election 2020 trump v who

[joe sod]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 spam possibilities for Biden. Is it the debates?
Can anybody throw light on this conundrum?

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

 

[cremeegg]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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 .
A best price of is available with three firms.
Oddschecker punters are also getting their money down on Trump.
Indeed, Trump has taken 60% of bets in the market through oddschecker in the last month.
This is in contrast to Biden taking just 33% of bets in the same time period.

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.