# November 3, 2020: Consolidated General Election.



## Drakon (24 Sep 2020)

Arrived this morning. Bring it on!

>> I carelessly attached a photograph of my ballot paper. Concerned about the legality of such an action, I have deleted it. <<


----------



## Drakon (24 Sep 2020)

I would be interested to know if any other AAM posters will be voting it what’s being hailed as “the most important Presidential Election in U.S. history.


----------



## Drakon (24 Sep 2020)

Six parties are running candidates, as follows:

Green:
Howie Hawkins & Angela Nicole Walker

Libertarian:
Jo Jorgensen & Jeremy “Spike” Cohen

Democratic:
Joseph R. Biden & Kamala Harris

Republican:
Donald J. Trump & Michael R. Pence

Peace and Freedom:
Gloria La Riva & Sunil Freeman

American Independent:
Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente Guerra &
Kanye Omari West


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (29 Sep 2020)

Looking forward to Big Fight tonight. Sleepy Joe vs Donald Duck.  Reminds me of the good old days, Smoking Joe vs Cassius Clay.  Okay they were a tad younger and had even deeper tans.


----------



## EmmDee (29 Sep 2020)

Drakon said:


> Six parties are running candidates, as follows:
> 
> Green:
> Howie Hawkins & Angela Nicole Walker
> ...



Only Republican, Democratic and Libertarian are running in all 50 states. The Greens are on 30 ballots (but can be written in on 17 more) and not on 3

So depending on which state you are registered with, you see different lists


----------



## joer (29 Sep 2020)

Neither of these two would float like a butterfly. But the Duck could sting like a bee though.....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Sep 2020)

The Donald decided to play by Conor McGregor rules.  I was on my nerves that Sleepin' Joe wouldn't be able to finish.


----------



## EmmDee (30 Sep 2020)

The best description of that debate that I saw - a DDOS attack in human form


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2020)

EmmDee said:


> The best description of that debate that I saw - a DDOS attack in human form


I have to Google DDOS


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Sep 2020)

The Donald accused Sleepy Joe of graduating last in his class.  I didn't hear a denial.  I'm all for equal opportunity but I would have thought that the POTUS should be better than last in class.


----------



## Purple (30 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Donald accused Sleepy Joe of graduating last in his class.  I didn't hear a denial.  I'm all for equal opportunity but I would have thought that the POTUS should be better than last in class.


Depends on the Class though, doesn't it.


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2020)

So the Donald has the Covid. 
I'm struggling to feel sorry for him.


----------



## joer (2 Oct 2020)

You might find someone somewhere that will struggle with you though that could be a struggle


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> So the Donald has the Covid.
> I'm struggling to feel sorry for him.


I wonder will that help his electoral chances.  Betfair have suspended betting.
 I see you are heading inexorably towards the Big 10,000


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Betfair have suspended betting.


Wow, I didn't know that... what does it mean? (I've been in a Bookies twice in my life and has to ask for help on both occasions)



Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see you are heading inexorably towards the Big 10,000


I hadn't noticed. Quantity over quality, that's the line I live by.


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2020)

I see Paul Krugman has endorsed Biden's economic policies. That's worrying considering the absolute rubbish he spouted about this country during and after the last crash.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> Wow, I didn't know that... what does it mean? (I've been in a Bookies twice in my life and has to ask for help on both occasions)


 It is not as dramatic as all that.  It could be that they are suspending betting because it would be in bad taste.  I doubt that.  More likely it is a temporary measure to let the "market" reassess the changed situation, rather like those temporary suspensions of the stockmarket.


> I hadn't noticed. Quantity over quality, that's the line I live by.


I see you are a modest chap for you have a lot to be modest about   (stole that one from Churchill)


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I see you are a modest chap for you have a lot to be modest about  (stole that one from Churchill)


I can't disagree with you.
My favourite quotes attributed to Churchill are about Clement Attlee;
He described him as a sheep in sheep's clothing and apparently said that, "An empty taxi pulled up and out stepped Clement Attlee”


----------



## joer (2 Oct 2020)

I wonder has the Don tried the cooking oil yet? . If so he might be proved right yet   .


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Oct 2020)

All the bookies have also suspended betting.  I guess it would be bad taste.  A pity as I use the betting markets for unbiased assessments of how the campaign is going.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> All the bookies have also suspended betting.  I guess it would be bad taste.  A pity as I use the betting markets for unbiased assessments of how the campaign is going.



Predictit is still open. Essentially Biden odds haven't changed much, Trump down a bit but Pence up (effectively some shift to Pence stepping in). But it's still low odds (about 15 / 1 or so)


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Predictit is still open. Essentially Biden odds haven't changed much, Trump down a bit but Pence up (effectively some shift to Pence stepping in). But it's still low odds (about 15 / 1 or so)


 show all the household names have suspended betting.  They have one crowd called $markets who are betting 8/15 Biden, 21/10 Trump and 33/1 Pence.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Oct 2020)

Interesting period of quarantine ahead so. 
If Trump falls ill, how will it affect his support. 
What if he remains asymptomatic? If he does, are debates by video conference viable? I couldn't see why not?


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Interesting period of quarantine ahead so.
> If Trump falls ill, how will it affect his support.
> What if he remains asymptomatic? If he does, are debates by video conference viable? I couldn't see why not?


I'd say he'll have a perfect quarantine, people are saying that it will be the greatest quarantine ever.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Oct 2020)

Yes, I can well imagine.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> What if he remains asymptomatic? If he does, are debates by video conference viable? I couldn't see why not?



At least he could be muted - but no, I suspect they will cancel them. Trump team were already suggesting that they wouldn't accept any rule changes so they were probably already setting them up to cancel


----------



## joer (2 Oct 2020)

I just saw a what's app today and thought it was good ,it says.
Donald Trump has tested positive for the Corona virus, our thoughts are with the virus at this difficult time. 
By the way one of his close contacts was Joe Biden...


----------



## Drakon (2 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> All the bookies have also suspended betting.


Nothing unusual about this. They always suspend betting when there’s an event, such as a horse being declared as a non-runner, or a decision on a penalty being made.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Oct 2020)

Drakon said:


> Nothing unusual about this. They always suspend betting when there’s an event, such as a horse being declared as a non-runner, or a decision on a penalty being made.



Betfair markets are open again now


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2020)

Drakon said:


> Nothing unusual about this. They always suspend betting when there’s an event, such as a horse being declared as a non-runner, or a decision on a penalty being made.


This is different.  I see Betfair have suspended again.  There always was the outside chance of serious illness or even mortality, hence the likes of Pence and Clinton stayed in the market.  But I guess now that it becomes a real, if still unlikely eventuality, I am supposing there is a fear of some moral outcry at betting on it, which I guess is understandable.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am supposing there is a fear of some moral outcry at betting on it, which I guess is understandable.



The message I got from Betfair was that the suspension was to protect those with unmatched bets. Once any 'material developments' occur that could distort the market they suspend the market and cancel all unmatched bets. Once those material developments have subsided, the market opens again.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The message I got from Betfair was that the suspension was to protect those with unmatched bets. Once any 'material developments' occur that could distort the market they suspend the market and cancel all unmatched bets. Once those material developments have subsided, the market opens again.


You got a message from Betfair?  They have misled you or you have misinterpreted them.
Typical example is when a goal is scored.  Clearly unmatched bets are vulnerable, but the "material development" is history.  So they open the markets again when they have cleared unmatched bets.  Takes a few moments.
This does not explain the very protracted suspension of US Election betting nor the resumption of the market followed by a second suspension.  And then we have the vast majority of bookmakers (but not all) suspending betting.  Clearly there is an element of some decorum at play here, not that these guys are sensitive souls but they would be wary of any reputational damage.  No "reputable" operator would risk standing out from the herd.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Oct 2020)

I would post a screenshot if I was able. 
The full text of message from Betfair at 6:33pm 2nd October 

_"Dear _____
The Betfair Exchange suspended betting on the US election for a brief period on Friday (October 2) in order to protect customers with unmatched bets in the market. 

Those unmatched bets have now been cancelled and the market reopened at 16:30. 

We will continue to monitor any material developments and make appropriate decisions on any further market suspension  if deemed necessary.

Regards 
Betfair "_


I agree, there is a large element of reputation to consider, insofar the perception of taking/hosting bets on the outcome of a race where one of the candidates has a potentially life-threatening illness is concerned. 
Market remains suspended.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I would post a screenshot if I was able.
> The full text of message from Betfair at 6:33pm 2nd October
> 
> _"Dear _____
> ...


Fair enuff.  I think Betfair are being disingenuous in suggesting that the protracted (second) suspension is for technical reasons.  It is because of the reputational risk in betting on the health/mortality of the president.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Oct 2020)

Betfair have opened market again: Biden 1.62 (62%), Trump 2.7 (37%).
Pence out to 110 so clearly speculation about Trump’s health little more than for typical 74 year old and so presumably deemed not in bad taste.  Mind you anybody backing Pence is hardly wishing the President well, but then again she wouldn’t be alone in that.


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2020)

Trump is out of hospital and recovering well from the China Virus. It went away on its own, like a miracle. The whole thing is fake news, that's what lots of people are saying. The doctors said it was a beautiful recovery, the best they'd ever seen.


----------



## EmmDee (6 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> Trump is out of hospital and recovering well from the China Virus. It went away on its own, like a miracle. The whole thing is fake news, that's what lots of people are saying. The doctors said it was a beautiful recovery, the best they'd ever seen.



Think I'll give it a week to 10 days before I buy into the recovery story


----------



## Purple (6 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Think I'll give it a week to 10 days before I buy into the recovery story


No, he might actually be immune, or so he says. Nobody knows, nobody knows.


----------



## Seagull (6 Oct 2020)

The recovery is all down to the regular bleach bath ahead of the next fake tan application.


----------



## Purple (8 Oct 2020)

Well the Debate last night was a more civil affair. I suspect Ms Harris held back because she didn't want to be portrayed as an agressive women. Men who do the same thing are assertive and commanding but women are aggressive and emotional.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> Well the Debate last night was a more civil affair.


I knew it would be, that is why I didn't tune in.  I would Pay-per-View for the Trump-Biden next bout.
Betfair latest:  Biden 1.53 (65%), Trump 2.96 (34%)


----------



## Purple (8 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Betfair latest:  Biden 1.53 (65%), Trump 2.96 (34%)


That's in line with the electoral college votes they'd get at current projections.
Due to the amount of postal votes being cast it could be a month before the results are in. It will be interesting to see what The Donald does in the period between the 3rd and that final result, especially if things aren't going well.


----------



## Drakon (15 Oct 2020)

AFAIK some states count the postal ballots at the same time as the traditional ballots, and other count them afterward. 
Only the key/swing states matter so there may be no delay in the outcome. 

Kamala Harris is 390.0 on BetFair to be the next president. Worth a small wager. It’s three months before the inauguration, Covid is rampant in the USA, Christmas is usually a time of peak ‘flu transmission, Joe Biden is pushing 80...

If the Dems win and he’s too ill to be inaugurated... a small wager.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Oct 2020)

Drakon said:


> If the Dems win and he’s too ill to be inaugurated... a small wager.


And sit back and press pins in a little Biden doll 
Actually the Betfair rules state that the market will be settled by "the projected majority of Electoral College votes as a result of the 2020 election", so I don't think actual inauguration is relevant.


----------



## Purple (15 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And sit back and press pins in a little Biden doll
> Actually the Betfair rules state that the market will be settled by "the projected majority of Electoral College votes as a result of the 2020 election", so I don't think actual inauguration is relevant.


Reminds me of the joke about the wife calling her husband and asking "Have you ever got a sudden sharp pain, as if someone is sticking a pin in a voodoo doll of you?"
He replies "no."
She says "... how about now?"


----------



## Peanuts20 (15 Oct 2020)

Drakon said:


> AFAIK some states count the postal ballots at the same time as the traditional ballots, and other count them afterward.



That's correct, hence why the Dems are seeing a clear risk in a close run race with perhaps Trump narrowly ahead in some states on the night, that he will then go to court to prevent postal votes being counted afterwards since the belief is they will favour Biden


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Oct 2020)

Joe Biden voter fraud


----------



## Leo (27 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Joe Biden voter fraud



I wonder does Trump believe the bomb squad go around planting bombs?


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> I wonder does Trump believe the bomb squad go around planting bombs?



Probably, but that is besides the point.
If Trump had said what Biden said the media reaction would be global. Biden gets a relatively free pass.
It feeds into Trumps narrative of fake news, increasing his support.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Oct 2020)

Getting worse now... Biden has openly admitted that he is Kamalas running mate.


----------



## Leo (28 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> If Trump had said what Biden said the media reaction would be global. Biden gets a relatively free pass.



Trump only has himself to blame for that with the volume of demonstrably false information he puts out on a daily basis.


----------



## Leo (28 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Getting worse now... Biden has openly admitted that he is Kamalas running mate.



Aw, you didn't get the context?


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> Trump only has himself to blame for that with the volume of demonstrably false information he puts out on a daily basis.



I know. I never suggested otherwise.
I simply posted a YT video that clearly shows Biden admitting to the existence of election fraud, not just for this election, for the Obama campaign also. I would have considered that a pretty serious admission for a Presidential candidate. What am I missing?



Leo said:


> Aw, you didn't get the context?



Enlighten me.


----------



## EmmDee (28 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I know. I never suggested otherwise.
> I simply posted a YT video that clearly shows Biden admitting to the existence of election fraud, not just for this election, for the Obama campaign also. I would have considered that a pretty serious admission for a Presidential candidate. What am I missing?
> 
> 
> ...



We've been through this before. You linked to a Trump YouTube channel which has clipped a video in a disengenious way. He was talking about having an organisation to prevent voter fraud and in the couple of seconds they clipped, he says they have assembled a "voter fraud orgnisation" - but that wasn't the context.

If you continue to rely on doctored or trimmed clips put out by Trump you will get an incomplete view. As was the case with your assessment of the potential for Gabbard.

These clips are only aimed at his base - whether the base has increased or decreased will be seen. But any available data indicates it is a message which isn't bringing swing or new voters. I think you're assessment is flawed and unreliable. 

I'm happy to back that up with a bet if you'd like


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> We've been through this before.



Have we?



EmmDee said:


> You linked to a Trump YouTube channel which has clipped a video in a disengenious way. He was talking about having an organisation to prevent voter fraud and in the couple of seconds they clipped, he says they have assembled a "voter fraud orgnisation" - but that wasn't the context.



Yes, I linked to a Trump YT channel and I am quite happy to accept any clarification of context. 



EmmDee said:


> As was the case with your assessment of the potential for Gabbard.



You would have to remind me of that. I thought she had potential to be an exceptional president, restoring a level of decorum to the office of president that has been debased by Trump and bringing a greater sense of unity amongst its people.



EmmDee said:


> I think you're assessment is flawed and unreliable.



I have posted a YT video of Biden, where he mentions a voter fraud organisation. The other reference, that he is the running mate for Harris "hehehe....ye all think I'm kidding".

I'm happy to accept that what Biden was talking about was in the context of _protection _against voter fraud, and I am happy to accept his Kamala remark was in the context of a Harris rally supporting her vice-Presidency.

My only 'assessment' from that, as it was before, is that Biden will be a bungling, gaffe-prone, president. He will struggle to keep focus, he will not be in charge of his brief. It is clear to me he is in cognitive decline and is wholly unsuited for the position. He will be a puppet president. I am not alone in thinking that, and I live 7,000km away. The people surrounding Biden, most notably those in the DNC that have propelled him to be their candidate must know this also. Which leaves Harris as the defacto President, a woman resoundingly rejected by the Democratic base after Gabbard tore strips off her in the dabate. 

Thats my assessment, - Harris is being propelled into a position of defacto president by the DNC even though their own party base resoundingly rejected her.


----------



## Purple (28 Oct 2020)

I liked Gabbard. I think she came across well in interviews and the debates. I disagree with Wolfie in that the VP has bugger all power unless the President pops their clogs. Biden has a good record on most issues but he's certainly past his best. It's a pity he didn't run instead of Hillary as he may have kept Trump out.  
I also like Harris but I've said before my preference for a black woman President would be Condoleezza Rice. I think she'd be better than anyone of the candidates from either party. She's moderate, very smart, very experienced and is internationally respected.


----------



## EmmDee (28 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> She's moderate, very smart, very experienced and is internationally respected.



Given she's Republican some of those qualities you mention would mean she has little chance of getting the nomination in the current environment


----------



## Purple (28 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Given she's Republican some of those qualities you mention would mean she has little chance of getting the nomination in the current environment


True but she was a Democrat until 1982 but changed to Republican because of their foreign policies. Given her academic qualifications she certainly made an informed decision. Her Father was a Republican because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama wouldn't register him to vote but the Republicans did.


----------



## Leo (28 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I simply posted a YT video that clearly shows Biden admitting to the existence of election fraud, not just for this election, for the Obama campaign also.



No you didn't. If you actually believe that he did. you're deep in Trump's idiot trap.


----------



## Leo (28 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes, I linked to a Trump YT channel and I am quite happy to accept any clarification of context.



You're repeatedly asserted that clip is evidence of Biden admitting to perpetrate fraud. You first posted it on Sunday, did you honestly not even spend two minutes trying to understand the context yourself before repeating that accusation?


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> No you didn't.



I did. I posted it without comment.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> You're repeatedly asserted that clip is evidence of Biden admitting to perpetrate fraud.



It is evidence (clearly not conclusive) , but I also qualified it by asking "what am I missing?"

To which @EmmDee pointed out the broader context that what Biden was referring to was _protection against voter fraud. _
And I said...


WolfeTone said:


> I'm happy to accept that



Either it was a bared-faced admission of fraud (I think we agreed that was not intended) or it was another gaffe by Biden. In no short measure down to his cognitive impairment.
It's not an attack on the man himself, such decline comes with age. But it does question, to my mind anyway, the rational of the DNC to propel Biden as candidate.


----------



## Purple (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> It's not an attack on the man himself, such decline comes with age. But it does question, to my mind anyway, the rational of the DNC to propel Biden as candidate.


Well the only other real option was Bernie Sanders who is two years older and utterly unelectable. 
I do think that the calibre of the candidates from both Parties was shockingly bad given the size of the country and the prestige of the office.


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I did. I posted it without comment.



Where did he admit to 'the existence of election fraud'? Thinking that the sentence you linked to in isolation is tantamount to an admission of perpetrating fraud is akin to thinking the Garda fraud squad do nothing but perpetrate fraud of the fire brigade are all arsonists. 

You also seem surprised that 'Biden has openly admitted that he is Kamalas running mate.' He's not running solo, they are both each other's running mate on a joint ticket. I know little or nothing about Biden, but it's a clever counter to an all-consuming ego.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> Where did he admit to 'the existence of election fraud'?



Well, maybe I was getting a bit ahead of myself insofar that Biden appears to have been talking about protection against election fraud....that would suggest he is aware, or knows of, the threat, or perceived threat, of election fraud?



Leo said:


> Thinking that the sentence you linked to in isolation is tantamount to an admission of perpetrating fraud is akin to thinking the Garda fraud squad do nothing but perpetrate fraud of the fire brigade are all arsonists.



Yes it would. But I didn't think that that sentence I linked to in isolation is tantamount to an admission of perpetrating fraud. Clearly I conditioned that sentence with doubt by asking "what am I missing?".  To which you and _EmmDee _kindly referred that what he talking about was _protection _against voter fraud. I don't have any doubt about that.

It would be most ironic if you were to take my sentence in isolation and lose the context of my comment in the round.



Leo said:


> You also seem surprised that 'Biden has openly admitted that he is Kamalas running mate.' He's not running solo, they are both each other's running mate on a joint ticket.



Yes, I get that also, but only one of them is running for President of United States. There is no election for VP. So in the generally accepted parlance of US Presidential elections, Harris is the running mate to Biden - full stop!


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> Well the only other real option was Bernie Sanders who is two years older



Its not his age that is the issue, its his cognitive impairment. I'm no medical expert but it looks in decline to me. This is not a healthy state of affairs for someone taking up the office of President of US, imo.


----------



## Purple (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Its not his age that is the issue, its his cognitive impairment. I'm no medical expert but it looks in decline to me. This is not a healthy state of affairs for someone taking up the office of President of US, imo.


Yep, he's on the old side but Bernie's been off his nut for years. Biden is well liked and doesn't really have much baggage whereas Bernie is very divisive, deeply disliked on a personal level by many in his own party, way too left wing for middle America and would ensure a second term for Trump. Basically Biden is the best of a bad lot.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> Basically Biden is the best of a bad lot.



I would respectfully disagree with that, I think he has been dreadful throughout. The whole thing smacks of an unofficial peerage system, that it is 'Joe's turn'. 
I hope he wins, just to consign the whole Trump era to history if anything. On the other hand, with his obvious cognitive impairment there must be concern as to who would actually be in charge?


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes it would. But I didn't think that that sentence I linked to in isolation is tantamount to an admission of perpetrating fraud. Clearly I conditioned that sentence with doubt by asking "what am I missing?"



You posted the clip with just 'Joe Biden voter fraud', you posted twice more before adding the 'what am I missing?' So you only conditioned it after being questioned.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> You posted the clip with just 'Joe Biden voter fraud', you posted twice more before adding the 'what am I missing?' So you only conditioned it after being questioned.



Yeh, but whats your point? The only 'question' I was asked was an unrelated question from you about Trump and bomb squads.

The follow-up comment was



WolfeTone said:


> Probably, but that is besides the point.
> If Trump had said what Biden said the media reaction would be global. Biden gets a relatively free pass.
> It feeds into Trumps narrative of fake news, increasing his support.



Which I stand by. If Trump had said what Biden said, the media reaction would have been global, imo. It is in this context that I posted the video clip. 

I not really sure what why you seem intent on scrutinizing my post to the _n_th degree, when it has been established that we all agree that it was simply a Biden gaffe and what he intended to say was _protection _against voter fraud?
But perhaps you could comment, if you wish or not, on my view that had Trump made the same comment, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?


----------



## EmmDee (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> ...when it has been established that we all agree that it was simply a Biden gaffe and what he intended to say was _protection _against voter fraud?



I think you have missed the point for some reason. There was no gaffe. What there was, was a carefully clipped video from the Trump YouTube channel. The point is that if you rely on partisan clipped videos, you get a skewed view. So if I say something like "I'm putting in place a voter fraud monitoring team and I think we have the best voter fraud team" - it's not a gaffe. But you are taking a clip which removes the context and saying "I think we all agree there was a gaffe at least" - we don't all agree that. What I think is that you are forming a view from unreliable sources - without showing any evidence that you have checked out the context or looked for independent information




WolfeTone said:


> ...on my view that had Trump made the same comment, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?



Trump makes gaffes, odd statements, questionable claims and other statements that in a normal environment would get a large amount of coverage. But in my view, Trump could say virtually anything at this point and it would barely make a ripple. The sheer volume has meant that his "non-normal" statements have virtually zero media interest at this point.

He understood this a long time ago - his famous satatement that he could walk down 5th avenue and shoot someone and that it would have no effect was a pretty good prediction


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> eh, but whats your point? The only 'question' I was asked was an unrelated question from you about Trump and bomb squads.



We're not talking about any question you might have subsequently asked. I'm trying to understand why you decided to post that link, and what you felt it added. It appears you genuinely believed that it contained an admission of the perpetration of fraud when an investment of 30 seconds on a search engine would have easily proven that was not the case. I know this thread is in The Depths, but we hope for better than that.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> It appears you genuinely believed that it contained an admission of the perpetration of fraud



It may still appear that way to you but I would have thought we are long past that notion?



WolfeTone said:


> I simply posted a YT video that clearly shows Biden admitting to the existence of election fraud, not just for this election, for the Obama campaign also. I would have considered that a pretty serious admission for a Presidential candidate. What am I missing?





WolfeTone said:


> Yes, I linked to a Trump YT channel and I am quite happy to accept any clarification of context.





WolfeTone said:


> I'm happy to accept that what Biden was talking about was in the context of _protection _against voter fraud, and I am happy to accept his Kamala remark was in the context of a Harris rally supporting her vice-Presidency.





WolfeTone said:


> It is evidence (clearly not conclusive) , but I also qualified it by asking "what am I missing?"
> 
> To which @EmmDee pointed out the broader context that what Biden was referring to was _protection against voter fraud. _




But we are still here



Leo said:


> It appears you genuinely believed that it contained an admission of the perpetration of fraud



So to clarify, I, not for one second genuinely believed that it contained an admission of the perpetration of fraud. Instead, I made the post in the context that if Trump had made the same comment, by way of error or otherwise, then imo, the media and political reaction would have resonated more profoundly - I hope that clarifies the matter for you?

Perhaps you could comment, if you wish or not, on that view that had Trump made the same comment, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> So to clarify, I, not for one second genuinely believed that it contained an admission of the perpetration of fraud. Instead, I made the post in the context that if Trump had made the same comment, by way of error or otherwise, then imo, the media and political reaction would have resonated more profoundly - I hope that clarifies the matter for you?



Youi are attempting to apply context after the fact.



WolfeTone said:


> Perhaps you could comment, if you wish or not, on that view that had Trump made the same comment, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?



He has literally made thousands of similar statements.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I think you have missed the point for some reason.



On the contrary. The post was made, without comment, but in the context  that had Trump made such an admission, by way of a gaffe or otherwise, the media and political reaction would have resonated more profoundly, imo. I have clarified that context in subsequent posts.
 You disagree with this view and that is fine. 



EmmDee said:


> Trump makes gaffes, odd statements, questionable claims and other statements that in a normal environment would get a large amount of coverage. But in my view, Trump could say virtually anything at this point and it would barely make a ripple. The sheer volume has meant that his "non-normal" statements have virtually zero media interest at this point.



If Trump says anything that is against the grain of mainstream opinion, or is considered unpresidential, it tends to be blown-up out of proportion. I don't think that has changed at all and certainly, if he had made the same comment as Biden about voter fraud it would be all over the media and political opponents scrambling the airwaves.
It is this type of reaction, that in my view, plays into Trumps rhethoric of 'fake news' and emboldens his support. 



EmmDee said:


> He understood this a long time ago - his famous satatement that he could walk down 5th avenue and shoot someone and that it would have no effect was a pretty good prediction



That is separate, you are talking about his base support and I agree. But even that comment alone was blown-up out of proportion. I don't think anyone really believed that Trump meant he could actually walk down 5th Avenue and shoot someone and it would have no effect? Did they? I think it is was a chronic comment meaning that at that moment he felt he couldnt put a foot wrong. It was a stupid, chronic, unpresidential comment to make, but surely it could be understood in the context that it was made?


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> Youi are attempting to apply context after the fact.



No different to yourself.
I have applied the context in which the video was posted. You are applying your own perceived context. I have clarified the matter above, so hopefully you get it now?



Leo said:


> He has literally made thousands of similar statements.



I know, but I didn't ask if he literally made of thousand of similar statements. I asked if he had made the same comment as Biden about voter fraud, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?


----------



## Purple (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> if he had made the same comment as Biden about voter fraud it would be all over the media and political opponents scrambling the airwaves.


What admission did he make? There is always voter fraud in every election everywhere. In the US it is inconsequential. Part of the reason what it is so inconsequential is the existence of measures to protect against it. How is that a gaff?


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> How is that a gaff?



Because I'm sure he intended to say "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud _[protection]_ organisation" in history, or words to that effect. 
Clearly, it appears anyway, that this was a slip of the tongue seized upon by the Trump campaign.
My point is that, had Trump made the same gaffe/slip-of-tongue/ etc that, imo, it would have been magnified to a much greater extent in the media to portray him negatively. 
It is this type of reaction - blowing a lot of his dumb comments out of proportion, but not applying the same rigour to Bidens clangers - that feeds into Trumps narrative of 'fake news', a tool he uses to emboldens his supporters.


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> No different to yourself.
> I have applied the context in which the comment was made. You are applying your own perceived context. I have clarified the matter above, so hopefully you get it now?



Yes, you honestly thought that Biden was caught admitting to fraud! I get it



WolfeTone said:


> I asked if he had made the same comment as Biden about voter fraud, intended or by way of a gaffe, that the media (and political) reaction would have resonated to a much greater degree?



Biden spoke about measures to prevent voter fraud, and to address the Trump campaign's efforts to suppress and intimidate voters. You still seem to think he said something to the opposite effect. 

Of course we'd all be very surprised if Trump made a similar statement as he is actively going in the opposite direction. His buddy DeJoy has implemented measures to slow the mail service and discourage mail-in ballots they expect to favour Biden. Trump has openly admitted he is deliberately making it harder for people to vote. He ordered the removal of sorting machines, of course mainly in 'unfriendly' states. He has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud in US elections. So yeah, I think the media would go crazy if he flipped and spoke about attempts to reduce fraud rather than setting it up as a face-saver in case he loses.


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Because I'm sure he intended to say "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud _[protection]_ organisation" in history, or words to that effect.
> Clearly, it appears anyway, that this was a slip of the tongue seized upon by the Trump campaign.



I take it you still haven't watched the full interview? 

The Gardai's fraud squad is tasked with detecting, investigating and preventing fraud, somehow we all understand that when people talk about the fraud squad. No one jumps up and down when the commissioner or others in authority refer to them with that term. 

Anyone jumping on a snippet of that interview to suggest Biden meant they were encouraging of perpetrating fraud shows a level of comprehension more appropriate to primary school, and the early years there at that.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> I take it you still haven't watched the full interview?



No I haven't, I haven't been able to source a link, do you have it?


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> No I haven't, I haven't been able to source a link, do you have it?



Remember that 30 seconds on Google I mentioned previously...


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> Remember that 30 seconds on Google I mentioned previously...



?? The clip I posted was for 24 secs....are you saying there is another 6 seconds I need to see? Can you not just post the link?


----------



## EmmDee (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> ... if he had made the same comment as Biden about voter fraud it would be all over the media and political opponents scrambling the airwaves.
> It is this type of reaction, that in my view, plays into Trumps rhethoric of 'fake news' and emboldens his support.



Really - does anyone even remember any of the following? Was it all over the media and airwaves? Nope - because before they could even make the media, there are other news events happening

Sep 30th
Concern is growing over potential confrontations at polling places due to deep partisan divides and baseless claims by President Trump that Democrats will "steal" the election.

In Tuesday night's debate with Democrat Joe Biden, Trump repeated his attacks on widespread mail-in voting, calling it a "disaster" and saying "this is not going to end well."

The president also urged his supporters, as he has done before, "to go into the polls and watch very carefully."

Such appeals have unnerved voting rights advocates and election officials, especially in light of civil unrest in several cities around the country that have pitted armed groups from the left and right against each other.

Sep 3rd
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has urged residents in the critical political battleground of North Carolina to try to vote twice in the Nov. 3 election, once by mail and once in person, igniting a furor for appearing to urge a potential act of voter fraud.

Aug 13th
President Trump has admitted to intentional voter suppression. The Post reports, “President Trump said Thursday that he does not want to fund the U.S. Postal Service because Democrats are seeking to expand mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic, making explicit the reason he has declined to approve $25 billion in emergency funding for the cash-strapped agency.”

Mar 31st
Donald Trumphas admitted that proposed measures to make it easier for Americans to vote - including mail-voting - would make it harder for the Republican party to win an election.
https://www.linkedin.com/shareArtic...ce=http://a.msn.com/01/en-gb/BB11XRpk?ocid=sl
The comments came as the president discussed the coronavirus stimulus bill passed by the House of Representatives, and signed on Friday, providing a $2tn (£1.7tn) stimulus to Americans.

Democrats had attempted to include $4bn worth of measures to safeguard November’s presidential election, with specific provisions for mail and absentee ballots as well as online and same-day voter registration, and expanding early voting by 15 days.

“The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again,” said Mr Trump during an interview on Fox & Friends.


----------



## EmmDee (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> ?? The clip I posted was for 24 secs....are you saying there is another 6 seconds I need to see? Can you not just post the link?



I think the 30 seconds was the amount of effort you should actually put in to inform yourself


----------



## EmmDee (29 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I think the 30 seconds was the amount of effort you should actually put in to inform yourself



I'm coming to the conclusion this is a big fishing game - nobody could be that obtuse


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I think the 30 seconds was the amount of effort you should actually put in to inform yourself



Exactly! Teach a man to fish and he might not fall into simple traps


----------



## Leo (29 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I'm coming to the conclusion this is a big fishing game - nobody could be that obtuse



 just when I was typing about fishing!!


----------



## Purple (29 Oct 2020)

Leo said:


> Exactly! Teach a man to fish and he might not fall into simple traps


Indeed, it reminds my of the saying "Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I'm coming to the conclusion this is a big fishing game - nobody could be that obtuse



You have sadly descended into the personals.  I won't fall into the trap to respond in kind.  

The full interview

Full interview

The relevant text

"_But one of the things that I think is most important is those who haven’t voted yet, first of all, go to “I Will Vote dot com” to make a plan exactly how you’re gonna vote, where you’re gonna vote, when you’re gonna vote, because it can get complicated. Because the Republicans’ve [sic] doing everything they pan [sic] to make it harder for people to vote — particularly people of color to vote. So go to “I Will Vote dot com.”

Secondly, we’re in a situation where we have put together — and you’d [sic] guys, did it for our, the president Obama’s administration, before this — we have put together, I think, the most extensive and and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics. What the president is trying to do is discourage people from voting by implying their vote won’t be counted, it can’t be counted, we’re gonna challenge it, and all these things. If enough people vote, it’s gonna overwhelm the system. You see what’s happening now. You guys know it as well as I do. You see the long, long lines in early voting. You see the millions of people who have already cast a ballot. " _


----------



## Purple (29 Oct 2020)

I'm still not getting how anyone could not get what he was talking about.


----------



## EmmDee (29 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> I'm still not getting how anyone could not get what he was talking about.



If you're Breitbart you might choose not to. 

In general, if anyone was looking for a balance to what they see on Trump media channels, I'm not sure I'd advise Breitbart


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> I'm still not getting how anyone could not get what he was talking about.



This is post #93 - Im amazed at how what I've been talking about, the penny still has not dropped.

- If _Trump_ had made this gaffe about voter fraud, the media would be all over it, imo.
- On a broader point, if_ Trump_ had made the entire comment above with a Democrat President sitting in office (swapping Republicans for Democrats, Bush for Obama, etc) then the media would be all over it. If you dont believe me, read it out loud with your best Trump impression 

Clearly, if Trump had made these comments he would be accused of trying to subvert the legal process to challenge election results by trying to overwhelm the system. If you don't believe me, take a look at how the media reacted to this



EmmDee said:


> Sep 3rd
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has urged residents in the critical political battleground of North Carolina to try to vote twice in the Nov. 3 election, once by mail and once in person, igniting a furor for appearing to urge a potential act of voter fraud.



Clearly what Trump said was stupid. But if you check the full video of the comments related, it is clear, that his call to vote twice has been taken out of context.

Trumps call to vote twice was not a call for voter fraud, it was a call to _expose _voter fraud - watch the video. _His_ logic, if the system is secure and sound anyone who votes twice, will not have their second vote registered as once you are marked off once, you cannot be marked off a second time, thus ensuring that everybody only votes once. If the mail-in system is not secure and sound, voter fraud will be exposed by the amount of votes cast and people voting twice. It is absurd carry-on for a sitting President, no doubt about it, but the context in which he called for voters to vote twice was to expose voter fraud.

When you step-back from the hyperbole, Democrats and Republicans are accusing each other of voter fraud and manipulation. Things like this tend to emerge in deeply divided societies. Democrats never really accepted the result of the last election, hence the whole impeachment fiasco.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> In general, if anyone was looking for a balance to what they see on Trump media channels, I'm not sure I'd advise Breitbart



My goodness, can you produce the wholly reliable source so? Is it an exclusive or something?


----------



## Purple (29 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This is post #93 - Im amazed at how what I've been talking about, the penny still has not dropped.
> 
> - If _Trump_ had made this gaffe about voter fraud, the media would be all over it, imo.


The issue is that Biden didn't make a gaffe; there is no penny to drop.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> The issue is that Biden didn't make a gaffe; there is no penny to drop.



That of course is a matter of opinion. A slip of the tongue at least. In the overall context, no malice intended and in fact referring to protection against voter fraud. 

Fact check USA Today


----------



## Purple (30 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> That of course is a matter of opinion. A slip of the tongue at least. In the overall context, no malice intended and in fact referring to protection against voter fraud.
> 
> Fact check USA Today


Asd has been pointed out plenty of time already the purpose of the Fraud Squad is not engage in fraud but to prevent it, the purpose of the Drug Squad is not sell drugs but to prevent their sale, the purpose of the Fire Brigade is not to set fires but to put them out. Therefore the purpose of  a Voter Fraud organisation is to prevent Voter Fraud. There was no gaffe, there was no slip of the tongue. It requires intentional and deliberate misinterpretation of what it said for it to be a problem. 

When you are in a hole stop digging.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> There was no gaffe, there was no slip of the tongue. It requires intentional and deliberate misinterpretation of what it said for it to be a problem.



I'm quite happy to accept that _Purple _as far back as #post 53 in fact



WolfeTone said:


> What am I missing?





WolfeTone said:


> Enlighten me.





WolfeTone said:


> Yes, I linked to a Trump YT channel and I am quite happy to accept any clarification of context.





WolfeTone said:


> I'm happy to accept that what Biden was talking about was in the context of _protection _against voter fraud,



I don't see how I be clearer than that. I accept the premise of my claim that Biden made a 'gaffe' to be incorrect.

The premise upon which I posted the link however was that had _Trump _made such a comment that it would have been roundly seized upon and given the same deliberate misinterpretation, (#post 49) but to a far, far greater extent, than what Biden received - that is my opinion, agree or not. 

It's unfortunate that I did not emphasis more this point and instead got caught in rabbit-hole of trying to deny that I believed the substance of the video link. I have only myself to blame for 'gaffe' claim, as I did consider it to be a gaffe but I am happy to accept that I was incorrect in this instance. 

We can move on?


----------



## Purple (30 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The premise upon which I posted the link however was that had _Trump _made such a comment that it would have been roundly seized upon and given the same deliberate misinterpretation, (#post 49) but to a far, far greater extent, than what Biden received - that is my opinion, agree or not.
> 
> It's unfortunate that I did not emphasis more this point and instead got caught in rabbit-hole of trying to deny that I believed the substance of the video link. I have only myself to blame for 'gaffe' claim, as I did consider it to be a gaffe but I am happy to accept that I was incorrect in this instance.
> 
> We can move on?


Ahhhhh, now I understand. 
If your contention is that CNN is as biased as Fox, just in the opposite direction, then I agree.


----------



## Leo (30 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The premise upon which I posted the link however was that had _Trump _made such a comment that it would have been roundly seized upon and given the same deliberate misinterpretation,



It's not deliberate misinterpretation. You are the only one here who thinks the media would have a field day if Trump said what Biden did. As I said earlier, Trump has openly admitted to voter suppression to deliberately disadvantage voters who are more likely to vote Biden, if it was anyone else, the media would go nuts, but because it's Trump, well, it's to be expected so it only gets a few column inches. 

I'm guessing not even Trump himself thinks there was anything wrong with what Biden said, but he continuously quotes snippets from people out of context and then let's people like yourself join dots that don't exist to arrive at a wrong conclusion.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> There was no gaffe, there was no slip of the tongue. It requires intentional and deliberate misinterpretation





Leo said:


> It's not deliberate misinterpretation.



I'll respectfully hand you over to _Purple _if he is willing to oblige? I've explained myself, the error of my ways and the underlying point I was making, agree or not. 



Leo said:


> he continuously quotes snippets from people out of context and then let's people like yourself join dots that don't exist to arrive at a wrong conclusion.



I think you have recent form in that regard also?


----------



## Purple (30 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I'll respectfully hand you over to _Purple _if he is willing to oblige?


He's not!


----------



## Leo (30 Oct 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I think you have recent form in that regard also?



No, I don't think I do, but if all you're going to do is try deflect probably just best leave it there.


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Oct 2020)

Michael Moore, one of the very few high profile pundits to warn of a Trump victory in 2016 was sounding alarm bells again in the State of Michigan. In August he proclaimed that enthusiasm amongst Trump supporters was "off the charts". 
More recently he warns of Democrats making the same mistakes again in that State - Democrat candidate not visiting black areas in Flint, accepting and advertising the endorsement of former governor Rick Synder, and for some peculiar reason, lack of Biden signage to promote his campaign. 

It's not a scientific methodology, but as he called it correct last time, I think deserving of attention.


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Oct 2020)

Not been paying so much attention, but policy wise would Biden and Harris be in similar space?
As in if Biden wins, and for whatever reason (either he stands down or else doesn't run next time and VP wins), should we expect continuity of policy?


----------



## EmmDee (2 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Not been paying so much attention, but policy wise would Biden and Harris be in similar space?
> As in if Biden wins, and for whatever reason (either he stands down or else doesn't run next time and VP wins), should we expect continuity of policy?



They run on a mandate - so in theory that would remain the same. But the President doesn't initiate legidlation. The Congress does. The President does have executive order powers but there are limits on what can be achieved with these.

The Democrats control the House (and probably will do comfortably after the election). So really, it's the Senate that will determine policy. If the Republicans hold control of the Senate then nothing gets done. The best the Democrats can hope for for is about 54 / 46. Even with that they don't have enough to push through significant structural change - that needs a 60 / 40 majority unless they remove the filibuster rule. It's important to remember that even with a majority in the Senate, a significant portion of the Democratic Senators would be centrist or from conservative states. So they wouldn't support "radical" legislation. It's the reason the original "Obama Care" legislation was watered down to some extent even with a Democratic Senate.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Nov 2020)

This is my final call on this. I was positively optimistic that after Trump got elected that what would emerge in this US election would be that the great American people would bring about some fundamental or radical change to the politics of the old. 

I started out early, three years ago, with a bet on Elizabeth Warren as having an outside chance at 12/1, thinking that despite HC's loss, that women are coming into the ascendency of American politics.

Then Gabbard, she was my ray of hope @80/1 and her odds did come in to about 25/1 at one point, but she got stitched up by DNC rule changes. I was convinced then that HC was planning a late surprise entrance so I covered that option at long odds of 60/1. 

Then it was Michael Yangs turn, then it was Bernie's turn, but when they went bust it was starting to look desperate. 

And indeed, a great hope arrived on the Twitter rumour mill around June this year that Jesse 'The Body' Ventura was going to make a late entrance for the Greens. What harm a €3 bet @ 1,000/1 ? His odds did temporarily move into 990/1. 

So I have resigned myself to a reality that I just do not understand American politics. Two old white men is the best they conjure up. It really is a sad sorry state of affairs, similar to my betting options.

I am utterly unenthused by Biden and I cannot bring myself to back Trump 

So final call is - Harris €2@ 1,000/1.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Two old white men is the best they conjure up.


Well, perhaps the most enduring institution on Earth is the RC church, and that is the model they follow.



> So final call is - Harris €2@ 1,000/1.


If that is on Betfair, it is already lost.  Betfair market is on who will win the Electoral College vote, not on who will be next Presie.  1000 is a measure of the granularity of the platform, you never get more than 1,000 on Betfair.  Note that all the runners except the top two are a Buy at 1,000 but are not available at all as a Lay.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Betfair market is on who will win the Electoral College vote,



Jaysus, it just gets worse!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2020)

The Donald down to 6/4. All hinges on Pennsylvania.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2020)

I think The Donald will do it. There's be an Orange Wall (as opposed to a Red Wall or a Build the Wall)


----------



## EmmDee (3 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Donald down to 6/4. All hinges on Pennsylvania.



It hinges on Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina - he needs all of those. And that assumes he doesn't lose Iowa, Ohio or Texas


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2020)

And within those States it all hinges on white middle class urban women, the ones who voted against Hillary last time.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> It hinges on Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina - he needs all of those. And that assumes he doesn't lose Iowa, Ohio or Texas


Of course he needs more than P, but if P goes I think the dominos fall.


----------



## EmmDee (3 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Of course he needs more than P, but if P goes I think the dominos fall.



Possibly but it will be one of the last to declare. Florida will be counted on the night (and a few others like Arizona I think). If Florida goes definitively one way or another, Penn doesn't matter. North Carolina will be something like 97% counted on the night as well. But if those two are knife-edge then there is a long week ahead



Purple said:


> And within those States it all hinges on white middle class urban women, the ones who voted against Hillary last time.



They are an important section but not the only one. Non-voters from 2016 are also key. Along with a swing with seniors in Florida, the changing demographics in Atlanta and Houston / Texas - particularly new voters.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> They are an important section but not the only one. Non-voters from 2016 are also key. Along with a swing with seniors in Florida, the changing demographics in Atlanta and Houston / Texas - particularly new voters.


 Yes, Houston is the most ethnically diverse city in the US. It's also one of my least favourite to visit. The Trump supporters there are VERY strong supporters.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2020)

For the election nerds these are great graphics to play with;
Firstly CNN's build your own election map . 
Secondly Fox's Election Probability Dials here.


----------



## dereko1969 (3 Nov 2020)

Some good stuff here too








						2020 Election Forecast
					

Latest forecast of the 2020 presidential election between President Donald Trump and Joe Biden by Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight




					projects.fivethirtyeight.com


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2020)

I think Trump will take Florida. He's 2 points ahead with those likely to vote.


----------



## EmmDee (3 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> I think Trump will take Florida. He's 2 points ahead with those likely to vote.



What source are you looking at?


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> What source are you looking at?


ABC News


----------



## EmmDee (3 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> ABC News



Thanks - sorry should have spotted it in the list -
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/ - I was only looking at yesterday's newly added. It's a slight outlier but to be honest, they are all pretty much within the margin of error


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2020)

I still think Trump will win Florida. People vote for Trump because they want Trump. Lots of people vote for Biden because they don't want Trump. Biden is the "Not Trump" candidate.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Thanks - sorry should have spotted it in the list -
> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/ - I was only looking at yesterday's newly added. It's a slight outlier but to be honest, they are all pretty much within the margin of error


If you add those all up you get a sample of 33,000.  That has a margin of error of c. 0.6% and Biden's lead is 2.6%.  Biden looks a really good bet here at 2.4 but as I mentioned before I face PTD syndrome.  I don't want to be losing money when suffering from Post Trump Depression.


----------



## EmmDee (3 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> If you add those all up you get a sample of 33,000.  That has a margin of error of c. 0.6% and Biden's lead is 2.6%.  Biden looks a really good bet here at 2.4 but as I mentioned before I face PTD syndrome.  I don't want to be losing money when suffering from Post Trump Depression.



Lol. 

I don't think you can aggregate polls quite that simply. I'm not expert enough on polling technicals but as far as I know each poll is distinct event from a statistical point of view. I don't think you can aggregate them to get a tighter margin of error. Also each polling company have their own proprietary modelling which will adjust for various factors such as education, liklihood to vote, history, demographics etc etc. I don't think aggregating tightens the margin of error - it might do the opposite. But - there may be others on here (or you?) who are better equipped to say.

I kow what 538 do is to capture all polling data and feed that into a more complex model which looks at other factors such as correlation between states, swings and even time to election and then run multiple scenarios - which gives them % liklihood of outcomes.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Lol.
> 
> I don't think you can aggregate polls quite that simply. I'm not expert enough on polling technicals but as far as I know each poll is distinct event from a statistical point of view. I don't think you can aggregate them to get a tighter margin of error. Also each polling company have their own proprietary modelling which will adjust for various factors such as education, liklihood to vote, history, demographics etc etc. I don't think aggregating tightens the margin of error - it might do the opposite. But - there may be others on here (or you?) who are better equipped to say.
> 
> I kow what 538 do is to capture all polling data and feed that into a more complex model which looks at other factors such as correlation between states, swings and even time to election and then run multiple scenarios - which gives them % liklihood of outcomes.


I am sure I have over simplified the situation.  But certainly if say two sources conduct the same sort of poll at the same sort of time with say samples of 1,000 you can add them together to get the result of a sample of 2,000, provided that the samples do not overlap.  1,000 is a typical sample size (moe 3%) out of say an electorate of over 10 million so the possibility of overlap can be ignored.  If the sources use different methodologies that might invalidate the simple statistical aggregation, but I think we still would get a good approximation.

I'm not sure about the Surveymonkey.  They have 2 polls in the list each with a sample size of 7,796.   That would have an moe of 1.1% and yet they show a big 4% swing from 2% for to 2% against Biden, that would be an almost statistically impossible swing.  So I have taken the Surveymonkey out of the data.  That gives a sample size of 17,000 with 4.9% Biden lead and moe of 0.8%.  On that basis a Biden win looks nailed on.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Nov 2020)

I would have thought that 'silent' voters would be more likely to vote Trump by a considerable margin? That would be my perception anyway. 

I'm getting somewhat enthused today however that we may be at the end of the Trump era. If anything, Biden will at least restore some level of decorum back to the office of US President (even if he forgets his lines while doing so! )

In fairness, credit where credit is due, Biden has handled himself quite well over this campaign. The onset of dementia kept at bay for the most part. Between debates and performances he deserves to win, and I hope he does. I will wait until inauguration to start kicking him down!


----------



## EmmDee (3 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I would have thought that 'silent' voters would be more likely to vote Trump by a considerable margin? That would be my perception anyway.



I would have thought the same fundamentally. But there have been a few of the pollsters addressing this recently. I listened to Nate Silver from 538 argue why this wasn't the case on a recent modelling podcast. YouGov have discussed it as well.... https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/11/02/trump-biden-voters-shy.

The thing is that the polls were pretty accurate last time with the problem being in a number of states being off. The Washington Post talked about the "myth" of the shy Trump vote - 

But... even with all of that... I do wonder how "off" the polls will end up being



WolfeTone said:


> In fairness, credit where credit is due, Biden has handled himself quite well over this campaign.



He and his team made what looks to have been the correct strategic call a number of months back - let the President shoot himself in the foot and don't get in the way. They were gettign some flak for it internally initially but in the end it worked out - or at least it's difficult to see how Biden would be a better position if he had tried to shout down Trump. It was probably the lesson from 2016 - that getting in war of words with Trump is a suckers game.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Between debates and performances he deserves to win, and I hope he does.


Glad you cleared that up, but do you *think *he will win?


			
				Wolfie last Wednesday said:
			
		

> My gut instinct is that Trump will win again.


I think _Purple _is the only other tipping a Trump win.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Glad you cleared that up, but do you *think *he will win?



This is the first time, today, that my sense is that Warren, Gabbard, Clinton, Yang, Bernie, Ventura, Harris, Biden will win.


----------



## Purple (3 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think _Purple _is the only other tipping a Trump win.


I really hope he doesn't but the advantage of being a pessimist is that one can only be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Nov 2020)

Strange how Pennsylvania seems to be consistently such a key swing state... bit like the first civil war


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Nov 2020)

The total vote in 2016 was 128 million.  Already more than 100 million have voted early  in 2020
The Donald out to 2.2/1 on Betfair.
€362M has been bet on Betfair.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Nov 2020)

Biden lead vanishes in four key States

Breaking, 15mins ago... not verified, nor do I claim this to be true or accurate... Twitter is a danger!!

Betting markets moving in favour of Biden.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Major shift in betting markets, in Trumps favour. Trump 2.14, Biden 1.91. 

Echoes of 2016 emerging.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Prices moving back in Bidens favour 1.55 to Trump 2.74. I think I can call it a night. 
Congratulations to Betfair, looking likely this one single market  will match €400m in bets.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Oh my goodness...


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Looks like 4 more years of the Donald.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

This is incredible, what is going on? Have they stopped counting?? 
Trump is on stage quite confident that (is ever not) he will win. 
I'm not sure, but the voting suggests he could be right. He is winning key States bar Michigan. 

Why has the counting stopped?


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

I just listened to him on stage. It’s frankly quite frightening that an autocratic narcissist who is openly trying to stop voting in a democratic election  will most likely be re-elected.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> I just listened to him on stage. It’s frankly quite frightening that an autocratic narcissist who is openly trying to stop voting in a democratic election  will most likely be re-elected.



Did he stop the counting? I thought he said he was told that counting has stopped.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

I think it's a case that the in person votes have been counted but the postal votes now have to be counted. That will take a few days. Trump wants to stop those as they will most likely lean heavily towards Joe Biden. That's the reason for the attempted Presidential Coup he's talking about.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Did he stop the counting? I thought he said he was told that counting has stopped.


He also said that they (The Democrats) were going to the courts (I haven't heard that they are?) but then went on to say that he intended to go to the Supreme court. TBH it was a bizarre speech even for the The Donald. There were so many inaccuracies and outright lies in his speech even by his standards. It did indeed sound like the start of a Coup. Frightening, shocking, but yet not totally unexpected.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Nov 2020)

I don't know who is going to win, but if we assume the virus hitting this year damaged Trump, he would have romped home otherwise...


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> He also said that they (The Democrats) were going to the courts (I haven't heard that they are?) but then went on to say that he intended to go to the Supreme court. TBH it was a bizarre speech even for the The Donald. There were so many inaccuracies and outright lies in his speech even by his standards. It did indeed sound like the start of a Coup. Frightening, shocking, but yet not totally unexpected.


The precedent is already there from last month (I think) when the Federal Supreme Court backes the North Carolina State Supreme Courts decision to extend from 3 to 6 days the amount of time after the election postal votes could be received. The ballot had to be post marked on or before the 3rd but could be received and counted up to the 9th. 
Voting rules are very much a preserve of the individual States.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't know who is going to win, but if we assume the virus hitting this year damaged Trump, he would have romped home otherwise...


Yep, he'll have a clear run of it next time. Does anyone seriously think he won't go for a third term if he wins this time?


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Frightening, shocking, but yet not totally unexpected.


I think it's more Frightening, shocking, but yet totally expected.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Nov 2020)

Reports of highest turnout for a century... Trump's actual vote count increased versus 2016.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Reports of highest turnout for a century...



The voter suppression didn't work so well then.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The voter suppression didn't work so well then.


It's the vote suppression they are worried about.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Nov 2020)

Guys Betfair have Biden 2.12.  It’s not over yet.  Get out your rosary beads.
Well done _Purple_ for being most right on the outcome, which is not to say that The Donald will certainly win.
The betting markets got this right.  They were betting on a far tighter race than the polls and pundits were suggesting.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> It's the vote suppression they are worried about.



I have to say I find it all a tad confusing. What is the delay with votes in Pennsylvania? How can California and New York complete their vote counts but Pennsylvania will need a few days? Are votes being counted by Amish community or something? Are they refusing to use electronics and instead using an abucus?


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Nov 2020)

If Biden wins Wisconsin, Nevada and Georgia - which seems probable, he wins, 271-267 in the EC.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I have to say I find it all a tad confusing. What is the delay with votes in Pennsylvania? How can California and New York complete their vote counts but Pennsylvania will need a few days? Are votes being counted by Amish community or something? Are they refusing to use electronics and instead using an abucus?


Pennsylvania don't usually have a large postal vote. This time it's massive.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> If Biden wins Wisconsin, Nevada and Georgia - which seems probable, he wins, 271-267 in the EC.


I don't think it's probable that he'll win Georgia. As of now 94% of the votes have been counted and Trump is ahead by 2.2%.

I think it'll all come down to Pennsylvania. Trump is ahead 55.8% to 43.1% but only 64% of the votes have been counted so most or all of the postal ballots are still to be counted and they should be mostly Democrat.
Edit; Pennsylvania has counted 39% of the mail-in ballots it has received. That makes it more likely to be a Trump victory there.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> I don't think it's probable that he'll win Georgia. As of now 94% of the votes have been counted and Trump is ahead by 2.2%.
> I think it'll all come down to Pennsylvania. Trump is ahead 55.8% to 43.1% but only 64% of the votes have been counted so most or all of the postal ballots are still to be counted and they should be mostly Democrat.



My understanding re; Georgia is that a lot of the votes to be counted are in Atlanta, which is heavily Democrat?

Re; postal votes, with the virus, is it possible more Republican voters  (.eg. older) would opt for mail in?


----------



## michaelm (4 Nov 2020)

Many in the Armed Services will employ postal votes too.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> My understanding re; Georgia is that a lot of the votes to be counted are in Atlanta, which is heavily Democrat?


Yes, it looks like there's about 600,000 votes still to be added in heavily Democratic counties with Trump ahead by 100,000 at the moment. Good news!



odyssey06 said:


> Re; postal votes, with the virus, is it possible more Republican voters  (.eg. older) would opt for mail in?


 It became a political statement, much like wearing a mask. If Republicans has used the postal vote more Trump wouldn't be on his way to the Supreme Court to suppress their votes.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

michaelm said:


> Many in the Armed Services will employ postal votes too.


Yep, about 250,000 in 2016 so it'll probably be higher this time but there's been nearly 100 million postal votes in total.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Nov 2020)

Joe now favourite, and that was just after one decade of the rosary.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> My understanding re; Georgia is that a lot of the votes to be counted are in Atlanta, which is heavily Democrat?


It looks like the same story in Michigan where Wayne County and Oakland County (Detroit) haven't declared. They are heavily Democrat and have large populations.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

is great for drilling down into the numbers in each State. 
Fox News and Fox Opinion are two very different things.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Its great to listen to all the different perspectives, insightful and persuasive as they are, or not. I never factored the insight of one RTE contributor to the prospect of a Biden win - "It'll be good for Ballina"...c'mon Joe!!!


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Its great to listen to all the different perspectives, insightful and persuasive as they are, or not. I never factored the insight of one RTE contributor to the prospect of a Biden win - "It'll be good for Ballina"...c'mon Joe!!!


RTE are their usual provincial selves, interviewing each other for insights.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Joe now favourite, and that was just after one decade of the rosary.


What are the odds now?


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> It looks like the same story in Michigan where Wayne County and Oakland County (Detroit) haven't declared. They are heavily Democrat and have large populations.


Michigan closing considerably. Hard to know who has the more accurate data tho as on RTE it is showing
Trump 2,341,499  (51.3%) and Biden 2,144,162 (47.0%)
but on the Fox News site Purple provided it shows
Trump 2,336,324 (49.9%)  and Biden 2,269,937 (48.5%)

If Biden wins Michigan that should be enough to get him to 270


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Nov 2020)

Georgia on my mind...








						Peggy lee - Georgia on my mind
					

Georgia on my mind by the beautiful Peggy lee.·Cultural significance In 2003, Rolling Stone magazine named "Georgia on My Mind" the 44th greatest song of all...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Michigan closing considerably. Hard to know who has the more accurate data tho as on RTE it is showing
> Trump 2,341,499  (51.3%) and Biden 2,144,162 (47.0%)
> but on the Fox News site Purple provided it shows
> Trump 2,336,324 (49.9%)  and Biden 2,269,937 (48.5%)
> ...


What's not clear to me is whether it is just the uncounted votes in the counties which have declared which are not included in the States total or if it is all of the votes in the undeclared counties. If it's all the votes then Biden takes Michigan. If it's just the uncounted then Trump probably takes it.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Nov 2020)

Looking at Michigan right now it very much looks like it is Bidens - Wayne County and Oakland County are the two with the largest population that have a large % yet to count and both are heavily in favour of Biden (67% and 55% respectively) so if that follows through it looks like Biden will win Michigan by anywhere between 50K and 100K votes.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> What are the odds now?


Joe 1.54, Donald 2.8 ;  that makes the chances of a Biden win about 64%, just where we were at the start of voting!


----------



## EmmDee (4 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I have to say I find it all a tad confusing. What is the delay with votes in Pennsylvania? How can California and New York complete their vote counts but Pennsylvania will need a few days? Are votes being counted by Amish community or something? Are they refusing to use electronics and instead using an abucus?



GOP Legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin prevented counting of psotal and early votes until the day after the election. Unlike Florida for example where they counted postal votes during the day yesterday and dropped those numbers into the vote count on the day. It's part of the strategy to "stop counting" and call it.

Compounded by the higher than average early and postal votes


----------



## EmmDee (4 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Georgia on my mind...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reporting that post for sacrilage. The only version....









						Ray Charles - Georgia On My Mind (LIVE) HD
					

...Midnight Special 1976...Lyrics : Hoagy Carmichael, Stuart GorrellEverytime I sing this songI sing for My Georgia,oooo, GeorgiaThe whole day throughJust an...




					www.youtube.com


----------



## EmmDee (4 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Joe 1.54, Donald 2.8 ;  that makes the chances of a Biden win about 64%, just where we were at the start of voting!



Biden went as high as 3.15 last night (that I saw - might have gone higher)


----------



## michaelm (4 Nov 2020)

Biden's odds continue to tighten up https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/politics-betting-2378961


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Joe 1.54, Donald 2.8 ; that makes the chances of a Biden win about 64%, just where we were at the start of voting!



What's driving it? The only thing I can see it that major urban centres are predicted to be favourable for Biden. But it wouldn't surprise me at this point that the outcomes in those urban centres are being overstated for Biden. The polling, or rather the interpretation of the polling, has been blindsided once again.
Unless there is some other fundamental or some other information I'm missing, then I would be inclined to back Trump (although I wont actually back him).


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Looking at Michigan right now it very much looks like it is Bidens - Wayne County and Oakland County are the two with the largest population that have a large % yet to count and both are heavily in favour of Biden (67% and 55% respectively) so if that follows through it looks like Biden will win Michigan by anywhere between 50K and 100K votes.


Yes, if the voting patterns continue in Wayne and Oakland then there's a 90k(ish) swing to Biden and Trump is currently leading by 10k votes.
Edit; if Biden takes Michigan and Wisconsin he wins the election.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Biden into 1.3 on Betfair...surely, the writing is on the wall?


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> What's driving it? The only thing I can see it that major urban centres are predicted to be favourable for Biden. But it wouldn't surprise me at this point that the outcomes in those urban centres are being overstated for Biden. The polling, or rather the interpretation of the polling, has been blindsided once again.
> Unless there is some other fundamental or some other information I'm missing, then I would be inclined to back Trump (although I wont actually back him).


It's looking more and more like a Biden win Wolfie. He has 224 already, add Arizona (11), he's looking good in Nevada (6), Maine (4) and Wisconsin (10), that brings him to 255. As per Purple and myself, he's looking increasingly likely to take Michigan (15) so that's 270 reached. Nevada or Wisconsin could still go against him but it's looking less likely with each hour.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Biden went as high as 3.15 last night (that I saw - might have gone higher)


I saw 4 before I had had enuff.
It's now 1.29.  Keep praying guys


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> It's looking more and more like a Biden win Wolfie. He has 224 already, add Arizona (11), he's looking good in Nevada (6), Maine (4) and Wisconsin (10), that brings him to 255. As per Purple and myself, he's looking increasingly likely to take Michigan (15) so that's 270 reached. Nevada or Wisconsin could still go against him but it's looking less likely with each hour.


He'll get Nevada and Arizona but he won't get Georgia. If he gets Wisconsin and Michigan then he doesn't need Pennsylvania but he'll probably get that anyway.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Nov 2020)

RTE pitching this as Mayo (Ballina Biden connections) versus Clare (Trump and Doombeg).


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> he's looking good in Nevada (6)



Biden 49.3%
Trump 48.7 %

8,000 vote differential with 86% (1,168,857) votes.  190, 279 still not counted.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Biden 49.3%
> Trump 48.7 %
> 
> 8,000 vote differential with 86% (1,168,857) votes.  190, 279 still not counted.


True, but the Trump vote has mainly come from the smaller counties. The counties yet to complete counting where Trump leads amounts to approx 140K votes (all are around 75-80% complete at this stage). The two counties where Biden has a lead amount to approx 1million votes (again these are around 75% complete at this stage). Biden leads both counties by a much bigger margin (51% to 47% in Washoe and 53% to 45% in Clark).


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

True, but Im guesstimating that there is roughly a 14,000 vote gain for Biden between Washoe and Clark. Puts him about 6,000 votes ahead.

But Washoe, Clark, Lyon, Nye, Humboldt and Elko while smaller in count, the Trump bias is 60%+/30%- 

Take Douglas, there is a possible 1,500 gain for Trump there. 600 votes in Lyon, 1,000 vote in Nye, Elko 1,900 gain for Trump......

Meaning its absolutely going to the wire. A differential of less than 5,000 votes, maybe even less than 2,000 will win it.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Nov 2020)

Joe 1.18 (85% chance);  Donald 6.2 (16%)


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> True, but Im guesstimating that there is roughly a 14,000 vote gain for Biden between Washoe and Clark. Puts him about 6,000 votes ahead.



Wait a second.....I read Nevada as Trump being currently ahead by 8,000 instead of Biden.......its the other way round. Doh!!


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Joe is set for 270 EC votes with Pennsylvania still in the mix.


----------



## Ceist Beag (4 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> Joe is set for 270 EC votes with Pennsylvania still in the mix.


Yep, Michigan is my new favourite state and Wayne is a great name!


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

200,000 votes still to be counted in Georgia with Trump ahead by 100,000. The gap will certainly narrow but will it close?


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Ceist Beag said:


> Yep, Michigan is my new favourite state and Wayne is a great name!


I was in Wisconsin in March, the week before the lockdown, and it really is a rust belt State. I was in South Carolina the week before and the contrast was stark. Most of South Carolina was booming although where there was poverty it was incredible; it was like something from The Grapes of Wrath. It is amazing that they vote for Trump.


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

It's looking possible for a Biden win in Pennsylvania.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> It's looking possible for a Biden win in Pennsylvania.


Yep Biden 1.41 (70% chance)


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yep Biden 1.41 (70% chance)


BetFair?


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Nov 2020)

The key battleground state of *Wisconsin *has been called for Joe Biden in America’s knife-edge election, as President Donald Trump’s team pushed for a recount. Media outlet AP declared Wisconsin had narrowly gone for Mr Biden by some 20,000 votes. Mr Biden currently holds 237 votes to Donald Trump's 213. The President won the state of Wisconsin in 2016, defeating Hillary Clinton by 0.7%.









						US Elections: Biden flips Michigan while Trump threatens legal action
					

Donald Trump’s campaign has said it is suing to temporarily stop the vote count in Pennsylvania.




					www.irishexaminer.com


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Nov 2020)

Biden now 1.12 (89%)
Thanks for all who offered up a rosary


----------



## Purple (4 Nov 2020)

Nevada and Arizona will go to Biden.That’s 270.
If he gets Pennsylvania, and that’s looking likely  that’s 290.
 Georgia looking good for Biden too.


----------



## Peanuts20 (5 Nov 2020)

Part of me wondering if Biden would he be better off to lose Pennsylvania in that it undermines Trumps allegations of fraud.??


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2020)

Georgia looking good for Trump now.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2020)

Peanuts20 said:


> Part of me wondering if Biden would he be better off to lose Pennsylvania in that it undermines Trumps allegations of fraud.??


I don't think so. If things go as projected elsewhere then he's get 290 EC votes if he wins Pennsylvania which would make it a more decisive victory.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Nov 2020)

Apparently Biden just needs "one more state, one more state" ...


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> Apparently Biden just needs "one more state, one more state" ...


Assuming that the CNN & Fox & NY Times are correct then yes, any State will do.


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> Assuming that the CNN & Fox & NY Times are correct then yes, any State will do.



I reckon this is why Trump wanted to buy Greenland, another Republican state


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2020)

Trump into 6 on Betfair.  That is the throw of a dice or more aptly Russian Roulette with a 6 chamber revolver.  Too early for easing up on the rosaries.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2020)

Surely, it's all over now? The Trump era is over! Insofar as his run as President goes anyway, I'm sure he will make a lot of noise for a considerable amount of time. 

The Betfair price of 1.13 is surely the best guaranteed return (barring civil war) anywhere? Im certainly taking a piece of it, do some repairs to my losses overall in this market.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2020)

Don't count your chickens. Georgia and Nevada on a knife edge. North Carolina looking solid to go to Trump.


----------



## EmmDee (5 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Surely, it's all over now? The Trump era is over! Insofar as his run as President goes anyway, I'm sure he will make a lot of noise for a considerable amount of time.
> 
> The Betfair price of 1.13 is surely the best guaranteed return (barring civil war) anywhere? Im certainly taking a piece of it, do some repairs to my losses overall in this market.



... given your self admitted betting history - I might have to close out my Biden bet 



WolfeTone said:


> This is my final call on this. I was positively optimistic that after Trump got elected that what would emerge in this US election would be that the great American people would bring about some fundamental or radical change to the politics of the old.
> 
> I started out early, three years ago, with a bet on Elizabeth Warren as having an outside chance at 12/1, thinking that despite HC's loss, that women are coming into the ascendency of American politics.
> 
> ...


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> ... given your self admitted betting history - I might have to close out my Biden bet



 

Yes, even my last minute declaration for Biden was met with a reversal of market prices, albeit temporary, in favour of Trump. 

Hazzard warning all round!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> Don't count your chickens. Georgia and Nevada on a knife edge. North Carolina looking solid to go to Trump.


Betfair has Nevada at 1.07 (93%). I think we can bag that, but I share your nervous pessimism.  This is agony, rather like a very long drawn out Russian Roulette play.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Nov 2020)

Biden will take Nevada with 19,344 votes in favour.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Nov 2020)

Biden 1.08 (92%).  I'm starting to relax, maybe have a good night's sleep tonight.


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Nov 2020)

Georgia and Pennsylvania are incredibly close. Whilst it provides great excitement for us over here, it's really sad that the US is so fragmented right now. Given there is already talk of Donald Jr for 2024, I see very little hope that things will improve much over the next term.


----------



## Peanuts20 (6 Nov 2020)

In a race this tight, I'm surprised there hasn't been a little more thought give to the impact of other 3rd party candidates on polling and on the results. In Florida for example, 115k people (about 1%)  voted Green, Libertanian and other parties. I do wonder if they are included in pollsters canvasing or are they excluded and are people presented with just 2 choices?. Since these are often people (greens as an example) who would not vote for Trump, did that inflate Biden in the polls by 1-2%?

In most other states the % of 3rd party vote is higher, 1.5% in Arizona for example and in a race this tight, that is crucial

I can't help but wonder also if Trump will go quietly into the night or would his ego see him start his own party outside of the Republican party?


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2020)

It is incredible that the religious conservatism within the Latino community shifts so many of them into the Trump camp. 
I don't think we fully grasp how big an issue abortion is in the US. It is probably a bigger issue than gun control and certainly bigger than same sex marriage and LGBTQ rights.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> It is incredible that the religious conservatism within the Latino community shifts so many of them into the Trump camp.
> I don't think we fully grasp how big an issue abortion is in the US. It is probably a bigger issue than gun control and certainly bigger than same sex marriage and LGBTQ rights.


Saw an interview with a Latino in Miami.  She was Cuban and she said she knew what it was like to live under Communism, that’s why she voted Trump.  The idea that the Democratic Party is communist is farcical,


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Saw an interview with a Latino in Miami.  She was Cuban and she said she knew what it was like to live under Communism, that’s why she voted Trump.  The idea that the Democratic Party is communist is farcical,



If you had a dollar for every time a Democrat called a Republican a fascist incorrectly you'd be very wealthy.


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2020)

Florida in general and Miami in particular, have that Cuban dynamic. They are strongly Republican. 
It's  that I'm talking about; the Archbishop of St. Louis having a letter read from every pulpit in his diocese basically telling people that they aren't proper Catholics if they don't vote for Trump.


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> If you had a dollar for every time a Democrat called a Republican a fascist incorrectly you'd be very wealthy.


You've be just as rich if you got the dollar for every time a Republican called a Democrat a communist incorrectly.


----------



## EmmDee (6 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Saw an interview with a Latino in Miami.  She was Cuban and she said she knew what it was like to live under Communism, that’s why she voted Trump.  The idea that the Democratic Party is communist is farcical,



Cubans and Venezuelans in Florida have a distrust of Democrats - streches back to JFK. It's almost like the old FF / FG cultural divide here from the 70's


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Nov 2020)

My Grandma wouldn't even speak the word Democrat if there were children in the house, she'd use the word <insert word for illegitimate male offsprings here>
- PJ O'Rourke


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Cubans and Venezuelans in Florida have a distrust of Democrats - streches back to JFK. It's almost like the old FF / FG cultural divide here from the 70's


I'd say it goes far deeper than the the FF/FG thing.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Nov 2020)

Purple said:


> Florida in general and Miami in particular, have that Cuban dynamic. They are strongly Republican.
> It's  that I'm talking about; the Archbishop of St. Louis having a letter read from every pulpit in his diocese basically telling people that they aren't proper Catholics if they don't vote for Trump.


That is unbelievable.  You would have thought the RC church would support one of their own, especially a practising RC, against the amoral WASP.  Ireland of the 50's was notable for the attempts of the RC church to interfere in politics.  Yes they still get involved in referendums on what they see as moral issues but the idea of them guiding their flocks towards a political party in an election has long vanished.


----------



## Purple (6 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That is unbelievable.  You would have thought the RC church would support one of their own, especially a practising RC, against the amoral WASP.  Ireland of the 50's was notable for the attempts of the RC church to interfere in politics.  Yes they still get involved in referendums on what they see as moral issues but the idea of them guiding their flocks towards a political party in an election has long vanished.


In my experience the RC Church in the US is for the most part very conservative and intolerant.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> So final call is - Harris €2@ 1,000/1.


You can now lay that off at 450.  I don't know what could happen to cause KH to win the electoral college - maybe if Joe got run over by a bus, the EC can constitutionally elect his VP.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You can now lay that off at 450. I don't know what could happen to cause KH to win the electoral college - maybe if Joe got run over by a bus, the EC can constitutionally elect a suitable replacement.



 

This is a strange one. Into 440, then 430, now?? 
Biden has taken the lead in Georgia, so I guess its a done deal now. I will let this run a while for the craic, I only have €2 on it. Strange stuff indeed.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This is a strange one. Into 440, then 430, now??
> Biden has taken the lead in Georgia, so I guess its a done deal now. I will let this run a while for the craic, I only have €2 on it. Strange stuff indeed.



I thought you had multiples of that at stake!


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> I thought you had multiples of that at stake!



I do, but not on Harris. Im in the red for this one, the only way out is some bizarre, freak occurrence that propels Harris to the WH. That was the point of €2@1,000. 
 Even with her odds cut in half today, it only gives me a token return. Her odds would need to drop to less than 25/1 before I could even consider scrambling my way out! 
Its only for novelty, I gave up doing the lotto and instead I place small token bets regularly on long forecast odds for sporting and political events. Much more fun.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Nov 2020)

Well Trump was certainly the remedy to voter apathy... some might say cure worse than disease.


----------



## odyssey06 (6 Nov 2020)

Biden has overtaken Trump in Pennsylvania.

Update... Biden now ahead in Georgia also.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Nov 2020)

Why is counting taking so long? This is surely unprecedented in a US election? 
I know there are lots of mail-in votes but my understanding is that these votes can be scanned electronically? 
The longer the count takes is there a danger that it feeds into Trumps narrative of corrupt practices?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Why is counting taking so long? This is surely unprecedented in a US election?
> I know there are lots of mail-in votes but my understanding is that these votes can be scanned electronically?
> The longer the count takes is there a danger that it feeds into Trumps narrative of corrupt practices?


Yes, it is frustrating.  I don’t like that Trump has a 6% chance still according to Betfair.  Ok unlikely, but not impossible.


----------



## EmmDee (7 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Why is counting taking so long? This is surely unprecedented in a US election?
> I know there are lots of mail-in votes but my understanding is that these votes can be scanned electronically?
> The longer the count takes is there a danger that it feeds into Trumps narrative of corrupt practices?



It's actually pretty normal. Most of the states are still counting... It's just most of them are pretty clear. This year is unusual because so many are quite close. Florida in 2000 took weeks.

Most states have dates for receipt of things like military votes that extend up to a week after voting day. It's been the same for every election.

States have a deadline of a month after voting day to certify and decide delegates.


----------



## EmmDee (7 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> It's actually pretty normal. Most of the states are still counting... It's just most of them are pretty clear. This year is unusual because so many are quite close. Florida in 2000 took weeks.
> 
> Most states have dates for receipt of things like military votes that extend up to a week after voting day. It's been the same for every election.
> 
> States have a deadline of a month after voting day to certify and decide delegates.



The other factor... In some counties the GOP are contesting every vote or have requested judicial oversight. Means every vote is scanned by reps from both sides which is slowing things.


----------



## joer (7 Nov 2020)

Joe has won, now for the fireworks.......


----------



## Purple (7 Nov 2020)

The Donald is done.


----------



## joer (7 Nov 2020)

I think he is only browning at the moment. He should turn red fairly soon..


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (7 Nov 2020)

You gotta feel sorry for him, not.


----------



## joer (7 Nov 2020)

Deep down I do . Very deep deep down.


----------



## odyssey06 (8 Nov 2020)

So 'sleepy' Joe was just 'biding' his time, eh?
I hope Biden continues to take many Reagan-esque naps in office, does nothing to rock the boat or frighten the horses (or markets) - actually stay off boats and horses.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (8 Nov 2020)

Can someone explain?
What I see is that Biden is .6% ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania with 2% remaining to be counted.  How can that be claimed as final result?
_Update:  I now understand that it is the combined media outlets who call these results.  Using their models they can assess when a lead is unassailable (99.7% certain) and therefore "declare" a winner; I presume they have never been wrong._

Also you can still easily bet €100k on Biden to win overall to win €5k.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I presume they have never been wrong.



Al Gore in 2000. I'm pretty sure the media outlets declared him as winner.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Nov 2020)

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich _"... Democrats steal the election, and that's what Republicans believe we are watching. We think we have evidence of a lot of it.... frankly, I think it is a corrupt stolen election..." _

The level of distrust and the deep division is almost palpable. Gingrich spoke of the last 4 years, impeachment, Pelosi, hatred...

I think it is a mistake to think that US politics is returning to any level of normality anytime soon.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Nov 2020)

I think we can see now that Biden was an inspired choice.  This was a referendum on Trump.  The Yes vote claimed a record 70m result.  I don't think Biden put anybody off voting Yes but then no other candidate would have done so either.  But neither did he put off anybody voting No.  Someone like Bernie Sanders would have persuaded many No voters to abstain.


----------



## Purple (9 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I think it is a mistake to think that US politics is returning to any level of normality anytime soon.


Normalcy, you have to say normalcy (instead of normality) when talking about the US. Personally I hate the word and, given it's a noun, "normal" would do fine where either is used. Considering I can't spell I really have no place being so persnickety about things like grammer, punctuation and word (mis)usage but it still gets to me. It's now up there with "Pacifically".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (10 Nov 2020)

You can still bet 50k on Biden at 1.09 on Betfair.  Can anyone explain?


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Nov 2020)

If postal voting was so easy to 'nudge', did the Russians forget this time to help out Trump - as they are alleged to have done last time...


----------



## EmmDee (10 Nov 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> If postal voting was so easy to 'nudge', did the Russians forget this time to help out Trump - as they are alleged to have done last time...



They weren't accused of tampering with votes last time, they were accused of interering in the election through misinformation.

The other thing that will need explaining is how the Senate votes were fine but the Presedential votes were not - when they are on the same ballot.

This is just a smokescreen to placate him for a few weeks. It'll be done eventually


----------



## EmmDee (10 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You can still bet 50k on Biden at 1.09 on Betfair.  Can anyone explain?



Residual legal risk I assume - it's not done until it's done


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Nov 2020)

The final electoral college tally of the US election is in: with *306 electoral college votes projected for Democrat Joe Biden*, and *232 for Republican Donald Trump*.
This is an exact flip of the final vote in 2016 – when Trump won 306 electoral votes, and the Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton won 232. 
Popular vote-wise, Biden won 77.5 million votes (50.8%) compared to the 72.3 million (47.4%) who voted for Trump, a 5 million vote advantage
US President-elect Biden won the states of Arizona and Georgia today, the New York Times, CNN, ABC and other networks said, while Trump won North Carolina.
Biden’s win in Arizona represents a ‘flipping’ of the state to Democrat for the first time since 1996, when Bill Clinton won the state’s support for his White House bid.









						Joe Biden wins total of 306 electoral votes, with 232 for Donald Trump - US media
					

Biden’s win in Arizona represents a ‘flip’ of the state to Democrat for the first time since 1996.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## WolfeTone (16 Nov 2020)

Biden still paying 6% return on Betfair exchange. With over €600,000 in the pot!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (16 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Biden still paying 6% return on Betfair exchange. With over €600,000 in the pot!


I really can’t understand that.  Surely, surely no way Trump can win.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I really can’t understand that.  Surely, surely no way Trump can win.



Easiest 6% otherwise. I'm keeping an eye on the pot, when it starts to empty out might be the time to back it.


----------



## EmmDee (17 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Easiest 6% otherwise. I'm keeping an eye on the pot, when it starts to empty out might be the time to back it.



The pot will keep topping up - whether new money or people cashing out. At the moment there is €1.7mm offered at 1.06, €2.4mm at 1.05 and €2.2mm at 1.04. So you'll be waiting a while


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> So you'll be waiting a while



I think Dec 14th is the day the result is officially declared? That's only a few weeks away.


----------



## EmmDee (17 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I think Dec 14th is the day the result is officially declared? That's only a few weeks away.



I know the dates - I was referring to your comment that you'd wait for the "pot" to empty out


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I know the dates - I was referring to your comment that you'd wait for the "pot" to empty out



Yes. My guess is that the closer we get to 14th then, in the absence of some court decision to suggest otherwise, then Biden will be likely to be formally announced as President. This will induce alot of punters to take up that offer (conversely alot of punters to cancel the offer) of €2m+ sitting at 1.06, and of 1.05 and of 1.04 etc....meaning those pots will be emptied out by punters backing those prices and cancelling the offer. When that starts to occur, that may be the time to back it as it signifies an almost certain outcome. So if you can get 6%, all the better.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes. My guess is that the closer we get to 14th then, in the absence of some court decision to suggest otherwise, then Biden will be likely to be formally announced as President. This will induce alot of punters to take up that offer (conversely alot of punters to cancel the offer) of €2m+ sitting at 1.06, and of 1.05 and of 1.04 etc....meaning those pots will be emptied out by punters backing those prices and cancelling the offer. When that starts to occur, that may be the time to back it as it signifies an almost certain outcome. So if you can get 6%, all the better.


It does seem absolutely inconceivable that Biden's victory will be overturned.  Nonetheless, I have huge respect for Betfair.  They were calling this election much closer than opinion polls suggested and they were correct.  Betfair is as close to an Efficient Market as I have seen.  If €2m is available at 6% then 6% is the correct assessment much as that seems most improbable.  They are also open for betting on the various swing states with pay offs ranging from 4% to 7%.


----------



## WolfeTone (17 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It does seem absolutely inconceivable that Biden's victory will be overturned.



Yes and what is perplexing me is that if you look at the betting graph, €57m has been matched at this price of 1.06. It is the largest tranche of matched bets in market with near €800m matched. This suggests that betting activity is at its most intense (for want of a better word) at this price, which I find peculiar. 
It generally means that the market is tight at that price.
Now, I generally do these types of bets for novelty, I mostly concentrate on team sports to get value because I have an more informed knowledge about soccer and GAA than predicting election outcomes. A bet at 1.06 in a sports match signifies a near certain result. However, at such a price, a freakish own goal, controversial penalty or simply a touch a genius can overturn all expected outcomes in an instant.

So what is the freakish own goal, penalty or bit of genius that is propping up this market at 1.06? The only plausible thing I can think of is that Biden is near the average life-expectancy age!
Even still, it seems a bit cold to limit the man's prospects of being declared winner in a few weeks time on this basis, if this is what is occurring?


----------



## EmmDee (17 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Yes and what is perplexing me is that if you look at the betting graph, €57m has been matched at this price of 1.06. It is the largest tranche of matched bets in market with near €800m matched. This suggests that betting activity is at its most intense (for want of a better word) at this price, which I find peculiar.
> It generally means that the market is tight at that price.
> Now, I generally do these types of bets for novelty, I mostly concentrate on team sports to get value because I have an more informed knowledge about soccer and GAA than predicting election outcomes. A bet at 1.06 in a sports match signifies a near certain result. However, at such a price, a freakish own goal, controversial penalty or simply a touch a genius can overturn all expected outcomes in an instant.
> 
> ...



Even if Biden dies at this stage I believe Betfair would pay out for him as the EC votes will be confirmed for him.

The 1.06, I think, reflects the risk of (a) one of the speculative legal challanges makes it to the Supreme Court (unlikely given 23 have failed so far) or (b) a number of the states select faithless voters - they vote for a candidate different to the votes (again a very long shot - and not clear that it's possible). But any of these need to be replicated in more than one state.

It's essentially a premium for the risk of a coup - it's political risk. But it does seem odd


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (17 Nov 2020)

And if you are nervous of Biden's mortality, you can always lay Trump, same 6% I think.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Nov 2020)

Biden into 1.04....what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (19 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Biden into 1.04....what could possibly go wrong?


Can you lend me €7.7m from your bitcoin winnings?  Repaid on December 14th with 1% interest.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Can you lend me €7.7m from your bitcoin winnings? Repaid on December 14th with 1% interest.



I would, but I suspect bitcoin will have increased in value by more than 4% by then. Don't want lose out...


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Nov 2020)

Biden confirmed with narrow victory in Georgia after hand recount.


----------



## WolfeTone (24 Nov 2020)

Trump has instructed the transition process for Biden presidency to commence.... Biden still at 1.03 in Betfair....what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## EmmDee (24 Nov 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Trump has instructed the transition process for Biden presidency to commence.... Biden still at 1.03 in Betfair....what could possibly go wrong?



Even better - Georgia has certified results and Democrats can still be backed at 1.03


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Nov 2020)

Biden available at 1.08 to 555K.  What is going on here?


----------



## EmmDee (26 Nov 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Biden available at 1.08 to 555K.  What is going on here?



Who knows - I know there is still quite a lot of money in the markets from the QAnon / MAGA types who firmly believe there is a behind the scenes plan going on. But can't believe it would be this level of cash. Unless the liquidity on the offered side has gone over Thanksgiving - pushing prices up a little


----------



## joe sod (27 Nov 2020)

Trump gave a press conference last night obviously a very unhappy man but he will be leaving the white house. He gave one fact that is hard to explain by chance, Obama beat Biden in all of the states except in those crucial swing states that Biden barely won this year, in those few crucial states Biden beat Obama. How do you explain that given that Obama won the election big, so why would only in the swing states Biden beats Obama?


----------



## odyssey06 (27 Nov 2020)

joe sod said:


> Trump gave a press conference last night obviously a very unhappy man but he will be leaving the white house. He gave one fact that is hard to explain by chance, Obama beat Biden in all of the states except in those crucial swing states that Biden barely won this year, in those few crucial states Biden beat Obama. How do you explain that given that Obama won the election big, so why would only in the swing states Biden beats Obama?



Not sure if I'm following you correctly, but I would assume it means Obama won big victories in traditional Democratic states as he had more appeal to the base than Biden. But they are strong Democrat states and Biden as a Democrat in a general election beats a Republican there.
In swing states, the dynamic is different. Biden has more cross appeal and perhaps even the Democrats in those states would be more centrist.


----------



## Ceist Beag (27 Nov 2020)

joe sod said:


> Trump gave a press conference last night obviously a very unhappy man but he will be leaving the white house. He gave one fact that is hard to explain by chance, Obama beat Biden in all of the states except in those crucial swing states that Biden barely won this year, in those few crucial states Biden beat Obama. How do you explain that given that Obama won the election big, so why would only in the swing states Biden beats Obama?


If his only "evidence" of fraud is that he doesn't like the way people voted and can't accept that they could be legitimate votes then he really is clutching at straws!
Odyssey put it well as to why it is entirely credible that people voted the way they did.


----------



## Purple (27 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Who knows - I know there is still quite a lot of money in the markets from the QAnon / MAGA types who firmly believe there is a behind the scenes plan going on.


They are also the people who believe in Creationism and Noah's Ark etc. When children are raised to believe all that nonsense it's easy to get them to believe in grand conspiracies and other stuff like that when they grow up as they are hard wired to ignore logic and rationality.


----------



## Peanuts20 (27 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Who knows - I know there is still quite a lot of money in the markets from the QAnon / MAGA types who firmly believe there is a behind the scenes plan going on. But can't believe it would be this level of cash. Unless the liquidity on the offered side has gone over Thanksgiving - pushing prices up a little



have you not heard, there was massive fraud in the election and it's only a matter of time before the result gets overturned .

Trump won (in his head anyway) and many of his cult followers believe him and some of them are stupid enough to throw their money away.


----------



## EmmDee (27 Nov 2020)

joe sod said:


> Trump gave a press conference last night obviously a very unhappy man but he will be leaving the white house. He gave one fact that is hard to explain by chance, Obama beat Biden in all of the states except in those crucial swing states that Biden barely won this year, in those few crucial states Biden beat Obama. How do you explain that given that Obama won the election big, so why would only in the swing states Biden beats Obama?



How does anyone explain a fact which isn't a fact? You first have to start off by ignoring Arizona and Georgia - two states Obama didn't win but Biden did. You then have to explain the non-fact that a number of the "swing states" are traditionally Democratic but Trump brought them into play in 2016. You then have to ignore a load of other states (e.g. Texas, North Carolina, California, Oregon, Washington etc etc) where Biden exceeded Obama's % vote but the result didn't change the overall winner

But other than that - he makes a great point


----------



## Leo (27 Nov 2020)

EmmDee said:


> How does anyone explain a fact which isn't a fact?



Yeah, he's playing to a crowd who are too lazy to do even the most basic of research themselves and fully willing to accept anything, no matter how crazy it sounds, so long as it aligns with their own world view. Many of these people's views are being informed by social media that just serves to reinforce existing viewpoints (show them more crap that aligns with their world view, more clicks, more advertising revenue) or the likes of Fox news who won a court battle so they could continue to report on events with bias and no regard for balance.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (27 Nov 2020)

You can bet €280,000 at 1.03 that Biden will win the popular vote.  This is beyond crazy.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Dec 2020)

Out to 1.06/1.07 range now with over €3.5m in the pot for and against. What will it take to seal the deal for Biden as far Betfair punters go, and make him unbackable?
The price range 1.03-1.06 has sucked up some €555m of a €1.3bn market, or 42%.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Out to 1.06/1.07 range now with over €3.5m in the pot for and against. What will it take to seal the deal for Biden as far Betfair punters go, and make him unbackable?
> The price range 1.03-1.06 has sucked up some €555m of a €1.3bn market, or 42%.


Now 1.03 to be elected and 350K available at 1.02 Biden to win popular vote.  The rules say this is the announcement of the popular vote winner according to CNN.  1.02 a bit unbackable but still how could a lead of 5 million votes be possibly overturned?


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> how could a lead of 5 million votes be possibly overturned?



Trump has made maybe "the most important speech he has ever made" about an update on his efforts to expose voter fraud (as yet unsupported by any actual evidence).

The speech, typically rambling and at times comedy gold, did not do much but regurgitate the same election fraud allegations that he has been claiming for weeks and months. No actual evidence was produced save a few graph charts that may indicate some anomolies in the vote count patterns in some States.

_However, _underlying one of the most bizarre press conferences by anyone, anywhere, ever, appears a man thoroughly convinced that he is right in his claims and would appear, to me at least, to be prepared to use every legal and executive power in his armoury to delay, thwart, overturn the election result.
It is a long-shot, but my whole betting strategy for this market has been on long-shots, so I am taking one final punt and lay the 1.04 in the event that he is successful, even partially, in delaying the transition of power. At a minimum, there may be some action Trump can take that might spook the market in my favour, even temporarily.


----------



## EmmDee (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> ... in delaying the transition of power...



Delay isn't possible (absent an actual coup). The 20th of January is a hard date. His last effort is to get the Senate to disregard the EC which would then mean the House picks.

Your plan might work if you take advantage of blips in the price and effectively day-trade the price


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Your plan might work if you take advantage of blips in the price and effectively day-trade the price



Yep, its an extremely long-shot, but did you watch the conference? I endured it for about 20mins, bizarre stuff, but not untypical of Trump. The only thing I could take from it is that having survived the Russia-gate debacle and the Ukranian impeachment farce, that possibly, just possibly, he has one or two moves left to make that could rattle the markets somehow. Certainly he did not come across as a man ready to concede defeat.


----------



## EmmDee (3 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Certainly he did not come across as a man ready to concede defeat.



Doesn't matter - he doesn't get to decide.

As I've said before, what they spout in press conferences isn't worth a thing. Look at what they are willing to say in court - and all of the legal cases (30+) have been thrown out. And they specifically do not claim fraud in the cases.

Barr has even distanced himself at this stage - a number of the GOP senators have already. More will follow. He's turning into an old man shouting on the front lawn at this stage


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Dec 2020)

EmmDee said:


> He's turning into an old man shouting on the front lawn at this stage



That would be my sentiment also, but I would have thought that four years ago also during his primary campaign - but he still got elected.  Only that the market is still open at 1.03/1.04 and that he somehow managed to get elected and survive everything thrown at him, I thought I have little to lose laying the bet but a considerable amount to gain.


----------



## WolfeTone (14 Dec 2020)

Betfair market suspended. Game over, Biden formally announced as winner.


----------



## EmmDee (15 Dec 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Betfair market suspended. Game over, Biden formally announced as winner.



Paid out now.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (6 Jan 2021)

Georgia Senate elections
BBC - On a knife edge
RTE - Too close to call
Betfair - 60/1 against Republicans


----------



## EmmDee (6 Jan 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Georgia Senate elections
> BBC - On a knife edge
> RTE - Too close to call
> Betfair - 60/1 against Republicans



Warnock has been called by everybody

Ossof has been called by some but still close - but most of remaining votes are due from heavily Democratic areas (he is 16k ahead)

My guess - both will end up winning greater than the automatic recount level (0.5%)

Edit - corrrected the vote lead


----------



## Sophrosyne (11 Jan 2021)

How loathsome does Donald have to be before Republicans take action?


----------



## Purple (12 Jan 2021)

Sophrosyne said:


> How loathsome does Donald have to be before Republicans take action?


More loathsome, in the opinion of those Republicans, than the Democrats.


----------



## Purple (12 Jan 2021)

I think the Republican party should issue an apology to Hillary Clinton. It turns out she was right, Trump supporters are a basket of deplorable's.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Jan 2021)

The headlines are: Donald Trump has left the White House *for the last time as US president*. 

And I'm thinking... well in theory he could be back in 4 years.
Speaking of which, what are the odds for Trump 2024?









						Trump in Florida, says he'll be 'back in some form'
					

Donald Trump has arrived at his resort home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, after leaving the White House for the last time.




					www.rte.ie


----------



## joer (20 Jan 2021)

I hope you are wrong odyssey


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Jan 2021)

joer said:


> I hope you are wrong odyssey



I didn't say he would be back, just pointing out he is a one term president, unless there's a vote of congress \ impeachment in theory he could be back.
I was curious if anyone knew the odds on it.


----------



## joer (20 Jan 2021)

I hope he will never get back in again...... not even by accident.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Feb 2021)

odyssey06 said:


> I didn't say he would be back, just pointing out he is a one term president, unless there's a vote of congress \ impeachment in theory he could be back.
> I was curious if anyone knew the odds on it.


Betfair: Winner of 2024 PE
Kamela Harris   4/1
Joe Biden   5/1
Donald Trump  11/1
Mike Pence  22/1
Nikki Halley  17/1


----------



## johnwilliams (5 Feb 2021)

that democrat attempt to stop him coming back is not going to work ,given that the  senate republican  members are not going to vote against him in public (end of their careers basically) ,yet the republican party did a secret vote with regard to congress woman liz cheney  . democrats should  allow republicans to do a secret vote in senate  ,other wise  this trial is waste time, money, effort


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Feb 2021)

An actor has disgracefully been forced out of the Screen Actors Guild due to his political  views.

Donald Trump has quit America's Screen Actors Guild after it launched a disciplinary hearing into him, citing the US Capitol attack.
"Who cares!" Mr. Trump wrote in a letter, adding that the union had "done nothing for me".
"Thank you," was the Guild's brief response.
Mr Trump has appeared in a number of films, including Home Alone 2 and Zoolander. He also hosted the US version of The Apprentice TV show.









						'Who cares!' Trump quits Screen Actors Guild - BBC News
					

The former president resigns from the Hollywood union after it took disciplinary action against him.




					www.google.ie


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Feb 2021)

I have made a small investment on Betfair that DT will be found guilty, at 36.  Not that I think he will be found guilty, the republican senators are terrified of him, but as the trial goes on I see it possible that the price will fall and I can sell at a profit.


----------



## Purple (11 Feb 2021)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> the republican senators are terrified of him


I think they are more scared of his supporters turning up at their house.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Feb 2021)

Watching the defence of DT, I would nearly vote for him myself.  No way will he be found guilty.


----------



## odyssey06 (13 Feb 2021)

Trump acquitted... 50D and 7R voted to impeach so fell short of two thirds majority needed.








						Verdict: Trump acquitted as just seven Republicans side with Democrats in Senate vote
					

The former US president was accused of inciting the deadly riot at the US Capitol last month.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------

