Categories
Biden is slipping in the WH2024 nominee betting – politicalbetting.com
Biden is slipping in the WH2024 nominee betting – politicalbetting.com
As the betting chart shows there has been a marked fall in the odds of Joe Biden winning his party’s nomination.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Do you remember 2008 (I think) - Obama against McCain? That was American doing politics well. Two decent candidates, neither of whom were mad in any obvious way. Why can't we do that any more?
Harmless medical conditions I *don't* want to get: green hairy tongue:
https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/07/rare-case-of-green-hairy-tongue-is-pure-nightmare-fuel/
And for those with strong stomachs, a picture (sfw, not sf stomachs):
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/nejmicm2300789_f1.jpeg
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
Jul 8
The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
https://twitter.com/BillKristol
Don't think I have seen him suggest anyone else other than Biden who could do that, but I may have missed it.
https://twitter.com/chefjoseandres/status/1678365261223673859
Apparently a 'guided' missile. Which means that it's effing deliberate - if anyone had any doubts.
And unless Haley somehow comes through the middle in the primaries, the Democrats will be facing a Republican Party none of they, the US nor the planet can afford to have anywhere near power. Whichever the candidate is of Trump or De Santis they will be so avowedly Fascist they might as well rename themselves the Franco party.
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1678260001675284480
Humpty Dumpty might have added "no debate".
But you can see that this approach leads to chaos. Babel.
He had a lot going for him, but it was a pretty reckless move.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular, many of whom backed Bernie Sanders against Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate.
Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
Indeed 2 out of 3 of the GOP nominees before McCain, Bush 41 and Dole were also establishment centrists. Even George W Bush came from an establishment family
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
De Santis on the other hand looks like the sort of devout Catholic who has an elaborate sex dungeon in his basement.
ETA: I don't know his views on NATO, but he dislikes some international organisations such as the EU, is presumably pro-[his ]wealth and, one would imagine, at best ambivalent about Vax
Romney I could see running as an independent if it is Trump v Biden again
ETA: And he's vulnerable on it, from both sides, potentially https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-brief-history-of-sir-keir-starmers-flip-flopping-on-trans-rights/
E2TA: And I wasn't being sarcastic. If those leaflets are supposed to undermine Trump (and are successful) then the US is a strange and disturbing place.
Sanders got around 25% of the vote in the 2020 primaries, is personally pretty close to Biden (despite being on a different wing of the party), and has wholeheartedly endorsed him for 2024 along with most key progressives. He also disagrees with RFK Jnr on most substantive issues, so why on Earth would you expect significant numbers of Sanders' 2020 supporters to go with RFK rather than Sanders' pick?
This is all irrelevant, fringe nonsense unless and until someone vaguely serious steps in. RFK Jnr is a million miles from that.
Now I'm betting against Gavin Newsom in the markets but for all his faults and problems there's a chance I might be wrong about his chances.
Robert Kennedy's chance is a hard zero. There might be universes where he is a 1% at most chance but that is not this one.
Sanders of course got 26% in the 2020 Democratic primaries and won the New Hampshire primary and California primary and Nevada caucuses
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
In a way between his exaggerated attempts to be evil, his dismissal of others like Trump for not going far enough, but also how foolish he seems, he reminds me of Doctor Evil.
You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough.
To take on a sitting President in any vaguely serious way in the Democratic primaries, you need views that sit within the Democratic mainstream, and a serious CV. Otherwise the ceiling of your vote is hopelessly low. Bet against all these sorts of people if and when they emerge from the woodwork.
Even if Biden became incapacitated during or after the primaries, these people would have no chance.
At the moment I'm thinking:
Trump vs Biden - Biden wins
Any other GOP v Biden - GOP wins
Any other GOP v Any other DEM - GOP wins
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12030389/Kemi-Badenoch-wins-backing-hardline-presidential-hopeful-Ron-DeSantis-war-woke.html
I'm not saying Harris would be a strong candidate, and recognise the weakness you mention. But Clinton was a candidate who could and perhaps should have won with a couple of different calls regarding here campaign. Democrats weren't doomed simply by picking her - she narrowly lost a close election that could have gone the other way.
The big negative for Desantis is he is currently being monstered by Trump in the polls. But if Trump were to not run for w/e reason he instantly goes to about 5-2 to win it all I think.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/19/donald-trump-federal-abortion-ban-stance
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/26/mike-pence-reiterates-support-abortion-restrictions
If he died on the eve of the convention (say), it's very hard to see past someone who would, in those circumstances, actually be the new President, and indeed with some public sympathy/rallying round that you get in that situation.
That's not to say she's an ideal candidate - she isn't. But she's not Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle or someone like that - she's a serious figure with no significant scandal that we know of, and is entirely qualified for the role. I don't think Gavin Newsom or whoever saying at that point "ah but her approval rating isn't very good" is going to make much difference at that point.
He had a lot going for him, but it was a pretty reckless move."
Perhaps 1 percent of Americans would agree with me, but I think Noemie Emery had it right in 2008, when she said that both Obama and Palin had promise -- but that neither was ready to be president. (Sadly, the unfair treatment Palin received from much of our media seems to have stunted her growth. And Obama seems to have learned little from his failures.)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/noemie-emery
She was 48 years old when she ran for VP. She'd been a governor for six years. She was just a really bad candidate who had a poor grasp of the national issues and couldn't hack it, and McCain f***ed up the due diligence. Even after the campaign, she could've salvaged her reputation through a swift return to office, but choose to mess about on the media and a messy personal life, before botching her comeback last year, losing to a Democrat in a deep red state. Ultimately, she was and is a bit of a fool, rather than someone who simply should've been left to marinate for a few more years.
Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
Anyhoo, compare and contrast for y'sels:
Not a helpful remark from the POTUS.
I noticed a negative post on here earlier about Revolut @TheScreamingEagles
How worried should I be?
Effecacious? No.
I'm pretty sure the Presidency is not the place for reckons.
Two British White supremacist have been found guilty of terrorism offences.
Christopher Gibbons and Tyrone Patten-Walsh called for Prince Archie to be put down and said Prince Harry a 'race traitor' who should be jailed because Meghan is mixed-race.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/neo-nazis-who-called-archie-30416753
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak will not take part in the debate and potential vote on the Privilege Committee report suggesting seven of his MPs may have been in contempt of Parliament.
His spokesman declines to tell me what the PM's view is on the report or if he has even yet read it.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1678367059913179137
I wouldn't touch them with somebody else's ten foot barge pole.
...
"It was three pages."
TBF, this one might be slightly longer.
"In the good old days there would have been absolutely no doubt that the name would have been there, and any pictures associated with the story would have been published," MacKenzie tells the World at One programme.
But he says the media landscape has "changed dramatically" and "the advertiser is undeniably more important than the reader or the increased sales".
"The tabloids are prepared to strike but they aren't prepared to wound - for reasons more commercial than legal," MacKenzie says.
So this obfuscation over whether the PM has read it is ludicrous - if he hasn't, he's got no excuse for it really.
“By the end of this year, it will be over 1000,” senior company representatives said.
https://twitter.com/MalyasovDylan/status/1678381193119539209
Perun 20230709: How Wars End - Negotiations, Coercion & War Termination Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnvJzup8i-c
The hardliners are people like Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz.
However it is not a bank and should not be relied upon to hold any significant funds.
And I say that as someone who fully suported the committee over the Johnson report. I don't agree with those who campaigned against it but I certainly don't support the efforts to suppress their views.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
Tucker Carlson, before he was sidelined by Fox, repeatedly endorsed a conspiracy theory about an Arizona man, who may sue for defamation. Legal experts say it would be a viable case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/business/media/fox-news-defamation-ray-epps-tucker-carlson.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
...Of all the distortions and paranoia that Tucker Carlson promoted on his since-canceled Fox News program, one looms large: a conspiracy theory that an Arizona man working as a covert government agent incited the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol to sabotage and discredit former President Donald J. Trump and his political movement.
What’s known about the man — a two-time Trump voter named Ray Epps — is that he took part in demonstrations in Washington that day and the night before. He was captured on camera urging a crowd to march with him and enter the Capitol. But at other points, he pleads for calm once it becomes clear the situation is turning violent. He can be seen moving past a line of Capitol Police at the barricades, but never actually goes inside the Capitol.
Federal prosecutors have not charged Mr. Epps with a crime, focusing instead on the more than 1,000 other demonstrators who acted violently or were trespassing in the Capitol. The Justice Department’s sprawling investigation into the attack remains open, however, and Mr. Epps could still be indicted.
Yet for more than 18 months, Mr. Carlson insisted that the lack of charges against Mr. Epps could mean only one thing: that he was being protected because he was a secret government agent. There was “no rational explanation,” Mr. Carlson told his audience, why this “mysterious figure” who “helped stage-manage the insurrection” had not been charged.
He repeated Mr. Epps’s name over and over — in nearly 20 episodes — imprinting it on the minds of his viewers.
Mr. Epps was in the Marine Corps but said in his deposition before the Jan. 6 committee that he had otherwise never worked on behalf of any government agency. He and his wife, Robyn, have fled Arizona and are in hiding in another state, having sold their wedding venue business and ranch after receiving death threats from people who appeared to believe the conspiracy theory. And his legal jeopardy is far from over given that prosecutors are still unsealing new cases in connection with Jan. 6.
Now lawyers representing Mr. Epps and his wife are proceeding with plans to sue Fox News for defamation...
The good news of course is that there are plenty of younger Directors already well established to replace the old guard. Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve being two examples.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
So she had been governor a little less than two years when McCain chose her, not six years, as you said. Of course she still had significantly more executive experience than Obama had, when he became president.
Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
One is that Rishi is developing Macavity tendencies, and if he never tries to deal with awkwardness he will never get any good at it.
The other (bigger) one is that Rishi knows enough about what went on to demand that Zac Goldsmith apologise or resign. So the "I/He hasn't read it" line doesn't really hold.
Remember when the plan was to make the PM's Spokesman's breifings public and televised? What were they thinking?
And it doesn't matter if folk misheard inject as ingest. Whether one drinks or injects an unspecific disinfectant such as battery acid or bleach, the result is just the same.
I have a bottle of isopropyl alcohol in the shed which is great for disinfecting covid at 70%, as well as all its other uses such as wiping down greasy surfaces. Would I ingest it? No. Would I inject it? No.