Archive for the 'Donald Trump' Category

h1

Trumpity Trump: Why Betting on Biden is the right strategy

Wednesday, June 17th, 2020

The more I think about the US election, the more I think we’re underweighting the edge scenarios. And of the edge scenarios, I think the one we’re underweighting most is the one where the Democrats have a really good night.

Why?

Well, let’s start with the obvious. President Trump won by the narrowest of margins in 2016. To demonstrate this, let’s play “spin the wheel”. What we’re going to do is run a little simulation with every state in 2016. We’re going to end up with the same final vote shares – 48.2% vs 46.1% – but we’re going to shake things up very slightly in every state. We’re going to apply a random number between -2.5% and +2.5% to the Democrat, and then do the inverse to the Republicans. Our end vote total – for the country as a whole – will remain the same, but we’re just going to randomly change the votes (just a little) in each state. And we’ll run that, say, 10,000 times.

What happens?

Well, the chart shows the frequency of various outcomes in terms of Republican electoral votes (remember kids, 269 to win!).

What’s amazing is that Trump’s 2016 result (304 electoral votes) is on the far right hand side of this probability distribution. Do a little random shaking of the tin, and he loses EVs.

Now, you might think that President Trump’s victory was the result of electoral genius and Brad Parscale. Yeah, that played a role. But so did dumb luck. The votes could hardly have been any more optimally distributed.

The point I’m making is that in 2020, President Trump doesn’t have a lot to play with. Obama could go backwards a bit in 2012, and still be President. Trump doesn’t have that luxury.

His path was narrow before, and is probably narrower now.

So, here’s my three pointer on why I think President Trump might get hammered in 2020.

1. Trump is (significantly) less popular now than in 2016. And one group in particular has really deserted him – white women. According to Pew, Trump won this group by two points in 2016. The opinion polls now show him trailing here by ten points.

Now, some will say “hey, Trump’s unpopular, but so’s Biden”. Well, that’s partly true. But on forced choice between those people who say they dislike both candidates, 49% to 17% say they’ll chose Biden. Ouch.

2. Many Democrats didn’t come out to vote in 2016. There was a general sense of inevitability about Trump losing, and a lot of people didn’t particularly like Ms Clinton. That depressed Democratic turnout. And this feeds through into the 2020 polls: there is strict turnout weighting in the US, and this means lots of 2012 Obama backers, who didn’t vote in 2016, are not being counted.

3. President Trump is now suffering from a bit of an enthusiasm gap himself. Evangelicals used to give Mr Trump 81% favourability ratings, that’s now 61%, a 20 point drop. His drop among religious Catholics is even larger: a 27 point fall between March and May of this year. Now, I’m not suggesting that the deeply conservative and religious suddenly come out and vote Biden. I’m suggesting some of them (and it only takes a few) stay at home on election day.

Put these all together, and what do you have? I think you have the potential for Biden to win by eight to ten points this time around. Yes, yes, I know the last five or six Presidential contests have been really close. But I’m wondering if this time we could see a blow out result.

Nothing is certain, of course. Trump could pull this out the bag. But my gut says he had a winning coalition in 2016 because he managed to combine economic nationalism, a terrible opponent, and a bit of good fortune (the FBI discvovering a bunch of emails – which turned out to be nothing – a week before voting). The ultimate issue here is that Trump – to win – cannot allow his voter base to shrink. And he has done nothing to appeal to people beyond his base to win. The same people, all of them, need to come out in 2020 for him to win – and even that may not be enough, if the Democrats are more motivated.

Let me leave you with one statistic. Right track / wrong track questions tend to have pretty good predictive power. When people think the country is on the right track, they tend to re-elect incumbents. When they think it is on the wrong track, they are more likely to roll the dice.

Right track / wrong track is now at -38%. That is the lowest number of Trump’s Presidency. Now, it may be that he is able to feed off that. He’s the man who can put the country on the right track… But I think it more likely that the voters choose to say “Adieu Mr President”.

Robert Smithson



h1

Joe Biden says Trump will have to be “escorted from the White House” if he’s not re-elected

Tuesday, June 16th, 2020

One of the increasing worries about November’s US Presidential election is that Trump might not willingly leave the White House if he fails to get re-elected.

The Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, Joe Biden, is already starting to talk publicly about this concern which has been raised by many others – see the interview with Trevor Noah linked to above.

The timing is interesting. The election takes place on November 2nd but the winner will have to wait until the inauguration on January 20th when, if Trump has lost, he will cease to be President. But what happen if he refuses to stand aside? You can hear him saying “the election was rigged”.

This could be taking the US and the world into very dangerous territory.

From the inauguration on that date Joe Biden, if as the polls are currently suggesting, has won will become Commander in Chief. Until that moment Trump would have all the power of the office.

The situation could be more likely to happen if Trump loses by a narrow margin. Remember that in 2016 Trump was 2 million votes short of Clinton’s total but he became President because of the Electoral College.

My guess is that leaders of America’s allies, like Johnson, could possibly have role to play in such a scenario saying publicly that they won’t recognise Trump as President beyond January 20th.

Mike Smithson



h1

Biden’s poll lead over Trump is getting wider and his betting position remains strong

Monday, June 15th, 2020

And in the betting

Mike Smithson



h1

Biden moves up even more in the WH2020 betting with latest polls giving him double digit leads

Monday, June 8th, 2020

It has been a remarkably good few days for Joe Biden in the White House race betting as can be seen in the chart above. He is now as strong a favourite as he ever has been with the money going on him and punters becoming more sceptical about the incumbent.

This has been a period, of course, which has been dominated by the huge demonstrations across America and even the world following the murder by the police of the unarmed man in Minnesota.

This has touched the African American consciousness in a way that no other event has in decades and has highlighted the very different standards many American police forces have when it comes to how they deal with black people compared with white people.

In Minnesota where the murder took place in full view of the cameras the authorities have gone so far as to dissolve the entire police force. The response from the White House has been as you would expect and Trump has managed to exacerbate a very dangerous situation.

I just wonder whether the demonstrations which in some cases have edged towards riots and looting will start to help the President

Mike Smithson



h1

The case for betting on a Trump victory in November

Sunday, June 7th, 2020

A guest slot from Mr. Ed on Why he thinks the President will be re-elected

If you don’t want Trump to win in November (which I think is most people on this site), then there is plenty of data out there to give you hope. The RCP national polling average has Biden’s lead over Trump at +7.1%. In key swing states, the RCP average also shows Biden leading in all 5 (FL, PA, WI, NC, AZ) and polls have suggested Biden is now competitive in states such as Ohio and Texas. Trump’s approval ratings continue to fall, with the RCP average showing a net disapproval of c. 11%. 

However, I think these hopes are overdone. I have skin in the game as I have a £5 bet with Kinablu that Trump will win. More than that, I think the data and evidence is pointing to his re-election. 

First, two points. First, all the polls will have been conducted before Friday’s (positive) shock job numbers (caveat: I am writing this on a Saturday afternoon before any new polls are out). The beat versus expectations was simply staggering. To repeat: consensus had expected a 19.5 % unemployment rate vs the actual 13.3% expected, and 2.5m jobs were added vs a 20.7m fall in May. It was truly a surprise of the first order. Back to this later.

Second, the question of whether the polls can be trusted. For many reasons, I think they cannot and there are wide variances. To use one example, if the RCP national average of a 7 point lead for Biden is correct, then Trump should not be having a 4 point lead in Pennsylvania, which the latest poll says he does. The two latest polls out of Michigan have Biden’s lead at +2 or +12 depending on the poll also shows the variance. 

However, this is not a post about polling. I would argue, at this stage, there are four reasons why a Trump victory is more likely.

First, evidence from actual results suggests Republican enthusiasm is extremely high. Democrats might have “reduced” Trump’s 20 point margin in 2016 in the Wisconsin 7th special election to 14 points but there was no sign of an anti-Trump surge. But the special election result in CA-25 shouldn’t have happened if Trump is in trouble. The Republicans won a district by nearly 10 points that Clinton won in 2016 and against a candidate whose state district covered a majority of the area. And note the Republicans flipping the solid Democratic council of Staunton in Virginia. Yes, a City council but step back and think about this: the turnout surged to a level seen more for Governor elections (votes cast more than doubled). In Pennsylvania, the New York Post reported 861,000 Republicans cast votes for Trump in this week’s primaries vs. 734,000 Democrats. That is despite Democrats have an 800,000 advantage in registrations (in PA, you can only vote in your registered party’s vote) and Donald Trump a shoo-in for the nomination. What these actual results suggest is that the Republicans are fired up to vote, which will be crucial for November. 

Second, jobs. It is no wonder Trump was, ahem, trumpeting Friday’s job numbers but the surprise was stunning and it boosts his argument America can bounce back quickly. More importantly, it boosts the Republican argument that lockdowns need to be reversed as quickly as possible. It was a serious mistake for the Democrats to allow themselves to be portrayed as the party of lockdown. As each day goes by, and there is no surge in cases, Florida’s and Georgia’s Republican Governors look right and Democrat Governors like Gretchen Whitmer wrong. And recent endorsements of demonstrations by these same Democrat Governors have shot to pieces arguments against opening too soon (and will lead to a muddying of who is to blame if there is a surge in cases). Claiming “systemic racism” is more of a public health threat than CV-19 and justifies the demonstrations might sound good on Twitter but it is unlikely to cut it with a significant body of voters, who might rightly say the economic problems have caused significantly more deaths.

Thirdly, several Democrat wins in 2016 look vulnerable in November. Minnesota and New Hampshire are two obvious ones (I think the Republicans will flip the former at least this November – the Minneapolis riots are likely to play badly in the suburbs and Biden has said he will rip up the Keystone XL pipeline which will go down badly in a resource-dependent state). I would highlight three more; (1) Nevada. Clinton won it by 2.5% in 2016, smaller than the combined Libertarian / none of the above vote of just under 6%. There is an argument that Trump should win a chunk of that 6% this time round; Biden also didn’t do well amongst Hispanics in the primaries; and Nevada relies on tourism, which needs the easing of restrictions, which helps the Republicans. (2) Virginia, which I think could be the shock of the night. Clinton won it by over 5% in 2016. This is not much more than the 4.3% combined vote of the Libertarians and Evan McMullin, a lot of which again could go to Trump. And what is happening in Virginian politics – with conservative voters riled up over gun and abortion rights – should fire up Republican turnout as demonstrated by the Staunton result; (3) Colorado. Clinton won it by less than 5% and less than the Libertarian vote of 5.2%. Again, a chunk of that vote could go to Trump. Last week’s unanimous censure of the Democrat’s Senate candidate, John Hicklenhooper, by the state’s Independent Ethics Commission also did not help. I suspect Biden will repeat Clinton’s mistake in 2016 and think that several states are “safe” which, in fact, might be vulnerable. 

Finally, and perhaps the most pertinent point, increasingly elections are about underlying themes. Work out the theme, you can work out the result. In the US, 2016 was about many voters feeling left behind and deciding to roll the dice with Trump as they did – irony of ironies – with Obama in 2008 (who beat a far more experienced opponent). For 2020, I believe there will be three underlying themes (1) who will be best to get the economy back on track? (2) who will deal best with China? And (3) who will sort out the problems as seen with the recent riots? I would argue that Trump has a distinct advantage over Biden on (1) and (2), especially given the jobs data for (1) and all that he can point to with Hunter Biden and Biden’s own comments on (2). The third theme really has two parts – a law and order part, with voters scared about criminality, which is likely to play well for Trump; and a police reform issue, which may help Biden for Black turnout but where Trump has not made given his opponent so much in the way to persuade independents that Trump is viscerally anti-reform. SO, on the themes, Trump has a clear advantage. 

These are not the only problems for the Democrats. Biden is a weak candidate, in that he doesn’t enthuse and the risks of a major gaffe (or several) are high. Because there is a concern over his health, mental and physical, there will be more focus on the VP candidate. A white female VP candidate is virtually impossible now but the Black ones have issues of their own (Harris and Demmings because of their previous roles in the justice system; Stacey Abrams is too inexperienced; and Keisha Lance Bottoms hasn’t been helped by the Atlanta rights). My own view is that Biden should go for a Hispanic female (I have recommended Michelle Lujan on here as an outside bet) which ticks both the “woman of colour” box and helps cement a voting bloc where there are signs of drift. But he may need to go with a Black candidate because of recent events.   

So, sorry (nearly) everyone. I think you have four more years of Trump to enjoy.

Mr. Ed



h1

Trump 2024: the game’s changed and a third term is possible

Saturday, June 6th, 2020
Pic Gage Skidmore

The norms, expectations and opportunities of American politics are changing

Let’s get ahead of ourselves. I do not expect Donald Trump to win a second term and neither do punters betting hard cash. At the time of writing, he was just over 2.2 on Betfair to win November’s election and marginally odds against with traditional bookies. I think that’s still a bit short. Trump’s job approval figures have just dropped to a seven-month low (albeit within quite a small range), and Biden keeps pumping out solid leads in both national polls and those conducted in swing states.

In terms of the outlook for the next five months, it doesn’t look great for the president either. A majority of the public disapprove of his handling of the Covid-19 epidemic (the figures are against him by about 53/43), and that crisis is unlikely to go away given how high new infections remain across the country. Relatedly, while the unemployment figures dropped this week, the 13.3% rate remains considerably higher than the worst point in the recession of 2008-10.

Meanwhile, his response to the protests following the death of George Floyd has overtly played to his base as well as having been largely ineffective. Given all that, he has a tough task to win over enough swing voters, or to persuade enough current Biden-backers to stay at home, in order to gain victory. If either the unemployment rate stays in double figures or the Covid-19 cases fail to subside, we can reasonably expect more unrest into the summer and autumn as lives and livelihoods are lost.

But he might win – and that needs to be our starting point. So the first question we need to ask is ‘how?’, and we can best answer it by winding back the clock four years. Trump is not a subtle beast and in terms of strategy we can reasonably expect an updated version of 2016: assertions that he delivered on his promises, assertions of greater things to come under him, and vicious half-truth attacks on his opponent.

On that final point, Biden is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton was but he still has weak spots that Trump could exploit – and one of Trump’s two genuine political skills is in negative campaigning. We can probably expect a return to the Biden-Ukraine story that so nearly derailed his campaign in the primaries, alongside questions about his health, his behaviour and his legislative record. That Trump might also have weaknesses on these issues isn’t the point: Trump has never been bothered by consistency nor critical self-appraisal. His purpose in the attacks isn’t necessarily to win over voters; just to stop them backing his rival.

On top of the regular campaign, Trump also has one immeasurable advantage over 2016: his unchallenged status as head of a political movement which incorporates the Republican Party but in truth is founded outside it.

In the last four years, Trump has remodelled American politics: it norms and its methods. Anne Applebaum gives a magisterial account of how he’s done that and some of the consequences of his having done so in her Atlantic article this week but for our purposes, what we need to note is that Trump not only rejects the polite norms of politics but is willing to embrace any methods which advance his cause (and his cause is himself first, his family second and his friends third). That others might consider them unethical or even downright illegal doesn’t matter as long as they work. With a pet Attorney General and hence a tame Department of Justice, that gives him a lot of scope. For now (a point we’ll come back to).

Trump’s reforming of the psychology of American politics (and to no small extent, of America itself) has been his other great political accomplishment, and by some way the more significant. If he does win a second term, it will grant even more legitimacy to his methods, his mind-set and – to the extent which someone so self-centred and short-termist has them – his policies. Ugliness will become the default; the expectation; the standard to which those in DC and those anywhere Trump turns his attention have to operate. For where Trump goes, his army of followers, online and in person, go too.

If Trump does win in November then there’s a reasonable chance the Republicans may hold on to the Senate too, though it will be close. While not every Republican vote can be guaranteed, again, Trump’s mob can be mobilised to exert a lot of pressure on recalcitrant (and, for that matter, on Democrats who might be persuadable). There’s also a reasonable chance that it will have come through more outrageous lies and interference with the democratic process.

To those who say that Trump doesn’t have the power to intervene, that misses what power is. True, election are run by states but they’re also run by politicians in America and those politicians are susceptible to the same pressures Trump can unleash via his lip, his tweet and his fanbase. They’re also capable of working to the standards that Trump legitimises – and of course they have their own interest in doing what help the Republican Party. Expect procedural attempts to suppress or enhance the partisan vote on an even greater scale than usual.

These methods, however, come with a price. If he loses power, the investigations will be vigorous and there’s a good chance Trump could be fighting off legal actions for years. Hence his great incentive to win, at whatever cost and in whatever way.

Whether Trump accepts that he might be the legitimate target of such investigations is doubtful: he genuinely seems incapable of differentiating between his personal interests and his public role. He will, however, understand that his enemies might well try to ‘get’ him given the chance because that’s what he’d try to do in their place. Either way, retirement is off the table: he needs his hands on the levers of power and particularly the Department of Justice, as noted earlier.

Which brings us to 2024. “Hang on an minute”, you might say. “Trump can’t stand a third time: he’d be barred by the 22nd Amendment”. Well, technically he could stand but he couldn’t be elected and he’d struggle for ballot access anyway as an ineligible candidate. But that is not the end of the story.

If Trump believed he needed to protect himself through a third term, could he do it? Very probably, yes.

How? There are two routes we should raise here simply in order to dismiss. One is that he could simply ignore the constitution and carry on, with or without an election. Trump has certainly wreaked great damage on America’s body politic and no doubt could corrupt it further still in a second term but it’s hard to see how he could simply render the constitution null. To do that, he’d need to subdue either the judiciary and law enforcement systems, or the military, to his personal will. He can’t – or not without provoking an outright revolution. Nor can he cancel the election be executive fiat. Again, these are constitutionally mandated and organised by the states (and many other politicians need them for their own careers and interest, unless they too wish to be complicit in a coup that would place their own position virtually entirely at Trump’s whim). Besides, as the likes of Putin have shown, it’s better PR and simpler legally to go through the motions of an election.

The other is that he could change the constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment. While there are good arguments for that in principle (why shouldn’t people be able to elect a government of their choice?), now is not the time. Trump is not going to begin a battle he won’t win and where there’s no advantage in losing. To change the constitution requires the amendment to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, even if the two-thirds of Congress requirement could be circumvented (and it could) – and the Republicans don’t have and won’t have control of 38 states.

So where does he go? One option is simply to install a proxy. True, that wouldn’t actually mean a third term but there are several examples across history of national ‘paramount leaders’ holding no formal office, which they left to trusted lieutenants – Stalin did so until 1941. The problem with that though is that I’m not sure there’s anyone that Trump trusts who also has the brazen and shameless PR skills to do the front-of-house job. No-one else in his family does.

Instead, he could go for the Putin option and switch the ticket, serving as notional Vice-President to Mike Pence but dominating the campaign and the administration. Again, this would be a third term in fact but not in name.

Here, we need to get a bit technical with the US constitution. The 22nd Amendment’s relevant (and opening) clause states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, while the 12th Amendment says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President”. Note the subtle difference in wording. The later Amendment only prevents someone from being elected to a third (or subsequent) term; it does not explicitly prevent them from serving as president, should they inherit it from another position – including the Vice Presidency. And if they can inherit the presidency, then it follows that they are not barred from being elected Vice President by the 12th Amendment.

There are certainly those who disagree with that literal interpretation and assert that the intent of the 1951 Amendment was to prevent anyone serving more than ten years and that the 12th Amendment should be read in that context. This debate only matters here in as far as the Supreme Court might answer it: our own opinions are of little relevance (though for what it’s worth, I prefer to interpret according to the text as written rather than as imagined).

Which is where the Senate election in November comes in. Law should not be a matter of politics but on constitutional matters it inevitably carried an element of it, particularly in the US. I can’t honestly say how the Court would rule on the 12/22 question – the division characterised as liberal/conservative does not necessarily translate directly to pro-/anti-Trump – but if the GOP could gain another Justice (and two liberals on the Court are into their eighties), it couldn’t do any harm.

Assuming Trump could win that ruling – and it’s not one that’s stretching a point – it opens up an even more direct possibility: he could run for the Vice Presidency purely as a mechanism through which to transfer to the top job, with the actual nominee always intending to resign in Trump’s favour, before or after inauguration but certainly after the Electoral College votes are counted. But that might be playing the game too much.

The point is American politics has changed. The language and style has changed but so has its very nature. Codes of conduct have been stretched and unspoken assumptions no longer hold. If Trump wants three terms, they’re there to be had.

David Herdson



h1

Sewage and sewerage. New media and news

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2020

There’s always a tweet. Donald Trump had long baited the public through his twitter account, but this time he went too far.  In relation to the George Floyd case, he inveighed against rioters, with the stirring words: “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts”.  

These words would have been inflammatory without context, but they in fact echo the boast of a southern police chief against the civil rights movement. This was too much for Twitter, which put a trigger warning over it that it “violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence.”

President Trump and Twitter were already at loggerheads. He was already unhappy with their decision to fact-check him and this only added petrol to the flames. He has declared his intention to repeal section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996 and has issued an executive order issuing regulations to remove social media companies’ liability shield if they enter into censorship or any political conduct.

Donald Trump is motivated by his own political interest, of course. That doesn’t mean that he is wrong.

A lot of people have pointed out that Donald Trump has done very well out of Twitter, and that he is biting the hand that feeds him. But Twitter has done very well out of Donald Trump too. While he is president, Twitter is an indispensable news source. So let’s have a look at the rights and wrongs of this.

1996 was a different eon in the history of the internet. For starters, it still had a capital I. Amazon was two years old, Google was still two years off being founded. Facebook and Twitter were years in the future. No one was really making money off the internet and the question whether anyone even should make money off the internet was still controversial. So using laws from 1996 to regulate the internet is like using the Locomotive Acts to regulate road traffic.

The Communications Decency Act works on the basis that the internet companies are providing only the means of communication and not taking any responsibility for the communication itself. A similar approach is taken elsewhere in the world. As a judge in an English case put it, “persons who truly fulfil no more than the role of a passive medium for communication cannot be characterised as publishers” (and as such do not owe duties in defamation law). The relevant EU directive provides additional immunities in which internet intermediaries can avoid liability for material which is hosted, cached, or carried by them but which they did not create.

All this is, of course, great for the internet giants. As a starting principle, they don’t have to concern themselves with what courses through their conduits; they need only provide the infrastructure.  

This conceit long ago broke down. You only have to look at these platforms to see that the division is artificial. When was the last time that your water company pushed advertising material at you through the pipes?

The companies tacitly accept this. Facebook, for example, currently uses something like 15,000 contractors to remove pornography, terrorism, hate speech and other unwanted content. It, and the other large platforms, do so in an attempt to run ahead of the whip of legislation. They no longer seek to maintain that they have no role in relation to content.

It is against this background that Twitter has made its move against President Trump.  And do you know what, he has a point. If Twitter is going to start policing the statements of elected politicians (no matter how loathsome you might find them personally), it can’t expect to be making final decisions about their appropriateness under the cloak of legal protections.  

Does this mean that social media companies should be required to take responsibility for every statement posted on their platforms? That would be onerous indeed. However, there are intermediate points, where the social media companies need to show that they have taken reasonable steps to monitor what is said through them and to remove posts that do not meet a necessary standard.

Donald Trump himself is not going that far. He would be entirely happy for social media companies to revert to their hands-off approach so he can say what he likes.

Following the many controversies about data manipulation on social media, that approach is very much going out of favour. There is a widespread feeling that something must be done.

It should be noted that social media companies are now fighting on a playing field with old media companies that is very much tilted in their own favour, and one where some of the upstarts are now colossally wealthy in comparison to the old media companies. The public for nearly 25 years has benefited by having new media forms promoted. It now looks like time to seek to raise the standard of the material being pumped through those new media forms.  

That will require more regulation. So Donald Trump may unwittingly have set in motion a train of events that will make it much harder for those who come after him to follow his path to power.

Alastair Meeks




h1

We need to talk about Donald Trump’s Twitter account

Sunday, May 31st, 2020

Donald Trump and his Twitter account seems to be the embodiment of David Cameron’s maxim about Twitter, but this week Trump seems to have really caught the attention of Twitter with some pretty interesting actions regarding his tweets.

So onto the betting angle of this story.

Ladbrokes have a market up on Trump’s Twitter account to be deactivated or suspended before the end of June 2020 at 10/1. Usually a profitable route is not to get involved in betting markets on where the bookie doesn’t offer both sides of the bet and I’m not breaking that rule in this instance.

The timeframe of this bet is too narrow for me, I can see Trump tweeting something that sees him suspended in the run up to the election, and possibly after the election, regardless of the result.

I cannot see Trump deleting his Twitter account, something he mentioned he might do the other day, it is a great medium for him to communicate with his supporters even if he wants to make himself a martyr and possibly complain about social media being socialist media.

I cannot see Twitter deleting probably their most controversial user, I suspect from a pure business viewpoint for Twitter Trump tweeting on a regular basis is good for business, especially one struggling in a pandemic economy.

So I really wish Ladbrokes would offer the other side of this bet.

TSE