Will Betfair count these two as Democrats?
November 8th, 2006-
Money piles on as the uncertainty continues
A major row is going on over how Betfair are going to settle their market on whether the Democrats or the Republicans won most seats in yesterday’s election for the US senate.
At issue are the positions of two men - Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders - neither of whom won on the Democrat ticket.
Lieberman won re-election as the “Connecticut For Lieberman” party candidate - an independent political party he created after losing the 2006 Democratic primary election to Ned Lamont. He has said he will sit as part of the Democratic Senate caucus in the upcoming 110th Congress.
Sanders won yesterday in Vermont as an independent but will caucus with the Democrats and it is said will be counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments.
The problem that Betfair will have to resolve is that neither ran as a Democrat although they will be attached to the Democrats in the Upper House.
To add to the complication Nick Palmer, MP, posted this on the previous thread at 1.34pm - “I have it in writing from Betfair that they will count the two independents as Democrats. (I asked them a month or two ago before I put a tenner on.) If you have opposite advice in writing, they should be embarrassed!”.
This is a very tricky one because money continues to go on both sides of the argument by the minute. Over to you Betfair. sometimes you have got to earn that 5% commission on winnings that you charge us.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Fox News have just confirmed that Donald Rumsfeld is resigning as Defence Secretary with immediate effect.
Rumsfeld resigned
Robert Gates new secdef
Dr. Robert Michael Gates (born September 25, 1943) is the 22nd and current United States Secretary of Defense. His term of office began Novermber 8th, 2006 under President George W. Bush. Previous to that office, he served as Director of Central Intelligence from November 6, 1991 until January 20, 1993, capping a 26-year career in the CIA and the National Security Council. Immediately before being named as Secretary of Defense, he was the President of Texas A&M University and the National President of the National Eagle Scout Association. He and his wife Becky have two children.
The confirmation process will be interesting!
Mike, I have no financial interest in this whatever but on the facts as you have presented them I cannot see why the two Senators in question should be counted as Democrats. The reply to Nick seems to me to have been made in error. They should reimburse him and anybody else who was similarly misled and suffered financially as a consequence.
Good news about Rumsfeld!
Part of the ‘blame Rumsfeld’ strategy now unfolding in Republican/NuLabour pro-war circles. The strategy in Britain will be reinforced with a ‘blame Blair’ Iraq policy, once the PM stands down.
Rumsfeld’s resignation might have an influence on Blair’s position. If he’s the American scapegoat for the Iraq shambles who is the British one? Or did our Prime minister follow Bush without any independent thought?
Rumsfeld really ought to have gone two years ago.
I do not have any money on this market but having looked at it I think that Betfair have to regard them as being Democrats. They are being regarded as part of the Democrat groups and certainly that is how much of the US media is regarding them.
The terms of the market said Which of these parties will have more seats in the US Senate following the 2006 US Senate Elections?. So it is not about what party people were standing for but where they align themsleves after the election.
Roger @ 8
No it won’t. Would you start living on earth, its a nice place.
Rumsfeld was a useless bollocks. Completely refused to see that Iraq needed a post war plan, refusing to put enough enough men on the ground and refused to move when circumstances were deterioting.
Robert Gates has been around the block a lot of times.
10 - I didn’t bet in this market because I didn’t know how this very issue was going to be handled (I asked briefly here a few days ago but couldn’t be bothered emailing betfair to get an answer). I can see how people on both sides might feel rightfully agrieved but if I had to come down one way or another I would agree with counting them as Democrats.
I don’t think Betfair can possibly classify Lieberman as “Democrat” as they classified him as “Any Other” on their Connecticut individual state market.
I don’t know anout Sanders.
I suspect that Bush’s last two years will show someone who is rather more capable than he has been before. He didn’t have to be capable for years because he and the hardline republicans had the run of the place.
just got home and read about Rumsfeld. Wasn’t expecting this - Bush must be running scared.
10 - Absolute rubbish. They are independents. Political markets just become a nonsense otherwise.
10. Lieberman was classified as an Independent for the purposes of the Connecticut market, it isn’t rational to count him as a Democrat for another market.
There is also a misunderstanding about the difference between ‘caucusing with the Democrats’ and ‘joining the Democratic caucus’.
The former means one acts as if a Democratic Senator; the latter means one becomes a Democratic Senator.
Sanders and Lieberman will ‘caucus with the Democrats’. Unless they ‘join the Democratic caucus’ they will be on the rolls of the U.S. Senate as Independents and are, therefore, independents.
Did anyone else just hear the sneer in Bush’s voice when he said “Congresswoman Pelosi…”?
If Yates of the Yard really believes in following the evidence wherever it leads seems a bit risky for The Dour One. Guido lists some of the reasons and a contributor to his comments section reminds us of this.Lots for Yates to get his teeth into there.
As I posted on the other thread, http://sportinvestor.wordpress.com have written an open letter to Betfair seeking clarification. Its a very tricky, confusing one and largely based on unclear Betfair wording (we have all been here before haven’t we). Will be curious to hear how Betfair respond.
19. 5 ministers have been contacted for interviews by the police. Patty Hewitt just confirmed she’s one of them. According to the BBC, Jack Straw, John Reid, David Miliband, Alan Johnson, Peter Hain and Ruth Kelly have also been contacted for written declarations.
19 Funnily enough the BBC link is a little dodgy on Brown and his links with Maxwell. This is the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/595923.stm
“he served as Director of Central Intelligence from November 6, 1991 until January 20, 1993,”
So, one of daddy’s ‘boys’.
Surely, if defence procurement comes within his remit, the appointment should havew been DAVID Gates, one of whose great works is ‘The Sound of Bread’.
Interestingly the CNN website now summarises the Senate as Rep 49 Dem 50 with VA to come counting the 2 Indies in the Democrat total .
Gates is a member of the Baker Hamilton Commission as the President himself acknowledged. I think some sort of slow phased withdrawal based on ‘results’ will be the new policy. The difference with Vietnam will be that the US will keep up a financial commitment to Iraqi forces and police. Rumsfeld threw out Jay Garner’s plan to keep elements of the Iraqi Army in being from the start including middle ranking officers by paying them. These troops could have been invaluable in keeping security in the Sunni triangle since many were Sunni. Instead they joined the insurgency. How many US troops have died as a consequence? As Sean Fear says Rumsfeld should have gone ages ago. Bush has a streak of stubborn loyalty which goes beyond bounds. Harriet Myers’ candidacy for the Supreme Court was another example.
They are also missing Vermont from their list.
Just got a phone call from Betfair. They are going to email me at some point but it hasn’t come through yet (will post it in full when it does). The helpdesk person read what sounded like the key line which was that if they are still independent senators at the conclusion of the election (presumably when the last result is declared) then they do not count for either party’s total. Unfortunately he wasn’t able to expand upon how they defined ‘independent’.
Given that Jeffords was listed on the Senate website (see http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm) as an independent even though he caucused with the Democrats it would be very strange if Betfair ruled that he was, by their definition, a Democrat.
25. Baker-Hamilton was established to give some cover to Iraq - it’s not truly bipartisan, senior dems declined to serve on B-H. For the full story, see Woodward’s latest book. Anyway, at least Card/Rice have something to be pleased about!
What wouldn’t the Lib Dems give to have the so called ‘liberal’ Nancy Pelosi in their party! She’d be a shoo-in for leader. In fact if last nights is anything to go by I found her more impressive than Hilary who couldn’t quite bring herself to be clear about what she thinks of Iraq.
25 I’m reading it at the moment hence my reference to Jay Garner! It may not be bipartisan in some people’s eyes; that wasn’t my point. There is a lot of anticipation that it will come up with proposals for a new approach to the Iraq. Baker himself is known to be a sceptic of current strategy. This is far more importance than whether it has fewer democrats than republicans. Since Gates is on the panel one can assume he is in tune with its developing thinking.
CNN calls MT Tester.
Gates has history…
“Although he “was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment….”" - FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS (Apologies for caps)
My guess is that Betfair will wait until after the VA result and see how it is all reported in the US media. If the New York Times and the main networks are including them as Democrats then they will stick with that line. Otherwise they will go the other way.
Whatever happens I can see this going to IBAS - the arbitration service to which Betfair belongs. If I was declared a loser on either side I would take a case forward. It is their own fault for not defining the market well enough.
There has been a total of £152k traded on this market. Betfair are not going to want to pay out both sides.
It’s definitely gone Democrat.
10. Mike S
Yes, I can see that’s a fair viewpoint but are these guys Democrat Party members, or running for the Democrats? I dunno.
More important, I have to confess that I do have a financial interest in the outcome. If they are regarded as Independents, I am in the running for the Election Prediction competition and therefore a copy of your book. I realise I should have declared this interest and would like to apologise sincerely to all visitors to this site for the oversight and any false impression that I may have been given.
33 - Looking at how the US media are including them is irrelevant. The US media are only interested in who controls the Senate. Their actual technical party designation is irrelevant.
ACM, he was a top man in the CIA, of course he has history! I’d be more worried if he didn’t…..I mean one of our equivalent was that great expert on defence, security & Intelligence issues Geoff Hoon. Who would, on paper, look more competent?
Mike that’s the point. Define the book whichever way you want but be clear. This problem was obvious to anyone who knew anything about the elections. I personally think Chrisco is right in his interpretation but the fact that we are all debating it means they can hardly claim that the situation was self evident. By the way Virginia won’t declare officially until November 27 but of course Allen may concede before then if the County canvassings don’t look promising.
ACM you might like to look at an article in the weekly Standard at the end of October on what the Commission is likely to produce. The neocons are furious as you will see.
38. I’ll read it now - the link is here.
35.. Misleading indeed… I’m consulting my solicitors, Claimsfor50Quid. I saw them advertise on the tele at about 2am. They look very professional…
38. I’ve read Rubin’s article - it doesn’t seem to say much, except that a few members of the commission are anti-Iraq-war. If that wasn’t the case, the commission would have been called a whitewash, so the Reps had to have them legitimise it.
One thing that I noticed last night was how much the Republicans mirror the way that labour does better among males than females. On that particular count the democrats and the conservatives have a clear commonality.
Om the betfair issue the key word is ‘following’, how is that to be interpreted? Does following mean straight after or after deals have been made?
Yokel at 11. I agree that Rumsfeld is a “Useless bollocks” but what does that make someone who follows his actions without question? I had a high regard for Blair until this year but having heard his ‘Yo Blair’ conversation I realized he really was a poodle.
He appeared pathetic in a way that a leader like Chirac never would. I’m going to try to put some money on him going this year.
The whole market was hopelessly misconceived. “Senate - most seats” doesn’t do it at all. What if it had been a 50/50 tie (which it still could be and is a result that wasn’t offered)? Or did they mean most seats won on the night in which case you would have been mad to bet against the Democrats?
I see that they have two options. Firstly, cancel all bets (but does that cause a problem with people who have closed positions and tootled off?). Secondly, award it to whichever party’s leader takes on the job of “Majority Leader” which would be Democrat if the results stay as they are or Republican if they get 50 seats or more. I believe this is what most people were betting on - the odds throughout the night broadly reflect it (favouring GOP broadly in line with the fact that they had a 3/4 chance of winning either one of two toss ups, whereas the Democrats had a roughly 1/4 chance of winning both).
44. The question was “Which of these parties will have more seats in the US Senate following the 2006 US Senate Elections?”
The options were Republicans and Democrats. The result is 49-49 with two independents.
It’s a draw; I can’t see how anyone can see otherwise.
ACM are we reading the same article? The conclusions are said to be explosive; end democracy in Iraq, negotiate a deal with the Sunni terrorists and bring in syria and Iran as stabilising regional partners. I dare say this is being put in a very pejorative way by the author who supports the neocon ideal of spreading democracy in the middle east by force of arms but if anything like this is in the final report believe me it will monopolise political debate for a good few days. Forget about the point about whether the committee is partisan; concentrate on its findings and notice that a prominent member of it is to become defence secretary.
Uncalled Congress races on CNN
Seat, Incumbent, Leader, Gap, Precincts reported
CT02,R,D,180,100%
LA02,D,D,8000 (from another D),100%
OH02,R,R,2300,100%
OH15,R,R,11000,100%
PA08,R,D,1500,100%
NM01,R,D,1000,99%
WY02,R,R,900,99%
GA12,D,D,3300,96%
WA08,R,R,2300,31%
So, PA08 and NM01 seem to have gone Dem, with CT02 to close to call. WA08 is also a possible - I’m not sure how the remaining precincts usually split.
42. There are no deals. Lieberman and Sanders are not going to join the Democratic caucus, they are going to caucus with the Democrats. They said before the election they were going to caucus with the Democrats, but they are not going to be Democrats. They shall remain independents.
The question should have been “Which party will control the United States Senate after the 2006 election?”
43…. Roger, believe me its not going to add or minus from Blair’s position though. The die has long been cast.
Chirac is pathetic in other ways, the French have lost the battle for global domination to the Anglo Saxon English speakers. Give it up Jacques, give it up!
44. If there was a tie, dead heat rules would apply.
46. Perhaps different from the Rumsfeld/Cheney view, but no different from Rice/Powell. Getting rid of Rumsfeld is a victory for Rice/Card/Powell/Armitage, and the choice of successor confirms this.
When you think about it, this is a play straight from Blair’s playbook with Charles Clarke. This sort of thing doesn’t normally happen after U.S. elections - perhaps Blair has more influence with Bush than previously thought!
Chrisco @51 its one of the prices of working with the Democrats and Bush knows it. In the USA Rumsfeld is as much if not more symbolic of the cack handed approach and bogged down situation in Iraq.
By all accounts has a pragmatic head. He’s held his hands up and said ‘ok, things have changed’. Theres no Canute stuff here unlike many of those around the Bush party who I suspect will just rant and rave their way through the next couple of years.
Now, will a Dem Senate be obstructionist and refuse to confirm Gates?
I suspect not, but it’s an early test of their attitude.
ACM I’m sure Rice is delighted to see the back of Rumsfeld ( I’m not sure what Powell has to do with it since he’s been out for two years ) but she has always expressed strong opposition to direct dialogue with Syria and Iran because of their sponsorship of terror. If the US really does start engaging with Syria it would be a welcome step forward IMHO.
52. It’s got very little to do with the Democrats and everything to do with the Baker-Hamilton Commission. Bush was going to dump Rumsfeld whatever; and while Don would have obeyed Bush wanted the symbolism of ditching him and putting in place someone sympathetic to whatever Baker recommends, which will be contrary to the path followed by Rumsfeld for the past six years.
53. Gates will be confirmed. He is a career public servant who worked his way up from being an entry-level CIA man to being the Director of Central Intelligence. Rice will also be pleased - he was an associate of hers at the NSC.
53. Possibly, but I’m guessing soundings have been taken. Ironically whilst the Deomcrats, if they lead the Senate, can lead the agenda the small advantage they have is going to make it pretty hard for them to take full advantage for a couple of reasons:
1. Some of the new elected Democrats are pretty conservative so if they stay reasonably true to their manifestos the Democrats will not always be a unified block
2. Ironically it was the moderate Republicans who took the biggest hit thus less chance of Democrat initiatives getting some cross party support.
Bush resisted this change for a long while… I wonder what has changed now?
Hmmm wonder how those on the religious right will square this. God gone off Bush, perhaps. Or better still the Democrats winning, its the Devil’s doing.
Does anyone know why there will be a run off in one of the LA congress races? - see this article.
55. I beg to differ somewhat. Yes I agree that Rumsfeld was up for sacrifice but the speed of it suggests Bush has been talking to the Democrats already and the rapid dumping of Rumsfeld is a signal from Bush of the new situation and his comprehension of it. A bit like a welcoming gift.
If the Republicans had held on to the Senate at least and not suffered so badly in the House Rumsfeld would have been there a bit longer. Sure once the Commission released its report maybe then but it wasn’t in George W’s plan to let him go now as it appears the Republicans genuinely hoped to hangf on at least in the Senate.
57. It is actually quite rare in the Senate for either party to act as a united bloc - party loyalties are much less important in the upper chamber.
Being the majority grants the chairmanships, which is what is important. To really ‘control’ the Senate you need to have 60 seats so you can break a filibuster.
62.. You put it more succinctly than I did.
I can guarantee you that Bush had not been talking to the Democrats before the election about replacing Rumsfeld.
He had also asked Gates two weeks ago about taking the job. Rumsfeld would have been in it no longer if the Republicans had held on to the Senate either - one or two seats either way in the upper house is a laregely procedural and symbolic difference, not a substantive one.
64. If you can give me a gilt edged guarantee then I’m willing to be persuaded.
Required viewing for Republicans tonight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K92OVFeGgIE
Ah, bye bye Donald Rumsfeld. I will remember you fondly as the man who came out with one of the most amusing soundbites ever heard in politics;
“There are known knowns - things that we know we know. There are known unknowns - things that we know that we do not know. And there are unknown unknowns - things that we do not know we do not know.”
.. oh, and for presiding over the shambles of Iraq, and being generally crap and ineffectual.
If Pelosi had been really smart she should have talked about working with the White House but called again for Rumsfeld’s resignation, saying that the vote was a repudiation of his policies in Iraq; that way Bush would probably have dug his heels in and stuck with him for a while longer, making him look arrogant and as if he hadn’t got the message, or alternatively he’d look as if Pelosi was calling the shots, making him look weak.
47. I think NM 01 has the Rep ahead on CNN website
60 - That State has a different rule that you must get over 50% of the vote - I think the top two candidate now fight it out.
“Now what is the message there? The message is that there are no “knowns.” There are thing we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that’s basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.
It sounds like a riddle. It isn’t a riddle. It is a very serious, important matter.
There’s another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn’t exist. And yet almost always, when we make our threat assessments, when we look at the world, we end up basing it on the first two pieces of that puzzle, rather than all three. ”
Have a look at Rumsfeld: a Tribute
Dodgy link in my previous post - see here for the tribute.
60. Many southern states have runoff elections when no candidate receives 50% + 1 of the vote. Traditionally, it’s been a way to keep black candidates from being elected when receiving a plurality of the vote when running against more than one white candidate.
73. It seems in the LA seat that many Dems and Reps ran against each other.
74 - this is the way it works in LA whilst all the other states have primaries to select one candidate per party.
I can’t believe it, The Natural Law Party were standing in some of the elections over there. Is that broadly the same bunch as stand here?
76 - pretty much. One of them, John Hagelin, was the presidential candidate of the anti-Buchanan rump of the Reform party in 2000.
“Today’s results only cause him really serious problems for his budget and possible appointments (and so have probably confirmed Rumsfeld in place through to 2009).” - me at 7.49 this morning. Wonderful piece of prediction.
You got to love these types on the fringes without a hope in hell. No sign of the United States Communist Party sadly…their late President, Gus Hall got a fair amount of coverage from Radio Moscow during the Cold War days
It will be interesting now if a Supreme Court Justice (I am never going to get used to calling the Law Lords that in the UK) shuffles of this mortal coil or stands down. No matter whether the Senate goes 50-50 or 51-49 Dem (the latter is looking likely), Bush is going to have to appoint a moderate, or even a liberal-leaning Justice to the role.
Not wishing death on any Supreme Court Justices, but it would be interesting to see what would happen.
78..Stop your shameless promoting about your failure now or else we’ll put you on Big Brother….
According to Libdem Voice, Paul Holmes has been re-elected Libdem chair of the parliamentary party. He defeated Jenny Willott 43 votes to 16.
Evan Harris has been elected English MPs’ representative on the Federal Policy Committee defeating Chris Huhne.
Pls see lots of discussion of this on previous thread. I have an email from Betfair from as recently as Sunday which is crystal clear that the two names in question are Independents not Democrats. The market has clearly been played today as if this were the case. Otherwise Dems would have been hugely odds on. Nick P later confirmed his earlier email was with regard only to Leiberman. But it too was crystal clear and he and perhaps others betting earlier should be paid.
Betfair have definitely messed up.
81. Now that’s harsh. Anyway, nine weeks without access to the media (and especially pbc)? I’d go mad.
84. I believe they lock ‘em away for thirteen weeks now…
…
… I sound like I know a bit too much about it!!
80 - there is talk that Justice Stevens, an ageing liberal on the Court, is thinking of stepping down this year. Many people have commented in the past about how he appears to be holding on as long as possible because he’s concerned about who might replace him. But we might well see him retiring now…
I see Jim Ryun, the former world mile record holder, lost a very safe seat in Kansas. The GOP have been in turmoil there with numerous switches to democrats from senior officials. Bush went there at the last minute to boost the turnout but it didn’t work…
84. In the Big Brother House you will be the media! I’d actually like someone to go that show and slowly turn into a Hitler in his bunker. That would be cracking TV, grow a little tash, comb over, request maps of Europe in the diary room….
I think the situation with Leberman and Saunders is different Saunders won the Democratic Primary and thus should have chosen to run on the Democratic ticket if he wanted to: instead he chose to leave it blank (preventing anyone from styling themselves a Democrat) as he would rather brand himself as an indi. He received substantial support and financial backing from senior Democrats.
In contrast Lieberman ran against and actively opposed his Democrat challenger who had the support of the Democrat leadership.
On topic, I’m currently green on both Dem and Rep - although only small amounts - so would be more than a bit annoyed if bets are voided for whatever reason (including a tie, which couldn’t have been bet on but could have been foreseen). It’s not the first time Betfair have been less than clear about what the market definitions are and they could do with tightening them up. The Blair switch market’s another that’s open to more than one interpretation.
Perhaps Betfair ought to have a user panel from each “sport” (counting politics as one) that reviews the rules of markets for such anomalies before they come on line. It would be neatly consistent with the peer-to-peer nature of the Betfair concept.
80 - I doubt if the mood in the Senate would be in favour of a particularly liberal Supreme Court Justice. Bush couldn’t ram through an ideological conservative, but Justices in the mould of Alito or Roberts would probably be fairly acceptable.
Just looking through the county breakdown of the Virginia Senate vote, its like little England. In Norfolk, which sits on a major US Navy facility, Allen took a pasting from Webb.
90. A tie is dead heat rules, isn’t it?
94 - Yep dead heat rules apply. It’s fairly clear.
Dead heat rules do apply for betfair senate. These are…
“DEAD HEATS
* Unless stated otherwise in the Specific Sports Rules and/or the Market Information the Dead Heat Rule applies to bets on a market where there are more winners than expected (as set out in the Market Information), or the result is a draw or tie and there is no such eventuality offered in the market.
* For each matched bet on a winning selection, the stake money is first reduced in proportion by multiplying it by the sum of the number of winners expected (as set out in the Market Information) divided by the number of actual winners (i.e. stake multiplied by (number of winners expected/number of actual winners)). The winnings are then paid to the successful backers on this ‘reduced stake’ (reduced stake multiplied by traded price) and the remaining stake money is paid to the appropriate layers.
* For example, assume there is a dead heat for first place between three horses. ‘Client A’ has backed one of the winners for a stake of 300 at the traded price of 4.0 and ‘Client B’ has taken the other side of this bet. When the event is settled, the stake (300) is multiplied by 1/3 (i.e. the number of expected winners (1) divided by the number of actual winners (3)) to calculate the reduced stake (100) and the remainder given to the layer (200). The backer then receives the traded price matched (4.0) multiplied by the reduced stake (4 x 100 = 400). In this example, Client A’s net winnings are 100 (400 payout minus the original 300 stake), and Client B’s net losses are 100. Alternatively, this can be viewed as the full amount paid to the traded price divided by the number of dead-heaters. In the above example this would be 300 at the traded price of 4.0 (1200) divided by 3; making 400 payout and 100 net winnings.
* By way of another example, assume there is an outright winner in a golf tournament but 7 players tie for 2nd place. In the “top 5 finish” market, after settling on the outright winner in the top 5 market there would be 4 other designated winners places available. ‘Client A’ has backed one of the winners for 300 at the traded price of 4.0 and ‘Client B’ has taken the other side of this bet. When the event is settled, the stake (300) is multiplied by 4/7 (i.e. the number of expected winners (4) divided by the number of actual winners (7)) to calculate the reduced stake (171.43) and the remainder given to the layer (128.57). The backer then receives the traded price matched (4.0) multiplied by the reduced stake (4 x 171.43 = 685.72). In this example, Client A’s net winnings are 385.72 (685.72 payout minus the original 300 stake), and Client B’s net losses are 385.72.”
New thread on the Virginia recount
93. Looking at counties name, it’s like UK elections…Bath, Bedford, Bristol, Buckingham, Westmoreland, Richmond, Essex, Gloucester, Halifax, Highland*, Ilse of Wight, Lancaster, Newport, Norfolk, Northampton, Portsmouth, Winchester, York
* at least they don’t have Na h-Eileanan An Iar, I suppose.
Sean, if you think this Senate would confirm either Alito or Roberts (esp. Alito) you are living in fantasy land.
You may want to check out Specter (Chmn, Judiciary)’s remarks today about how Rs need to be more progressive.
96. So everyone gets a payout but for those who backed at odds-on, it won’t cover their stake?
So, Bush is now a Lame Duck.
Blair is the Poodle of the Lame dDuck.
Murdoch is bound to the Poodle.
Seems Cameron knew something…
Lieberman and Sanders did not stand as Democratic candidates. I don’t therefore see why they should be counted as Democrat wins.
Whether or not either or both of them decide to join the Democrat caucus doesn’t change the fact that they stood as Independents.
If I had believed otherwise I would have bet on the Dems in the Senate market as well as in the House market.
67 and 71. Re Donald Rumsfeld
“This much ridiculed statement won the Plain English Campaign’s Foot in Mouth award for 2003, but it does make sense when read carefully.” See BMJ 2004; 328:483. “What doesn’t work and how to show it”.
Incidentally there are also unknown knowns. These are things we don’t know that we know!
Betfair must add Sanders and Leiberman to the Democratic totals for very straightforward reasons.
The question we bet on is ‘which of these parties will have more seats following the 2006 election’. Sanders won the Democratic nomination, and did not face any rival Democratic candidate in the election confirming his nomination as a Democratic candidate.
The effect of both winning their seats is to outvote the Republicans in the Senate giving FORMAL power to the Democrats - the Democrats therefore have more seats. Voting, power and seats are equivalent. A party seat can mean no more than the voting power of the elected in the chamber.
The casting vote of the Vice-President is irrelevant for this simple reason. THERE IS NO TIE - THERE IS NO DEAD HEAT, Sanders won the Democratic nomination.
A dead heat could only occur where the Vice-President cast a vote due to EQUAL VOTES CAST IN THE SENATE BY EACH PARTY. Sanders and Lieberman voting with the Democrats, make this tie-break power of the Vice-President irrelevant. A tie-break or dead heat is therefore absent.
The Democrats therefore have power through more seats that outvote the Republicans in the Senate. One party controls the Senate through greater voting power, caused by more seats under its voting bloc. There is no tie-break or dead heat in the Senate.
To confirm this look at the official election website page of CNN - http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/ . They confirm that Sanders and Lieberman have been added to the Democrat totals for control of the Senate. Thus the Democrats have WON MORE SEATS IN THE SENATE, assuming the Democrats are confirmed as the winners of the Senate seat in Virginia.
News channels are describing the result as 50-49-0, 1 to be decided. Go to http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/.
Also the betfair question is about party power ‘WITHIN’ the Senate. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether they were standing for election as independents, democrats or whatever else - it is purely about the effect of their party based voting and so power ‘WITHIN’ the senate.
So all those mentioning party labels candidates stood under on ballot papers have made a completely irrelevant point.
The Betfair question makes absolutely no mention of the ballot paper labels. It solely refers to party power within the Senate.