it's 60/40 ossoff favored on predictit

messina (obama 2012 campaign manager, now working for conservatives) seems nonplussed by the yougov poll

IMHO not really. They didn't show up to vote for Clegg in 2010 after they said they would, didn't show up to vote for Bremain after they said they would and similar in 2015 though I wasn't following it closely.

But either they turn up or they don't, so in that sense it's 50-50

I think they believe in Corbyn more than they believe in either of those things. Whether it will be enough is debatable.

The one thing you definitely can say, and I'm not sure this is info being used by any pollster, that the actual Labour members will turn out. If you bothered to sub to a party, even at 3 quid a time, you are going to turn up to a polling station to vote if you can. Labour has the largest membership of any party in western europe. That's why I'm hesistant to fall back on the cliched if accurate "students won't get out of bed" argument.

All very good points regarding turnout. Conservative voters will always turn out. Labour voters, not so sure.

It's hard to pick a good bet. The only thing I would say I am sure about is Conservatives winning the most seats. But odds on that are a pathetic 1.09.

There have always been working class racists so far as I can remember, and you do remember them because they tend to never shut up.

Do you think these are actually labour voters? Or maybe just essex man/far right types that never vote Labour anyway?

Can anyone explain the Trump impeachment market to me ? As a Brit I have a limited understanding of US politics - which is rarely a good basis for a bet -but the prices on his early departure seem extraordinary.

Given that no-one has been impeached and only Nixon resigned and to the outsider the bar for impeachment seems set sky high - is there any justification for thinking he is even money to depart before 2020?

It's a political (not legal) process. As the Republicans are in control the chances of it happening are pretty slim at the moment.

If it reaches the point where Trump's behaviour starts to endanger Republican political careers things could change.

But they'd have to have a pretty clear justification surely? otherwise we'd have seen it happening much more

They impeached Clinton on grounds of lying under oath over a private affair conducted at the White House. If they find any evidence that Trump was aware of wrong doing between his team and Russia it's already in a different league to Clinton.

a few basics...
2 presidents have been impeached, Clinton and Johnson. Nixon would have been impeached had he not resigned.

Impeachment is similar to being indicted. After an impeachment a conviction is still needed by 2/3 of the Senate in order to convict and remove a person from office. Both Clinton and Johnson were acquitted by the Senate.

Be careful to understand these differences, because the impeachment market is different than the leave office market. You can be impeached and remain in office ala Clinton

Important point. There are significant numbers of people who do not know the difference. It may be as large as 10% of the betting market (it is much larger in the general population but bettors in political markets tend to more sophisticated. I have noticed some interesting arbitrage opportunities between "leave office" and impeachment markets.

the Ossoff - Handel race is pretty insane here in north Atlanta. Like every other house has a sign of some sort in their yard. This has got to be the highest profile house race in a long time, if not ever. Pretty cool I get to vote in it.

The money being spent and raised is absurd

Well it's not really an arb in the strictest sense because he could "leave office" without being impeached and could also be impeached without leaving office early.

sorry - question was very badly expressed.

I'm really talking about the early departure market. Given that only one president has ever been forced from office early - the very high probability of it happening to Trump implied by the market, can only be justified by exceptional circumstances - From an admittedly unknowledgeable perspective the exceptional circumstances don't seem to be there. They seem a million miles from proving anything significant.

So am I misreading the situation? Probably.
Or might the fact that so many of the political classes would like nothing better than an early Trump departure be skewing the market ?

Teresa May getting ripped apart (again) in a town hall style Q&A. Betfair have her at just under 5/1 to not get an overall majority next week.

Crazy market here

https://www.predictit.org/Contract/4...eement-in-2017

One disturbing development for Labour backers: the Tories seem to be using sophisticated online targetting methods.

This could be absolutely fatal for Labour. I can't stress enough how effective this method can be when employed effectively. It is not just some fddish nonsense. Voters can be fed personalized ads concerning issues specifically relevant to their demographic and geography.

I would imagine anyone with a real strong chance of being convicted by the senate will resign before impeachment. So for a President to be impeached and then convicted by the Senate would require some real nasty new information to pop at precisely the right time, since I believe a President could still resign even after getting impeached but before a conviction ?

There's a lot of moving pieces here to really understand before taking a position.

Correct. I use arb in an extremely loose sense, meaning any two or more positions which collectively collapse the variance significantly. Perhaps the term "quarb" (quasi-arbitrage) would express it better.

You could of course lose both wagers in the scenario you describe, resulting in potentially significant liabilities, though there is still a significant reduction in variance.

I like quarb.

maxtower's point is interesting, that they are unlikely to both happen together. It's true they never have happened together as Nixon resigned before impeachment.

I think Trump is an exception though. I tend to think he will just stay in office no matter what and would see the whole process through, so your variance reduction strategy makes sense.

Maybe Trump's likely attitude would be right - you only get 1461 days anyway, if someone wants to cut it by 300 why would you do them a favour and cut it even further by leaving early? It's not like when someone wants to send you to prison for 3 years and you get a reduced sentence of 2 years if you cooperate with the process. Presidents get an increased punishment by resigning early. If it's a total ****show you might be ready to leave but Trump doesn't seem to think like that.

Yeah it's great

Domer are you on no? Seems like a lol predictit situation

well i'm not so sure about lol predictit, more like lol trump

and yeah i bought a lot of no when the yes side was hitting the high 80s as he was giving his speech

i'm not sure what the "true" price is atm, but i'm fairly sure that the way this expires "yes" has not been reached yet