Best Of
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
The nominee Polymarket, with $300m+ traded so far, is very weird.I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
What do you think?
https://polymarket.com/event/democratic-presidential-nominee-2028
The two favourites are Newsom and AOC, and I don’t see how either of them get there. Middle America isn’t voting for a very coastal liberal.
Gretchen Whitmer at 50/1 could be a good outsider, and they’ll want to keep at least one woman in the race for as long as possible. Josh Shapiro is probably underpriced at 20/1, as is Andy Beshear at 33/1.
Sandpit
2
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
Biden hanging on till the last moment didn't helpHarris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.If they’d actually had primaries and nominated a candidate who wasn’t terrible, they might even have beaten Trump.
geoffw
4
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
I suggest it is evidence that she was not as poor a candidate as some believe.Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.That’s copium on a par with ‘Corbyn got a higher popular vote than Starmer’
It doesn’t change the fact she lost and that she was a poor candidate.
She was a far superior candidate to Trump. As would almost anyone have beenn.I suggest it is evidence that she was not as poor a candidate as some believe.Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.That’s copium on a par with ‘Corbyn got a higher popular vote than Starmer’
It doesn’t change the fact she lost and that she was a poor candidate.
What seems odd to me is that a candidate from the left has to be both moderate and personally perfect in every way to stand a chance of winning, yet a candidate from the right can be any raving lunatic with no principles whatsoever and that's perfectly fine. And I say that as a centrist with no axe to grind for either side.
PJH
5
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
Meanwhile, Trump is writing unhinged Truth Social posts about Venezuela and the oil and land they stole from the US. No, I don’t know what he’s going on about either.
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.That’s copium on a par with ‘Corbyn got a higher popular vote than Starmer’
It doesn’t change the fact she lost and that she was a poor candidate.
Taz
2
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
Thanks for confirming how vulnerable Buttigieg is on his dismal record of lying and incompetence.You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next.Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
What do you think?
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
And also thanks for reminding us of Hunter Biden, that great polymath whose PB defenders started with "Hunter Biden has done nothing wrong and is being politically persecuted" and ended at "Joe Biden will never give a presidential pardon to his son".
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
You'll be going on about Hunter Biden next.Buttigieg needs to first explain why he repeatedly lied about Biden's fitness for office.Sadly, I just can't see how Buttigieg gets through the primaries in the South.I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.For all their faults Kennedy, Clinton, & Obama were three of the most outstanding political leaders of my lifetime. The only potential candidate coming anywhere near now is Buttigieg.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
What do you think?
He can then explain what he achieved himself as transport secretary for four years.
None of that is in the slightest bit relevant to Democratic primaries in three years time.
Assuming the US still has a democracy (not 100% guaranteed), the record of the current administration will be uppermost in voters minds, and whoever has the best shot at uniting the Democrats is likely to get the nomination.
I doubt that will be Harris, and on current form, it might just be Newsom. He's not exactly adored by the Democratic base, but he's getting traction for leading the opposition to Trump. Quite what he does after leaving the governor's office at the end of 2026 is an interesting question.
Nigelb
1
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
I think Trump's dire performance as President is in danger of making us forget what a dismal candidate Harris was. She never seemed to say why she wanted to be President, had no original or inspiring ideas and, when given the chance to put her point across, actively fled from the media.Harris had neither ideas nor any interest in campaigning on Biden's achievements.
As I've said before, Democrats win when they have a charismatic bullshitter who inspires the young and the left without terrifying the centre and the middle-aged then lets them down in office - see Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Trump may be so unpopular by 2028 that even Harris will win, or maybe she will be able to fake enough charisma, but the Democrats would be unwise to bank on that.
She should have been to a different Biden subsidised new factory every day.
Instead she left an open goal for Trump to say that Biden's strategy had failed.
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
Inflation minus 0.2% in November, bringing the annual rate down to 3.2%. I expect that'll continue to fall down towards target by the middle of next year.You're probably right, these figures have changed the balance. But the 10 year gilt is still at 4.5% and the illusion of control that the base rate gives us is weakened if the gap between the two becomes too great. I acknowledge that I am somewhat hawkish about these things but personally I would be voting no change tomorrow.
BoE certain to cut rates to 3.75% tomorrow and we're likely to see further cuts next year.
DavidL
1
Re: A little bit of history repeating? – politicalbetting.com
Harris lost the popular vote by a mere 1.5%. She got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did in 2016, than Dubya did in 2000, or than Bill Clinton did in 1992.
