the House, they are unlikely to take the Senate and Republicans will not vote to impeach Trump given the Republican base still supports him and they would be primaried if they did so
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,127
    edited January 7

    It would be incredibly politically dangerous, as things currently stand, for the Democrats to try and impeach Trump if they get a majority in the House (let’s for the moment assume they won’t hold the Senate, which is a much bigger ask).

    The qualification “as things currently stand” is an important one because all sorts could come out of the various investigations which make things much more serious for Trump.

    But at the moment, impeachment proceedings would look like partisan posturing on the basis that the Dems don’t like Trump, rather than anything concrete and substantial. This would further polarise the US political divide in a way that would allow the GOP to claim the Dems are on a witch hunt and energise their base for 2020. Bad idea for the Dems. That’s assuming of course that they don’t have the numbers to convict in the Senate but, even if they did, they could be leading themselves down an even more dangerous path and open up room for a Pence victory in 2020.

    The Democrats have a much better chance winning in 2020 if they take their objections to Trump to the 2020 campaign stump rather than through congressional intrigue. 2020 gives them a golden opportunity to paint themselves as unifiers, healers, a return to sanity.. if they’ve spent the last two years squabbling about impeachment, they hand so many cards back to the GOP.

    The other problem for the Democrats of the impeachment approach is it gives Trump an alibi. The legislature was paralysed for over a year on Clinton's case. Imagine the havoc Trump could wreak with an actual majority in the Senate. It would be chaos. And how would Trump campaign in 2020 if he stands?

    'Look, I would have built a wall and got rid of Kim Jong Un and found a way to turn water into wine if those buggers in Congress hadn't jammed everything solid by obsessing about impeachment.'

    If he has to defend his own record having achieved nothing, they have a greater chance of beating him.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 342
    edited January 7
    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,050
    Mr. 16, I largely agree with you but remember we live in very turbulent political times. The unexpected/impossible has happened a few times in the last couple of years.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,792
    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Read the article:
    "The Paddy Power terms are very clear, this bet doesn’t require the Senate to vote to convict, just the House of Representatives to vote to impeach"
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,550

    HHemmelig said:

    TSE getting his maths wrong again. FDR defeated Hoover in November 1932, which is 85 and a bit years ago, not 88.

    Should have gone to grammar-school....
    Hyphen in grammar school? Should have gone to SpecSavers.
    I went Compo; innit. If Public-School then Grammer-School makes sense dunnit?
    Public school. No hyphen.
    Grammar school. No hyphen.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,020
    Sandpit said:

    Alistair said:

    The tax bill is phenomenally unpopular.

    ...in New York and California, where the rescinding of the offset against high local taxes has led to higher bills for the well paid in entertainment and journalism. Everywhere else though, people are getting a tax cut.
    The bill was opposed 55%/33%

    It is less popular than Trump.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 427
    I wonder if Trump does get impeached whether he will like a petulant child command a nuclear strike. One of Trumps key first moves was to review US nuclear forces.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,239
    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,575

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Referendum on admission or not to Schulz's federal Europe will be in 2047 :)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,909
    Essexit said:

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Referendum on admission or not to Schulz's federal Europe will be in 2047 :)
    Perhaps a betting market on when Belfast will begin using the Euro would help distinguish the wood from the trees?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 303
    Essexit said:

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Referendum on admission or not to Schulz's federal Europe will be in 2047 :)
    I will be a hearty 90 year old, ready to go to the polling booth for my posterity.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,921

    I wonder if Trump does get impeached whether he will like a petulant child command a nuclear strike. One of Trumps key first moves was to review US nuclear forces.

    Very sadly, I think the nuclear strike will come before any impeachment.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,247

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    If that's right Mike there was an enormous pro-Brxit vote! (So I don't think it's right)

    Trump is unlikely to be impreached. However it is Trump - nothing can be ruled out.

    Would betting on an impeachment be regarded as unpleasant by US citizens? Dethronement (by political mechanism) of the Queen wouldn't be something I'd bet on for example .
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 4,239
    Omnium said:

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    If that's right Mike there was an enormous pro-Brxit vote! (So I don't think it's right)

    Trump is unlikely to be impreached. However it is Trump - nothing can be ruled out.

    Would betting on an impeachment be regarded as unpleasant by US citizens? Dethronement (by political mechanism) of the Queen wouldn't be something I'd bet on for example .
    I don't think Trump will be impeached but if he goes early it will via the 25th Amendment or resignation of his own accord.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 303
    Arsenal making Leicesters performance yesterday look good.

    It puts me in the odd situation of cheering on the Forest...
  • Foxy said:

    Arsenal making Leicesters performance yesterday look good.

    It puts me in the odd situation of cheering on the Forest...

    Arsene Wenger is going to go full Michael Douglas in Falling Down after this game.
  • ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.

    Originally I was going to go since the 22nd Amendment.

    But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,550

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Just for old time's sake:

    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%


    :innocent:
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,247

    Omnium said:

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    If that's right Mike there was an enormous pro-Brxit vote! (So I don't think it's right)

    Trump is unlikely to be impreached. However it is Trump - nothing can be ruled out.

    Would betting on an impeachment be regarded as unpleasant by US citizens? Dethronement (by political mechanism) of the Queen wouldn't be something I'd bet on for example .
    I don't think Trump will be impeached but if he goes early it will via the 25th Amendment or resignation of his own accord.
    The resignation of his own accord seems likely to me. I think that's his imagined exit too (aside from the thought-one 20 terms by popular acclaim).

  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 844

    I wonder if Trump does get impeached whether he will like a petulant child command a nuclear strike. One of Trumps key first moves was to review US nuclear forces.

    Very sadly, I think the nuclear strike will come before any impeachment.
    I expect the secret service would step in long before Trump had the chance. "Suffered massive heart attack in the oval office, couldn't be revived in time" etc. If we assume the worst case scenario about either Trump being in collusion with the russians or senile, I imagine the spooks already have a plan for this in effect.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 342

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Was the word Brexit in vogue in 1975? Perhaps another 41 year wait might be in order - assuming the EU still exists in 2057.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,247
    kyf_100 said:

    I wonder if Trump does get impeached whether he will like a petulant child command a nuclear strike. One of Trumps key first moves was to review US nuclear forces.

    Very sadly, I think the nuclear strike will come before any impeachment.
    I expect the secret service would step in long before Trump had the chance. "Suffered massive heart attack in the oval office, couldn't be revived in time" etc. If we assume the worst case scenario about either Trump being in collusion with the russians or senile, I imagine the spooks already have a plan for this in effect.
    Maybe. What exactly is the secret service agenda though? Who decides? In the UK there was a time some years ago when a PM might not have achieved his desired result when pressing the button. I don't believe that's the case now. There isn't that same secret-chamber type thing (or they've got much much better at being invisible). However even if there was - how and with whom could it be comprised? Suppose you or I were approached to serve in such a role - I think I'd say no - it seems far too anti-democratic. (And I don't believe in democracy!)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,909
    brendan16 said:

    brendan16 said:

    Trump won't be impeached in his first term - it's a nigh on mathematical certainty the Republicans will hold the senate in 2018 as they only hold 8 of the 33 seats up for re election. Their base would never forgive them if they tried.

    Well that's assuming Roy Moore isn't their candidate in all 33 contests - which is always possible!

    It's just silly talk - almost as boring as talk of a second Brexit referendum. Not going to happen but feel free to bet.

    If he makes it to a second term and the Dems hold both houses it's possible of course.

    Perhaps the American people would just like their leaders to get governing and do something to make their lives better than waste time on such things.

    We've already had a second Brexit referendum - June 23rd 2016
    Was the word Brexit in vogue in 1975? Perhaps another 41 year wait might be in order - assuming the EU still exists in 2057.
    If we Brexit, the next one will have to be about reUKcession.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,188
    Dominic Raab is not even in the cabinet so the long-term prediction needs him to be promoted and for Theresa May to stay around for years.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,127

    ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.

    Originally I was going to go since the 22nd Amendment.

    But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
    Why? It actually seems a very sensible rule to me. It doubtless seemed an even more sensible rule after 13 years of Roosevelt who literally did have a lock on the presidency for life.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937

    ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.

    Originally I was going to go since the 22nd Amendment.

    But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
    The last president to make a real effort to repeal it was Reagan.... in the early throes of Alzheimer's.

  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 427
    kyf_100 said:

    I wonder if Trump does get impeached whether he will like a petulant child command a nuclear strike. One of Trumps key first moves was to review US nuclear forces.

    Very sadly, I think the nuclear strike will come before any impeachment.
    I expect the secret service would step in long before Trump had the chance. "Suffered massive heart attack in the oval office, couldn't be revived in time" etc. If we assume the worst case scenario about either Trump being in collusion with the russians or senile, I imagine the spooks already have a plan for this in effect.
    The problem goes further than Trump though, would VP Pence be any less likely to follow the Trump doctrine on international relations? I think if any attempt to remove Trump occurred the natural successor to ensure stability would have to be Speaker Paul Ryan.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,247

    Dominic Raab is not even in the cabinet so the long-term prediction needs him to be promoted and for Theresa May to stay around for years.
    As far as I'm aware being in the cabinet is not a requirement. He's a big long-shot though in my view.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,127
    edited January 7
    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.

    Originally I was going to go since the 22nd Amendment.

    But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
    Why? It actually seems a very sensible rule to me. It doubtless seemed an even more sensible rule after 13 years of Roosevelt who literally did have a lock on the presidency for life.
    I'm not in favour of laws that target a certain individual.

    Said laws are even less effective when that certain individual is dead.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,521
    *BETTING POST: 2018 IMPEACHMENT*

    I note the article above. If the criteria for settlement is "the House of Representatives to vote to impeach", then you should note that it is entirely possible that this will happen in 2018. The general election to the House of Representatives is on November 6th 2018 and (as TSE points out) the polls indicate the Dems may take the House. In this event it is entirely possible that they will initiate a House vote for impeachment

    The precedent for this happened in 1998, when the House voted on December 19, 1998 to impeach Bill Clinton, immediately after the November 3 1998 general election to the House of Representatives.

    Anybody considering evens for 2018 to be value should keep that fact in mind. Additionally, remember that a vote to impeach is an instruction to start the trial, NOT a guilty verdict (or indeed any verdict!).

    As ever, DYOR

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2018

    And lastly:

    * h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRtJXnsUYBc
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,095
    Don't know if it is still about but Unibet were a colossal 3-1 on 2018 impeachment !
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,247
    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,521
    Pulpstar said:

    Don't know if it is still about but Unibet were a colossal 3-1 on 2018 impeachment !

    Good grief, that's way skewed. Do they know what the word means?
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 978
    edited January 7
    Wasn’t the 22nd amendment really a codification of an unwritten convention that stretched all the way back to Washington that, by and large, presidents only served two terms? I know that there were exceptions (Roosevelt of course and someone else did run a third time I think but lost, though not sure who or when that was) but by and large that was the custom anyway before it was passed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,127

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.

    Originally I was going to go since the 22nd Amendment.

    But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
    Why? It actually seems a very sensible rule to me. It doubtless seemed an even more sensible rule after 13 years of Roosevelt who literally did have a lock on the presidency for life.
    I'm not in favour of laws that target a certain individual.

    Said laws are even less effective when that certain individual is dead.
    It didn't target any individual. Indeed the one individual affected was specifically exempted.

    It was however designed to stop anyone emulating a particular individual. The wisdom of this may be seen from the fact that Eisenhower and Reagan were stopped from standing again and the US was spared the farcical denouement the USSR had to go through with Brezhnev.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,095
    viewcode said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Don't know if it is still about but Unibet were a colossal 3-1 on 2018 impeachment !

    Good grief, that's way skewed. Do they know what the word means?
    The terms are the same as Paddy, got £19 out of £25 on, the other £6 refferred to 'trader'. No idea if they took it or not and I think the price has probably gone now.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,575
    viewcode said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Don't know if it is still about but Unibet were a colossal 3-1 on 2018 impeachment !

    Good grief, that's way skewed. Do they know what the word means?
    Might come down to the Ts&Cs - maybe they mean 'successful impeachment'.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.

    Originally I was going to go since the 22nd Amendment.

    But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
    Why? It actually seems a very sensible rule to me. It doubtless seemed an even more sensible rule after 13 years of Roosevelt who literally did have a lock on the presidency for life.
    I'm not in favour of laws that target a certain individual.

    Said laws are even less effective when that certain individual is dead.
    Prompted by FDR, not targeted at him.
    Term limits to the grant of arbitrary power seem fairly sensible to me.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,127
    edited January 7
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Since four of the ones ahead of him have literally no chance and the other two are pretty long shots that really does seem a value bet even now.
    Big talk- no action - 20/1 available on BF. Did you have a bet on this idea?
    I was commenting on TSE's earlier tip and suggesting that it is looking more impressive by the week. He is the minister who best fits the age, experience and stature within the PCP to be the next PM this side of the election. Boris would not make the final two, Rees-Mogg and Davis will not stand, and the odds of Leadsom even being nominated are slim. Rudd has a wafer-thin majority but more pertinently is currently in the wrong job - she will be perceived to have failed on immigration. Corbyn needs an election and is unlikely to get one until he is too old to be considered seriously.

    Of the others, Raab and Williamson are too junior, Davidson is ineligible and Hammond is getting on a bit. Let's not even mention the Unmentionable one.

    So of that list, that leaves Hunt. That is annoying because I do not like Jeremy Hunt but it could be worse - it could be Corbyn.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937

    Wasn’t the 22nd amendment really a codification of an unwritten convention that stretched all the way back to Washington that, by and large, presidents only served two terms? I know that there were exceptions (Roosevelt of course and someone else did run a third time I think but lost, though not sure who or when that was) but by and large that was the custom anyway before it was passed.

    Yes.
    A convention that Washington himself deliberately set.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 3,937

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    @TSE

    Why in the last 85 years?

    You could have said 'since the Second World War' or 'in the last 40 [or indeed 50] years'.

    Or you could have been bolder and said 'three times in the last 100 years (because going back to 1918 only adds Hoover to the list).

    Or you could, validly, have said that only 4 incumbent presidents in the last 100 years have failed to be re-elected in a presidential election (ignoring Truman and Johnson who withdrew after disappointing primary results).

    Or if you go back 150 years, you add the grand total of Cleveland and Taft to that list.

    Or if you take it to all time, that adds John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to that list - just eight presidents out of 31 incumbents who stood for re-election (and you could knock Cleveland off on the basis he did win a second term four years later).

    So the odds would appear to be against the Democrats on paper.

    Against that - it's Trump.

    Originally I was going to go since the 22nd Amendment.

    But then it turned into a rant about the stupidity of the 22nd Amendment.
    Why? It actually seems a very sensible rule to me. It doubtless seemed an even more sensible rule after 13 years of Roosevelt who literally did have a lock on the presidency for life.
    I'm not in favour of laws that target a certain individual.

    Said laws are even less effective when that certain individual is dead.
    I refer you to Lin Manuel Miranda....
    https://genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-one-last-time-lyrics
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,521
    Pulpstar said:

    viewcode said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Don't know if it is still about but Unibet were a colossal 3-1 on 2018 impeachment !

    Good grief, that's way skewed. Do they know what the word means?
    The terms are the same as Paddy, got £19 out of £25 on, the other £6 refferred to 'trader'. No idea if they took it or not and I think the price has probably gone now.
    Good luck.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 4,521
    Essexit said:

    viewcode said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Don't know if it is still about but Unibet were a colossal 3-1 on 2018 impeachment !

    Good grief, that's way skewed. Do they know what the word means?
    Might come down to the Ts&Cs - maybe they mean 'successful impeachment'.
    :(
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,127
    edited January 7

    Wasn’t the 22nd amendment really a codification of an unwritten convention that stretched all the way back to Washington that, by and large, presidents only served two terms? I know that there were exceptions (Roosevelt of course and someone else did run a third time I think but lost, though not sure who or when that was) but by and large that was the custom anyway before it was passed.

    Grover Cleveland ran three times, winning twice non-consecutively. You are more probably thinking of Theodore Roosevelt who served most of McKinley's second term, a term of his own, declined to run in 1908 and then stood again in 1912, splitting the Republican vote and allowing Wilson to win.

    Grant also put himself forward for the Republican nomination in 1876 and 1880 but was rejected.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,127
    Nigelb said:

    Wasn’t the 22nd amendment really a codification of an unwritten convention that stretched all the way back to Washington that, by and large, presidents only served two terms? I know that there were exceptions (Roosevelt of course and someone else did run a third time I think but lost, though not sure who or when that was) but by and large that was the custom anyway before it was passed.

    Yes.
    A convention that Washington himself deliberately set.

    There has always been argument about how deliberate it was, or whether it was just an accident due to illness.

    I will confess I can never make Washington out. He was a very strange man and I sometimes wonder if a lot of the brilliance he is credited with was actually just him being rather eccentric and probably not really having a great grasp of what was going on.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,575
    ydoethur said:

    Wasn’t the 22nd amendment really a codification of an unwritten convention that stretched all the way back to Washington that, by and large, presidents only served two terms? I know that there were exceptions (Roosevelt of course and someone else did run a third time I think but lost, though not sure who or when that was) but by and large that was the custom anyway before it was passed.

    Grover Cleveland ran three times, winning twice non-consecutively. You are more probably thinking of Theodore Roosevelt who served most of McKinley's second term, a term of his own, declined to run in 1908 and then stood again in 1912, splitting the Republican vote and allowing Wilson to win.

    Grant also put himself forward for the Republican nomination in 1876 and 1880 but was rejected.
    No no no, the Republican Party split the Bull Moose Party's vote!
This discussion has been closed.