politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looking ahead to the 2016 US Presidential Election
My strategy has been to lay Chris Christie, even before his bridge problems. Some in the Republican Party have never forgiven him for his hug of President Obama during Hurricane Sandy and that’s influenced my thinking.
Wonderful Labour market statistics this morning with employment up to an all time record high and unemployment crashing down in all segments.
Is there no height St. George cannot scale?
The key findings from this months ONS bulletin:
For October to December 2013, compared with July to September 2013:
• The number of people in employment increased by 193,000 to reach 30.15 million.
• The number of unemployed people fell by 125,000 to reach 2.34 million.
• The number of economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64 increased by 8,000 to reach 8.93 million.
Comparing October to December 2013 with a year earlier:
• There were 396,000 more people in employment.
• There were 161,000 fewer unemployed people.
• There were 23,000 fewer economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64
Will there be any shirkers left to vote for Labour in May 2015?
My dear AveryLP, What the statistics say is that unemployment is now stands at 7.2% compared with last months 7.1% (BBC). So who is playing with numbers?
Your St. George has got a Dragon by the tail but it is biting his arse.
Sorry for the late answer, me old Weather[moderated], but I had to shoot and run this morning.
The headline ONS 'Unemployment Rate' is the number of unemployed people (aged 16+) divided by the economically active population (aged 16+). The economically active population is defined as those in employment plus those who are unemployed.
So the rate involves:
1. The numerator: the number of people who are unemployed (aged 16-64, who have sought work during the past four weeks and who are available to work within two weeks). 2. The denominator: Number of people in employment (16+) plus 1. above.
Unemployment can fall at the same time as the unemployment rate rises if the number of people actively seeking employment increases faster than any increase in the number of people employed.
In the case of today's figures:
Between Sep-Nov 2013 the 'economically active' numbers fell by -3,881. Between Oct-Dec 2013 the 'economically active' numbers increased by 17,676.
The difference between the two periods in the numbers of people employed was 3,523.
Bearing in mind the figures are 'seasonally adjusted' in accordance with the ONS model and are rolling quarterly averages, the difference between this month's unemployment rate being 7.2% and last month's being 7.1% is virtually insignificant.
The trend is your friend, Mike, and the employment trend is as upward as Nigel's index finger.
Rubio won't get it. He's so associated with the "amnesty" push, he will be clobbered with that among the base. Scott Walker and Paul Ryan are the value bets.
I think for 2016 alot will depend on how angry Obamacare has left Joe Blow by then. It's royal gilt-edged clusterfu<k of a thing and is hurting quite significant numbers of people. If Hilary can disassociate herself or even play rough and suggest something new to replace it then she should walk it.
My advice to PBers, as your TOTY since 2008 and undisputed worldwide acclaimed guru of US presidential elections is consider your betting around the following three criteria :
1. If Hillary runs she wins both the nomination and the Presidency.
2. If Hillary doesn't run all bets are off if the GOP choose a member of the human race.
3. Remember it's a state by state FPTP race and battleground demographic trends are moving blue. (See end of the previous thread).
Damnit, I'm fairly sure I backed Rubio for 2012 at 50/1. Clearly my problem is being four years faster than the American electorate.
Rubio screwed his chances by championing immigration reform. He basically bet on the idea the Republicans were moderating and that he could bring Hispanics into the fold. He was wrong. Now he's flailing about backing every crazy right-wing initiative to try to re-establish credibility with the base, which not only won't work, it will also put off the centre.
Mr. Patrick, I think that's a Monty Python fatwa. What're they going to do? Fly out there, kill the people being unrighteous and then have to kill themselves for being on Mars?
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
Mr. Patrick, I think that's a Monty Python fatwa. What're they going to do? Fly out there, kill the people being unrighteous and then have to kill themselves for being on Mars?
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
This is my favourite fatwa ever
In a story that’s so weird his has to be considered true, a leading Saudi Arabian cleric has declared Mickey Mouse to be an “agent of Satan.” As such, he has put a fatwa, or death sentence , on the Mouse’s head.
My advice to PBers, as your TOTY since 2008 and undisputed worldwide acclaimed guru of US presidential elections is consider your betting around the following three criteria :
1. If Hillary runs she wins both the nomination and the Presidency.
2. If Hillary doesn't run all bets are off if the GOP choose a member of the human race.
3. Remember it's a state by state FPTP race and battleground demographic trends are moving blue. (See end of the previous thread).
I think you should submit a guest piece.
Re point 3, I did mention that in the thread header.
As Jack W says, if Hillary runs, she wins both the Dem nomination and the election, leaving the only interest the GOP nomination.
On the other hand, if she doesn't run, then what? The Democratic nomination looks wide open in that case. The shortest odds other than on Hillary are on Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley and Kirsten Gillibrand, but none of those looks an obvious front-runner if Hillary does back off, and no doubt others could take to the ring. I've got a chunk on a Female Winner at 4/1 and 7/2, from a while back, which I went for on the basis that, even if it wasn't Hillary, she'd be likely to throw her machine behind a female candidate. I still think that is the best bet around, although the 15/8 now available is getting a bit mean given the time you have to tie your money up for.
I think for 2016 alot will depend on how angry Obamacare has left Joe Blow by then. It's royal gilt-edged clusterfu
It won't be, they're muddling through.
Put your money on Hilary then.
Not convinced: - Her health may not hold up. - Democratic front-runners never seem to make it. - Her polling is artificially inflated by people who see her in opposition to Obama, but that won't last once Obama is on his way out and the right-wing attacks focus back on her and Bill. - Winning a third term is tough, what with Time For A Change people and supporters narked off about x, y and z. - She seems to have highly-developed cocking it up skills.
Much will depend on how Obama's presidency is rated by the time of the next election. Currently, his ratings aren't great, but that may have changed by 2016.
The Republicans will likely retake the Senate in November, and strengthen their lead at State legislative level. That could either give them momentum in 2016, or provoke a reaction against them.
On the other hand, if she doesn't run, then what? The Democratic nomination looks wide open in that case. The shortest odds other than on Hillary are on Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley and Kirsten Gillibrand, but none of those looks an obvious front-runner if Hillary does back off
If Clinton doesn't run, and Warren does, it's almost certainly Warren's. After that, O'Malley. No one takes Biden seriously, and Cuomo and Gillibrand are from the wrong wing of the party.
Much will depend on how Obama's presidency is rated by the time of the next election. Currently, his ratings aren't great, but that may have changed by 2016.
The Republicans will likely retake the Senate in November, and strengthen their lead at State legislative level. That could either give them momentum in 2016, or provoke a reaction against them.
If "momentum" exists at all in politics, as something real outside the guff of PR men, it's a week to week thing. You certainly don't get momentum from an event two years prior. I also don't buy it will provoke any greater reaction than them owning the House. The system's gridlocked regardless.
Nobody mentioned Schweitzer. Two things in his favour compared to the other names floated: 1) He has the gutsiness / shamelessness that characterises successful insurgents. 2) He's actually running.
Mr. Patrick, I think that's a Monty Python fatwa. What're they going to do? Fly out there, kill the people being unrighteous and then have to kill themselves for being on Mars?
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
It is indeed quite amusingly batshit insane. But then I got thinking. If the religion of peace can put a death fatwa on someone for being somewhere' there is no righteous reason to be' - well, doesn't that open up alot of equally amusing alternatives? How about Bradford? The Yemen? The LibDem annual conference? Up someone else's back-end? What constitutes a 'righteous' reason to be anywhere other than a bloody mosque?
The hangmen or scimitar chaps would get awfully tired.
It is indeed quite amusingly batshit insane. But then I got thinking. If the religion of peace can put a death fatwa on someone for being somewhere' there is no righteous reason to be
I'm not sure you quite understand what a fatwa is.
I think for 2016 alot will depend on how angry Obamacare has left Joe Blow by then. It's royal gilt-edged clusterfu
Won't that also work against Hillary, who was the champion of Obamacare Mk Zero (1993-4)?
If Hillary runs, yes, I expect her to win the nomination. The election? That's a different matter and an establishment, moderate Republican should win.
Yes, as TSE said, the GOP have only won the popular vote once in six elections, but (1) Ross Perot, (2) Barack Obama.
It is possible that if the Republicans go centrist again there could be a third-party candidate from the right but the Tea Party's momentum has been checked a little of late and if they do that then it really would be a sign of weakness representing a last, hopeless, roll of the dice. I don't think the budget stand-off and other like stuff has damaged them so badly as to make that kind of play worthwhile.
On the second reason for recent Democrat dominance, as TSE says, is there another Obama in the field? I can't see it. Obama galvanised a whole demographic to register and vote. Would Hillary (or AN Dem Other) keep them or would they drift back to unregistered abstentions?
US Presidential fact of the day. The Democrats have only retained the White House more than once in succession once since the Civil War. That sequence involved four successful retentions but each won involved a sitting president. The last Democrat to win as a new candidate, and retain the White House for the Democrats for at least a third term was Martin van Buren in 1836.
Mr. Patrick, I think that's a Monty Python fatwa. What're they going to do? Fly out there, kill the people being unrighteous and then have to kill themselves for being on Mars?
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
It is indeed quite amusingly batshit insane. But then I got thinking. If the religion of peace can put a death fatwa on someone for being somewhere' there is no righteous reason to be' - well, doesn't that open up alot of equally amusing alternatives? How about Bradford? The Yemen? The LibDem annual conference? Up someone else's back-end? What constitutes a 'righteous' reason to be anywhere other than a bloody mosque?
The hangmen or scimitar chaps would get awfully tired.
Mr. Patrick, I think that's a Monty Python fatwa. What're they going to do? Fly out there, kill the people being unrighteous and then have to kill themselves for being on Mars?
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
It is indeed quite amusingly batshit insane. But then I got thinking. If the religion of peace can put a death fatwa on someone for being somewhere' there is no righteous reason to be' - well, doesn't that open up alot of equally amusing alternatives? How about Bradford? The Yemen? The LibDem annual conference? Up someone else's back-end? What constitutes a 'righteous' reason to be anywhere other than a bloody mosque?
The hangmen or scimitar chaps would get awfully tired.
I remember when jihadists were murdering sellers of falafel in Baghdad, on the ground that falafel isn't mentioned in the Koran.
Gillibrand was on the Blue Dog right of the party before she became a senator for lefty NY. She has proved she is versatile. She is also attractive, which is part of her appeal even if it shouldn't matter. A good trading bet perhaps!
I think for 2016 alot will depend on how angry Obamacare has left Joe Blow by then. It's royal gilt-edged clusterfu
Won't that also work against Hillary, who was the champion of Obamacare Mk Zero (1993-4)?
If Hillary runs, yes, I expect her to win the nomination. The election? That's a different matter and an establishment, moderate Republican should win.
Yes, as TSE said, the GOP have only won the popular vote once in six elections, but (1) Ross Perot, (2) Barack Obama.
It is possible that if the Republicans go centrist again there could be a third-party candidate from the right but the Tea Party's momentum has been checked a little of late and if they do that then it really would be a sign of weakness representing a last, hopeless, roll of the dice. I don't think the budget stand-off and other like stuff has damaged them so badly as to make that kind of play worthwhile.
On the second reason for recent Democrat dominance, as TSE says, is there another Obama in the field? I can't see it. Obama galvanised a whole demographic to register and vote. Would Hillary (or AN Dem Other) keep them or would they drift back to unregistered abstentions?
US Presidential fact of the day. The Democrats have only retained the White House more than once in succession once since the Civil War. That sequence involved four successful retentions but each won involved a sitting president. The last Democrat to win as a new candidate, and retain the White House for the Democrats for at least a third term was Martin van Buren in 1836.
It's very difficult for either party to win the Presidency more than twice in succession.
Do the Republicans have a woman candidate who isn't bat-shit crazy?
Nikki Haley.
Interesting profile. But as a "Tea Party favourite", has she got broad enough appeal?
I think she's a Tea Party favourite in the sense Marco Rubio once was: she's happy enough to use it to her advantage but doesn't have any philosophical attachment.
Nobody mentioned Schweitzer. Two things in his favour compared to the other names floated: 1) He has the gutsiness / shamelessness that characterises successful insurgents. 2) He's actually running.
He's completely out of touch with the base. Being anti-gun regulations in the Democratic party after Sandy Hook won't work too well for him.
On Betfair Rosberg's down to 10 (lay 11) and Magnussen 18 (lay 19.5). The latter has reportedly looked very at home in the cockpit.
I only backed Magnussen on Ladbrokes, but at 50/1. Put a smidgen on Rosberg at 17, and at 24 on Betfair. Have to see how things go. The Mercedes looks nice and reliable, and the sharing of data with McLaren should help both teams.
Edited extra bit: Betfair has the Australian market up. Unless you can spot something at huge odds I think you'd be crackers to touch it at this stage.
Mr. Patrick, I think that's a Monty Python fatwa. What're they going to do? Fly out there, kill the people being unrighteous and then have to kill themselves for being on Mars?
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
It is indeed quite amusingly batshit insane. But then I got thinking. If the religion of peace can put a death fatwa on someone for being somewhere' there is no righteous reason to be' - well, doesn't that open up alot of equally amusing alternatives? How about Bradford? The Yemen? The LibDem annual conference? Up someone else's back-end? What constitutes a 'righteous' reason to be anywhere other than a bloody mosque?
The hangmen or scimitar chaps would get awfully tired.
Mr. Patrick, I think that's a Monty Python fatwa. What're they going to do? Fly out there, kill the people being unrighteous and then have to kill themselves for being on Mars?
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
It is indeed quite amusingly batshit insane. But then I got thinking. If the religion of peace can put a death fatwa on someone for being somewhere' there is no righteous reason to be' - well, doesn't that open up alot of equally amusing alternatives? How about Bradford? The Yemen? The LibDem annual conference? Up someone else's back-end? What constitutes a 'righteous' reason to be anywhere other than a bloody mosque?
The hangmen or scimitar chaps would get awfully tired.
I remember when jihadists were murdering sellers of falafel in Baghdad, on the ground that falafel isn't mentioned in the Koran.
I can't remember if it was the Taliban or Boko Haram that opposed women sitting on chairs, which are masculine in the local language, feeling they should sit on cushions instead.
My advice to PBers, as your TOTY since 2008 and undisputed worldwide acclaimed guru of US presidential elections is consider your betting around the following three criteria :
1. If Hillary runs she wins both the nomination and the Presidency.
2. If Hillary doesn't run all bets are off if the GOP choose a member of the human race.
3. Remember it's a state by state FPTP race and battleground demographic trends are moving blue. (See end of the previous thread).
I think you should submit a guest piece.
Re point 3, I did mention that in the thread header.
I mentioned it on the previous thread before this topic was published - So there !!
Gillibrand was on the Blue Dog right of the party before she became a senator for lefty NY. She has proved she is versatile. She is also attractive, which is part of her appeal even if it shouldn't matter. A good trading bet perhaps!
Yeah, fair points. But don't overestimate New York's leftiness. The financial sector is a massive player in Democratic politics there, so her pro-Wall Street status helped her in fundraising. She also does very well among professional women, who are overrepresented in a city like NYC relative to the country as a whole. I don't think she's a poor candidate, I just doubt she lights the fires of Democratic primary voters the way Warren does, or O'Malley could.
If Clinton doesn't run, and Warren does, it's almost certainly Warren's.
Fauxcahontas won't have a scrap of credibility left under the scrutiny of a national campaign.
Ha, hadnt heard Fauxcahontas before. As a long term enthusiast for Martin O'Malley I obviously think he's a better outside shot anyway but even if he didnt run I would have thought the Dems would need someone a lot better than Warren to win the general election.
On Betfair Rosberg's down to 10 (lay 11) and Magnussen 18 (lay 19.5). The latter has reportedly looked very at home in the cockpit.
I only backed Magnussen on Ladbrokes, but at 50/1. Put a smidgen on Rosberg at 17, and at 24 on Betfair. Have to see how things go. The Mercedes looks nice and reliable, and the sharing of data with McLaren should help both teams.
Edited extra bit: Betfair has the Australian market up. Unless you can spot something at huge odds I think you'd be crackers to touch it at this stage.
I have a tenner on McLaren for the WCC at 6.6/1, and a fiver on Magnussen at 19/1...
On what grounds do you base the statement "a moderate Republican should win".
If Hillary runs, she walks it.
1. Obama has been a let down for many, including many first-time voters. Motivating them to go back to the voting booths for a third election will be tough.
2. Time for a change. From the Democrats, from the administration (yes, she's not there now but she was), and from the Clintons.
3. There's a large part of the electorate who have no love for her. See Healthcare etc. The GOP base will be motivated and it won't look racist this time (it won't even really look sexist as she's one half of a double-act).
4. She's a good but not spectacular campaigner. Obama was a superb campaigner and still didn't win by all that much.
5. The GOP are well capable of winning nation-wide elections, as proven by their current position in the House and the likely position in the Senate after November.
6. Democrats have a poor record of winning the White House post-Civil Rights. Only three have done so: Carter, who beat a discredited and unelected Ford, Bill Clinton, who never won half the vote with Perot's interventions, and Obama.
All of which still relies on the GOP picking someone who has fewer negative points than Hillary, and that's far from guaranteed. Even so, she has plenty of targets of her own.
On what grounds do you make your assertion that "If Hillary runs, she walks it"? I would be very sceptical of polls at this stage, which are often little more than name-recognition exercises.
Obama didn't win by that much? He won by 126 electoral votes. He got to 270 votes in states he won by more than five points. And demographics will give the Democrats an extra point or two in 2016.
EDIT: Comparing mid-term elections with presidential ones is also ridiculous. The former are far lower turnout, and the demographics are thus older and whiter as a result.
In the Republican race, I'd lay the favourite at any given time.
... .
Republican favourites usually win. It was the endless succession of challengers to Romney who should have been laid each time in 2012, once their position of principal challenger became apparent.
‘I came to Nottingham to stay with a cousin and found a good private accountant who told me how to claim the benefits. I soon brought over my family, too.
‘I have never been told to look for work by the job centre. I have never called back there after I got the National Insurance number. Why would I want a real boss when I get £300 put into my bank account each week for nothing?
As with defrauding the immigration system, there seems to be a whole industry around this stuff.
Obama didn't win by that much? He won by 126 electoral votes. He got to 270 votes in states he won by more than five points. And demographics will give the Democrats an extra point or two in 2016.
126 Electoral College votes isn't all that much. George HW Bush won by over 300.
Likewise, winning 270 votes in states he won by 5+ points still brings the game into balance with a swing of just 3%. It's far from landslide territory.
I agree that demographics should help the Democrats structurally but their candidate not being Obama (or at least, the Obama of 2008 or even 2012), will hurt.
‘I came to Nottingham to stay with a cousin and found a good private accountant who told me how to claim the benefits. I soon brought over my family, too.
‘I have never been told to look for work by the job centre. I have never called back there after I got the National Insurance number. Why would I want a real boss when I get £300 put into my bank account each week for nothing?
As with defrauding the immigration system, there seems to be a whole industry around this stuff.
An accountant may be advising him to register as self employed and then get working tax credits .Also means the dole office do not get on your case
Obama didn't win by that much? He won by 126 electoral votes. He got to 270 votes in states he won by more than five points. And demographics will give the Democrats an extra point or two in 2016.
126 Electoral College votes isn't all that much. George HW Bush won by over 300.
Likewise, winning 270 votes in states he won by 5+ points still brings the game into balance with a swing of just 3%. It's far from landslide territory.
I agree that demographics should help the Democrats structurally but their candidate not being Obama (or at least, the Obama of 2008 or even 2012), will hurt.
Yes, but someone like George HW Bush would never get through a modern GOP primary. The country is just too divided. The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton is widely seen as moderate among centrists and she's far too well known for them to paint her as an extreme liberal. Meanwhile the Republicans either won't get through a primary or can easily be demonized by the Democrats. Paul and Cruz will be shown as ideologues, Walker is anti-working class (and of questionable charisma), Kasich has says plenty of goofy things over the years, etc.
And the party won't moderate by 2016, because they're likely to win seats this year.
Obama didn't win by that much? He won by 126 electoral votes. He got to 270 votes in states he won by more than five points. And demographics will give the Democrats an extra point or two in 2016.
126 Electoral College votes isn't all that much. George HW Bush won by over 300.
Likewise, winning 270 votes in states he won by 5+ points still brings the game into balance with a swing of just 3%. It's far from landslide territory.
I agree that demographics should help the Democrats structurally but their candidate not being Obama (or at least, the Obama of 2008 or even 2012), will hurt.
Yes, but someone like George HW Bush would never get through a modern GOP primary. The country is just too divided. The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton is widely seen as moderate among centrists and she's far too well known for them to paint her as an extreme liberal. Meanwhile the Republicans either won't get through a primary or can easily be demonized by the Democrats. Paul and Cruz will be shown as ideologues, Walker is anti-working class (and of questionable charisma), Kasich has says plenty of goofy things over the years, etc.
And the party won't moderate by 2016, because they're likely to win seats this year.
Actually, I pretty much agree with all that. The problem the Republicans have is their own candidates, not Hillary. She, I think, they can deal with. It's whether they can handle their own candidate's shortcomings that will prove decisive. And unusually, there's no clear establishment front-runner yet. If they can find one, I'd maintain that they stand a decent chance.
That said, if they can't find the right person to get behind - and it's certainly proven difficult so far - it will be embarrassing for the Republicans. Indeed, some of their leaders might be forgiven for wondering whether it's time the party learned its 1964 lesson all over again. (Though they wouldn't go through with that unless the scenario were forced on them).
Obama didn't win by that much? He won by 126 electoral votes. He got to 270 votes in states he won by more than five points. And demographics will give the Democrats an extra point or two in 2016.
126 Electoral College votes isn't all that much. George HW Bush won by over 300.
Likewise, winning 270 votes in states he won by 5+ points still brings the game into balance with a swing of just 3%. It's far from landslide territory.
I agree that demographics should help the Democrats structurally but their candidate not being Obama (or at least, the Obama of 2008 or even 2012), will hurt.
Yes, but someone like George HW Bush would never get through a modern GOP primary. The country is just too divided. The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton is widely seen as moderate among centrists and she's far too well known for them to paint her as an extreme liberal. Meanwhile the Republicans either won't get through a primary or can easily be demonized by the Democrats. Paul and Cruz will be shown as ideologues, Walker is anti-working class (and of questionable charisma), Kasich has says plenty of goofy things over the years, etc.
And the party won't moderate by 2016, because they're likely to win seats this year.
I read an article recently that said the establishment candidate invariably wins the GOP nomination. Bush, McCain, and Romney do seem to fit that description.
Obama didn't win by that much? He won by 126 electoral votes. He got to 270 votes in states he won by more than five points. And demographics will give the Democrats an extra point or two in 2016.
126 Electoral College votes isn't all that much. George HW Bush won by over 300.
Likewise, winning 270 votes in states he won by 5+ points still brings the game into balance with a swing of just 3%. It's far from landslide territory.
I agree that demographics should help the Democrats structurally but their candidate not being Obama (or at least, the Obama of 2008 or even 2012), will hurt.
Yes, but someone like George HW Bush would never get through a modern GOP primary. The country is just too divided. The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton is widely seen as moderate among centrists and she's far too well known for them to paint her as an extreme liberal. Meanwhile the Republicans either won't get through a primary or can easily be demonized by the Democrats. Paul and Cruz will be shown as ideologues, Walker is anti-working class (and of questionable charisma), Kasich has says plenty of goofy things over the years, etc.
And the party won't moderate by 2016, because they're likely to win seats this year.
Actually, I pretty much agree with all that. The problem the Republicans have is their own candidates, not Hillary. She, I think, they can deal with. It's whether they can handle their own candidate's shortcomings that will prove decisive. And unusually, there's no clear establishment front-runner yet. If they can find one, I'd maintain that they stand a decent chance.
That said, if they can't find the right person to get behind - and it's certainly proven difficult so far - it will be embarrassing for the Republicans. Indeed, some of their leaders might be forgiven for wondering whether it's time the party learned its 1964 lesson all over again. (Though they wouldn't go through with that unless the scenario were forced on them).
It seems we're fairly aligned. My basic view is that, in a presidential turnout election, the Democrats naturally have a slight advantage in the popular vote and this is magnified by the electoral college to give them a medium advantage. They also have a candidate who is widely seen as capable, moderate and broadly in tune with middle America, and that view won't be changed by an election campaign. This makes a steep uphill climb for the GOP. It could be done, but it would need a particularly great candidate, and they simply don't have any on the horizon.
‘I came to Nottingham to stay with a cousin and found a good private accountant who told me how to claim the benefits. I soon brought over my family, too.
‘I have never been told to look for work by the job centre. I have never called back there after I got the National Insurance number. Why would I want a real boss when I get £300 put into my bank account each week for nothing?
As with defrauding the immigration system, there seems to be a whole industry around this stuff.
An accountant may be advising him to register as self employed and then get working tax credits .Also means the dole office do not get on your case
That is what the article says. Some people have suspected that wheeze has been used to flatter the unemployment figures.
"We know from research across Europe that voters in most EU countries defect to more Eurosceptic parties at European elections, and regardless of the local political conditions. Moreover, studies also show how this switch of loyalty is not simply a response to ‘hard’ concerns over the economic cost of EU membership, but is motivated just as strongly, if not more so, by so-called ‘soft’ concerns over threats to national identity, values and the national community.
This matters because with immigration now back at the top of the British political agenda, and the increasing debate over Britain’s EU membership, the elections in May will actually offer Ukip a more fertile climate than the campaigns in 2004 and 2009. The eurozone and financial crises have continued to erode public support for the EU, while voter dissatisfaction with how the main parties have handled these two issues –immigration and the economy- is intense.
Even in the absence of a scandal, Ukip will campaign under very favourable conditions, and have plenty of potential to surge once again. But as the data makes clear, this point may still be several months off."
My basic view is that, in a presidential turnout election, the Democrats naturally have a slight advantage in the popular vote and this is magnified by the electoral college to give them a medium advantage. They also have a candidate who is widely seen as capable, moderate and broadly in tune with middle America, and that view won't be changed by an election campaign. This makes a steep uphill climb for the GOP. It could be done, but it would need a particularly great candidate, and they simply don't have any on the horizon.
Yes, that's a good summary. You could also add that Hillary would have 'first woman president' pull as well, and that the main candidate on the other side with potentially broad appeal seems to have come unstuck on a bridge.
Of course, it is still early days, and Stuff Happens, so maybe things will look very different by, say, late 2015.
@pppolitics: Odds of Irish general election taking place this year slashed to 7/2 from 8/1, shakier ground than we thought #gsoc http://t.co/tv6JBmNeyU
‘I came to Nottingham to stay with a cousin and found a good private accountant who told me how to claim the benefits. I soon brought over my family, too.
‘I have never been told to look for work by the job centre. I have never called back there after I got the National Insurance number. Why would I want a real boss when I get £300 put into my bank account each week for nothing?
As with defrauding the immigration system, there seems to be a whole industry around this stuff.
An accountant may be advising him to register as self employed and then get working tax credits .Also means the dole office do not get on your case
That is what the article says. Some people have suspected that wheeze has been used to flatter the unemployment figures.
It is open to abuse (another great policy Labour!!) but to qualify you have to be working at your 'business' for a number of hours a week. Hopefully the publicity and the Romanian's omission that he does nothing for it will mean HMRC get on his case and stop it . I don't hold my breath though
Wrong. Obama won a landslide in the electoral college.
No. A landslide in the electoral college is what Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon or Reagan won.
Like I said below, even dear old George HW Bush won by 426 to 111 ECVs. Obama's victories were relatively modest in historic terms and only look large as they followed Bush's two knife-edge victories. Bill Clinton won more ECVs in each of his elections than Obama did in either of his.
@pppolitics: Odds of Irish general election taking place this year slashed to 7/2 from 8/1, shakier ground than we thought #gsoc http://t.co/tv6JBmNeyU
I think that's an over-reaction. If anything happens as a result of GSOC (and many of the charges are shocking) it will surely be the sacking of the Justice Minister. There is no reason for Labour to seek a GE this year and every reason to avoid one.
'Working tax credit' is certainly lowering unemployment . It is never been easier to claim you are running a business with the internet. All you need to do is get an Ebay account , register with Revenue and Customs as a trader ( no need to pay tax of course as you will not earn above the personal tax threshold and working tax credits are tax free). No need to go to Dole office or be assessed for work , just buy and sell a bit of stuff on Ebay
'Working tax credit' is certainly lowering unemployment . It is never been easier to claim you are running a business with the internet. All you need to do is get an Ebay account , register with Revenue and Customs as a trader ( no need to pay tax of course as you will not earn above the personal tax threshold and working tax credits are tax free). No need to go to Dole office or be assessed for work , jus buy and sell a bit of stuff on Ebay
But you are no longer claiming unemployment benefits.
Easy to cure by tapering away WTC - which should be done as tax thresholds rise - inflate them down if required.
Wrong. Obama won a landslide in the electoral college.
I've just checked the figures. Obama's wins were the 10th and 11th most decisive in ECV terms of the 17 elections since WWII - i.e. slightly less decisive than the median (which was Clinton's 1992 win, FWIW).
It's very difficult for either party to win the Presidency more than twice in succession.
That used to be true but America's demographics have changed the game surely.
Booming hispanic vote + black vote + blue collar vote = power.
The repubs haven't even begun to even consider how they might crack that equation.
America's demographic profile has changed repeatedly over 200 years without conferring a permanent advantage. Republicans don't necessarily do badly among blue collar voters.
Wrong. Obama won a landslide in the electoral college.
No. A landslide in the electoral college is what Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon or Reagan won.
Like I said below, even dear old George HW Bush won by 426 to 111 ECVs. Obama's victories were relatively modest in historic terms and only look large as they followed Bush's two knife-edge victories. Bill Clinton won more ECVs in each of his elections than Obama did in either of his.
'Working tax credit' is certainly lowering unemployment . It is never been easier to claim you are running a business with the internet. All you need to do is get an Ebay account , register with Revenue and Customs as a trader ( no need to pay tax of course as you will not earn above the personal tax threshold and working tax credits are tax free). No need to go to Dole office or be assessed for work , jus buy and sell a bit of stuff on Ebay
But you are no longer claiming unemployment benefits.
Easy to cure by tapering away WTC - which should be done as tax thresholds rise - inflate them down if required.
Easy to cure maybe, but no political will (who wants to increase unemployment even if the whole charade is farcical) . We live in a 'fill out a form and get money' culture (be it an MP's expense form, PPI claim form or a tax credit form) .I agree we shousl live in a 'do some actual work and get paid for it ' culture but too many bleedin hearts coupled with people in power who have no idea how to stop a fiddle of state money
Interesting conclusions. Unfortunately the interactive chart doesn't work on my - possibly antiquated - version of Firefox (17.0.10).
Ah, if I use this link then it works. The difference is between mobile and desktop.
The next blog on that site is good as well, comparing the Mosaic categorises in the recent by-elections for UKIP strength. Whoever that blogger is, they appear to have inside statistical knowledge of the Mosaic database for different constituencies.
Little point trying to outguess which way the parade of GOP unelectables the will fall at this stage. There's going to be a GOP Circus #2 and it will be even more damaging, unpredictable and hilarious than the last one.
It's very difficult for either party to win the Presidency more than twice in succession.
That used to be true but America's demographics have changed the game surely.
Booming hispanic vote + black vote + blue collar vote = power.
The repubs haven't even begun to even consider how they might crack that equation.
America's demographic profile has changed repeatedly over 200 years without conferring a permanent advantage. Republicans don't necessarily do badly among blue collar voters.
No, but they do necessarily do badly when their economic agenda is as it is right now. Here's a good column about the ideological trade-offs that the GOP makes:
Interesting conclusions. Unfortunately the interactive chart doesn't work on my - possibly antiquated - version of Firefox (17.0.10).
Ah, if I use this link then it works. The difference is between mobile and desktop.
The next blog on that site is good as well, comparing the Mosaic categorises in the recent by-elections for UKIP strength. Whoever that blogger is, they appear to have inside statistical knowledge of the Mosaic database for different constituencies.
Indeed - I was going to ask if the Mosaic stats were publically available online for all Individual constituencies and if so where.
Looks like an end game has arrived, one way or another. Wither Ukraine?
MineForNothing @minefornothing 5m UKRAINE ARMY GIVEN POWER TO USE WEAPONS ON UKRAINIANS: MINISTRY
In response to the protests, Ukraine's state security agency (SBU) said it was launching an "anti-terrorist operation" across the country after administrative buildings and arms and ammunition depots were seized by "extremist groups".
"We know from research across Europe that voters in most EU countries defect to more Eurosceptic parties at European elections, and regardless of the local political conditions. Moreover, studies also show how this switch of loyalty is not simply a response to ‘hard’ concerns over the economic cost of EU membership, but is motivated just as strongly, if not more so, by so-called ‘soft’ concerns over threats to national identity, values and the national community.
This matters because with immigration now back at the top of the British political agenda, and the increasing debate over Britain’s EU membership, the elections in May will actually offer Ukip a more fertile climate than the campaigns in 2004 and 2009. The eurozone and financial crises have continued to erode public support for the EU, while voter dissatisfaction with how the main parties have handled these two issues –immigration and the economy- is intense.
Even in the absence of a scandal, Ukip will campaign under very favourable conditions, and have plenty of potential to surge once again. But as the data makes clear, this point may still be several months off."
The fact that UKIP are starting from a much higher base (20%+ in EU election polls) limits the scale of another surge. I'd still stick to my prediction of 25-30%, still a very impressive performance.
FPT: That’s something we should consider when we all make political predictions and perhaps the best course of action is to start listening to the predictions of those who aren’t aligned to any party for a realistic prediction.
But that only leaves us fence sitters (to hesistant to make good predictions) and, if they exist, the incredibly objective. It will be tough to find such people to make realistic predictions.
On the subject of american politics, I'm still a little burnt out from the exhaustive amounts of noise from the last round, but are there any prominent female republicans who might be on the horizon for 2016, or will such a person have to emerge later?
I don't think there are any shoo-ins nearly three years out. Much though I like Hillary (despite her interventionist tendencies), she is clearly miles ahead for the nomination but not really that clearly ahead for the general election. The margin is typically 5-10 points, depending on the opponent, and over 3 years a lot of black swans can get in the way.
If it was, say, May 2015 I'd say a consistent 5-7 point lead was more convincing :-).
Comments
The headline ONS 'Unemployment Rate' is the number of unemployed people (aged 16+) divided by the economically active population (aged 16+). The economically active population is defined as those in employment plus those who are unemployed.
So the rate involves:
1. The numerator: the number of people who are unemployed (aged 16-64, who have sought work during the past four weeks and who are available to work within two weeks).
2. The denominator: Number of people in employment (16+) plus 1. above.
Unemployment can fall at the same time as the unemployment rate rises if the number of people actively seeking employment increases faster than any increase in the number of people employed.
In the case of today's figures:
Between Sep-Nov 2013 the 'economically active' numbers fell by -3,881.
Between Oct-Dec 2013 the 'economically active' numbers increased by 17,676.
The difference between the two periods in the numbers of people employed was 3,523.
Bearing in mind the figures are 'seasonally adjusted' in accordance with the ONS model and are rolling quarterly averages, the difference between this month's unemployment rate being 7.2% and last month's being 7.1% is virtually insignificant.
The trend is your friend, Mike, and the employment trend is as upward as Nigel's index finger.
http://election-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/which-voters-went-from-labour-to-ukip.html?m=1
Lab to UKIP switchers
1. If Hillary runs she wins both the nomination and the Presidency.
2. If Hillary doesn't run all bets are off if the GOP choose a member of the human race.
3. Remember it's a state by state FPTP race and battleground demographic trends are moving blue. (See end of the previous thread).
Ah, if I use this link then it works. The difference is between mobile and desktop.
Cooling seems to remain an issue.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562957/Muslim-leaders-issue-fatwa-against-living-MARS-no-righteous-reason-there.html
Daft sods. Maybe they have a bet with Westboro Baptist Church to see who can be the maddest.
In a story that’s so weird his has to be considered true, a leading Saudi Arabian cleric has declared Mickey Mouse to be an “agent of Satan.” As such, he has put a fatwa, or death sentence , on the Mouse’s head.
http://www.newsarama.com/1071-saudi-cleric-places-fatwa-on-mickey-mouse.html
Re point 3, I did mention that in the thread header.
On the other hand, if she doesn't run, then what? The Democratic nomination looks wide open in that case. The shortest odds other than on Hillary are on Andrew Cuomo, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O'Malley and Kirsten Gillibrand, but none of those looks an obvious front-runner if Hillary does back off, and no doubt others could take to the ring. I've got a chunk on a Female Winner at 4/1 and 7/2, from a while back, which I went for on the basis that, even if it wasn't Hillary, she'd be likely to throw her machine behind a female candidate. I still think that is the best bet around, although the 15/8 now available is getting a bit mean given the time you have to tie your money up for.
As for the GOP - who knows?
- Her health may not hold up.
- Democratic front-runners never seem to make it.
- Her polling is artificially inflated by people who see her in opposition to Obama, but that won't last once Obama is on his way out and the right-wing attacks focus back on her and Bill.
- Winning a third term is tough, what with Time For A Change people and supporters narked off about x, y and z.
- She seems to have highly-developed cocking it up skills.
I predict that Mitt Romney will not be the next US president!!!
The Republicans will likely retake the Senate in November, and strengthen their lead at State legislative level. That could either give them momentum in 2016, or provoke a reaction against them.
(Actually, do they even have a guy who isn't?)
1) He has the gutsiness / shamelessness that characterises successful insurgents.
2) He's actually running.
lol!
Maybe you could work the same rain spell on California as you did the UK...
The hangmen or scimitar chaps would get awfully tired.
If Hillary runs, yes, I expect her to win the nomination. The election? That's a different matter and an establishment, moderate Republican should win.
Yes, as TSE said, the GOP have only won the popular vote once in six elections, but (1) Ross Perot, (2) Barack Obama.
It is possible that if the Republicans go centrist again there could be a third-party candidate from the right but the Tea Party's momentum has been checked a little of late and if they do that then it really would be a sign of weakness representing a last, hopeless, roll of the dice. I don't think the budget stand-off and other like stuff has damaged them so badly as to make that kind of play worthwhile.
On the second reason for recent Democrat dominance, as TSE says, is there another Obama in the field? I can't see it. Obama galvanised a whole demographic to register and vote. Would Hillary (or AN Dem Other) keep them or would they drift back to unregistered abstentions?
US Presidential fact of the day. The Democrats have only retained the White House more than once in succession once since the Civil War. That sequence involved four successful retentions but each won involved a sitting president. The last Democrat to win as a new candidate, and retain the White House for the Democrats for at least a third term was Martin van Buren in 1836.
Gillibrand was on the Blue Dog right of the party before she became a senator for lefty NY. She has proved she is versatile. She is also attractive, which is part of her appeal even if it shouldn't matter. A good trading bet perhaps!
I only backed Magnussen on Ladbrokes, but at 50/1. Put a smidgen on Rosberg at 17, and at 24 on Betfair. Have to see how things go. The Mercedes looks nice and reliable, and the sharing of data with McLaren should help both teams.
Edited extra bit: Betfair has the Australian market up. Unless you can spot something at huge odds I think you'd be crackers to touch it at this stage.
Titters .....
Vote Hillary; get Bill.
On what grounds do you base the statement "a moderate Republican should win".
If Hillary runs, she walks it.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/2016-presidential-ratings-update-nothing-but-questions-on-the-republican-side/
In the Democrat race, I'd rather not take part.
Need a quote
Do not tarry
Call U-Va.
And ask for Larry
(© Washington Post)
2. Time for a change. From the Democrats, from the administration (yes, she's not there now but she was), and from the Clintons.
3. There's a large part of the electorate who have no love for her. See Healthcare etc. The GOP base will be motivated and it won't look racist this time (it won't even really look sexist as she's one half of a double-act).
4. She's a good but not spectacular campaigner. Obama was a superb campaigner and still didn't win by all that much.
5. The GOP are well capable of winning nation-wide elections, as proven by their current position in the House and the likely position in the Senate after November.
6. Democrats have a poor record of winning the White House post-Civil Rights. Only three have done so: Carter, who beat a discredited and unelected Ford, Bill Clinton, who never won half the vote with Perot's interventions, and Obama.
All of which still relies on the GOP picking someone who has fewer negative points than Hillary, and that's far from guaranteed. Even so, she has plenty of targets of her own.
On what grounds do you make your assertion that "If Hillary runs, she walks it"? I would be very sceptical of polls at this stage, which are often little more than name-recognition exercises.
That used to be true but America's demographics have changed the game surely.
Booming hispanic vote + black vote + blue collar vote = power.
The repubs haven't even begun to even consider how they might crack that equation.
Larks : Christie, Paul, Bush
Boring : Rubio, Cruz, Jindal.
Which one would wind up the leftosphere most ? Paul or Bush - so lets hope they are the next president.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559776/This-week-Eurocrat-told-Britain-benefit-tourism-myth-read-Rudi-huge-Romanian-family-say-new-home-Your-benefits-crazy-Its-like-finding-sackful-cash-left-road.html
Obama didn't win by that much? He won by 126 electoral votes. He got to 270 votes in states he won by more than five points. And demographics will give the Democrats an extra point or two in 2016.
EDIT: Comparing mid-term elections with presidential ones is also ridiculous. The former are far lower turnout, and the demographics are thus older and whiter as a result.
‘I have never been told to look for work by the job centre. I have never called back there after I got the National Insurance number. Why would I want a real boss when I get £300 put into my bank account each week for nothing?
As with defrauding the immigration system, there seems to be a whole industry around this stuff.
Likewise, winning 270 votes in states he won by 5+ points still brings the game into balance with a swing of just 3%. It's far from landslide territory.
I agree that demographics should help the Democrats structurally but their candidate not being Obama (or at least, the Obama of 2008 or even 2012), will hurt.
And the party won't moderate by 2016, because they're likely to win seats this year.
At least Iraq turned out well.
*tears of laughter etc.*
That said, if they can't find the right person to get behind - and it's certainly proven difficult so far - it will be embarrassing for the Republicans. Indeed, some of their leaders might be forgiven for wondering whether it's time the party learned its 1964 lesson all over again. (Though they wouldn't go through with that unless the scenario were forced on them).
Wrong. Obama won a landslide in the electoral college.
"We know from research across Europe that voters in most EU countries defect to more Eurosceptic parties at European elections, and regardless of the local political conditions. Moreover, studies also show how this switch of loyalty is not simply a response to ‘hard’ concerns over the economic cost of EU membership, but is motivated just as strongly, if not more so, by so-called ‘soft’ concerns over threats to national identity, values and the national community.
This matters because with immigration now back at the top of the British political agenda, and the increasing debate over Britain’s EU membership, the elections in May will actually offer Ukip a more fertile climate than the campaigns in 2004 and 2009. The eurozone and financial crises have continued to erode public support for the EU, while voter dissatisfaction with how the main parties have handled these two issues –immigration and the economy- is intense.
Even in the absence of a scandal, Ukip will campaign under very favourable conditions, and have plenty of potential to surge once again. But as the data makes clear, this point may still be several months off."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukipwatch/100260326/before-you-predict-defeat-for-ukip-in-the-euro-elections-remember-its-a-party-with-a-history-of-late-surges/
Of course, it is still early days, and Stuff Happens, so maybe things will look very different by, say, late 2015.
Like I said below, even dear old George HW Bush won by 426 to 111 ECVs. Obama's victories were relatively modest in historic terms and only look large as they followed Bush's two knife-edge victories. Bill Clinton won more ECVs in each of his elections than Obama did in either of his.
Where is John Galt when you need him?
Or rather; who is the real John Galt?
Easy to cure by tapering away WTC - which should be done as tax thresholds rise - inflate them down if required.
http://www.paulnuttallmep.com/?p=3144
Wither Ukraine?
MineForNothing @minefornothing 5m
UKRAINE ARMY GIVEN POWER TO USE WEAPONS ON UKRAINIANS: MINISTRY
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/cbo-and-the-bizarre-partisan-jobs-debate.html
Meanwhile, they defend interventions in the free market for the advantage of banks, pharma companies, agrobusiness etc..
http://news.sky.com/story/1213843/ukraine-announces-anti-terror-operation
But that only leaves us fence sitters (to hesistant to make good predictions) and, if they exist, the incredibly objective. It will be tough to find such people to make realistic predictions.
On the subject of american politics, I'm still a little burnt out from the exhaustive amounts of noise from the last round, but are there any prominent female republicans who might be on the horizon for 2016, or will such a person have to emerge later?
If it was, say, May 2015 I'd say a consistent 5-7 point lead was more convincing :-).
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
Is there somewhere we can discuss too hot for PB topics today?