# election 2020 trump v who



## johnwilliams (28 Feb 2020)

with election due in november 
which democrat candidate would make you vote for trump?


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Feb 2020)

Bloomberg
Joe Biden
Pete Buttigieg
Amy Klobanchar
Elizabeth Warren


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Feb 2020)

Warren or Sanders.
Dunno anything about Klobanchar ?


----------



## Conan (29 Feb 2020)

None. If the US was a dictatorship (and its getting closer in the last 3 years) and Trump was the only candidate I still would not vote for him.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Feb 2020)

Conan said:


> None. If the US was a dictatorship (and its getting closer in the last 3 years) and Trump was the only candidate I still would not vote for him.



Washington is operated through corporate fascism. The US is a country with hundreds of millions of voters, but only two political parties contesting for the Presidency. Each are bought out by corporate interests. 
Typical example is the candidate Bloomberg, who admitted on stage last week that he spent $100m to get candidates into Congress to control Trump. This is not a democracy, voting participation has been in decline for decades. And when the 'wrong' person gets elected, the American public are force fed a diet of Russian conspiracy theories. The latest is that Russia is interfering again (its not demonstrated how) to get Sanders as the nominee in order to facilitate another Trump win. Even though, out of all the Democratic candidates, Sanders is the only one who polls anywhere close to, or better than Trump. 
Biden, Warren, Buttigieg et al are dead ducks in a contest against Trump.


----------



## Conan (29 Feb 2020)

In the most recent Fox News poll (Trump News) it has all the Democrat contenders ahead of Trump. But Trump will call that more “fake news” even though it comes from a totally sycophantic “News” organization.


----------



## joe sod (29 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The latest is that Russia is interfering again (its not demonstrated how) to get Sanders as the nominee in order to facilitate another Trump win. Even though, out of all the Democratic candidates, Sanders is the only one who polls anywhere close to, or better than Trump.



The one thing Sanders has is that he speaks to the common man and woman and he has some qualities like Trump has, he is not wooden and controlled, the other democrat candidates are typical democratic candidates too liberal and upper middle class. Sanders appeals to the same voters Trump appeals  to but they emphasize different things. 
 I think Trump will have a hard time against Sanders, he will obviously hone in on Sanders "Red" credentials, the fact that he went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon ( where have we heard of that before , oh yes the Shinners and Gerry adams were regular visitors to the soviet union back in the day)
Ironically the upper middle class democrats will end up voting for Trump rather than Sanders as they would have alot to lose under a Sanders presidency, they could be the voters that gets Trump elected this time.


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Feb 2020)

joe sod said:


> Sanders appeals to the same voters Trump appeals to but they emphasize different things.



Agree. The reason why working class voters voted Trump, or didn't vote at all, is because Clinton offered nothing new other continue with the same. Obama, riding on a wave of optimism that change for poor, the marginalized could happen, was the great disillusion. He failed abysmally. 



joe sod said:


> the fact that he went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon



The Soviet Union, Russia etc is a story line to be told by the generation of two decades ago. 'Russia gate' was a farce, as it is now. A whole generation of people are of voting age who want jobs, careers, personal independence. Russia, and the Soviet Union, Cuba, is about as relevant to them, in their world, as the Battle of the Boyne is to our generation. 
In with new, out with the old. 



joe sod said:


> Ironically the upper middle class democrats will end up voting for Trump rather than Sanders as they would have alot to lose under a Sanders presidency,



Indeed, but Sanders will win alot of those working class voters back from Trump and rejuvenate the marginalized and the disenchanted.
Invariably, in a corporatist economy like the US, there will be more working class votes than middle class. That is democracy at work.


----------



## joe sod (29 Feb 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Agree. The reason why working class voters voted Trump, or didn't vote at all, is because Clinton offered nothing new other continue with the same. Obama, riding on a wave of optimism that change for poor, the marginalized could happen, was the great disillusion. He failed abysmally.



also working class voters dont do "identity politics", they wont elect a woman just because she is a woman or a black man just because he is a black man , Obama was elected because he was very good candidate, was fresh and a very good charismatic speaker, the fact that he was black was also a bonus in 2008 after Bush. However the democratic party became hung up on identity politics and still is. They dont want bernie sanders like they dont want biden because he is "male, pale and stale" to use their own lingo.


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2020)

Trump wants to run against Sanders because there’s no way someone from the far left (by American standards) will get the middle class vote. It’s that middle 20% that they are all chasing.
I have family in Boston who are life long Democrats and despise Trump who say they couldn’t vote for Sanders. He’s the American version of Corbin; a rigid idealist, out of his time, very divisive and a deeply unpleasant person.
Sanders running for the democrats means 4 more years of Trump. The election should be about getting rid of Trump and using phrases like fascism in framing America’s deeply flawed electoral process is emotive and just plain silly.


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2020)

joe sod said:


> I think Trump will have a hard time against Sanders, he will obviously hone in on Sanders "Red" credentials, the fact that he went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon ( where have we heard of that before , oh yes the Shinners and Gerry adams were regular visitors to the soviet union back in the day)


Good point although Sanders didn’t murder children and isn’t controlled by a foreign terrorist organisation and while his economic policies are nutty they aren’t as nutty as the Shinners so I think it’s unfair to place him or his supporters in the same bracket as the people who vote for child killers.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> Good point although Sanders didn’t murder children and isn’t controlled by a foreign terrorist organisation and while his economic policies are nutty they aren’t as nutty as the Shinners so I think it’s unfair to place him or his supporters in the same bracket as the people who vote for child killers.



The electorate is very different as well though. In the main, the US electorate have preferred political narratives which reward individual success over social programs - with some notable exceptions such as Midicare / Medicaid or Obmacare. But even these were non-trivial and still subject to reductions.

Sanders' Nordic model wouldn't be seen as all that radical over here. And it will play well to certain segments. But a large chunk of the floating voter segment are very much driven by the "Individual Responsibility" mantra that is very much part of the DNA in the US. It'll be interesting to see but he would certainly end up defending his position a lot and whether he could change the narrative and convince general voters is certainly open to question


----------



## josh8267 (2 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> Good point although Sanders didn’t murder children and isn’t controlled by a foreign terrorist organisation and while his economic policies are nutty they aren’t as nutty as the Shinners so I think it’s unfair to place him or his supporters in the same bracket as the people who vote for child killers.


up to a few years ago I used to spend a few months every year working in the USA so I would have a good feel for who was going to win,
Hard to see Sanders winning ,


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Mar 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Hard to see Sanders winning ,





I know polls have been skewered quite often in recent times, but as long as they are published they do provide some indicators. 

Its hard to see anything other than that Sanders is the lead for the nomination.


----------



## josh8267 (2 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I know polls have been skewered quite often in recent times, but as long as they are published they do provide some indicators.
> 
> Its hard to see anything other than that Sanders is the lead for the nomination.


Sorry I was not very clear winning the presidency,


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Mar 2020)

josh8267 said:


> Sorry I was not very clear winning the presidency,



No bother, in general the polls put Sanders as best hope against Trump rather than any of the other candidates. Although, overall, Trump is ahead of them all.


----------



## michaelm (2 Mar 2020)

Maybe Bloomberg could beat Trump, none of the rest, but hard for him to win the Democratic nomination.  Methinks there'll be another 4 years of Trump and then both sides will put up higher calibre candidates in 2024.


WolfeTone said:


> This is not a democracy . .


Nothing democratic about, say, Russia or China but a stretch to make such a claim about the US with its strong institutions and free press.  Ultimately the US is the guarantor for western democracy. It will weather Trump. I wouldn't be so quick to knock it.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Mar 2020)

michaelm said:


> the US with its strong institutions



Yes, its institutions are strong and are the basis of a free and open democracy. 
That doesn't mean to say those institutions are not open to abuse, manipulation and corruption. 
That is what is occurring right now. No better example than current _Democratic _candidate Bloomberg who openly admitted on stage to spending $100m to buy control of Congress to control Trump. 

Here is candidate Warren, detailing some more manipulations by Bloomberg

Warren goes after Bloomberg

A democracy that facilitates wealthy people to influence both sides of the house, is not a democracy.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Mar 2020)

Buttigieg has droped out - thankfully. I don't want to think what Trump would've done to that surname.

Klobuchar (gesundheit) has dropped out and will endorse Biden - angling for VP slot I expect (I base this on my deep understanding of Democratic politics learnt from The West Wing).


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> A democracy that facilitates wealthy people to influence both sides of the house, is not a democracy.


Every democracy allows that to a lesser or greater extent


----------



## Purple (2 Mar 2020)

Biden gaining momentum.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> Biden gaining Joementum.



Fixed that for you


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> Every democracy allows that to a lesser or greater extent



Really? Thats new on me. In any case, its to the obvious greater extent in US elections.

Bloomberg 'Freudian slip'


----------



## Leo (3 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Really? Thats new on me. In any case, its to the obvious greater extent in US elections.



Plenty of it going on here.



> Fast forward to 2019. We see a robust system, with more than 1,800 registrants and in excess of 30,000 returns on the Register. Lobbying is clearly alive and well in Ireland – and so it should be.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2020)

There's a world of difference between using $100 million to help Democrats get elected through paid ads and so on - and actually buying a seat as used to go on in the old British corrupt boroughs...


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Mar 2020)

Leo said:


> Plenty of it going on here.




Thanks Leo, thats lobbying. Thats quite typical in all democracies, and the system you highlight endeavors to provide transparency in who is lobbying who, and for what purpose.

Whats not transparent in the US is why someone like Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg would spend millions and millions of dollars supporting campaigns of rival Republican candidates against the local Democratic candidate, then spend $100m campaigning for some Democratic candidates over others - suffice that the candidates he supports financially, have agreed to vote in accordance to his wishes. 

Would it have anything to do with with wanting the 'right' people in control on both sides of the house?
Its clear to me that it is. As long as those in control of Congress are subservient first to needs and interests of corporatism over the needs and interests of society at large then a system of corporate fascism is at play - Profit before People.
Its not a total takeover, yet. But im in no doubt, from the outside looking in, that Oil & Energy, Insurance, Banking, Weapons, Media industries have a grip on the political institutions of the US that extends way beyond what any normal civilised democracy should bear. 
These are dangerous times in my opinion. Tonight's 'super Tuesday' will be interesting to watch.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Mar 2020)

Hillary Clinton is already on record as beating Trump by 3 million votes.  Based on that form she should run again but this time take a bit more care with vote management.


----------



## blueband (3 Mar 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Hillary Clinton is already on record as beating Trump by 3 million votes.  Based on that form she should run again but this time take a bit more care with vote management.


Hillary knows that boat has long sailed......she would,nt have a chance this time around.


----------



## Leo (3 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Whats not transparent in the US is why someone like Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg would spend millions and millions of dollars supporting campaigns of rival Republican candidates against the local Democratic candidate, then spend $100m campaigning for some Democratic candidates over others - suffice that the candidates he supports financially, have agreed to vote in accordance to his wishes.



That's heading along conspiracy theory lines there. Again, every democracy has wealthy and not so wealthy vested interests supporting the campaigns of politicians they believe will best serve their interests. The construction industry here funding Fianna Fail in the run up to the bust for example, Sinn Fein fundraising in the US, etc.. Supporting a campaign is rarely buying votes, that's usually more a brown envelope kind of transaction.


----------



## michaelm (3 Mar 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Hillary Clinton is already on record as beating Trump by 3 million votes.


It's an Electoral College system.  It it were a popular vote system Trump would have approached it differently.  For example, there would have been merit in campaigning in California to try to get more of the Republican vote out.


----------



## TarfHead (3 Mar 2020)

michaelm said:


> It's an Electoral College system.  It it were a popular vote system Trump would have approached it differently.  For example, there would have been merit in campaigning in California to try to get more of the Republican vote out.



I disagree.  California has been a Democrat stronghold since Clinton won it in 1992.  Trump always needed to focus on other states.  Hillary Clinton lost key states by a total of just 80K votes.

If you recall election night 2016, winning the Presidency seemed to shock Trump as much as somee pundits.


----------



## michaelm (3 Mar 2020)

TarfHead said:


> Trump always needed to focus on other states.


Of course, and because the US employs an Electoral College system.  That was my point to the Duke.  It wasn't a popular vote contest otherwise Trump would have approached it differently.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2020)

michaelm said:


> Of course, and because the US employs an Electoral College system.  That was my point to the Duke.  It wasn't a popular vote contest otherwise Trump would have approached it differently.



California and New York in particular were won by the Democrats in huge margins so there was no point in Trump committing time and money and policy attention there.
There's no equivalent large state with a huge Republican margin.
It'd be a totally different contest without the electoral college or even a modified form of it where there is a bonus for winning the state but some sort of split based on proportion of the vote e.g. instead of winner takes all in Florida & Texas.


----------



## Firefly (3 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Really? Thats new on me. In any case, its to the obvious greater extent in US elections.
> 
> Bloomberg 'Freudian slip'



Fox News!!!! You really are a capitalist


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Mar 2020)

Leo said:


> Again, every democracy has wealthy and not so wealthy vested interests supporting the campaigns of politicians they believe will best serve their interests.



Of course, and the purpose of lobby register is to facilitate openness and transparency of who is lobbying who and for what purpose.

The accusations of 'Galway tents' and some politicians 'living beyond their means' are accusations of alleged impropriety - that some people are acting outside the register of lobbyists to influence political decisions, elections etc.
This is not acceptable in Ireland, save the people deciding otherwise at the ballot box.

In the US, there appears to be no limit and very little oversight of political lobbying, financial donations and the purposes of those donations.
This leaves the whole system wide open to corruption for those with deep pockets to unduly interfere in election outcomes, or effectively disenfranchise the votes of millions of ordinary people who dont have such resources.

Its not me peddling some conspiracy theory, im only echoing what Elizabeth Warren said about Mick Bloomberg being the riskiest candidate because of how much money he spends 'campaigning' for candidates on both sides of the house.
Bloomberg himself basically admits he buys elections.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Mar 2020)

The Donald is a complete shoe in for this contest.  Normally election are about swings to and fro from the last time, with the losing party hoping for more to's than fro's.  I can't see anybody who voted for The Donald having changed their minds.  He has delivered in spades within the constraints that a Democratic House would allow.
The betting is 1.74 on Betfair, but I don't like betting odds on and in any case events could happen in 9 months - he will be 74 by then after all.


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Mar 2020)

I agree, with the exception that I think Sanders has the capacity to galvanize the working class, marginalized and disenfranchised. He has a track record of drawing people out to vote. 
Im not saying he would beat Trump, he is just the best candidate to take him on in my opinion. 
If Biden gets the nomination, its game over.


----------



## odyssey06 (3 Mar 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Donald is a complete shoe in for this contest.  Normally election are about swings to and fro from the last time, with the losing party hoping for more to's than fro's.  I can't see anybody who voted for The Donald having changed their minds.  He has delivered in spades within the constraints that a Democratic House would allow.
> The betting is 1.74 on Betfair, but I don't like betting odds on and in any case events could happen in 9 months - he will be 74 by then after all.



1.74, what's that in old odds? Approximately 7/4 on for Trump to be re-elected?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Mar 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> 1.74, what's that in old odds? Approximately 7/4 on for Trump to be re-elected?


yep
Actually closer to 8/11


----------



## WolfeTone (3 Mar 2020)

Firefly said:


> Fox News!!!! You really are a capitalist



I only watch Fox News after I have been adequately padded by a reasonable protective dose of RT and Fintan O'Toole!
Have to be careful these days, viruses can spread quickly


----------



## josh8267 (4 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I only watch Fox News after I have been adequately padded by a reasonable protective dose of RT and Fintan O'Toole!
> Have to be careful these days, viruses can spread quickly


The viruses arrived in Cork on the 8 of feb 2020 and affected lots of other places as well on the same day it's called the Donnchsda O Laoghare virus 14057 people caught it in Cork around where Firefly lives,
Firefly has lots of WolfTone in his Neighbourhood looking after him. and  good Neighbours looking after WolfeTone's down his neck of the woods by all accounts,
The corona virus was made in China and  not expected to last a long time ,the Donnchsda O Laoghare virus seeing it was made in Cork is expected to be hard to get rid of,
I hope Simon is ok hope he did not bring it to Cork from the North .Is he well I heard he was out until the 15 Count,

Looks like they will have to close the Border between the Republic of Cork and the republic of Ireland, Rumour has it that it spread accross the Border from NI and no party can stop it from gaining a foothold, I hear Leo is giving up and inviting The RA in  to see if they can do a better job ,


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (4 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course, and the purpose of lobby register is to facilitate openness and transparency of who is lobbying who and for what purpose.
> 
> The accusations of 'Galway tents' and some politicians 'living beyond their means' are accusations of alleged impropriety - that some people are acting outside the register of lobbyists to influence political decisions, elections etc.
> This is not acceptable in Ireland, save the people deciding otherwise at the ballot box.
> ...


Well, Super Tuesday went in reverse order to spend.  Mini Mike blew $700m and the Commie spent considerably more than Joe.
I think there is fairly full transparency on political donations and other campaign spend in the US, as there is in most areas of public life.  Yes it is beyond the reach of the vast majority of Americans to mount a credible presidential campaign.  Would you give every citizen a constitutional right to public funds to meet this democratic deficit?  Or would you limit spend to that which the average American can afford?


----------



## TarfHead (4 Mar 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Donald is a complete shoe in for this contest.



Agree.  He already has the advantages of incumbency, FOX News & Sinclair media.  If Sanders is the Democrat candidate, Trump will use the electorate's fear of _Socialism_  to romp home.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Mar 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Well, Super Tuesday went in reverse order to spend.  Mini Mike blew $700m and the commie spent considerably more than Joe.  I think there is considerable transparency on political donations and other spend in the US.



Indeed. I did some more reading about this and it would appear that there are more checks and balances that I initially perceived. 
That said, there is a current controversy surrounding PAC (Political Action Committee) money, which is argued it facilitates donors to by-pass said checks and balances. 

Its true, money cannot assure you of success, and it should serve as a precautionary tale if ever any of our own politicians attempt to promote themselves in such ostentatious manner.

Bloomberg shouldn't be too down-hearted. He won in American Somoa! 
Perhaps TV advertising is not all what it used to be? Social media ads through FB seem the way to go - if it were not for those pesky Russians!


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Mar 2020)

TarfHead said:


> Agree.  He already has the advantages of incumbency, FOX News & Sinclair media.  If Sanders is the Democrat candidate, Trump will use the electorate's fear of _Socialism_  to romp home.



The electorate though may split the ticket... Trump may get the White House but Democrats to take Congress.


----------



## Purple (4 Mar 2020)

TarfHead said:


> Agree.  He already has the advantages of incumbency, FOX News & Sinclair media.  If Sanders is the Democrat candidate, Trump will use the electorate's fear of _Socialism_  to romp home.


I think he’ll use people’s dislike of Sanders to romp home. Sanders isn’t as unpleasant a person as Corbyn in the UK but he’s equally unelectable


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> I think he’ll use people’s dislike of Sanders to romp home.



Is that because Trump exudes charisma that most Americans cant resist?


----------



## Firefly (4 Mar 2020)

Bloomberg is out. The Left will be delighted cos he's rich.


----------



## WolfeTone (4 Mar 2020)

Firefly said:


> Bloomberg is out. The Left will be delighted cos he's rich.



Not at all. Sanders is a millionaire in his own right, and I hope he wins. 
Bloomberg quitting is a good thing in one sense - he has no sensible policies, or policies that he intended to implement.

Its bad in another sense, here is a billionaire with clearly too much money on his hands. The only good thing to come from his campaign is that he put $700m back into the economy in an advertising campaign. Somewhere in all of that, ordinary working people got jobs, bonuses etc, somewhere in all of that some people are now able to pay the rent, mortgage etc. 
It may have something to do with why he won convincingly in American Somoa!


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2020)

Sanders is worth about $2.5 million, mostly because both he and his wife have or had very well paid State funded jobs. His Salary is around $175k a year and he’s a landlord on the back of that salary. He’s also written 3 books but most of his income is from the government job.
To compare him to Trump or Bloomberg (an actual billionaire) is silly. 
it is correct to say that the left don’t like Bloomberg because he’s rich but they also don’t like him because, like Trump, he’s an opportunist who could quite easily be running for the other side.


----------



## Purple (6 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Is that because Trump exudes charisma that most Americans cant resist?


No, it’s because Sanders is a bully and an egotist and full or moral certainly and contempt for those who hold different views. That makes him a very hard person to like. 
Trump would push his buttons and Sanders would spit and bluster and alienate the middle 20% who dislike Trump but will dislike Sanders more.


----------



## WolfeTone (6 Mar 2020)

We will have to agree to disagree on that on, I think it would be the other way round.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2020)

Trump will bluster but that’s what he always does and he’s the incumbent. He’s got the bottom of the market cornered. The mouth breathers and knuckle draggers are already in his camp.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> Trump will bluster but that’s what he always does and he’s the incumbent. He’s got the bottom of the market cornered. The mouth breathers and knuckle draggers are already in his camp.



I don't disagree with that. I think, at this point, Trump is a practical certainty to be returned. 
The only prospective nominees, in my opinion, of having any chance of ruffling Trumps feathers and putting him somewhat on the back foot is Sanders or Gabbard. 
Biden can barely string three coherent sentences together and I watched some videos of his previous campaigning - lies, u-turns etc. Trump will have a field day.


----------



## Purple (7 Mar 2020)

Sanders will never win the swing voters. Rightly or wrongly “Socialism” is a toxic word in America and Bernie is a socialist.
By our standards he’s quite moderate, we just gave a bunch of far left child killers a big chunk of the vote, but by US standards he’s way to the left.


----------



## WolfeTone (7 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> Sanders will never win the swing voters.



Who do you think would give Trump a better run for his money?


----------



## Purple (8 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Who do you think would give Trump a better run for his money?


Biden.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> Sanders will never win the swing voters. Rightly or wrongly “Socialism” is a toxic word in America and Bernie is a socialist.
> By our standards he’s quite moderate, we just gave a bunch of far left child killers a big chunk of the vote, but by US standards he’s way to the left.



Am I the only one who is getting fed up with your constant use of the term "child killers" to refer to Sinn Fein, give it a rest.

You don't like them, we get it.


----------



## TarfHead (10 Mar 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Am I the only one who is getting fed up with your constant use of the term "child killers" to refer to Sinn Fein, give it a rest.



In fairness, they are also consistent on their support for the murder of adults.


----------



## Purple (10 Mar 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Am I the only one who is getting fed up with your constant use of the term "child killers" to refer to Sinn Fein, give it a rest.
> 
> You don't like them, we get it.


I'm simply referring to the facts. Many of their key members were, and probably still are, members of a terrorist organisation what killed children. Ergo they are child killers.


----------



## odyssey06 (10 Mar 2020)

With the coronavirus going global, and the leading candidates all over 70... I am remembered of the disaster that befell the Whig Party when William Henry Harison died 31 days into his term, and was succeeded by John Tyler who proceeded to adopt a totally different agenda to Harrison - especially in relation to the annexation of Mexico. Many historians draw a line of causation to the Civil War from the annexation to Mexico, due to the number of new slave states it added to the Union.








						William Henry Harrison - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




VP pick important in this election!


----------



## TarfHead (10 Mar 2020)

With one attendee at CPAC a confirmed coronavirus case, and 2 members of Congress self-isolating, this may have an effect on the Presidency.  Both members of Congress (Matt Gaetz, Doug Collins) were in the company of President Trump at the weekend. Gaetz travelled back to Washington DC on Air Force One.


----------



## WolfeTone (10 Mar 2020)

Hilary Clinton is still 120.00 on betfair exchanges, can anybody explain why? 

Ive got my tin foil hat on now.  Is it possible that she runs for VP? 
Given that Biden is showing signs of dementia, is there a window of opportunity for HC? 
Ive taken a €2 stake @ 120 in any case.


----------



## EmmDee (10 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Hilary Clinton is still 120.00 on betfair exchanges, can anybody explain why?



Because there'll always be someone who'll throw a couple of quid at a long odds bet maybe?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Hilary Clinton is still 120.00 on betfair exchanges, can anybody explain why?
> 
> Ive got my tin foil hat on now.  Is it possible that she runs for VP?
> Given that Biden is showing signs of dementia, is there a window of opportunity for HC?
> Ive taken a €2 stake @ 120 in any case.


Robert Kennedy was assassinated during his campaign as was his brother in office. Jo carries the same risks being an RC himself.  Also at 77 and showing signs of early dementia (not to mention the CV) November is a bit away for Jo.  There is therefore a small but not negligible chance of some calamity befalling Jo and HC might be the only option for a replacement. However betting on such developments seems a tad in bad taste.  The Donald trading at evens.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Mar 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Robert Kennedy was assassinated during his campaign as was his brother in office. Jo carries the same risks being an RC himself.  Also at 77 and showing signs of early dementia (not to mention the CV) November is a bit away for Jo.  There is therefore a small but not negligible chance of some calamity befalling Jo and HC might be the only option for a replacement. However betting on such developments seems a tad in bad taste.  The Donald trading at evens.



Ah, just when I had put my tin foil hat away....!
I certainly wasn't thinking along the lines of assassination, but more on the lines of US Constitution and the Presidents incapacity to do the job. 
I find it staggering that Biden is looking like the nominee. The man is clearly experiencing the onset of dementia. Anyone from Warren, Harris, Gabbard, Yang, and more would clearly be more capable of at least giving Trump some run for his money?
Trump will slam-dunk this guy. Not just because of his deteriorating mental faculties, but also because the more I learn about him, the more corrupt he is. 

Which leads me to consider that there are other forces at play here that are propelling Biden to be democratic nominee. 
All is not well in the US elections, and certainly not in the Democratic party.


----------



## Purple (11 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Ah, just when I had put my tin foil hat away....!
> I certainly wasn't thinking along the lines of assassination, but more on the lines of US Constitution and the Presidents incapacity to do the job.
> I find it staggering that Biden is looking like the nominee. The man is clearly experiencing the onset of dementia. Anyone from Warren, Harris, Gabbard, Yang, and more would clearly be more capable of at least giving Trump some run for his money?
> Trump will slam-dunk this guy. Not just because of his deteriorating mental faculties, but also because the more I learn about him, the more corrupt he is.
> ...


The suggestion that Sanders could win more votes than Biden is utterly lacking in credibility. 
No matter who the Democrats put up out of the field of nutters, nobodies and had-been's they wouldn't have anything approaching a good candidate. 
The only thing that can stop Trump is the economic fallout from Covid-19 and an oil price war between Russia and Saudi.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Mar 2020)

Reports that Sanders is preparing to quit.


----------



## TarfHead (11 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Reports that Sanders is preparing to quit.



Can you post a link to your source ?  Given that Sanders kept in the race with HRC all the way to the Convention in 2016, an exit from a two horse race in March seems unlikely.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> The suggestion that Sanders could win more votes than Biden is utterly lacking in credibility.



Well, you certainly appear to have greater insight than most on this. Only up to a couple of weeks ago, Sanders was the clear front-runner in the polls (by double-digits).
This being his second attempt at nomination, polling 43% of delegates at the last attempt, and being of sound coherent mind, I was hoping he would make the breakthrough.
But the Democratic Party has, instead,  thrown its weight behind a prospective puppet in waiting.


----------



## EmmDee (11 Mar 2020)

TarfHead said:


> Can you post a link to your source ?  Given that Sanders kept in the race with HRC all the way to the Convention in 2016, an exit from a two horse race in March seems unlikely.



In 2016 he was doing quite well on pledged delegates. This time around he is not. And he is losing "must win" states in terms of getting to the convention with enough pledged delegates.

He is having a significant problem getting his vote out - has been for a while. He has a very ardent base but he is having less success bringing out new or younger voters. And his strategy (including his electability arguement for the general) was that the wave of new voters he would attract would be larger than the moderate voters Biden might bring back to the Democrats. But the numbers don't seem to be working for him


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Mar 2020)

TarfHead said:


> Can you post a link to your source ?  Given that Sanders kept in the race with HRC all the way to the Convention in 2016, an exit from a two horse race in March seems unlikely.



You are probably correct, my misinterpretation - a news conference is being called later today. It may be more to do with cancelling rallies because of coronavirus rather than quitting.


----------



## Purple (11 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Well, you certainly appear to have greater insight than most on this. Only up to a couple of weeks ago, Sanders was the clear front-runner in the polls (by double-digits).
> This being his second attempt at nomination, polling 43% of delegates at the last attempt, and being of sound coherent mind, I was hoping he would make the breakthrough.
> But the Democratic Party has, instead,  thrown its weight behind a prospective puppet in waiting.


Strong support within the Democratic Party membership is one thing. Getting the middle 20% of the electorate is a different thing. He's America's Corbyn; strong support from within his base but couldn't win an election in a fit.


----------



## Leo (11 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> I'm simply referring to the facts. Many of their key members were, and probably still are, members of a terrorist organisation what killed children. Ergo they are child killers.



Maybe you could rotate the terms so it's not as tedious to the more sensitive? Like child murderers one week, cop killers the next week, then bank robbers, fuel smugglers, money launderers, etc....


----------



## Purple (11 Mar 2020)

Leo said:


> Maybe you could rotate the terms so it's not as tedious to the more sensitive? Like child murderers one week, cop killers the next week, then bank robbers, fuel smugglers, money launderers, etc....


Where does financial fantasists fit in to that list though?
How about front for foreign terrorist organisation?


If I preface them with Good Republican would that help?
"Good Republican child killers" Is that better?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (11 Mar 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Am I the only one who is getting fed up with your constant use of the term "child killers" to refer to Sinn Fein, give it a rest.
> 
> You don't like them, we get it.


You may not be the only one.  But I am for sure not with you.  Any unqualified reference to these justifiers of sectarian murder only lends to a process of normalising their obscene moral compass.  I have followed your posts with interest and they generally seem reasonable.  It is disappointing to see that you would support the normalising of the SF/RA message.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Mar 2020)

Back on topic, Sanders faces some truths

Sanders reaction


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Hilary Clinton is still 120.00 on betfair exchanges, can anybody explain why?


And Mike Pence is 48.  So it is as I suggested that at these elderly ages it is quite a long time to November.


----------



## Purple (12 Mar 2020)

Mike Pence is 60.
Clean living and This post will be deleted if not edited immediately have kept him looking young and spritely.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Mar 2020)

Purple said:


> Mike Pence is 60.
> Clean living and This post will be deleted if not edited immediately have kept him looking young and spritely.


Not sure whether you are pulling my leg.  The point I was making is that _Wolfie _understandably queries why HC is 120 on Betfair when she is not even challenging for the nomination.  I was pointing out that Pence is less than half those odds at 48 even though the GOP are not even running a contest for the nomination.  Both odds can be explained by considering that 8 months is relatively long for the elderly front runners.


----------



## Purple (12 Mar 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Not sure whether you are pulling my leg.  The point I was making is that _Wolfie _understandably queries why HC is 120 on Betfair when she is not even challenging for the nomination.  I was pointing out that Pence is less than half those odds at 48 even though the GOP are not even running a contest for the nomination.  Both odds can be explained by considering that 8 months is relatively long for the elderly front runners.


Yes, I was trying to... but it didn't work.


----------



## WolfeTone (13 Mar 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And Mike Pence is 48.



Now at 32.
Ive taken another €6 @ 60 for HC pushing her price into 55, in from 120. 

Notably, these are shallow markets - not much money at stake so dramatic price changes are not unusual, or hard to engineer.
My big outside bet was on Tulsi Gabbard who is now out to 1,000. Interestingly, she refuses to quit and is campaigning to be allowed on the debate stage with Biden and Sanders.


----------



## EmmDee (19 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> My big outside bet was on Tulsi Gabbard who is now out to 1,000. Interestingly, she refuses to quit and is campaigning to be allowed on the debate stage with Biden and Sanders.



Seems the bookies ARE rarely incorrect


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Mar 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Seems the bookies ARE rarely incorrect



Turns out she was a fraud along, endorsing Biden!-


----------



## EmmDee (19 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> endorsing Biden!-



That bit in particular made me chuckle


----------



## Purple (20 Mar 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Turns out she was a fraud along, endorsing Biden!-


I think people on the Democrat side need to be seen to unite as Biden was always the only candidate who had any chance of beating Trump, slim though it may be. Trump certainly hoped for Sanders as he know he'd walk it against such a left wing candidate.

Having been in the US recently and having talked to a large number of business people in a couple of States it is remarkable how many people strongly dislike Trump the person but support his economic policies and in the end that's what most people vote on. It is also striking just how much bureaucracy AMerican businesses face. Between Federal, State, county and city licences and regulations small businesses, maybe 15-20 people, could have 1-2 staff working full.time just interacting with officialdom. They will vote for the person who says that they will lighten that load.


----------



## john luc (20 Mar 2020)

Is there a legal process to possible stall an election if the virus is a full tilt when it comes time to vote.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Mar 2020)

Gabbard endorsed Biden? I preferred her as a russian stooge, it was her USP.


----------



## EmmDee (20 Mar 2020)

john luc said:


> Is there a legal process to possible stall an election if the virus is a full tilt when it comes time to vote.



As far as I know - elections aren't determined at a Federal level. They are state run and managed. States can (and do) have postal voting. I'm not sure if some States have a method other than general voting to select electors. Remember - the president isn't directly elected by popular vote. He is elected by a college whose members represent each state. So the President (or Senate) don't run the process.

The Senate might determine when the college meets I think


----------



## Firefly (31 Mar 2020)

Andrew Coumo is looking more & more likely...


----------



## EmmDee (1 Apr 2020)

Firefly said:


> Andrew Coumo is looking more & more likely...



For what? 2024?


----------



## Purple (1 Apr 2020)

Firefly said:


> Andrew Coumo is looking more & more likely...


People said that about Rudy Giuliani after 9/11 and now look at him.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2020)

Kimberly Guilfoyle 

_Holy jaysus  . _

Puts NK into perspective.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Aug 2020)

I expect Trump to lose.
Pre-coronavirus I thought he might just shade it over Biden.
One of those what ifs of history...


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2020)

I would have thought Trump was there for the taking, but I can't understand the appeal of Biden, and worse Kamala Harris. 
I think Trump will wipe the floor with both of them in debates. Not because of substance of argument, just sheer brass-neck lies and put-downs.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Aug 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I would have thought Trump was there for the taking, but I can't understand the appeal of Biden, and worse Kamala Harris.
> I think Trump will wipe the floor with both of them in debates. Not because of substance of argument, just sheer brass-neck lies and put-downs.



The debates will be sth alright but wouldnt it be Pence v Harris? 
Is there a VP debate?


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Aug 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> The debates will be sth alright but wouldnt it be Pence v Harris?
> Is there a VP debate?



Yes, correct. I just have this eerie feeling that Biden won't make it to November, and the path is paved for Harris. Just a hunch, mind.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2020)

Ok, re-reading my comment I can see how it can imply something sinister, I will re-phrase - I just have this eerie feeling that Bidens cognitive decline will pave the way ultimately for Harris to be the defacto commander-in-chief, if not by November, then not too long into the term of the new administration.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Aug 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Ok, re-reading my comment I can see how it can imply something sinister, I will re-phrase - I just have this eerie feeling that Bidens cognitive decline will pave the way ultimately for Harris to be the defacto commander-in-chief, if not by November, then not too long into the term of the new administration.



As he is 77 that was how I interpreted your comment, health related, nothing sinister.


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I would have thought Trump was there for the taking, but I can't understand the appeal of Biden, and worse Kamala Harris.
> I think Trump will wipe the floor with both of them in debates. Not because of substance of argument, just sheer brass-neck lies and put-downs.


What's the alternative?
People don't like Trump but vote for him based on the spin and lies and the fact that the USA enjoyed unprecedented economic growth during him tenure. How much of that was down to him is certainly open to debate.
Biden is likable and very middle ground. That, and the fact that he's not Trump, is the attraction.
The only other real option was Bernie Sanders. He was loved by his supporters but deeply disliked by most Americans. They also disliked his economic policies. The reality is that anyone who voted for Bernie will vote for Biden but lots of swing voters would vote for Trump instead of Bernie.


----------



## Sunny (26 Aug 2020)

None of them will exactly inspire a generation. American politics is now completely dominated by money and special interest groups. Biden is weak but Trump is deranged so if that is the choice, then Biden it is. But I can't see him being anything but a one term President.....


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2020)

This is an excellent poll tracker from the FT.   Biden looks home and hosed based on these polls. 
But Betfair do not agree, they have it now 1.84 (54%) Biden, 2.24 (45%) Trump.,  which is the strongest showing for Trump for many months.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> What's the alternative?



There is no alternative. Its four more years of Trump, or four years of a return to the status quo policies that got people voting for Trump in the first place.


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> There is no alternative. Its four more years of Trump, or four years of a return to the status quo policies that got people voting for Trump in the first place.


Thomas Jefferson said that Capitalists, or more specifically corporations, would undermine democracy. He said that “We must crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to bid defiance to the laws of our country.” He, along wit those far left lunatics Abraham Lincoln, Adam Smith and Franklin D Roosevelt, was worried about the influence of money and how it undermined democracy. The man who coined the phrase the Military Industrial Complex  was a former General, DW Eisenhower. He said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."    
The reality is that in the USA democracy lost and money won. It happened in the late 60's when Nixon was elected and it happened because fear is the primary driver within American society. That's why the government isn't really of the people or by the people and it certainly isn't for the people.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> The reality is that in the USA democracy lost and money won. It happened in the late 60's when Nixon was elected and it happened because fear is the primary driver within American society. That's why the government isn't really of the people or by the people and it certainly isn't for the people.



Agree.


----------



## PMU (26 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> The reality is that in the USA democracy lost and money won.


No.  The reality is that Americans believe so much in democracy they spend lots of their own money supporting it and making it work.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Aug 2020)

PMU said:


> No.  The reality is that Americans believe so much in democracy they spend lots of their own money supporting it and making it work.



Fine if you have lots of your own money, what do those who have very little money do?


----------



## Purple (26 Aug 2020)

PMU said:


> No.  The reality is that Americans believe so much in democracy they spend lots of their own money supporting it and making it work.


If the top 1% of the top 1% provide 80% of the money and money talks then who do you think the politicians listen to and can that be called real democracy?
(please don't let anyone say anything stupid like "America's a Republic, not a Democracy")


----------



## cremeegg (26 Aug 2020)

Most US presidential elections back as far as Eisenhower (I like Ike) are won by the most likeable candidate. Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Regean, Clinton, the younger Bush. Nixon is the exception that proves the rule.

Hillary Clinton never really made it in the like-ability stakes. Biden is a pleasant likeable guy.

(obviously I am talking about the appearance of likeability, who knows what their reality was)


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (26 Aug 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Most US presidential elections back as far as Eisenhower (I like Ike) are won by the most likeable candidate. Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Regean, Clinton, the younger Bush. Nixon is the exception that proves the rule.
> 
> Hillary Clinton never really made it in the like-ability stakes. Biden is a pleasant likeable guy.
> 
> (obviously I am talking about the appearance of likeability, who knows what their reality was)


Biden is an RC.  The statistics show that 100% of RC presidents get assassinated.  A vote for Biden is a vote for Kamela, not saying that is a bad thing.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Aug 2020)

Pelosi does not think Biden should debate Trump.

I agree, but for different reasons.


----------



## joe sod (27 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> Thomas Jefferson said that Capitalists, or more specifically corporations, would undermine democracy. He said that “We must crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to bid defiance to the laws of our country.”


like everything you must put this quote into its proper context. the late 18th century, America was a new country that had just won its independence from Britain, it was still a weak country and very afraid that Britain would take back the colony, the "aristocracy" and "moneyed corporations" were the British imperialists. Afterall the "boston tea party" was a revolt against the British East india company from selling tea from China in the American colonies. So the "moneyed corporations" he was talking about was really the East India company, he didnt want foreign corporations undermining the  new and fledgling American ones. Interesting that the whole thing was sparked by "Chinese tea". history repeating itself


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2020)

joe sod said:


> like everything you must put this quote into its proper context. the late 18th century, America was a new country that had just won its independence from Britain, it was still a weak country and very afraid that Britain would take back the colony, the "aristocracy" and "moneyed corporations" were the British imperialists. Afterall the "boston tea party" was a revolt against the British East india company from selling tea from China in the American colonies. So the "moneyed corporations" he was talking about was really the East India company, he didnt want foreign corporations undermining the  new and fledgling American ones. Interesting that the whole thing was sparked by "Chinese tea". history repeating itself


In 1825 Jefferson wrote to William Branch Giles of _"vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of ’76 now look to a single and splendid government of an Aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and monied in corporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry."_
America was still the only real democracy and fixed ruling classes were the norm throughout the rest of the world. He saw that governments could easily be controlled by an elite. It was the main reason he was against the formation of the Federal reserve. He was not talking about British corporations or foreign influences, he was talking about what had been the establishment in America under British rule reasserting itself as a controlling establishment under direct American rule. He understood how fragile and corriptable democracy was.


----------



## joe sod (28 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> He was not talking about British corporations or foreign influences, he was talking about what had been the establishment in America under British rule reasserting itself as a controlling establishment under direct American rule. He understood how fragile and corriptable democracy was.


Well that simply means he was afraid of the British establishment re asserting itself in America whether directly or indirectly, I agree. Obviously he had no foresight that the American corporations 150 years in the future would be the dominant ones and imperialist Britain would be finished. Your original quote was stated as if he was against the subsequent power of American corporations, I doubt that, I'm sure he would have been delighted because that meant that the fledgling American democracy was a stunning success


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2020)

joe sod said:


> Your original quote was stated as if he was against the subsequent power of American corporations


He was against the influence of money in politics. It saw that money in power means that money is power and therefore the people would not hold the power. It had nothing to do with Britain or British corporations.
America was not founded as a capitalist State with a large Army and imperialist economic policies. Before the outbreak of the First World War America had the 16th biggest Army in the world, just behind Serbia. They always had a big Navy (and Marine Corp though). Their imperialist aspirations grew over time and probably only became fully developed around the time of the American Spanish war of 1898 when they took over Spain's colonies of Cuba, Porto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

Don't get me wrong, the issue isn't capitalism or money, the issue is undue influence within the political process which, in essence, undermines democracy.
I see no difference between financiers or businesses or Unions or Lobby Groups; any body or organisation or corporation which places itself between the politicians and the people they are elected to serve is a threat to democracy. In America they are the "Lobbyists on Capitol Hill", in Ireland they are the "Social Partners". It used to be the guys and gals in the Galway Tent but we replaced them with a different equally damaging establishment with a different but equally self serving agenda.

That's what Jefferson understood, he understood that democracy had to give everyone*** an equal voice or else it wasn't democracy.

*** "everyone" being white men.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Aug 2020)

joe sod said:


> if he was against the subsequent power of American corporations, I doubt that, I'm sure he would have been delighted because that meant that the fledgling American democracy was a stunning success



The subsequent 'power of American corporations', if it holds undue influence over American politics, which it does, points to a stunning failure of American democracy. 

The distinction must be made between the  influence of American innovation and science on commerce and its influence on the political system.


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> The distinction must be made between the influence of American innovation and science on commerce and its influence on the political system.


Absolutely. The overall influence of capitalism, or the ownership of capital by individuals, and the lifting of billions out of poverty is also of note.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Aug 2020)

You guys are disillusioning me.  I always thought that America's electoral system was fair and transparent (except for the minor wrinkle of the gerrymandered electoral college).  Are you saying that the MIC run the show because they have the money to brainwash the voters to their wishes?


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> You guys are disillusioning me.  I always thought that America's electoral system was fair and transparent (except for the minor wrinkle of the gerrymandered electoral college).  Are you saying that the MIC run the show because they have the money to brainwash the voters to their wishes?


They get to influence who is selected and they decide who gets the money to run their campaigns.
They get to influence Congress and the Senate and what bills get written and passed.

Other than that their influence is minimal.


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Aug 2020)

Jefferson was wrong, as anyone who has watched Hamilton lately would know.
In terms of 1800s politics, I'm a Federalist. Vote John Adams.


----------



## joe sod (28 Aug 2020)

Purple said:


> He was against the influence of money in politics. It saw that money in power means that money is power and therefore the people would not hold the power. It had nothing to do with Britain or British corporations.


But that is a modern idea that money in itself is powerful, in the early nineteenth century you also needed a powerful military which the British had but the Americans didn't sure even the east India company had its own army. Your point is that Jefferson foresaw the power of American corporations in the 21 century and he was trying to stop that, I fundamentally disagree. My point is that his fundamental fear was British imperialism as that was what the Americans had just won their freedom from and that was still the most powerful force in the world then. Of course imperialism was his major influence sure why would he use words like "aristocracy" thats a clear reference to imperialism


----------



## Purple (28 Aug 2020)

joe sod said:


> But that is a modern idea that money in itself is powerful, in the early nineteenth century you also needed a powerful military which the British had


 No it isn't. Money has always mattered. When the King was restored in England the only power that Parliament took from him was the ability to levy taxes. Therefore the King could do anything he wanted so long as Parliament agreed to pay for it. The net result; he had no power.

After the War of Independence the debt burden in some States was far higher than others so the Federalisation of the debt of the 13 States was proposed. Without that deb there may well have been no United States as we know it. Money has always been at the root of power. Without it there is no Army, no Navy, no ships, no guns, nothing. 



joe sod said:


> Your point is that Jefferson foresaw the power of American corporations in the 21 century and he was trying to stop that


 No it isn't, not even slightly.



joe sod said:


> My point is that his fundamental fear was British imperialism as that was what the Americans had just won their freedom from and that was still the most powerful force in the world then.


 Yes, and I disagree, based on what I have read about Jefferson and the historical period.


----------



## WolfeTone (28 Aug 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Are you saying that the MIC run the show because they have the money to brainwash the voters to their wishes?



This is the tin-foil hat theory.
The reality is somewhat more dull. Politicians run for office, they receive donations. They listen to their donors.  Its not much different to most democracies except perhaps the extent to which donors can influence political decision making.
For example, from the outside looking in, it is to me as clear and obvious as to why there never appears to be any real gun control reform in a country desperately in need of gun control reform.


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Aug 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This is the tin-foil hat theory.
> The reality is somewhat more dull. Politicians run for office, they receive donations. They listen to their donors.  Its not much different to most democracies except perhaps the extent to which donors can influence political decision making.



I think though given the 'primary' system, is a politician even going to try to make a run for office if they are not 'donation friendly'? That has a huge filtering effect.
On the other hand, state funding means you can have a cosy cartel of tweedle-dum and tweedle-dum and hard for new parties to get going.
There needs to be a balance.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (28 Aug 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> This is the tin-foil hat theory.
> The reality is somewhat more dull. Politicians run for office, they receive donations. They listen to their donors.  Its not much different to most democracies except perhaps the extent to which donors can influence political decision making.
> For example, from the outside looking in, it is to me as clear and obvious as to why there never appears to be any real gun control reform in a country desperately in need of gun control reform.


I Wiki'd the MIC.  It seems the original concept is more narrow, restricted to the military and those industries that feed of it.  A broader malaise seems to be being suggested here.  That the whole system is tilted towards the elites.  The media are in the pockets of the elites.  The election process is rigged to make sure the elites come out on top.  Could you imagine anyone being elected president on that sort of platform?


----------



## odyssey06 (28 Aug 2020)

I have had a Trumpian moment.
During the debate, Trump will announce that he has the formula for the covid-19 vaccine and if he's not elected President won't deliver it...


----------



## WolfeTone (29 Aug 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> I think though given the 'primary' system, is a politician even going to try to make a run for office if they are not 'donation friendly'? That has a huge filtering effect.



The problem isn't campaign donations per se. It's the extent of those donations and other earnings that is warped.
Senator John McCain received $300 from NRA in his last year of public office. Nothing wrong with that, until it is shown that he received over $7m from NRA throughout his political career, which to me, stinks.

I'm not sure how many politicians are funded by the NRA but I'm going to take a wild guess here to say its enough to stop any meaningful gun control reform from happening. This is against regular polling that shows majority of Americans are in favour of reform.

Hilary Clinton received $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for a bland after dinner speech. HC was no longer Sec of State at the time, nor had she announced her intention to run for President, so technically it wasn't a political donation.
But why would Goldman Sachs pay such a sum to a person of no-office?
I'm just guessing, but I'd imagine Goldman Sachs may have gambled that Clinton would seek high office once again (what could give them that idea!) and that it would be nice for GS bankers to hear directly her views on any prospective financial regulatory reform, especially if such reform was amenable to their own views.
And if one was, subsequently, to decide to run for high office and in need of political donations, why not butter the ears of people with access to vast financial resources?

And billionaire Michael Bloomberg admitting how he spent $100m to elect 20 Democratic politicians, or as he put it "I bought them", while campaigning as a prospective President.

Those are just three examples that, to me, should set alarm bells ringing with regard the independence of any legislature. In US, its just part of the political game. I suspect such examples are the tip of the iceberg.

In this country, a golf society dinner, can threaten to bring down a government, cause Ministers and Commissioners to resign for breach health regulations.
There is a different standard for sure.



odyssey06 said:


> There needs to be a balance.



I agree. I don't see anything wrong with political donations per se. The question is, are donations to politicians on account of policies they advocate/implement or are policies advocated /implemented on foot of donations received?
It can be a grey area for sure. One way to gauge the extent of financial interference into political decision making is to measure the value of the donations compared with the actual number of donors. 
It doesn't take long after a cursory examination of political campaigning, donations, accumulation of personal wealth etc in the US to figure that something is rotten. In my opinion anyway.


----------



## joe sod (29 Aug 2020)

but what about Donald Trump he wasn't an elite , he didn't play the game in fact he openly mocked the elites and the establishment , he was brash  like alot of his voter base, he just happened to be a very rich guy which meant he didn't need to play the game. Could a Donald Trump get elected in Ireland? No, in Ireland you have to be an elite, you have to play the game, yes you can become an elite relatively easily but only as long as you play the game. In a way Phil Hogan was fired because he stopped playing the game. he thought he was still playing it but the rules of the game were changed by the new elites, Varadker and co.


----------



## Purple (31 Aug 2020)

joe sod said:


> but what about Donald Trump he wasn't an elite , he didn't play the game in fact he openly mocked the elites and the establishment , he was brash  like alot of his voter base, he just happened to be a very rich guy which meant he didn't need to play the game. Could a Donald Trump get elected in Ireland?


 Trump was still funded by donors, including banks and hedge funds.



joe sod said:


> No, in Ireland you have to be an elite, you have to play the game, yes you can become an elite relatively easily but only as long as you play the game. In a way Phil Hogan was fired because he stopped playing the game. he thought he was still playing it but the rules of the game were changed by the new elites, Varadker and co.


Right, that's why Ming Flanagan, Claire Daly and Mick Wallace were elected. That's why the gay son of an immigrant was the leader of the country. That's why we have a large cohort of far left Parties in the Dáil.


----------



## Peanuts20 (31 Aug 2020)

joe sod said:


> but what about Donald Trump he wasn't an elite , he didn't play the game in fact he openly mocked the elites and the establishment , he was brash  like alot of his voter base, he just happened to be a very rich guy which meant he didn't need to play the game. Could a Donald Trump get elected in Ireland? No, in Ireland you have to be an elite, you have to play the game, yes you can become an elite relatively easily but only as long as you play the game. In a way Phil Hogan was fired because he stopped playing the game. he thought he was still playing it but the rules of the game were changed by the new elites, Varadker and co.



Trump was part of the elite, an American TV personality and socialite who had inherited millions and who hob-nobbed with the rich and famous and did what he liked left right and centre because he could and would probably get away with it. Don't buy in to his "common man" brashness, he was and is cleverer then most politicians when it comes to playing sides of against each other. Remember he was once a donor to the Democratic party. 

The "elite" in Ireland are no different to any other country, except maybe not as rich. Every country has those who ride to the top, even in communist Russia there was an elite with Dacha's and access to foreign goods. "All animals are equal but some are more equal then others",


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Aug 2020)

Boylesports now go 10/11 each of them i.e. equal chances. And Betfair more or less agrees.
How does that reconcile with this picture from the FT poll tracker.
270 electoral college votes needed to win
Biden has 203 in the bag and 95 leaning towards him
Trump has 80 in the bag and 39 leaning towards him
121 are a toss up
Clearly the betting markets see big banana skin possibilities for Biden. Is it the debates?
Can anybody throw light on this conundrum?


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Aug 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Can anybody throw light on this conundrum



Hard to gauge from the outside looking in.  I usually revert to a handful of media outlets and commentators. I see that CNN are still pushing the "Russians under your bed" conspiracy. Their latest is that civil unrest is being fomented by Russia - presumably because they think ordinary Americans would never revolt in the face of police brutality, social injustice, increasing personal debt, costly healthcare etc

The other patronising element pushed about the media is the "vote blue no matter who" slogan. This infantile sloganeering is pure arrogance. It may sit comfortably with the Democrat base but surely does little to entice undecided voters.

Trump on the other hand, despite his god awful persona is, perceptably at least, trying to bring jobs back to America and identifying China as the real competitive threat to US fortunes as the second largest economy in the world.

Russian economy on the other hand is about 10% the size of US, somewhere between South Korea and Italy.

If I were to wager today I would bet on Trump winning. I cannot see the appeal of Biden outside his own base other than he is not Trump.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Aug 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Boylesports now go 10/11 each of them i.e. equal chances. And Betfair more or less agrees.
> How does that reconcile with this picture from the FT poll tracker.
> 270 electoral college votes needed to win
> Biden has 203 in the bag and 95 leaning towards him
> ...



I dont think it is the debates, Biden is said to be a good performer in debates.


----------



## cremeegg (31 Aug 2020)

Elections are won or lost on a simple message, Boris Johnson won on "Get Brexit done" FG and FF did badly in our recent election because the electorate wanted change.

I posted some time ago that my middle class liberal Trump hating friends in the US are worried about the riots. That worry is spreading 









						Dead candidate walking - Biden misread public’s law and order mood, says PATRICK BASHAM
					

In any political campaign, there's a moment that tells you which way the electoral wind is blowing. In this year's American presidential campaign, that moment arrived on Wednesday.




					www.express.co.uk
				




Could Trump be reelected on a simple stop the riots message ? I think he might.


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Aug 2020)

cremeegg said:


> I dont think it is the debates, Biden is said to be a good performer in debates.



He may have been, but his cognitive decline is obvious to see. Even Pelosi is recommending that Biden does not debate Trump, this is cloaked as "why waste time listening to what he has to say?", which is quite alarming. 
Whatever anyone thinks of him, Trump is the sitting President of US. For the sitting Speaker of the House  to make such utterances along with "I wouldn't legitimize a conversation with him" gives some indication of how divided the US is at the moment and how, in my opinion, the Democrats are dreading a Trump v Biden debate.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (31 Aug 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Hard to gauge from the outside looking in.  I usually revert to a handful of media outlets and commentators. I see that CNN are still pushing the "Russians under your bed" conspiracy. Their latest is that civil unrest is being fomented by Russia - presumably because they think ordinary Americans would never revolt in the face of police brutality, social injustice, increasing personal debt, costly healthcare etc
> 
> The other patronising element pushed about the media is the "vote blue no matter who" slogan. This infantile sloganeering is pure arrogance. It may sit comfortably with the Democrat base but surely does little to entice undecided voters.
> 
> ...


That's all fine _Wolfie_.  But what really perplexes me is the betting markets.  They clearly expect a big change in current polls.  What are they betting on?


----------



## WolfeTone (31 Aug 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> That's all fine _Wolfie_. But what really perplexes me is the betting markets. They clearly expect a big change in current polls. What are they betting on?



That the modelling for the polling data is out of kilter like it was in 2016? That Trump offered millions of Americans a chance to slap the establishment across the face in the hope it would wake up to their plight, and that the Democrats have entrusted this Presidential campaign to an established insider like Biden might mean they can expect again, another slap in the face?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> That the modelling for the polling data is out of kilter like it was in 2016?


The betting markets were aligned with the polls in 2016 and both got the result wrong (but not by much, Clinton won the popular vote by 3m votes).
My question is really why are the betting markets so out of kilter with the polls and in particular what has changed to bring Trump in from 2/1 against to even money in a week, with no shift in polls?
Ben Walker in the New Statesman has an apparently sophisticated model (50,000 simulations) which indicates an 86% chance of a Biden win, which hasn't changed for a long time.  (Ok I know NS is a leftie rag).
There is no doubt that if current polls were still valid on the day before polling, the Donald would be 20/1 in the betting markets.
So restating my question, why do the betting markets think that the opinion polls will dramatically shift in Trump's direction from now till election day?
I have posited one possible explanation; that Joe is more likely to have a senior moment in the debates. 
Another factor is the pandemic.  Maybe the view is that this introduces such a level of uncertainty that today's polls aren't a very reliable guide to what they will be come election day.  The Donald did make it almost an election promise in his acceptance speech that there will be a vaccine by year end or sooner.  Any positive developments on that front would be milked for all its worth by him.
The other thing that has been happening during the week are the riots and maybe that is why Trump's odds are shortening.
I have a feeling that come November, I will be kicking myself for not filling my boots with the greatest giveaway even money shot (Biden) in election betting history.


----------



## EmmDee (1 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The betting markets were aligned with the polls in 2016 and both got the result wrong (but not by much, Clinton won the popular vote by 3m votes).
> My question is really why are the betting markets so out of kilter with the polls and in particular what has changed to bring Trump in from 2/1 against to even money in a week, with no shift in polls?
> Ben Walker in the New Statesman has an apparently sophisticated model (50,000 simulations) which indicates an 86% chance of a Biden win, which hasn't changed for a long time.  (Ok I know NS is a leftie rag).
> There is no doubt that if current polls were still valid on the day before polling, the Donald would be 20/1 in the betting markets.
> ...



Another factor you're not taking into account - betting odds are driven more by the flow of money rather than attempting to predict. So you'd need to question why there is a roughly even amount of money being put on Trump.

If you do feel like a flutter, even money on Biden is probably as good as you'll get. I think the reasons given above for Trump aren't convincing - or rather they leave out a lot of challenges Trump is facing


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Sep 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Another factor you're not taking into account - betting odds are driven more by the flow of money rather than attempting to predict.





			
				Oddschecker said:
			
		

> The money keeps coming for the current POTUS…
> 
> August has seen Donald Trump’s odds cut for the 2020 US election, with punters backing the 74-year-old in their numbers.
> He started the month at 7/4, but in the last three weeks his price has been cut into as short as .
> ...


I think the betting markets are driven by what they think are the correct odds.  Yes if they perceive the odds are too long then the money will pour on to shorten them.  In equilibrium the odds  agree with the market perception.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The betting markets were aligned with the polls in 2016 and both got the result wrong



Fair point. I think I recall on the eve of election Trump out to around 4/1 Clinton 1/5 on the betfair exchange.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> My question is really why are the betting markets so out of kilter with the polls and in particular what has changed to bring Trump in from 2/1 against to even money in a week, with no shift in polls?



You have offered some factors that may contribute to this distortion which I agree, but I think there would have to be something more substantial. I looked at the betfair exchange this morning - €77,741,2017 worth of bets matched already on this market. That is what I call a tight market, and yes, it points to something fundamentally askew (again) with polling data.

My main guess, is that the traditional polling data is becoming obselete, or less relevant, being eaten up by the internet and the emergence of social media. Traditionally, everyone got their news from a handful of mainstream media outlets. Those outlets, generally, gave scant time for what were considered 'minor' or 'fringe' views. Nowadays, anyone can have a multitude of views and opinions ranging across a huge variance of issues posted on their media stream. In turn, discovering what they may have considered 'fringe' views are actually more mainstream - the whole 'fake news' debate is nothing more than mainstream news, and in turn the traditional polling data, losing control of the narrative.
There has always been fake news, I grew up being advised of the maxim "don't believe everything you read in the newspapers", that's because my elders understood that the mainstream media were as capable of peddling fake news, propaganda, cover-ups etc as well as anyone - Bloody Sunday in Derry, Hillsborough disaster, WMD to name a few.

You can observe this in this country. Anyone with media feed on their smartphone can plug into the views of Gemma O'Doherty, John Waters, Jim Corr. While some of their views are outlandish to me, they do attract a following and that following is emboldened by the fact that increasing numbers are beginning to share some of those views, views that get scant time on traditional mainstream outlets. The offer by Claire Byrne to host a 'debate' between Jim Corr and Jedward on their 'Twitter spat' gives credence to the dismissive nature that traditional mainstream outlets do have for alternative viewpoints. Regardless of what anyone thinks of these 'fringe' views, the people who propagate them are deadly serious about them and hold a conviction about them. I would suggest it is a dangerous thing to dismiss or deride anyone's personal convictions. But unfortunately this is what is happening here, just as it is happening in the US. For instance, CNN alluding to recent social unrest and rioting being the work of Russia rather than social injustice, police brutality, etc. CNN peddling the Russia spooks theory feeds into Trumps narrative of mainstream media fake news.

The Director Michael Moore, warned in 2016 against all the polling data, that Trump was on course to win. He did so based on his own observations in his own State of Michigan which is traditionally Democrat, that people were angry. He is giving the same warning again today. Trump support is off the charts.



EmmDee said:


> Another factor you're not taking into account - betting odds are driven more by the flow of money rather than attempting to predict. So you'd need to question why there is a roughly even amount of money being put on Trump.



That's a fair point, but looking at the Betfair Exchange mentioned earlier, the market has been open for a couple of years with 20-30 prospective runners taking bets (including my own long-shot Tulsi Gabbard bets!).
Out of €77m bets matched, 56% are attributable to bets on Trump, 33% on Biden and 11% the rest of the field.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> My main guess, is that the traditional polling data is becoming obselete, or less relevant, being eaten up by the internet and the emergence of social media. ...in turn the traditional polling data, losing control of the narrative.


I am trying to understand the betting.  I have no doubt that if the election was tomorrow Trump would be at least 20/1 based on current polls.  
Yes all the social media stuff is affecting the way folk make up their minds but a poll is a poll.  The betting markets clearly do not think that today's polls are a reliable indication of people's views in 2 months' time, but I think they would accept that they are a fair representation of their current views.
They think it is all up for grabs.  I have mentioned a few possible game changers in Trump's favour between now and polling day.  There may also be the view that he is not beyond dirty tricks.  Maybe take out another Iranian general or a faux trade dispute with China.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The betting markets clearly do not think that today's polls are a reliable indication of people's views in 2 months' time, but I think they would accept that they are a fair representation of their current views.



I agree with the first part, I disagree with the second part.

From the FT link that you posted earlier

"_With just over two months to go before the US presidential election, former vice-president Joe Biden, the Democratic party’s nominee, is polling ahead of incumbent Republican president Donald Trump in key battleground states, though he has seen his lead narrow in some states since the summer. In Wisconsin, where Mr Trump won by a razor thin margin in 2016, Mr Biden currently holds a 5 point lead. In Florida, where Covid cases remain high, Mr Biden also leads Mr Trump by about 5 percentage points. Mr Biden has a narrow lead in Arizona, a state only one Democratic presidential candidate has won in the past 70 years, and an even narrower one in North Carolina, which has voted Republican in nine out of the last 10 presidential elections. In Texas, the difference in poll numbers between the two men is less than 5 percentage points, also suggesting a close race in November in the quintessential red state." _


My understanding is that leading into the last election in these key States, HC was polling a greater lead than Biden is now - that is not a good omen.
As mentioned, Michael Moore, who called a Trump win in 2016 against all the polls, is sounding the alarm bells again.
And as for the senior moments, here is last nights one, talking in an empty room with a pre-script about Covid19.

Biden Covid 

The polls, whatever way they are conducted are now not considered reliable. There is two months to go, Trump will dominate the airwaves relative to Biden as he is clearly not capable. Moves are already afoot not to have any debates. Just from my perspective the Democratic campaign is extremely limp. They attack Trump the person (rightly) but what else do they do? They are not offering anything of any real substance to the people who are struggling, protesting, rioting, marginalised etc...other than vague platitudes presented by an insider establishment figure, a former VP for 8yrs to the President that preceded the election of Trump.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I agree with the first part, I disagree with the second part.


To be clear, the "second part" was that *they *(the betting markets) think polls are a good indicator at a point in time and therefore if the election was tomorrow, Trump would be very long odds against indeed.  I think what you are saying is that *you *don't think polls are a reliable indicator of opinion even at the time when they were conducted.  Fair enough, but I am trying to tease out why the markets are not heeding the polls.

That cringeworthy clip of Biden convinces me that it is the debates that the markets see as having the potential to sink Biden's current lead in the polls.
Why oh why did the Democrats go for Biden?


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> And as for the senior moments, here is last nights one, talking in an empty room with a pre-script about Covid19.
> Biden Covid



That clip was curious... was the video feed interrupted or was the teleprompter dodgy... it seemed like more than a senior moment or tripping over a word:
_ "Covid has taken this year, just since the outbreak, has taken more than 100 year, look, here's, the lives, it's just, when you think about it." _

It was one piece of a long speech, I wonder if it's just an eyesight v teleprompter thing, he seemed to be squinting a bit:








						Joe Biden Delivers Remarks on Public Safety and Law Enforcement
					

2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden delivered remarks on public safety and law enforcement during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He condemned the rioting and looting taking place around the country and blamed President Trump for the increase in violence. The former vice...




					www.c-span.org


----------



## joe sod (1 Sep 2020)

@WolfeTone  great post above really explains what's going on with  polling and how it's no longer of much relevance. In any case during the brexit referendum both the polls and the betting pointed to brexit being rejected, both were wrong and some people lost a lot of money on that because there were some very big bets backing rejection of brexit.
Another thing not mentioned is that its over 50years since a non sitting former vice president was elected as president that man being Nixon in 1968, and he only won the election because Lyndon Johnson unexpectedly decided not to run for a second term.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Sep 2020)

odyssey06 said:


> It was one piece of a long speech, I wonder if it's just an eyesight v teleprompter thing, he seemed to be squinting a bit:



It could be, I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt if he didn't have form in this regard. Unfortunately, it is not the only moment where he appears to lose the run of his thoughts.


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> It could be, I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt if he didn't have form in this regard. Unfortunately, it is not the only moment where he appears to lose the run of his thoughts.



If he has one of those moments in a debate, it will be costly... not sure if it's really a senior moment or, as you note, he has always been prone to trip over his words. But most people will think the former.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I think what you are saying is that *you *don't think polls are a reliable indicator of opinion even at the time when they were conducted. Fair enough, but I am trying to tease out why the markets are not heeding the polls.



My inkling is that traditional methods of compiling polling data are becoming less relevant due to the onset of internet and social media. I also think that the betting markets are seeing that too.
At the end of the day, this is a two-horse race between red and blue. If you were to follow the mainstream media narrative then the odds would look more as you have suggested. But like I have said, traditional MSM is losing control of the narrative of what is for public discourse. The Democratic base is rising up to police brutality, social injustice, healthcare costs, education costs, low-pay, high rents, etc...etc...and the likes of CNN just want to talk about Russia! People are not falling for it.




Duke of Marmalade said:


> Why oh why did the Democrats go for Biden?



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## Purple (1 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Why oh why did the Democrats go for Biden?


Because there was no real alternative. That in itself is worrying but really, who else could they have chosen who wasn't going to frighten away the swing voters?


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Sep 2020)

Purple said:


> Because there was no real alternative. That in itself is worrying but really, who else could they have chosen who wasn't going to frighten away the swing voters?



Tulsi Gabbard.
Young, a US patriot, intelligent, articulate, composed, and with an agenda that was full on center about ending regime wars, reducing healthcare and educational costs etc.
She didn't fit into HC controlled DNC. That's why HC tried to label her as a puppet for Russia (what a farce), an Assad apologist (another farce) and then after Gabbard effectively eliminating Harris from the campaign during one the debates, the DNC changed the rules to ensure Gabbard would be eliminated from the debates. Instead Harris is now running as VP!


----------



## Purple (1 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Tulsi Gabbard.
> Young, a US patriot, intelligent, articulate, composed, and with an agenda that was full on center about ending regime wars, reducing healthcare and educational costs etc.
> She didn't fit into HC controlled DNC. That's why HC tried to label her as a puppet for Russia (what a farce), an Assad apologist (another farce) and then after Gabbard effectively eliminating Harris from the campaign during one the debates, the DNC changed the rules to ensure Gabbard would be eliminated from the debates. Instead Harris is now running as VP!


Yea, I liked Gabbard as well. She ticks the Military service box but she's a Hindu and that's just one step away from being a Moslem; fire guns in the air, stoke fear and imply she's not a real American. (Moslem is the bigots spelling for Muslim).


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (1 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Tulsi Gabbard.
> Young, a US patriot, intelligent, articulate, composed, and with an agenda that was full on center about ending regime wars, reducing healthcare and educational costs etc.
> She didn't fit into HC controlled DNC. That's why HC tried to label her as a puppet for Russia (what a farce), an Assad apologist (another farce) and then after Gabbard effectively eliminating Harris from the campaign during one the debates, the DNC changed the rules to ensure Gabbard would be eliminated from the debates. Instead Harris is now running as VP!





			
				Wiki said:
			
		

> Gabbard is vegan[243] and, as a Hindu, follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism.[45] She describes herself as a _karma yogi_.[244] She values the _Bhagavad Gita_ as a spiritual guide[245] and took the oath of office in 2013 using her personal copy,


Call me narrow minded, but no that would not be my choice for leader of the Western World.


----------



## WolfeTone (1 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Call me narrow minded



You are narrow minded


----------



## cremeegg (1 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Call me narrow minded, but no that would not be my choice for leader of the Western World.





WolfeTone said:


> You are narrow minded



Tough to choose between worshippers of the the elephant god and the moneky god, or the man nailed to a cross.


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Sep 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Tough to choose between worshippers of the the elephant god and the moneky god, or the man nailed to a cross.



She lost me with the veganism


----------



## Purple (2 Sep 2020)

cremeegg said:


> Tough to choose between worshippers of the the elephant god and the moneky god, or the man nailed to a cross.


All just different brands of crazy. It's a case of I won't vote for you because your invisible friend is different to mine.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> It could be, I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt if he didn't have form in this regard. Unfortunately, it is not the only moment where he appears to lose the run of his thoughts.



Why don't you link to the original source - the link you provided isn't reliable. RNC have been posting doctored video over the last few days so I would suggest looking at the original source instead of "Trump War Room" or such like

You have long advocated Gabbard. But she was never electable and wasn't really even a Democrat.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Sep 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Why don't you link to the original source



@odyssey06 has posted the full video speech above. The clip I posted doesn't do justice to fumbling.



EmmDee said:


> You have long advocated Gabbard. But she was never electable and wasn't really even a Democrat



I would disagree with that.


----------



## odyssey06 (2 Sep 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Why don't you link to the original source - the link you provided isn't reliable. RNC have been posting doctored video over the last few days so I would suggest looking at the original source instead of "Trump War Room" or such like



This is from C-SPAN, start watching at 13 minutes.








						Joe Biden Delivers Remarks on Public Safety and Law Enforcement
					

2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden delivered remarks on public safety and law enforcement during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He condemned the rioting and looting taking place around the country and blamed President Trump for the increase in violence. The former vice...




					www.c-span.org


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Sep 2020)

Conundrum solved.  It was the FT Tracker which was not up to speed.  The betting is aligned with the most recent shift in polls.  Apparently the Republican convention was far better in promoting its candidate than the rival one and the continuing street anarchy is playing right into the hands of Trump.  I will just have to reconcile myself to the fact that the pompous narcissistic bully will probably win again but will be reliant on the electoral college gerrymander.


			
				Daily Express said:
			
		

> *Donald Trump is heading for second presidential victory, poll shows*
> *DONALD TRUMP is on course to win the US presidential election with a three-point lead over Joe Biden, a shock poll suggests.*


----------



## Purple (2 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> I would disagree with that.


Well she was certainly never electable.


----------



## WolfeTone (2 Sep 2020)

Purple said:


> Well she was certainly never electable.



Against Donald Trump? I think she would, her poll ratings in primaries had gone ahead of Harris who subsequently quit - now Harris makes up part of the 'ticket'?
We will never know now, all speculation, but I would imagine she would take on Trump blindfolded and with one hand tied behind her back.


----------



## Purple (2 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Against Donald Trump? I think she would, her poll ratings in primaries had gone ahead of Harris who subsequently quit - now Harris makes up part of the 'ticket'?
> We will never know now, all speculation, but I would imagine she would take on Trump blindfolded and with one hand tied behind her back.


Her pole ratings with Democrats weren't the problem, it's whether she could win over the floating voters in the middle ground of the swing States. She is just too alien for the Christians in the land of the permanently frightened. Americans have lots of guns and lots of police to try to compensate for the fact that they have no backbone.


----------



## EmmDee (2 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I am trying to understand the betting.  I have no doubt that if the election was tomorrow Trump would be at least 20/1 based on current polls.
> Yes all the social media stuff is affecting the way folk make up their minds but a poll is a poll.  The betting markets clearly do not think that today's polls are a reliable indication of people's views in 2 months' time, but I think they would accept that they are a fair representation of their current views.
> They think it is all up for grabs.  I have mentioned a few possible game changers in Trump's favour between now and polling day.  There may also be the view that he is not beyond dirty tricks.  Maybe take out another Iranian general or a faux trade dispute with China.



I disagree with some of the predictions on here and think an evens bet on Biden is pretty good odds at the moment. Recall that the overall polls in 2016 were reasonably accurate at the overall vote share. The failure was on the state by state calculations and the electoral college. But the outcome at the time was rated as a 30% chance - not out of the range of possibilities. And the estimate is about the same now - again not out of the realm of possibilities but would be unlikely.

But if we forget our biases and leanings, looking purely at the betting markets rather than polls there is an internal inconsistency. I can't square the following;

Overall winner : pretty much dead even. But popular vote winner is about 1:4 for Biden. So the betting market is predicting quite a significant likelihood of Biden winning the popular vote.

So that requires Trump to repeat 2016 and win the electoral college with a minority popular vote. Two ways he can do this;
- Repeat 2016 and win Florida, Penn, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina
- Not win all of the above but swap out a number of smaller states for some of the bigger ones which would require winning Navada and Maine but still requires Florida, Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina.

So looking at the betting markets for the states. The states he needs to win in either route
Florida (even)
Arizona (even)
Georgia has Trump at 1.3 so pretty safe but North Carolina at 1.66 is less conclusive

For route 1 above
Pennsylvania has Democrats favourites at 1.6
Wisconsin has Dems @ 1.7
Michigan has Dems @ 1.5

For route 2 above
Maine has Dems at 1.25
Nevada looks pretty safe

So I can't reconcile markets which (a) show high probability of Biden winning popular vote, (b) shows a lot of critical states at evens which Trump would need to win ALL of irrespective of which route to 270 electoral votes and(c) shows Democrats favourites to win swing states in both routes to 270 which he would also need to win ALL of (in either route) and yet.... has Trump as evens to get to 270.

On a pure stats / probability basis - there has to be an arbitrage there. From a stats point of view, (Fl @ 0.5) x (Ar @ 0.5) etc etc can't equal 0.5 probability of overall win

EDIT : had originally stated 290 electoral college votes as amount required as spotted by Duke. Have changed


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Sep 2020)

EmmDee said:


> I disagree with some of the predictions on here and think an evens bet on Biden is pretty good odds at the moment. Recall that the overall polls in 2016 were reasonably accurate at the overall vote share. The failure was on the state by state calculations and the electoral college. But the outcome at the time was rated as a 30% chance - not out of the range of possibilities. And the estimate is about the same now - again not out of the realm of possibilities but would be unlikely.
> 
> But if we forget our biases and leanings, looking purely at the betting markets rather than polls there is an internal inconsistency. I can't square the following;
> 
> ...


Before doing a deep dive on your analysis, was 290 central to your argument or was it just a misprint of the correct figure of 270?


----------



## EmmDee (2 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Before doing a deep dive on your analysis, was 290 central to your argument or was it just a misprint of the correct figure of 270?



The latter, sorry - I meant to say 270


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (2 Sep 2020)

EmmDee said:


> The latter, sorry - I meant to say 270


Of course Trump to win Florida and to win Arizona are far from independent events, if he wins Florida he most likely wins Arizona.  But you know that.
I would agree that it is difficult to see him winning overall if he loses Florida so both events being even money looks inconsistent.  So a possible arbitrage (not airtight of course) is to Bet Trump wins Florida and Lay Trump wins Overall.  Difficult to see both losing and yet a fair chance to win both.  Most likely outcome break even.  I would put the percentages as follows:
Both win or both lose (break even on the bets):  80%
Wins Florida, loses overall (win of 2 on the bets): 15%
Loses Florida, wins overall (loss of 2 on the bets): 5%
Expected percentage win per unit stake: 20%

And one might not need to run the naked risk, the markets could correct themselves and so you can cash out at a profit.


----------



## Peanuts20 (2 Sep 2020)

I made a nice few bob out of backing Trump (in the bookies, not policy wise I might add ) last time round, Once the Dems had selected Hilary it was a foregone conclusion. I don't think we really appreciate the visceral hatred many Americans have for the Clintons

Not sure this time around, it may come down to turnout and if the Republicans can keep turnout low, they may stumble over the line


----------



## EmmDee (10 Sep 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> And one might not need to run the naked risk, the markets could correct themselves and so you can cash out at a profit.



Looks like the market has corrected to some extent. Still think 5/4 for Trump is pretty short odds given the number of things he needs to go the right way


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 Sep 2020)

I think I was right.  Betting odds have moved appreciably overnight.  Biden now 1.66 given that he didn’t fall, despite The Donald barging repeatedly into him.  Two more fences to go.


----------



## Sunny (30 Sep 2020)

Watching last night you were just left with the impression that America needs to do some serious soul searching if either of these two are able to become the President. Nothing left to say about Trump but Biden doesn't impress me in the slightest either. And that is from someone with an 'Irish Catholic' background just like him......


----------



## WolfeTone (30 Sep 2020)

Pretty deplorable event. Trump was his own worst enemy by persistently interrupting like a petulant child. He actually did quite well when being the salesman, selling the economy and law & order. But its hard to think he is not still somewhat an adolescent.

Biden held up better than I thought he would, a few stumbles but no obvious clangers. Best line of the night to Biden, "how can you take this clown seriously?....sorry, this President"


----------



## EmmDee (30 Sep 2020)

WolfeTone said:


> Pretty deplorable event. Trump was his own worst enemy by persistently interrupting like a petulant child. He actually did quite well when being the salesman, selling the economy and law & order. But its hard to think he is not still somewhat an adolescent.
> 
> Biden held up better than I thought he would, a few stumbles but no obvious clangers. Best line of the night to Biden, "how can you take this clown seriously?....sorry, this President"



I was most struck by the silence after being asked if he would dennounce white supremesicts - it was only then I realised he was a constant background noise for the whole thing. The couple of seconds of silence stood out


----------



## joe sod (6 Oct 2020)

What a week, trump gets covid, spends few days in hospital and now looks to be cured, if this turns out to be the case how does that play in the election. If indeed it is the case that he is truly over the covid it can only be a big bonus. If he had of gotten very sick like Boris Johnson his campaign would have been finished. Trump ignites a lot of emotions but compassion and sympathy is not one of them even among his base. Trump would not have got a sympathy vote


----------



## johnwilliams (9 Oct 2020)

"trump gets covid, spends few days in hospital and now looks to be cured" a friend keeps telling me this is fake covid  (i dont think so based on those around him getting it)
but he says a republican supporter would think about this ,   trump claimed this was less serious than flu.  1 (trump out of hospital in days)   2 (trump claimed the democrats ,cdc and fake media was preventing vaccine etc being released before election ,same cocktail of drugs he has now got and cured , does make me think did he have it or was it a tactic,  risky though?


----------



## Purple (10 Oct 2020)

Most people don’t have access to a helicopter and Their own private ward.He probably got a mild dose, was diagnosed early, received the best healthcare in the world and is now overstating now well he feels.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Oct 2020)

EmmDee said:


> Looks like the market has corrected to some extent. Still think 5/4 for Trump is pretty short odds given the number of things he needs to go the right way


Trump now 2.4 to win Florida and 3.3 to win Outright.  The arbitrage (buy F at 2, sell O at 2) would be well in the money.


----------



## EmmDee (12 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Trump now 2.4 to win Florida and 3.3 to win Outright.  The arbitrage (buy F at 2, sell O at 2) would be well in the money.



Yeah the odds are moving a bit now. I sold Trump outright at 2.6 for a small amount - I should have listened to myself and gone for more. 

But there isn't a lot of value out there. Maybe Texas for Biden which is about 3.3 but it is sounding a lot tighter than that. But most of the swing states are heavily leaning to Dems


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (12 Oct 2020)

£122M bet on the US election on Betfair.  I have never seen a market that big.


----------



## Purple (13 Oct 2020)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> £122M bet on the US election on Betfair.  I have never seen a market that big.


Fair play to you. That's some bet!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (13 Oct 2020)

Purple said:


> Fair play to you. That's some bet!


----------

