-
Not in any measurable way though.
Political candidates focus their last-minute campaigning efforts on swing constituencies, and that swing could be measured in financial bets as well as polls (presumably there are some controls on bookies selling localised betting data?)
Swing constituencies are already very established and well recognised though, and the causation relating to betting & odds is in the opposite direction than you seem to be implying - odds change because of the perceived probability of either party winning (and by how much money the bookies expect to make / lose), not the other way round.
[Edit] Maybe there is a case for suggesting that voting itself is influenced by polling data & analysis, which may well include betting odds as a factor. I'll stand by my point that it's unmeasurable in any meaningful way though.
-
It's almost like the term "conflict of interest" has a meaning which is narrowly defined with legal implications.
But I'm sure that's true of lots of terms, like 'act of God' or 'contract' and that doesn't negate them having other meanings.
I think the argument that odds may have an impact similar to polls is worth thinking about, but I suspect odds are based on polls
You (and @Brommers) may be great lawyers, but I feel you would make very poor bookies or traders. Initial odds might be based on polls, but they change based on the bets people place, otherwise the bookie would be rapidly out of pocket. So they fairly directly reflect a subset of actual financial interests; polls are a rather indirect way of predicting how people claim they will vote in the future.
-
• #10957
But I'm sure that's true of lots of terms, like 'act of God' or 'contract' and that doesn't negate them having other meanings.
Yes, things may have multiple meanings, and they may be interpreted by people differently. But there are general limits to this, otherwise communication would be very, very, difficult. I'm not a philosopher of language but have read my Austin. From that perspective I think we can agree that "Act of God" is a great example of something which does have a clear legal/illocutionary meaning as well as a more general descriptive/locutionary meaning. I don't think "Conflict of Interest" has the same distinction. I've never noticed it being used to make a claim that didn't take into account the role of the actor (that is, that they were in a position in which they were able to influence outcomes which personally benefit them). Maybe it is used in the way you are trying to claim it is, though.
You (and @Brommers) may be great lawyers, but I feel you would make very poor bookies or traders. Initial odds might be based on polls, but they change based on the bets people place, otherwise the bookie would be rapidly out of pocket. So they fairly directly reflect a subset of actual financial interests; polls are a rather indirect way of predicting how people claim they will vote in the future.
You're right - I'm sure I'd be a terrible bookie. But I suspect the likelihood of an event will always be the first consideration when devising odds and financial liability on existing bets would be secondary. Otherwise I don't thin you'll be able to realistically reassess how to adjust odds.
Anyway, since you clearly have a different definition of "conflict of interest" than me, and I'm obviously a terrible bookie, I'll bow out by saying, again, I think the ethical implications are interesting.
-
I don't think "Conflict of Interest" has the same distinction. I've never noticed it being used to make a claim that didn't take into account the role of the actor (that is, that they were in a position in which they were able to influence outcomes which personally benefit them). Maybe it is used in the way you are trying to claim it is, though.
Well, I'm no expert, and it's entirely possible I'm confusing 'potential COI' or maybe 'situation which may risk a COI' with 'COI', but I believe the FCA says that being an employee (of any kind) of a UK financial institution and making any personal donation to a US political organisation is a Personal Conflict of Interest which must be declared. But again, that's a specific legal or regulatory definition.
-
I'm pretty sure that if you asked your compliance officer, they would tell you that there is no requirement to declare / disclose / attest to any gambling, either to them or the regulator, even as an approved person.
Political donations are, as I understand it (having clicked through interminable training slides) acceptable, provided there is proper due diligence vis. bribery and / or corruption.
I'm going to have a look to see if they are counted as COIs at my current shop.
-
^ A COI can arise if the donation is (or is perceived to be) in return for something.
Gambling only features as a potential COI if it is part of some other inducement.
-
I believe the FCA says that being an employee (of any kind) of a UK financial institution and making any personal donation to a US political organisation is a Personal Conflict of Interest
But US political parties aren't allowed to accept donations from foreign nationals. So why would that be necessary to stipulate?
-
Oh right. That's interesting
-
Do you think top Republicans would be overly fussed if they missed out this time?
They have got their judges, all a second-term Trump will do is damage their brand further. Are anymore judges scheduled to die soon?
Better to let a Democrat deal with the Covid fall-out and inherit a recovering economy in 1/2 terms.
-
Out-takes from the Borat film has the daughter in character getting a tour of the White House with zero security checks made as she was hanging out with OAN news
https://mobile.twitter.com/BoratSagdiyev/status/1319663161071431691
-
Yes very much so. As the republican party right now without trump as their front man is looking at a long way back to power imo. Feels like a lot of those who are voting republican are voting for trump rather than a republican way of life. Sure a lot of those voting for democrats now are voting against trump but they seem to me to have a lot more voters that are inline with their politics.
And also the democratics base is much younger than the republican. If anything i would think 4 years with a democratic president will make 2024 even harder to win esp without a guy like trump who can almost shape the truth to whatever he wants or at least make it appear as this is the case.
If they also loose the senate this time and democrats keep the house which seems very likely there could be a long road back to power for republicans. Lets hope so anyways.
-
He voted by post this year. Wonder if he got the secret service to check Melania's ballot.
-
𝙺̶𝚗̶𝚘̶𝚠̶𝚒̶𝚗̶𝚐̶ ̶𝚝̶𝚑̶𝚎̶ ̶𝚌̶𝚘̶𝚗̶𝚝̶𝚎̶𝚡̶𝚝̶, that is an incredible picture.
-
useless
NotThamesWater
Brommers
chez_jay
deleted
cyclotron3k
Aroogah
miro_o
|³|MA3K
jaw
dubtap
badboybjorn
spindrift
Stonehedge
starfish&coffee
Wrongcog-
Post a reply
About
US Politics
Posted by
@dst2
It might do, although I'm far from convinced it would. And if the odds on a Trump win shorten, that may cause lazy Democrats to get out and vote rather than staying at home rather than being complacent about a Biden victory with Trump on long odds.