Thursday, October 22, 2020

A good - if obvious - tip for the US presidential election

As I've mentioned before, I have a winning track record on political betting, albeit based on a very small number of bets over the years...

* A few months before the 2010 general election, I was bullied (all right, badgered) into a supposed mug's bet by a certain "international thriller writer" on Stormfront Lite.  He was convinced the Conservatives would win an overall majority, I begged to differ.  I won.  (He then sent me his latest novel in lieu of my winnings.)

* A couple of years before the 2014 indyref, I was bullied (all right, badgered) by another Stormfront Lite poster into another three "unwinnable" bets - a) that Yes would win, b) that Yes would not lose by more than a 15% margin, and c) that 16 and 17 year olds (or "children" as someone sneered) would have the right to vote.  I won two of the three, and made a net profit.

* At some point prior to the 2015 general election, I made a final private bet with a Stormfront Lite poster (Antifrank, no less), although there wasn't any bullying involved this time.  He thought Labour would gain more seats from the Scottish Lib Dems than the SNP would, and I took the opposite view.  I won.

* On the day of the 2016 EU referendum, although I still thought Remain were the most likely winners, I placed a bet on Leave because it seemed to me the odds were ludicrously out of kilter with opinion polls that were still very tight.  In retrospect people's reasons for being so certain of a Remain victory were extremely circular - one group of people was convinced because another group of people was convinced.  There were always dark murmerings about private polls, but the reality is those would have been showing much the same as the public polls.

* Six months later at the US presidential election, I toyed with a bet on Donald Trump on a similar basis to my Leave bet.  In the end I held off until well after the polls closed, but remarkably, even after it started to become clear that things were going Trump's way, Hillary Clinton remained the clear favourite and it was possible to get extremely good value odds on Trump.  I've noticed that when surprise election results occur, there often seems to be a 'lag' effect on the betting markets.  It's as if punters can't quite accept what they're seeing with their own eyes.  The same thing happened in the EU referendum, and also when Bernie Sanders won Michigan.  

* On the day of the run-off for the 2017 French presidential election, I spotted an opportunity for a value bet on Macron securing between 65% and 70% of the vote.  The provisional exit poll figures suggested he could go very close to 65%, yet the odds on that outcome remained very steep.  As soon as the official exit poll predicted he'd be slightly above 65%, I cashed out and took a partial profit straight away to be on the safe side (although obviously with hindsight I wish I hadn't).

* In this year's Polish presidential election, I placed a bet against Andrzej Duda, who was mysteriously the strong odds-on favourite in spite of being more or less level in the polls.  I lost, but I'm still convinced it made perfect sense as a value bet.

So, armed with that track record, let me point out something that should be blindingly obvious - there is overwhelming evidence that Joe Biden is heading for a convincing victory next month, and yet the odds on the betting exchanges imply that Trump still has a roughly 1 in 3 chance of winning.  It just doesn't add up.  I'm not saying that a bet on Biden is 'free money', there's still an element of risk, but for Trump to win something pretty improbable would have to happen - either there would have to be a systemic polling error of a magnitude much greater than was seen in 2016, or a random event would have to occur to totally change the trajectory of the campaign, and it would have to be a dramatic enough event to overcome the substantial lead Biden presumably already has as a result of early votes that cannot now be changed.

The bottom line - if you don't mind your money being tied up for a couple of weeks, a bet on Biden (or perhaps a lay bet against Trump for extra security) is just about the most clear-cut value bet you'll ever see.

*  *  *

Click HERE for the Scot Goes Pop poll fundraiser - just £300 away from reaching its target!


  1. I was just talking with someone about US polls today and we couldn't agree on this. What do you think the value of the polls is at all at the moment if 47 million votes have already been cast as of now (more than a third of the amount of people who voted in 2016) and there are at least another 10 million in the post. Those votes can't be changed, but people can still say in the polls that they'd vote differently if something happens which would make them change their mind.

    1. I don't know how it works in the US, but UK polls correct for that by asking people up-front if they've already voted.

    2. Yes. The top polls are doing that. rates them and gives the partisan lean. Texas will have more votes in by election day than voted the whole last election in that Michigan Primary , Sanders himself flew back home and went to bed. They had to wake him up for comment. Lol. Fact is Trump can win , but IF 2016 didn't happen, no one would be talking about odds like this. And it was the state polls that were off.

    3. But - even when they're doing that - there are two problems with this.
      1. People are not honest about who they voted for, but are more likely to say who they wished they voted for. If you look at any polls done right after elections asking people who they voted for at the elections, the party or person who won the elections will have much higher lead than the lead they actually had at the election.
      2. If polls don't actually show the percentage of people who have already voted, it's impossible to calculate the swing needed for the party/person who's second to win the elections. If you take just these US elections and Michigan as an example. 40 per cent of the number of people who voted in 2016 have already voted in Michigan as of now and there are many more ballots already in the post that can't be changed. Yes - turnout will be higher - although it's really difficult to say how much - polls are extremely unreliable when it comes to turnout - people usually say they'll vote because they feel it's the right thing to do and their duty, but then don't turn up on the day. Lets's say for the sake of the argument that a third of voters have already voted.
      If a poll shows later on Biden 5 points ahead of Trump, Trump will have to have a swing of well over 10 per cent to come even with Biden (although the poll shows only ten per cent's needed) because people have already voted. The pool of voters for both of them where they need swings is getting smaller and smaller and polls don't show that.

    4. US polls were pretty spot on last time on average. They predicted Clinton would fairly narrowly win the popular vote by a few%, which she did.

    5. Not completely accurate in the swing states that won trump the presidency the polls had support for him 3-5% less than he actually got

  2. Trump in a landslide. Where do I get the best odds?

  3. What about the Rasmussen poll that put it 46/49 a couple of days ago?

    1. Rasmussen isn't highly regarded over here, as they have a Republican house lean of 1.5. The website 538 (as in 538 total electoral votes), rates U.S. polling firms and gives them a C+:

  4. One of the most common questions put by Britnat journalists at the Daily briefing is why can't we do the same as England. What pathetic people these journalists are.

    Can you imagine a Danish or Dutch journalist saying why can't we just do the same as Germany. I suspect the journalist in question would be run out of the country.

    1. Aye,, the usual questions about having different rules in the 4 nations.
      Which is why the SG have added 0 and 5 to England's 3 tiers.
      If they'd simply made it 1 to 5 the middle numbers would've been out of kilter between the 2 countries.
      A simple explanation but probably not good enough for the BritNat media.

  5. I have bet on with two elderly female friends, an American lady, and an English lady. I've given tmem 2:1 odds against Trump winning. Both bets are for €5, so I will owe each of them €10 euros if Trump wins.

    I've been sending them twice-weekly suggestions as to what I'm going to spend my winnings on. Am I a bad man?

  6. BBC reporting 1/180 Scots had covid week ending the 19th according to the UK government ONS field study.

    Infection rate in England 44% higher at 1/130.

    This is an order of magnitude lower than March.

  7. At today's daily briefing Sturgeon says politicians should not criticise civil servants.

    Well how exactly does that work re the Scottish Parliamentary inquiry into the Salmond scandal. Sturgeon agreed a process that took all responsibility out of the hands of politicians, namely herself and any future FMs, and left the Civil servants to take all the blame for the unlawful, unfair and tainted by bias process that she signed off.

    1. This is a nonsensical post.

      'Schrodinger's Sturgeon'; A government official simultaneously responsible for designing and signing off entire government harassment processes whilst having absolutely nothing to do with these at the time.

      You just sound silly coming out with such nonsense day in and day out. We get that you hate the SNP. Everyone knows.

      Soon you'll be telling us life under the Tories is better than an independent Scotland with some biological males wearing dressing living in it.

    2. SS- the person who wants us to remain under Tory rule for another 5 years because he thinks we will win a referendum then. Not even Nostradamus would have come up with that. SS knows all about nonsense because SS is a Britnat Tory.

      So SS you are the one who says we must remain in the UK under the Tories - not me. It is sad the crap and lies you post to deflect from the truth as to what you are - a Tory protected in a uni from all the effects of Tory governments.

      Your Schrodingers Sturgeon paragraph is just made up nonsense. You cannot invalidate what I say so you resort to lies and misrepresentation.

      I am against criminal actions unlike you.

      I am for Scottish independence unlike you.

    3. 'protected in a uni'

      120 redundancies coming at my work ya Tory.

    4. That really was a classic right-wing Freudian slip you made there.

      'Bloody woke transfan leftie uni types with their cushy jobs!'

    5. SS - you cannae post many words without lying can you. Never said "Bloody woke...........". you and Trump what a pair - non stop lying is all you have got - just like Trump.

      Just like Trump you lie so much I wouldn't believe a word you say.

  8. I am going to say it again - this is fact - Sturgeon signed off the new Harrassment process for FORMER ministers after her office became involved late in the day, in December, and changed the process to say that the FM would have no involvement in the process and would not be informed about any complaints raised and conclusions drawn. This was after the 8 previous drafts included the FM in the actual process. The new process then went live in the Jan. The complainers about Salmond then came forward in Jan. This process has not been applied to anyone else in the years since.

    No other country in the world has such a process.

    1. Have you got any evidence for these assertions?

    2. SS - If you didn't spend all your time reading the Spectator and Conservative Home and actually followed what was being said/written in the Scot parliament inquiry you would not need to ask that question.

      SS wants Scotland to remain under Tory rule for another 5 years. SS told me not to vote SNP. SS sounds like a Tory to me. SS desperate to keep the gradualists in power so that we NEVER get independence.

      SS wants to keep the people in power who tried to lock up Salmond for life by lying in court. Who would want to do that - BRITNAT Tories just like SS.

    3. Governments / cabinets prepare multiple drafts of laws in consultation with the civil service; both sign these off once they are ready. The government then has absolutely nothing to do with the law once implemented; it is enforced by the relevant authorities. It would be dangerous and illegal for ministers to unduly influence/enforce laws once in place; that's for the authorities and not them.

      At my work, the management, including the VC, prepared a new harassment procedure in conjunction with HR. Once it was complete, both the VC and HR signed it off. Once that occurred, the VC and management stepped back completely from any involvement in enforcing it, as to do so would be unfair and biased because their own behavior is covered by it, plus that of friends and 'rivals', including retrospectively.

      It is enforced solely by a special HR team tasked with the job, who will liaise with the police.

      Recently it dealt with retrospective complaints of a former prof who was sexually abusing students. Even though the complaints related to events many years ago when he held a different position, so were retrospective, he was still investigated and, with the consent of the complainers, matters passed to the police.

    4. SS - once again deflects away from what I said in my original post. Try sticking to what was said/reported in the Scot parliament inquiry you Tory bampot SS. But of course you never do because it is the truth. Something Tories like you have a problem with.

    5. I'm just trying to understand if you think the e.g. FM of Scotland should be involved in deciding complaints about themselves? Do you really think that wise? Are you seriously saying that Salmond himself should have judged the complaints against him, assuming these had be made while he was still FM?

      I don't think they should be; the process should be independent of those being investigated. It would be standard practice for the FM to co-sign off the final draft, but then they should no longer be involved to ensure fairness in the process.

      If sturgeon is currently sexually harassing anyone, the process she was involved in authoring can also be used to investigate her, including retrospectively so the passage of time doesn't let her escape.

      I really cannot fathom why you think if people committed a sexual assault in the past they shouldn't be investigated 'retrospectively'. It's the sort of thing only whitehall would be against to protect pedo unionists. It wouldn't surprise me at all if unionists were against retrospective investigations into past sexual assaults by Labour/Lib ministers for example. Was whitehall against investigations being retrospective?

      And constantly calling me 'britnat tory' is hilarious.

      Scottish indy supporters don't speak like that. We are normal people. It's really a dead giveaway. You are acting like an English daily mail caricature of a Scottish person.

      Salmond admits he was a bit of a ladies man, 'no saint', who 'made mistakes' and 'should have been a better man'. Moria stood by him, but she's the one I most feel sorry for. He's no criminal, but still was getting jiggy with young aides, which was obviously going to give whitehall a chance to take him out; 7/9 of the alphabet women being employees of HM government in London.

    6. SS - You advocate 5 years more Tory rule of Scotland. You are British Nationalist Tory.

      You are a liar.

    7. SS- punting his fantasy conclusions whilst at the same time continuing the Britnat smearing of Salmond. SS you are a Tory scumbag.

  9. '2012 and 2017'

    Mayor of Copenhagen steps down over sexual harassment

    Jensen’s exit came after two women, one of them employed by the Social Democrats, described being sexually harassed by Jensen in 2012 and 2017...


  10. Bidens in deep sh!t. Will probably be charged with Treason before the election. Trump wins. Place your bets.

    Sorry but its a very long read.

    1. Short read: No, Biden will not be charged with treason in the next ten days.


      Try this podcast from 37mins Rudy Guliani and 2020 election special. The first 37mins is an interview with a pollster who called the 2016 result correctly.

  11. After Trump's comment that avoiding paying his taxes proves he's smart you'd think nobody would think he's worth a punt.
    Too many folk seem happy to donate their dosh to the "Poor bookies benevolent fund".

  12. Trump could win, not because he is any good as a President but simply because of a nihilistic "what the hell, in for a penny" fatalism. It isn't the candidates that worry me it is the political vacuum that Trump has created. It is like something from Alice in Wonderland where up is down and facts are lies.

    Boris tries the same nonsense here (to some effect worryingly) but one gets the impression Boris can't quite believe people buy this crap whereas Trump exudes utter belief in his own loopiness.

    That said, I hope Biden wins. Not sure how much he can steer the ship of state away from its current course but safer hands on the tiller would be at least a start.


    Is Scotland moving towards independence?

    ...For Ms McCabe the landscape has changed utterly since she began her political journey in 1967. She points out that the Conservatives, now the main opposition party in the Scottish Parliament, opposed devolution in the referendums of 1979 and 1997.

    "People thought the earth would stop turning if we got our own parliament for devolved matters and suddenly they saw it was actually run quite efficiently," she says.

    Back in the sixties, she adds she was often in a minority of one in wanting independence. "Now it's mainstream," she says.

    'But Boris will just keep saying No so we should forget a 'legal' indyref' say the siren voices from deepest England.

    Once Yes is the majority position, the UK isn't sustainable. Even the BBC knows it.

  14. I think trump will win because of the electoral College vote system again. Donald Trump is only the symptom of the problem. The problem is the previous government red or blue constantly ignored the People's living conditions inside the country.the same problem the UK has.

    1. While I think Biden should win, and I certainly hope he does, I don't discount Trump getting in again sadly.

      Even if Biden does win, the system in the US is so unequal now it's probably going to get considerably worse being for it gets better like you say. He'll try to make some progress, but this will just be rolled back again the same way Obama genunely tried, but struggled to make headway.

  15. Classic signs of right-wing unionist concern trolls:
    - Attack Yes parties like clockwork with the same tiresome tropes (mixed in with posts to establish trust*)
    - Talk about being 'Bravehearts'
    - Use the term 'Britnats'* so repetitively it sounds ridiculous
    - Attack the left / minority groups with insults such as 'woke' and 'transfans'
    - Attack anything remotely 'public sector' such as university employees
    - Attack facts and logic with unsubstantiated ‘alternative facts’
    - Act like they speak for Alex Salmond based on the assumption that 'true nats' hero-worship him
    - Never provide reasons to vote for a particular party, just reasons not to vote for the leading Yes parties in the next election, particularly on the key PR list vote
    - Pretend to be on the side of SNP figures like Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry, while telling you not to vote for them / their party on the list, directly contradicting the advice of said SNP figures
    - Repeat the latest anti-Yes party attacks published on English politics blogs ad nauseam, being unable to think of anything decent themselves
    - Usually can't help but respond defensively to posts like this, so giving themselves away yet again

  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

  17. Fingers crossed, but covid cases continue to show evidence for peaking out, hence the increasingly optimistic noises from the government that restrictions are working.

    Latest case numbers by date of test from PHS. My annotation.

    You can see the increasingly rapid growth up to late September, curtailed by the initial restrictions, which wee poppy refused to accept. While this clearly slowed things down, the rate was still increasing, hence the second 9th October lot, which seems to have had the desired effect. So the tier system may be enough without full national lockdown.

    PHS Covid cases by sampling date 24-10-20

    The latest data point (yesterday) which you'll see if you visit the PHS site excluded as always shows too low a value due to report lag. By 48 hours, most results are in.

  18. Good to see Wings over Scotland doing a critical analysis of Somerville. Couldn't happen to a more deserving person. Campbell, of course, does not detail all her faults. Hopefully she is not reselected and proves that there are still decent people in the SNP and the party is on its way back to decent values never mind competency and a desire for its historic objective of independence.

    1. Forgive me for being a bit suspicious of southern English* political blogs when it comes to Scottish indy.

      *Due to a free choice, personal preference to being based in Scotland

  19. Extract from Andrew Learmonths article in the National.

    McKie added: "The correspondence produced by Mr Salmond shows that, from April 2018, we repeatedly told the Scottish Government they they were treating our client unfairly and acting unlawfully. Our client offered first mediation and then arbitration in an attempt to prevent the Government acting unlawfully."

    "His arguments were repeatedly dismissed and his offers were refused. The result of that intransigence was that our client was left with no option but to raise a court action"

    1. Yes, it really looks like Whitehall was out to get Salmond; 7/9 of the accusers being UK government payroll civil servants.

      Of course there was nothing the SNP / Scottish cabinet could do to stop the botched UK civil service investigation once underway because, as you rightly earlier note:

      ndependence for ScotlandOctober 23, 2020 at 4:54 PM

      "the FM would have no involvement in the process and would not be informed about any complaints raised and conclusions drawn."

      Salmond's SNP cabinet colleagues could only look on and let the UK civil service authorities make a mess of things.

      Salmond then took the UK civil service to court and won. He didn't take Sturgeon to court, hence the calls for Evans to resign, but no such calls for the FM. Apart from on English blogs and from unionists.

      Maybe if you thought for yourself, you wouldn't make such schoolboy errors.

      The FM/SNP had no part in botched investigation, nor in the court case that followed.

    2. SS - Tory scumbag apologist.

      Yeh you just keep on lying and misrepresenting Scottish Skier Scumbag - triple S.

      So just why did she lie about the meeting with Aberdein in March 2018?

      I used to think you were an idiot fanboy who lies for Sturgeon but I now know you are a Tory who wants us ruled by Tories for another 5 years.

      Just because you have taken an extract of a comment of mine that says the process was designed for Sturgeon not to be involved does not mean she wasn't involved. I've posted that before but of course you won't refer to that will you triple S.

      The action was against the Scottish government. The Scottish government consists of SNP ministers and their Civil Servants/advisors. Any fool knows that but triple SSS tries to suggest otherwise.

      Who is currently responsible for ensuring documentation is provided to the Scottish parliament inquiry - John Swinney SNP minister.

    3. SS conveniently "forgets" to point out that while the Harrassment process does indeed exclude Sturgeon from the process once the threat of a judicial review came into play the FM could indeed become involved. She chose not to - but instead let the court case proceed despite Salmond telling her the Scottish government would lose.

      At present the Scotgov refuse to give the inquiry their legal advice regarding this case.

      This whole matter has been an abuse of power and a misuse of public funds.

      To this day the smearing of Salmond continues by scumbags in the SNP, scumbags in the civil service, scumbags in the media and scumbags like SS.

  20. For 3 years the Britnats in the media and the Britnats in the SNP along with Britnats like SS have persecuted Salmond even though he has won his civil judicial review and the criminal case.

    SS says - " but still was getting getting jiggy with young aides" - SS you are nothing but a Tory scumbag still smearing Salmond.

    1. He openly admitted doing exactly that, i.e. having intimate relations with a young civil servant. So it's not a smear, which is based on false accusations.


      He [Salmond] claimed they became tipsy, and as F prepared to leave he kissed her on the cheek before they fell on to the bed in a “sleepy cuddle”, fully dressed, “for no more than a few seconds”. They both immediately realised they had made a mistake, he added, and he said she later accepted his apology after she reported the encounter to a senior civil servant.

      I'm a married man and would never do similar with my female colleagues.

      It's not criminal and he's only human, however it was wholly inappropriate, hence his apology, presumably to Moira in private too.

    3. SS - still at it after 3 years smearing Salmond - you are a Tory Scumbag.

    4. SS - the great moral Skier who lies all the time on this site and who defends criminal activities, abuse of power and misuse of public funds. Pardon me while I throw up at the hypocrisy of triple S.

    5. Lol. How on earth can you smear someone by quoting them?

  21. I remember when Salmond took the UK civil service to court and won.

    Unionists were so keen to use the words 'Scottish government' rather than the UK civil service for obvious reasons; it conjured up images of Sturgeon and the SNP cabinet.

    Of course as IfS has been at pains to tell us time and again, Sturgeon and the cabinet had - rightly - nothing to do with the investigation and the botching of it, such was the nature of the process. Hence Salmond took Evans and Co to court, not Sturgeon.

  22. SS - still misrepresenting what I say - you truly are a Tory Scumbag.

  23. SS - Salmond said at the end of the court case he won that he was sorry to have had to take the Scottish government that he had been FM of for so many years to court - yes the Scottish government.

    The Scottish parliamentary inquiry is into the Scottish government's handling of the matter.

    The Scotgov consists of SNP ministers and their advisers and the Scottish civil service which is part of the UK civil service.

    You just keep posting your lies Scottish Skier the more you do your true Tory self reveals itself.

    1. Salmond didn't take Sturgeon to court; you said so above when you explained how the FM wasn't part of the process.

      I quote you:

      "the FM would have no involvement in the process and would not be informed about any complaints raised and conclusions drawn."

      "She [the FM] chose not to [have any involvement] - but instead let the court case proceed despite Salmond telling her the Scottish government would lose."

      I also quote Salmond, whom you try to mispresent:

      For many months now, and on the advice of senior counsel, I have attempted to persuade the [UK Civil Service] permanent secretary to the Scottish Government that she [Leslie Evans] is behaving unlawfully in the application of a complaints procedure, introduced by her more than three years after I left office.

      “This is a procedure so unjust that even now I have not been allowed to see and therefore to properly challenge the case against me. I have not been allowed to see the evidence.

      “I have tried everything, including offers of conciliation, mediation and legal arbitration to resolve these matters both properly and amicably.

      “This would have been in everybody’s interests, particularly those of the two complainants. All of these efforts have been rejected.

      I will let readers judge for themselves. Seems clear to me.

      Only unionists try to speak for Salmond, providing no evidence.

      I will use his own words / those of his defense team, with links, so people can make their own minds up.

    2. SS- Misrepresenting again Tory scumbag. The evidence is there - that you are a Tory - because you want us to remain under Tory rule for another 5 years.

      I never said Salmond took Sturgeon to court - I said he took the Scottish government to court - quite frankly I am sick of your lies and misrepresentation. You are a Tory and a complete tosser.

      If you look at the messages between Salmond and Sturgeon it is clear he was asking Sturgeon to stop this appalling scandal because she is FM of the Scottish government. This is detailed in Sturgeons own submission to the inquiry.

      I have proved you are a liar so often on this site why anyone would believe anything you post is beyond me.

      Still nothing from Ruddick - have her lawyers or the SNPs lawyers told her not to say anything.

      Defending criminals SS - how do you sleep at night - oh that's right Tories don't have a conscience.

    3. It seems my quote from Salmond annoyed you. Took you quite a while before responding with no evidence yourself, just the usual insults. It's rather telling that I keep quoting him and his defense team, the court records etc, while you never quote anyone but English bloggers.

      Salmond and his lawyers asked Evans to consider stopping the process because that's who was in charge of stopping it. I have quoted his own words for you above.

      As far as I'm aware, Salmond has not called for Sturgeon to step down; only for Evans to consider her position because it was Evans in charge of botching the investigation.

      As for the subsequent criminal court case; that was brought by the CPS based on police investigations into the allegations made by the women concerned. That had nothing to do with either Evans, Sturgeon, or the SNP. Very obviously none of these have the power to decide what does or not does proceed to trial at the high court. Our court system remains fair and just; hence in the end Salmond was rightly found innocent of anything criminal.

    4. SS - try looking at the court records yourself you Tory diddy. The front page that says the respondents are Evans and Scottish Ministers.

    5. SS - try looking at Evans testimony at the inquiry where she states that the Scottish Government passed the complaints to the police.

  24. It amazes me how unionists think the Alex Salmond story or the GRA issue is the key to stopping independence.

    The public couldn't give a shit about either; they are domestic sideshows. it's just for trolls and English right-wing blogs to get excited about.

    Jeez, when the BBC starts producing articles about how Scots now back independence, with everything having changed since 2014, you know the game is up.

    1. SS but yet you still post that we need to wait another 5 years under Tory rule just to make certain. You are a Tory scumbag SS.

    2. SS yes you did - lying again. SS is now lying more than Trump.

  25. Trump by landslide. US pollsters are up to their usual tricks. Biden clearly has dementia as well as questions to answer.

  26. SS would have you believe that the Salmond scandal is nothing to do with Sturgeon or her husband or anyone but these bad UK civil service people. As ever SS posts crap. Sturgeon and her husband were asked to submit details of their involvement and will be attending the inquiry to be questioned.

  27. SS - just like Sturgeon smearing him on Sophy Ridge show and Rape Crisis Scotland funded by the Scottish gov smearing him and of course the Britnat media you join in as well.
    You may think it is funny but there is nothing funny about HOLY WILLIES like you.

    1. LOL, you are going to have to point out where I smeared Salmond. All I've done is quote the man.

      He said he'd behaved inappropriately (by lightly kissing and cuddling a woman consensually after a few too many drinks) and apologised for that the next day.

      You seem to be judging him morally. I'm not; I'm just stating the facts. I couldn't care less what Salmond gets up to as long as it's between consenting adults.

      Maybe you can tell us what you think is acceptable for an FM?

      You apparently have lower standards than Salmond. Would you not have apologised like he did?

    2. SS - if you "couldn't care less about what Salmond gets up to...." then why post your comment in the first place. You are a nasty HOLY WILLIE

  28. In any other election in history, you might be right. In this one, any bet is a mug's bet. Consider the five US elections before the last one - Obama v McCain, outcome didn't matter, nothing changes. Obama v Romney, outcome didn't matter, nothing changes. Bush v Kerry, outcome didn't matter, nothing changes. Bush v Gore, outcome didn't matter, nothing changes. Clinton v Dole, outcome didn't matter, nothing changes.

    This is pretty much the pattern going back decades. Two parties, one (the Democrats) irredeemably corrupt, rotten to the core of its existence, living like a giant parasite off the sweat of blue collar America and expecting as of right its votes and its loyalty just like Chairman Mao did the peasants in China. The other, the Republicans, actually founded with idealistic goals in mind (unlike Andrew Jackson's Democrats), but allowing itself to become corrupted by eternal compromise with the Democrats until they'd reached a point where it made no difference whether they were in the White House or not. Essentially, all they thought of themselves as doing was managing the decline.

    Last election, however, Trump sneaks through and upends the apple cart. NOBODY saw that coming, certainly not the "end of history" liberals in the Washington bubble, and they were enraged when it happened. Worse, despite his crassness and vulgarity, Trump a) is NOT a stupid man, b) is NOT a career politician and consequently does not depend on continued office for income c) is already rich and doesn't need to milk the taxpayers to make money and d) has started no new wars, has brought thousands of troops home, has slowed the tax-funded gravy train to the military industrial complex down by a huge amount and e) cannot be controlled by the aforementioned bubble people.

    The consequence of all this is that the beast has been stung into rage and absolutely EVERYTHING is being slung at Trump to stop him. Democrat governors sending out unsolicited mail-in ballots under cover of the covid restrictions is the least of it. Crooked journalists, corrupt polls designed to influence voters rather than reflect their intentions, anything and everything to stop Trump. And it has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism or love of country.

    Trump is a hurricane and his particular brand of creative destruction is laying the swamp open to the kind of regeneration it so desperately needs. Imagine four more years of him pummelling the swamp creatures, followed by someone like Ted Cruz, urbane, sophisticated, intimately familiar with the workings of Washington, but actually in possession of that idealism which the Republicans have been lacking for the last half century AND at the head of a vital and re-energized party full of youthful enthusiasts.

    That kind of energy could change America for the next hundred years and that's why the swamp creatures are mounting everything they have into an offensive against Trump the like of which I have never seen in an American election. If they can stop him, they'll attempt to give DC and Puerto Rico statehood, not because they believe its right but because they assume they'll have four permanent new senators. They'll try to pack the court because the balance now is in favour of judges who declare the law but don't make the law. Having your hands on the levers of power and doing right with it instead of what's expedient for you? Democrats don't understand that mentality at all.

    So yes, this time it actually does matter, and I suspect the American people realize this too. They know if the Democrats get in this time, it's all over. And that's a surefire bet.

    1. "someone like Ted Cruz, urbane, sophisticated, intimately familiar with the workings of Washington, but actually in possession of that idealism which the Republicans have been lacking for the last half century"

      Was he the one who called Trump a "a snivelling coward" after he said his wife was ugly? And then couldn't climb up his arse fast enough once he actually became president?

  29. This comment has been removed by the author.