Incredibly, the current odds on the Betfair exchange imply Trump has an approximately 5% chance of winning an election he's already lost. Punters have consistently overestimated his chances for months, but this is getting ridiculous.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 8, 2020
What's the odds on a Biden win? Worth a punt
— Tam Jardine (@Tam__Jardine) November 8, 2020
Roughly 1/20. It's practically free money at this stage, but I'm not tempted. It would take a huge stake to get a decent return, and the money would potentially be tied up for weeks, depending on how long the legal challenges drag on.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 8, 2020
Still- even if it took 6 months 5% return is really good. As you say- free money.
— Tam Jardine (@Tam__Jardine) November 8, 2020
Significantly better than most savings accounts :)
— Col Total Manscaping (@colken16) November 8, 2020
As I understand it the media cannot call elections. There is a lot of prima facia evidence of voting fraud and accompanying law suits.
ReplyDeleteMy predication is that this will go all the way to the US Supreme Court with the possibility of them ordering recounts in the five or so swing states.
Based on the huge turnouts to Trump rallies, I am not sure that a rerun would not return victory for Trump. So I would have thought 20/1 might be a good bet.
You do understand that a recount is not the same thing as a "rerun", don't you? It's just exactly the same votes being counted a second time - a process which almost always produces the same result, unless the margin was so incredibly tight that a few errors here and there could realistically have made a difference.
DeleteMedia call elections, but it has no legal standing. Biden won't officially be POTUS until after the comic charade that they call the electoral college is convened. Media very rarely call election mistakenly, and it has never happened in a clear cut case like this.
Delete"Prima facie" evidence is when a wife walks in on her husband with another woman. There IS no prima facie evidence of voting fraud ...... none whatsoever. There are allegations being made, but that ISN'T prima facie evidence. If prima facie evidence existed, it would already have been presented in court (it hasn't), and Fox News would have it on an endless loop 24 hours a day.
Let's just hope that the gun totin' neanderthal Trump supporters stay calm, in the face of incitement to violence from the likes of Trump jr, and Steve Bannon.
My prediction is that these "court cases" will fizzle out long before they get anywhere near the SCOTUS.
There will almost certainly be recounts, because the margin is less than 1% in some states, but James is right - these hardly ever result in a turnover of the original result, and never when there are tens of thousands of votes in the winning margin, as is the case in Pennsylvania.
Rallies are probably the least accurate way of predicting electoral outcomes. Look at the Clinto rallies in 2016.....
Given Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, it's not really a surprise that the same thing happened again.
ReplyDeleteAs Trump supporters like to point out; he's even less popular than the 'hated' Hillary Clinton.
John Swinney in his new letter to the committee says it is us Ministers who are responsible for everything not civil servants. This of course contradicts Sturgeons approach saying it has nothing whatsoever to do with me.
ReplyDeleteSorry to see Swinney bring dragged in to this matter as I doubt he was an active participant in the original indefensible actions but perhaps he was. Cover ups will bring down even more people.
The new Harrassment process that was designed for former ministers said the FM should have no involvement has, in effect, now been described by Swinney as contradicting this rule that ministers are always responsible. Swinney and Sturgeon cannot have it both ways.
So Swinney has taken it upon himself to respond in this letter to the inquiry on behalf of three civil servants - Lloyd, Sturgeons Chief of Staff, Somers, Sturgeons Principal Private Secretary and an unnamed third person.
Of course anyone with half a brain can see Sturgeon has always been involved.
Insulting most Scots by screaming at them 'you only have half a brain' isn't really going to help your cause much.
DeleteIt's what unionists do; tell anyone that disagreed with them that they are thick etc.
The bulk of the electorate will simply wait until the courts or at least the parliamentary standards committee find Sturgeon guilty of something before they consider her anything other than innocent; the same treatment they afforded Salmond.
The online tartan Britebart court of trial by English blog / anonymous comment will not change anyone's minds, but rather make them pretty suspicious of motives, given how unionist this all comes across as.
SSS - I know your mind won't be changed because it is a Tory Britnat mind who wants to delay and delay and delay independence and as such knows that keeping the current leadership in place will mean delay and delay and delay and excuses.
DeleteAs ever you cannot dispute the facts so you resort to your pathetic irrelevant comments.
" The bulk of the electorate" - SSS speaks for the bulk of Scotland - what a pretentious fellow you are - the people you speak for - the Tories - are not even 20% of the electorate. The only person insulting Scots is you SSS - phoney independence supporter and holder of multiple personalities.
All the info is on the Scot parliament inquiry website. The inquiry is chaired by Linda Fabiani SNP, MSP and Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.