I am glad that you regard me as just another punter, dave1357.

Deeply appreciated.

#2 isn't well expressed, and is complicated, but you got it bigpoppapump. the idiot politicspunter has it totally wrong that all of these things had to happen. It wasn't all of them. It was any of them.

besides which, a poisson distribution would have 269 each to be more common than 100/1 given what we know about recent elections in the US.  (have the tie onside in ODIs gents, particularly where two teams have proved themselves reasonably well matched - like World Cup Finals )

You are talking to yourself, dave1357, because when I look in the mirror all I see is someone who spent a fair bit of time reading and reflecting on Betfair's rules and nailed it.

You aren't going to nail anything.

It could certainly happen but 100/1 also looks about right to me.

Then you have to multiply the next scenario happening, ie Biden being so ill (with Covid or similar) that he can't carry on, which I guesstimated at 20/1 although how can you price such an event accurately. It's tough for the first one to happen, much tougher for the next couple of stages to also happen.

First stage has not happened

Biden is clear projected winner of ec votes

Biden is clear projected winner of ec votes

market's still open...

Market is still open pending challenges by trump

He still has a shot at it, however remote

You can still back george clooney
@1000

He has zero chance too

Elon musk 1000

No chance

Market open...

bigpoppapump

Consider it like this:

There are three key points.

One, is the appearance of a "projected majority" by the Networks, and anyone who can count, at or soon after the end of the official counts.

Two, is the appearance of an uncontested "received majority" in the vote by the electors on 14 December.

Three, is the counting of the votes in Congress on 6 January. Someone is agreed by both Houses of Congress to have received 270, they are confirmed as receiving 270, and they are appointed President as a result.

In strict terms, the only one of those three points that is truly determinative is the last one. You can get a "projected majority" at the end of the official count, and in most elections that's usually accompanied by a concession and everyone agreeing to assume, therefore, that Point Three is in the bag.

That's what Betfair's rules mean when they talk about settling on a projected majority.

But if there's no concession and there's litigation which, like in 2000, could potentially change the outcome, then they won't settle on that unfinal projected majority, they'll wait.

Which is where we are now.

The next stage is point two. The "received majority". Which is the wording a bit further along in Betfair's rules. By the time we get to 8-14 December, we won't be dealing in projected majorities anymore, we'll be looking at the prospect of received majorities. That is, is someone actually going to receive 270 votes in the meeting of the electors on 14 December?

If someone receives 270 votes at that point, and they are uncontested, duly certified, all dots dotted, then Betfair would have the same kind of certainty at that point as it would have had if there'd been a projected majority on election night with a concession, ie they'd be prepared to make the sound leap of faith and say, THIS is determinative of the actual determinative point, January 6th, so now we can settle.

But there are a couple of scenarios which might yet occur on 14 December which would mean Betfair not being able to regard the "received majority" at that point as being any more certain than the "projected majority" we have at this point, as to what will happen on 6th January.

One scenario is that Trump gets Republican legislatures to choose electors for him and Biden get Democrat governors to choose electors for him. Parallel electors. They are called, historically, duelling electors. They are not like faithless electors, which Betfair will not recognise, because they are not a transient blip. They cut to the heart of the matter. At this point, it's possible both candidates have 270, which means, in reality, that neither has 270, in the sense that neither has a 270 that we could with certainty assume will be recognised as such on 6 January.

The other scenario is that Trump gets Republican legislatures to refuse to certify. To sit on their hands. To do nothing while the Democrat governors appoint electors and give Biden his 270. If this happens, then while Biden will have 270, even an uncontested 270, on 14 December, it will be a 270 which will go forward to Congress on 6th January under an enduring cloud of uncertainty. If 270 electors go forward to Congress in this way, then it would raise the possibility that in the Republican controlled Senate on 6 January, they summon the courage to reject Biden as having obtained 270 valid votes. They have to agree it. If they don't agree it, the whole electoral college thing, the whole 150m votes thing, just goes out of the window.

So, if I were Betfair, to settle on 14 December on the basis of a "received majority", I would want to see a received majority of 270 that was properly and duly certified by every Republican legislature where it had to be. If there were less than 270 properly certified votes for Biden on 14 December, I would want to wait until 6 January to see whether the Republican Senate rejected it. If they did - and let's not get distracted by speculating about the politics of it - then the two votes under the Twelfth Amendment, as alluded to in Betfair's rules, would immediately be required.

A vote for President, in Pelosi's House, which Trump has a majority for (definitely) but which she can probably block (I think; I wouldn't swear an absolute oath this is accurate)

and a vote for Vice President, in Pence's House, which he will probably have a majority for and obviously wouldn't block.

If the President's vote is blocked and the Vice President's vote goes through, then according to the wording that was in the Twelfth Amendment and now rests in the Twentieth Amendment, Pence would be sworn in as President on 20 January.

I have no doubt that if Trump concedes, the four idiots will be elated and assume that my disappearance from the thread is evidence of my incorrectitude.

I don't really want to be hanging around longer than this issue is alive. It is not within my power or competence to predict what kind of help Trump will or will not get from the Supreme Court, or whether he will succeed in his quest to capture the loyalty of the Republican legislatures he needs.

At the moment, I think it's less likely than more, but I wouldn't yet discount it.

The only thing that I am saying with confidence is that if he does succeed, whether it's a 10% chance or a 30% chance or a 5% chance, then Betfair's rules and US constitutional procedures in January work in a certain way that's going to probably prevent him from being re-appointed President and open the door to Mike Pence instead. And there is a whole nother question about whether being appointed in accordance with the Twelfth-in-combination-with-the-Twentieth is rule-compliant, but the four idiots on this thread are so stupid, so stupid that they're still insisting on a moronic notion that they've already been proven to have gotten completely wrong, that they haven't got anywhere near that point.

Shameless nonsense

No, just used gotten because it was there.

You are not worth bothering with, dave1357.

Except in one expeditious sense as a matter of my debt to this country.

You had a good run, dave1357.

Has their ever been a more pompous fool posting on this forum?

I wouldn't say it's been a pleasure, dave1357, so much as it will.

What is the hold up on Az now? no recount as far as I know and lawsuits dropped.