Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

No they didn't vote her in. She did get the majority votes, though, which was absolutely meaningless.

If you are going to chime in at least know what the discussion is.
The people voted for Hilary not Trump, as suggested by the poster.

So still dodging?

Trump's family are doing deals with China, during US/China trade negotiations. I'm sure it's 'America first'

Boggles

Igotadose wrote: »

Yeah, it's a joke Stephanie Grisham claims to be press secretary without ever having run a press conference. Heck, I'm as much of a press secretary as she is.

Her 200k salary should really be paid by Fox and Friends.

Can you imagine the state of the GOP if a Democratic president pulled the same shenanigans, which of course they are now more entitled to do now going forward.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

The debates will be heavily moderated by the network anchors, Trump will destroy himself.

Yeah, the media will be in the democrat’s camp, big time, unless Trump finds some way to make it a fair fight. The media doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased anymore. I think he should refuse to participate in the debates unless an independent panel can come up with some unbiased moderators. Since the democrat's bogus impeachment nonsense started the media stories about Trump have been 93% negative, despite a rousing economy and record breaking low unemployment. Our ‘media’ should be ashamed of themselves.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/trump-press-coverage-sets-new-standard-for-negativity-study.html

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Yeah, the media will be in the democrat’s camp, big time, unless Trump finds some way to make it a fair fight. The media doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased anymore. I think he should refuse to participate in the debates unless an independent panel can come up with some unbiased moderators. Since the democrat's bogus impeachment nonsense started the media stories about Trump have been 93% negative, despite a rousing economy and record breaking low unemployment. Our ‘media’ should be ashamed of themselves.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/trump-press-coverage-sets-new-standard-for-negativity-study.html

Like Moscow Mitch and the impeachment trial?

Igotadose

Boggles wrote: »

Her 200k salary should really be paid by Fox and Friends.

Can you imagine the state of the GOP if a Democratic president pulled the same shenanigans, which of course they are now more entitled to do now going forward.

Imagine if a Democratic president gets in. Let's see - how many years of investigations will have into TrumpCo? At least 4. Each of his kids? As many.
Hmmm.... tweet about Fox and Fiends as enemies of the state? Sic the DOJ on all Trump's cabinet and WH staff implicated in the Ukraine crimes? Audits of the likes of Betsy De Vos and Wilbur the talking commerce secretary?

The fun just won't stop for years. Enough of the Democrats having to be forced to take the high road by this skidmark of an Administration and their 'whip me hard! harder! Please Orange Man beat me more!' followers.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

Her 200k salary should really be paid by Fox and Friends.

Can you imagine the state of the GOP if a Democratic president pulled the same shenanigans, which of course they are now more entitled to do now going forward.

The media is getting all pertinent information. They're just pissed because they no longer can grandstand in front of the cameras.

James Brown

Igotadose wrote: »

Imagine if a Democratic president gets in. Let's see - how many years of investigations will have into TrumpCo? At least 4. Each of his kids? As many.
Hmmm.... tweet about Fox and Fiends as enemies of the state? Sic the DOJ on all Trump's cabinet and WH staff implicated in the Ukraine crimes? Audits of the likes of Betsy De Vos and Wilbur the talking commerce secretary?

The fun just won't stop for years. Enough of the Democrats having to be forced to take the high road by this skidmark of an Administration and their 'whip me hard! harder! Please Orange Man beat me more!' followers.

I think Trump's family doing deals with China, during US/China trade negotiations might raise a few.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

The media is getting all pertinent information. They're just pissed because they no longer can grandstand in front of the cameras.

The press conferences are for the People not the media.

Abolish press conferences = Autocrat 101.

I imagine you will be equally happy for the Democratic Presidents to do the same in the future?

Igotadose

notobtuse wrote: »

The media is getting all pertinent information. They're just pissed because they no longer can grandstand in front of the cameras.

Really? So, what were the 4 sites the Iranian's were about to attack? (Just for starters - has there been a press conference to talk about Soleimani yet that included Q&A?)

That's just the most recent curious administration action. There's hundreds of others.

Of course, we the people paying this Administrations salaries (even if they choose not to take them or donate them to charity) get to determine what's pertinent to us. Not the Administration, obviously.


Pertinent my hole. The only grandstanding I can recall was Trump V. Acosta last spring - and, tell me, who did the grandstanding then (you know, the one the WH faked the video about later?)

notobtuse

Igotadose wrote: »

Really? So, what were the 4 sites the Iranian's were about to attack? (Just for starters - has there been a press conference to talk about Soleimani yet that included Q&A?)

That's just the most recent curious administration action. There's hundreds of others.

Of course, we the people paying this Administrations salaries (even if they choose not to take them or donate them to charity) get to determine what's pertinent to us. Not the Administration, obviously.)

Join the CIA, get the highest level security clearance, and find out.

So 'the people' know nothing because they aren't holding White House press conferences? That's a laugh.

And back to reality... So it appears Burisma has been hacked by the Russian military and we might see document dumps leading up to the election. This could be potentially bad for both, or either, Biden or Trump. But Biden has the most to fear, IMO, because he has denied any knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings and document dumps could potentially prove him to full of malarkey.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/burisma-hacked-joe-biden-faces-potentially-damaging-document-dumps/

Igotadose

Enjoyable. A Biden ad showing Trump saying "Biden! Biden" again and again. Obsessed a bit? Keeping Biden's name in the news for sure, most entertaining. Reminds me of a campaign in NJ where Ray Bateman went on and on in his ads about Brendan Byrne, the governor at the time. Brendan Byrne this. Brendan Byrne that.

And, "One-term Byrne" won, I believe resoundingly, because no one knew who Ray Bateman was.

Obviously not relevant here, we know who both Biden and Trump are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwvprD6506I&feature=youtu.be

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

Join the CIA, get the highest level security clearance, and find out.

So 'the people' know nothing because they aren't holding White House press conferences? That's a laugh.

And back to reality... So it appears Burisma has been hacked by the Russian military and we might see document dumps leading up to the election. This could be potentially bad for both, or either, Biden or Trump. But Biden has the most to fear, IMO, because he has denied any knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings and document dumps could potentially prove him to full of malarkey.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/burisma-hacked-joe-biden-faces-potentially-damaging-document-dumps/

So if the media are bias, shouldn't the WH be giving press conferences so we can hear the 'truth' from the horses mouth?

So the Russians who hacked are going to hack into their own hack and try back up comrade Trump regarding Hunter Biden allegedly doing what we know the Trump kids are doing in China?

There comes a time when you have to put your country ahead of your party my friend. This administration won't need defending forever and what will be left of your country?

Boggles

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This administration won't need defending forever and what will be left of your country?

Too nuanced for your average hard line Trump supporter.

They can't seem to grasp the concept that this administration is fleeting, precedent set now could and will be long lasting.

That's the dangerous part.

4068ac1elhodqr

Any gains for Biden, are actually direct gains for Donald.
The odds for Trump have dropped again, perhaps a new all-time low price for him to win again @1.67 (get 67c profit per €1 stake, with stake returned also).
No great value.

As someone said before on another thread, the only people with a chance of beating trump now are Oprah (not running) or maybe Warren has a bit of a slight chance.
After seeing a utube video of Joe, have now got recall picture/vision of him sniffing ladies hair and being slightly 'over-friendly'.

Boggles

Easton Melted Mineralogist wrote: »

After seeing a utube video of Joe, have now got recall picture/vision of him sniffing ladies hair and being slightly 'over-friendly'.

Do you think that will matter to voters?

Trump was raw dogging porn stars when his wife was nursing their son at home and he was voted in by conservatives.

-There's still about ten Dem candidates fight for the nomination.

-Sanders was 14/1 to be the Democratic nominee a few weeks ago. He's now 9/4.

-The incumbent always has an advantage.

-'Winning Party' odds has it Rep 54% - 46% Dem probability.

-Trump's outright probability based on odds is 60%. Sanders and Biden are both 14%.

-Sanders was 30/1 to win the presidency after his heart procedure. He is now 6/1.


All in all, odds mean the square root of **** all at the moment.

briany

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But the public voted Hilary in.

I'm aware that Hillary won the popular vote, which is why I was careful not to say that Trump was voted in by a majority of the electorate. The stated aim of the electoral college is to ensure a president can command votes across the country, and not just in certain population centres. Hillary didn't really bother even campaigning in several so-called flyover states, and she paid for that disregard in kind.

Igotadose

notobtuse wrote: »

Yeah, the media will be in the democrat’s camp, big time, unless Trump finds some way to make it a fair fight. The media doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased anymore. I think he should refuse to participate in the debates unless an independent panel can come up with some unbiased moderators. Since the democrat's bogus impeachment nonsense started the media stories about Trump have been 93% negative, despite a rousing economy and record breaking low unemployment. Our ‘media’ should be ashamed of themselves.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/trump-press-coverage-sets-new-standard-for-negativity-study.html

I keep forgetting that Fox is not the media. What are they, exactly?

As for impeachment, you mean the successful impeachment of Trump, something that'll follow him forever, becoming the 3rd to be impeached, right, as bogus? The only thing bogus here is the behavior of the "whip me harder, Orange Man" GOP followers who take what Trump says as Gospel. And his Senate apparatchiks.

Seriously I thought you smarter than that. And, since before election, Trump has had an adversarial relationship with the media, one that he persists in (remember now, all information is via the official Twitter channel, at least, that's what he's told the Iranians.) It's worked very well for the media outlets, as they're making tons of money and none are failing, Trump keeps them in focus all the time.

Thank goodness for the 1st amendment. Imagine if we had no media, like Trump wants.

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

If Biden gets the nomination, I think he'll so obliterate Trump in the debates it'll be a subject of memes for years. Trump lost all the debates to HRC, and since then, hasn't improved his ability to speak in public in any forum. The guy is a laughable public speaker who snorts and can't pronounce simple English words. Perhaps not as entertaining as Harris would have been destroying Trump, but I expect anyone that can stand upright can defeat Trump in a debate. Bring 'em on.

How? You can't embarrass someone who has no shame.

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

How? You can't embarrass someone who has no shame.

A full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder individual desperately needs praise and usually craves approval. Impeachment has really riled Trump and is eating at his ample gut. Losing a debate will be like pouring acid into the wound. Losing the election would be a coup de grace, I doubt he'd live too long afterwards if he did, year or two at best while his crime syndicate disintegrates around him.

notobtuse

Deleted User wrote: »

-There's still about ten Dem candidates fight for the nomination.

-Sanders was 14/1 to be the Democratic nominee a few weeks ago. He's now 9/4.

-The incumbent always has an advantage.

-'Winning Party' odds has it Rep 54% - 46% Dem probability.

-Trump's outright probability based on odds is 60%. Sanders and Biden are both 14%.

-Sanders was 30/1 to win the presidency after his heart procedure. He is now 6/1.


All in all, odds mean the square root of **** all at the moment.

I always say ignore the news, ignore the polls, and look to the odds-makers... they know what they're doing.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

I always say ignore the news, ignore the polls, and look to the odds-makers... they know what they're doing.

Really?

“It’s been a political betting Armageddon,” said Féilim Mac An Iomaire, spokesperson for bookmaker Paddy Power. “It’s been a difficult year for us. We didn’t get Brexit right either and now this one (Trump).”

notobtuse

briany wrote: »

I'm aware that Hillary won the popular vote, which is why I was careful not to say that Trump was voted in by a majority of the electorate. The stated aim of the electoral college is to ensure a president can command votes across the country, and not just in certain population centres. Hillary didn't really bother even campaigning in several so-called flyover states, and she paid for that disregard in kind.

Again, majority vote means nothing. Who knows who would be president if the POTUS was determined by majority vote. Trump did not campaign to win the majority vote, he campaigned to win the majority electoral vote. He mostly ignored states where all the electoral votes were guaranteed to go to a democrat, or even a sack of potatoes with a 'D' behind it, regardless. If Trump campaigned for the majority vote he might still have won it and become president because he would have concentrated on high population states knowing he could increase the level of votes. People who say Hillary should have won because she got the majority votes should really get a clue!

4068ac1elhodqr

Boggles wrote: »

Really?

To be fair I only took 10/1 off PP on election night for Trump, when others (pollsters) were saying he had no hope whatsoever. Everyone on boards had the opinion that he had zero chance (not even 10%, or 1%).


Talk talks, money walks.


POTUS20 unfortunately offers no real value, so won't be bothering as the Donald has it in the bag, esp. if Joe is the only competition.

Boggles

Easton Melted Mineralogist wrote: »

To be fair I only took 10/1 off PP on election night for Trump, when others (pollsters) were saying he had no hope whatsoever. Everyone on boards had the opinion that he had zero chance (not even 10%, or 1%).


Talk talks, money walks.


POTUS20 unfortunately offers no real value, so won't be bothering as the Donald has it in the bag, esp. if Joe is the only competition.

The point remains, the bookies got it wrong.

I imagine you offset the Trump punt by betting on Hilary?

4068ac1elhodqr

Boggles wrote: »

The point remains, the bookies got it wrong.

Actually the point remains, that they got it less wrong than all the pundits and pollsters. It was also a dynamic market, which moved every 10secs at one point, averaging between 3.6 to 11.0 (peak).

Boggles wrote: »

I imagine you offset the Trump punt by betting on Hilary?

Ha ha (as if), that gave me a very good belly laugh there, cheers.
Edit: ...Ho ho ho ...still laughing about this, even now.

Boggles wrote: »

As for 2020, Biden is 6/1?

Can't remember and not interested. Likelyhood is even (if) he became the DN, would still be wider odds than DT in a 2-way battle. Think Warren will be selected instead, and would have a slightly better chance, thus Joe offers close to 'zero' value IMO as would have to clear two events (inc nomination).

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

The point remains, the bookies got it wrong.
I imagine you offset the Trump punt by betting on Hilary?

Easton Melted Mineralogist wrote: »

Ha ha (as if), that gave me a very good belly laugh there, cheers.
Edit: ...Ho ho ho ...still laughing about this, even now.

I don't get it what's so funny?

Also

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101604038&postcount=153

Easton Melted Mineralogist wrote:

The early birds.
Is 10.0 long odds? Was that couple of hours ago.


Suppose I'd better offset and back HC at 2.1(+)

Is it still funny?

briany

Boggles wrote: »

The point remains, the bookies got it wrong.

I imagine you offset the Trump punt by betting on Hilary?

As for 2020, Biden is 6/1?

That's only going to shorten dramatically IMO. So that is the value.

All I can say is that the bookies and pollsters better have taken into account certain factors that were, in retrospect, obviously missing from their reasoning the last time around.

4068ac1elhodqr

Boggles wrote: »

I don't get it what's so funny?

Well it was 02:45 in the AM during live counting, a passing single (somewhat mad, coffee induced) thought perhaps, at the joy of backing Trump at generous 10.0.

Can't remember if it was even acted upon, as part of a random acca builder maybe, certainly not a short priced single.

Still, the thought of it is still funny, getting back 10 apples for a single apple.
Then watching all the crying (adults) on the tv box the next day promising to move to outer mongolia or somewhere in their sheer outrage (don't think any celebs left yet).

odyssey06

notobtuse wrote: »

People who say Hillary should have won because she got the majority votes should really get a clue!

To be precise in fact she did not win the majority of votes, she got a plurality i.e. 48.2% compared to Trump's 46.1% and 'won' the popular vote.
Libertarian Party got 3% and Green Party got 1%.

But of course, the president of America has never been elected by direct popular vote but by an electoral college. The electoral college has changed from the Washington era where it was selected by the state legislatures to the Jackson era of selection based on popular vote within the state.
Which makes Clinton's 2016 campaign look even worse in retrospect.

Worth pointing out that in the 2002 Irish general election Fianna Fail received 41.5% of first preference votes and ended up with 48.8% of the seats.