Categories
Options
Biden now a 63% chance of being the WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com
Biden now a 63% chance of being the WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com
As can be seen from the WH2024 chart Joe Biden is even more favoured by punters to be the nominee for the Democrats at the next presidential election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And first!
@SpeakerPelosi
won nine consecutive leadership elections—on the first ballot.
https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1611097476328562689?s=20&t=mVaXDjzIyynsIx19NoUNag
https://tinyurl.com/5n83duua
Over 2,000 non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average in the week ending 23 December. Sadly, cold weather kills. This is around the same level of excess deaths seen during the Beast from the East in February/March 2018.
Week-ending | 5-year average | COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths | non-COVID deaths in excess of the 5-year average
07-Oct-22 | 9,835 | 400 | 10,807 | 972
14-Oct-22 | 10,091 | 565 | 11,134 | 1,043
21-Oct-22 | 10,224 | 687 | 11,251 | 1,027
28-Oct-22 | 10,013 | 651 | 10,594 | 581
04-Nov-22 | 10,278 | 650 | 11,145 | 867
11-Nov-22 | 10,743 | 518 | 11,020 | 277
18-Nov-22 | 10,786 | 423 | 11,156 | 370
25-Nov-22 | 10,705 | 348 | 11,135 | 430
02-Dec-22 | 10,725 | 317 | 10,990 | 265
09-Dec-22 | 11,007 | 326 | 11,368 | 361
16-Dec-22 | 11,203 | 390 | 11,999 | 796
23-Dec-22 | 12,037 | 429 | 14,101 | 2,064
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1611127360761352199
I don't think it's a categorical thing. Sure, it would be better if Biden were thirty years younger. But is his age such a problem that it makes him ineligible to be the nominee? There's a big difference between those two positions.
So, yes, Biden's age is a negative factor, but compared to all the other potential nominees he's got so many positive factors in his favour that the chances of him not being the nominee are mostly actuarial.
The way things are going he'll be an incumbent President who defeated Russia in a European war without committing American forces to combat, who defeated Trump in 2020, and who took important strategic steps in reducing American economic dependence on China. If inflation recedes and the economy keeps going then an optimistic take would be that his age is his only negative factor.
I think betting against Biden being the nominee is a very bad value losing bet.
When I first posted, after years of lurking, in 2016, I was hugely outnumbered. As a non-Corbynite, Ed Miliband type Labour voter, it was daunting. I felt a little ridiculed, patronised and dismissed. But I kept on. Your ideas are out of fashion right now. I've seen this site gradually come around to my way of thinking. They'll probably come round to yours again.
It sharpened my thinking. And made me consider deeply whether I was wrong. In the end we don't have any control of policy anyways. I'm glad I stuck it out.
Your voice is far more valuable when you are speaking against the fashion than when with it. Otherwise there'd be no point in this site.
Just continue to make your points. The site is better for them. Even if no one agrees.
Just returned from a party and I see I’m now a lefty. Not voted Labour since 1997 but I suppose it’s all relative.
I know it’s a page old now but I’d asked if one of the posters was proposing a full on US style healthcare system. This is because what was being mooted was choice on whether or not to take insurance, choice of provider, and an escalating service quality depending on payment. That is much closer to the US system than anything in Europe.
Anyway interesting anecdotes from some snatched semi-political conversations at this party, with a couple of people closer to the boomer end of Gen X than I am. And I can announce that I’ve found the 16%
- The problems in the NHS are the fault of strikers
- I’d never step inside a Lidl (what, even for the wine?)
- Sir Keir will be inviting Mick Lynch in for beer and sandwiches once he’s inside no10
But, and this is notably different from what you’d get in an equivalent conversation in the US: “climate change, big worry isn’t it. Good for your vineyard mate but it really seems to getting out of control”
McCarthy = 200
Donalds = 13
Hern = 7 (he voted for KMcC)
present = 1 (Spartz of Indiana)
not voting = 1 (Buck of Indiana, absent for another ballot)
Addendum - who wants to bet, that Kevinites will (yet again) move to adjourn?
Here you go...
...
Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican who supported McCarthy in earlier votes for speaker, did not vote on the ninth ballot and will miss any subsequent rounds Thursday for a planned medical procedure, his office said.
Buck's office confirmed in a statement to CBS News that the Republican is returning back to his home state of Colorado for the non-emergency procedure. It's unclear when he will return to Washington and whether he will be in attendance for any voting that takes place Friday.
"He hopes to return to D.C. as soon as possible and get back to work for the American people," the statement said.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/house-speaker-race-vote-kevin-mccarthy-watch-live-stream-today-2022-01-05/
Or rather, his continually weakening weakness. (Or is that continually STRENGTHENING weakness?)
Here is one instance, where US House of Representative was in session for 27 hours . . . and made history
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-House-s-all-night-session-to-break-Speaker-Joe-Cannon-s-power/
The House’s All night Session to Break Speaker Joe Cannon’s Power
March 17, 1910
On this date, the House of Representatives “stayed up all night” during a marathon session lasting 29 hours, debating the power of the Committee on Rules. Seizing an opportunity to challenge the power of Speaker of the House Joe Cannon of Illinois, Representative George Norris of Nebraska introduced a resolution as a matter of constitutional privilege to change the House rules. His resolution removed the Speaker as chairman of the Committee on Rules and expanded its membership from five to 15, made up of groupings by state, which would effectively strip the Speaker of much of his power.
Representative John Dalzell of Pennsylvania objected to the resolution, arguing that it should not take precedence over pending business. Dalzell’s objection allowed for debate to continue, and for reinforcements to be recruited through the night, until the Speaker delivered his ruling.
Cannon’s fellow Republican Jacob Sloat Fassett of New York, chided his colleagues who had allied with the Democrats, saying “This is not a question of a change of rules. It is a question of a change of party control. It is a question of losing grip. It is a question of whether or not the powers of this Republican majority are to be emasculated by an unnatural and foreign alliance with our natural born enemies.”
“Insurgent” Republican Congressman Henry Allen Cooper of Wisconsin responded, “They have shouted ‘party,’ ‘party,’ as though an honest effort to amend the rules of this House to be branded traitor to his party . . .They give more power to the Speaker than is accorded the presiding officer of any other legislative body in the world.”
On March 19, 1910, facing inevitable defeat and personal humiliation Cannon nevertheless sustained Dalzell’s point of order. His decision to reject Norris's resolution was appealed to the House and overturned, and Norris’s resolution was adopted, breaking the deadlocked session and weakening Cannon’s iron-fisted rule.
The Kevinite strategy of picking off the weaklings having begun to work . . . but the other way around.
Gave a nice compliment to the Clerk of the House.
Charlie Hebdo's latest edition features caricatures mocking Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and fellow Shia Muslim clerics sent in by readers in support of the anti-government protests in Iran.
Some of them are sexually explicit.'
source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64175094
(By way of comparison: I have four relatively recent yearly cartoon collections from the New Yorker (2010, 2011, 2015, and 2016). (They stopped putting them out in 2016.)
How many cartoons in those four collections, together containing more than a thousand cartoons, were in any way directed at Muslims? One, a cartoon showing a completely covered woman at a beach, with this caption: "Taliban de Soleil".
I haven't seen any others since, when I have looked at their daily cartoons, as I do from time to time.)
Though convincing anyone not on the GOP payroll that Calvin Coolidge was a Great President is a stretch and then some.
Con 375
RFU 238
Lab 115
LD 88
https://www.nursinginpractice.com/latest-news/nurses-real-wage-down-20-in-ten-years-despite-raises/
To be fair to you, how are you defining nurse, as they unlikely to all receive the same pay and less paid may not have received the full one fifth cut? But then the talent drain might even be more acute further up, as why take on more managerial stress if your pay don’t really compensate it?
So, as I understand it, the rebel Republicans have had most of their major demands met: places on the Rules Committee, and the ability to move for the removal of the Speaker. But they still refuse to vote for McCarthy. Either they are too stupid to realise that they won't get everything, and/or it's McCarthy that is the block, or possibly just that they are bomb-throwers and nothing else. In addition, they have failed, on ten votes now, to grow their group and show they have momentum.Winning this battle is beyond them.
McCarthy has given in to the rebel demands, but has failed to persuade them to vote for him. So he fails the first criterion for actually being Speaker: the ability to corral enough people to win a vote. The second criterion would be to look for alternative ways of achieving his goal, but that seems to be beyond him too: whether he believes – possibly with reason – that he's made himself too toxic to the Democrats to get a compromise with the moderate Dems, or that he too is so stupid he doesn't grasp that there is such an alternative. And it is becoming increasingly obvious that he is too egoistic to realise that he is blocking this process, and also that he demonstrates, with every successive vote and failure, that he doesn't have what it takes to be speaker. Winning this battle is beyond him.
The mainstream R strategy seems to be nothing more than hold votes until the rebels are worn enough to fall into line, or to fall apart in their opposition, but there is absolutely no sign of movement to encourage that view. And yet, on they go with it, blindly and naively hoping for a something to turn up, while taking no action to look for that something. Winning this battle is beyond them.
How could this end? Someone, anyone, on the Republican side needs to realise that there needs to be a change – finding a candidate acceptable to the rebels, or to moderate Democrats, or completely left field. There's no sign of it yet. Or enough Democrats need to get sloppy, or lazy, and not turn up to vote so the threshold drops far enough for a result. But there's no sign of that yet – if anything, it's the Republican side that seems to have an eroding organisation.
I am beginning to feel that we could be here for a long time to come. A long time. The record is 133 votes over two months. Could that be about to change? Maybe. And every vote and every day is another signal to the voting public in the US that the Republican Party is no longer a serious, functioning political party.
Does a nationalised rail have to run a profit to save itself from privatisation - or fulfil its remit of providing a service to the country - get people to work and business on time for the productivity of the nation?
I explained a tax payer funded Channel 4 is 0% fulfilling its remit these days, in that case why is it getting largess from the tax payer? They should only get tax payer cash for achieving remit, not claiming profit.
I personally know people who go to BFI for funding, not C4, lottery funded BFI largely responsible for funding the UK film industry I think you will find, not C4 speculating on films with tax payer cash.
Not that being concerned with their worldly power would be a surprise of course.
Rebels want a) their demands; plus b) Kevin McCarthy's head on a pike; thus c) next Speaker a GOPer who is NOT KMcC
Also not I reckon ANYONE else previously nominated since this Flying Flea Circus started on Tuesday.
Personally think Steve Scalise is most available AND likely option.
IF I were Hakeen Jeffries, I'd tell my caucus to prepare for a sleep-over.
In any serious country an unelected hereditary ruler would have ensured some maces were waved in historic tradition, and told the people to try again and to get off the fence this time.
https://twitter.com/DominicFarrell/status/1611128355545391104
NOT Kevin McCarthy obviously.
Meanwhile given the GOP establishment cannot even get their Speaker candidate elected despite a GOP House majority there is certainly no guarantee they can get DeSantis the nomination ahead of Trump
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1611144640539033600
In reality, who the fuck cares?
Wouldn’t it have been so much better if spare had been a rip roaring yarn about a royal Fitz and the hilarious but risqué scrapes the old blighter had got himself into during his delinquent youth.
The whole Royal family psychodrama just isn’t remotely interesting or relevant.
Patrick McHenry, Republican of North Carolina, said that lawmakers were still negotiating on a deal but added that the situation was constantly improving. “Every hour has been successively better than the last,” he said. “Obviously, we started not at a very high place, but we’re now getting to a very good place.”
Republicans are increasingly driving home the point that they are unable to work with federal agencies until they are sworn in. “Without a speaker, my team cannot receive vital information from federal agencies related to constituent casework,” Young Kim of California wrote on Twitter. "Kevin McCarthy has the support of over 200 Republicans. The few holdouts need to join us so we can unite & get to work.”
SSI - First is happy crap. Even it there's glimmer of truth to it, acting like a rainbow is starting to materialize in the sky is hyping expectations that are likely to unrealized.
Second "tweet" is designed to generate pressure on rebels from their own constituents (and contributors). Sound in political science theory but perhaps bit deficient in practice dealing with wing-nuts of this caliber.
The food orders keep flooding in as the House braces for an even longer night. Aides carrying what appeared to be Persian food just walked by me.
SSI - Just which "Republican Guard" are we talking about here, anyhow?
Ayatollah Billie Bob Tubthumper (R-East Jesus)
Tonight's vote on motion to adjourn moving along faster than last night's. So far zero Nay votes from GOPers.
However, no House Speaker (yet) has NOT been a House member.
Edit - In part, this is a reflection on how American practice from early Republic onward, did not quite match the perspectives and expectations of the Founding Fathers who drafted and enacted the Constitution.
Who clearly expected the House of Reps to function in very similar fashion to the House of Commons, as it was in the last 18th century. With Senate in the mold more-or-less of the House of Lords, again 18th-century style. With gentry & merchant, as opposed to hereditary, peers.
Yea = 219
Nay = 213 = 212 Dems + 1 Rep
Not Voting = 1
This happened in 1964 when Harold Wilson appointed Patrick Gordon Walker as Foreign Secretary even though he'd just lost his seat in the House of Commons. He finally had to resign when he failed to win a by-election a few months later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Gordon_Walker
Instead, they conceived of our Speaker as having the same role as your Speaker, as a impartial (more or less) presiding officer.
Not to mention the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo!
Even as the House has adjourned for the night, Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York, is lingering with some Democratic lawmakers under the dimmed lights in the chamber. Jeffries, who has earned the most votes on all 11 ballots, hasn't stopped smiling.
SSI - One reason that Hakeem Jeffries is smiling, is because tonight all 212 Democrats were present and voting Nay against McCarthy's motion to adjourn.
Last night two Dems did NOT vote, apparently they didn't make it to the Chamber on time. The Nay vote was higher, but only because 4 Reps also voted Nay; tonight that number was just 1 = Tim Burchett of Tennessee.
So House Dems actually IMPROVED their voting discipline, which of course has been solid as a rock since Tuesday.
As for Representative Burchett, from East Tennessee (rock-solid Republican since Fort Sumter) he's the humorist GOP Congressman profiled by Politico earlier this week, who said (among other things) that he wanted to party with AOC in the Bronx.
Burchett's voted for McCarthy on every roll call. Most definitely has strong sense of humor!
And I can’t be arsed to even look it up.
It’s a giant mess.
UK politics, for all its squalid spectacle, seems both straightforward and redeemable somehow.
So I stay on here instead of PB_USA.com
Of course there are lots of reasons why this is unlikely to happen, but it probably represents the best outcome nevertheless
Gove had the intelligence to see the bigger picture for the coalition, and May is a rule-follower with a strong sense of fairness and the ‘right way’ of doing things, so both of them curbed what would otherwise be politicians’ natural instinct to turn every situation to their own advantage. The one exception with May was the infamous ‘go home’ vans initiative, which got done very quickly while the key LibDems were on holiday. Which always made me wonder whether there were other fingers in that particular pie?
Has ALWAYS been a partisan position. Only difference through the decades has been the shifting definitions as to the uses of, and limitations upon, partisanship.
The kind of setup you describe may sound nice - in theory. But no basis for it in American practice. Nor would it be a surefire success. Or at least any more successful than the Speakership has been in the course of US history.
One thing I think Brits may be missing is - the US House of Representatives is NOT an American House of Commons. For one thing, it is only one-half of one-third of the US government; that is, half of one branch of the federal government, the legislative.
Whereas in UK, the House of Commons is about 95% of the national government. At least as the springboard for the Cabinet.
Wheres 95% of Americans really do NOT give a fiddler's final farewell feck about foreign politics. EXCEPT as it appears to have some DIRECT bearing on US.
We simply can't be bothered to be appalled, by ordinary government/political/electoral strum und drang of other lands. Even the Mother Country!
and yet they still can't win.
As with many things seems that the US way is to borrow from an earlier British tradition.
"Retirement at 60" just isn't a thing for fit, healthy, driven Americans who believe in the Dream. You work and you work and you work. Senators in their 80's and 90's are not unknown and one, Strom Thurmond, did not retire as a Senator until he passed 100 as recently as 2003.
Unthinkable in the UK. De Rigueur in the US.
Here's a list of the 10 oldest serving senators. There are several currently serving senators in their late 80's.
https://www.oldest.org/politics/senators-us/
Stop thinking like a Brit!!!!!
xx
As for TMexPM, a good woman put in a hole, an effective senior minister who likely would have handled Covid more effectively but probably not quite PM material. In some ways a bit like Rishi is turning out.
Better than the two who came between them.
In 2012 coal produced 43% of electricity.
In 2022 it was 1.5%.
That’s a staggering change in just ten years.
Now, obviously mistakes were made in replacing it. It was very foolish to go for large scale CCGT instead of tidal and to a lesser extent nuclear. But it does rather put into context just how far we’ve come.
Wind generated a record amount of electricity in 2022
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64179918
Ten years ago this month, [PM] David Cameron…gave a speech at the London headquarters of Bloomberg, a news organisation. In it Mr Cameron outlined his cunning plan to cement Britain’s place in the European Union, by triggering a fundamental reform of the bloc and then offering Britons an in-out referendum on membership. That went well. The 2016 vote to leave the bloc has exacerbated Britain’s economic malaise, gumming up trade and muting investment. It has soured Britain’s relationship with many of its natural allies and weakened the bonds of its own union.
Followed by some reasonably pragmatic suggestions for improving things
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/01/05/a-realistic-path-to-a-better-relationship-between-britain-and-the-eu
People working on through their sixties, when (they can still be) physically and mentally fit, is all well and good, and no-one can object to friendly older folks pointing you toward the lightbulb section at B&Q. But much older people who seek to cling to responsible position can be a huge problem, the resolution of which can be extremely difficult for a whole variety of reasons. Taking away the contractual expectation that people will leave at a designated age was done for admirable reasons, but it has led to a growing number of cases where organisations have either to deal with, or ignore and cope with, problems of failing capability. I am involved in one such case at the moment, about which the less said the better.
Lab 46% -1
Con 22% +3
Reform 8% nc
Lib Dem 7% -1
Green 7% -2
(Change since 28 Dec; via news release)
Conversely, of course, if my mind is still fit I don't want to be told I need to retire because X years have passed since I was born. That's just silly (and illegal). I think we should judge Biden on what he is, rather than when he was born.