Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Michelle Obama moving up in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 4 in General
imageMichelle Obama moving up in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

Quite what lies behind the reports that Michelle Obama could run for the presidency I do not know. What we have seen is a fair amount of speculation in the US media in the past 24 hours.

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,632
    First, like Lewis Hamilton's bank balance
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,706
    First like Trump in 2020
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    Third like Bobby Kennedy Jr.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,706
    If Biden were to step down, because of some health issue for example, we'd probably see it first in the betting market as some insiders cash in.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,677
    Barring death, Biden is completely locked in for the Dem nomination. The Obama price is just people betting on what they err... want to happen.
    If Biden dies it'll be Harris.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    Wow!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,706

    Absolutely effing nuts.

    1. Biden's age has been a known factor since, well, the 1940s. He was still allowed to stand unchallenged. He's not going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly realise he's in his 80s. Indeed, he's more likely to forget (joke - actually his mental capacity seems ok-ish; not quite what you'd like for a president but better than Trump's anyway).

    2. There's pretty much no way for anyone to stop Biden through the primaries, so this theory *entirely* relies on him withdrawing voluntarily or dropping dead.

    3. If he does drop dead, then Kamela Harris automatically moves into pole position for the nomination.

    4. Even if Biden did withdraw, all the delegates at the convention would be his. Why would he (or they, if he couldn't) pick Michelle Obama over someone with, say, proven executive, DC or leadership history?

    5. Barack Obama was popular in 2008; not so much now.

    6. Trump has already beaten one ex-First Lady - and she had a stronger CV. Who next? Dolley Madison?

    7. Those serving governors, senators and secretaries - not to mention the VP - might have something to say about who should be the candidate.

    8. Does she even want it?

    9. What's her platform? What does she stand for?

    10. And following on, if she's continuity-2016, doesn't that just give Trump the chance to run on Drain The Swamp again?

    As for Buttigieg, not south of 100/1 for nominee, never mind WH. Too many other candidates, no vacancy, and as Transport Sec, the small matters of Boeing aircraft falling apart and mishandling that train crash in Ohio.

    Shall I put you down as a 'Don't Know'?
  • Well, she couldn't do any worse than the pair of doddery old fools that look like they'll be contesting the top job.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308
    Hasn't this sort of thing been a feature of the betting since 2004, and the idea that Gore might run again?

    There is definitely a hunger for Someone Else to run for the Democrats over many election cycles.
  • Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,385
    Has she displayed any political ability outside of scripted first lady speeches? Ever even run for election for the DC municipal dog wrangler?

    It'd be sheer nepotism to put her forwarded as the candidate. No better than one of the Trump Mini-Mes taking the Repub nomination.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473
    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437

    Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.

    He died a quarter of a century ago, can’t see him being Trump’s VP pick
  • Yeah, this is bonkers.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    kinabalu said:

    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.

    The David Miliband of US politics.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,677

    Hasn't this sort of thing been a feature of the betting since 2004, and the idea that Gore might run again?

    There is definitely a hunger for Someone Else to run for the Democrats over many election cycles.

    Yep the POTUS book is always a bit wrong at this point,

    I'm convinced Harris would win if Biden dropped dead but others may have different views.

    If the Donald can't run who gets the GOP nomination ? Would that be Haley - it's less obvious to me tbh.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,311
    Running out of time for any other Democrat to enter the race with Super Tuesday only a month away
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    HYUFD said:

    Running out of time for any other Democrat to enter the race with Super Tuesday only a month away

    Not if it’s going to be a convention stitchup.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,677
    HYUFD said:

    Running out of time for any other Democrat to enter the race with Super Tuesday only a month away

    The price isn't based on her "winning" by that route.
  • Sandpit said:

    Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.

    He died a quarter of a century ago, can’t see him being Trump’s VP pick
    Nope, he had to go underground because "they" were after him, and he faked his death. It's a thing. Internet says so.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,278

    Has she displayed any political ability outside of scripted first lady speeches? Ever even run for election for the DC municipal dog wrangler?

    It'd be sheer nepotism to put her forwarded as the candidate. No better than one of the Trump Mini-Mes taking the Repub nomination.

    US presidential politics would be ridiculously dynastic if, since 1988, there'd been 2 Bushes (four nominations), 2 Clintons (3 nominations) and 2 Obamas (3 nominations) chosen as candidates - half the candidates (10 out of 20, across 1988-2024) were closely related to one of the others.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,706
    Sandpit said:

    Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.

    He died a quarter of a century ago, can’t see him being Trump’s VP pick
    A dead VP would probably suit Trump tbf
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,620

    Has she displayed any political ability outside of scripted first lady speeches? Ever even run for election for the DC municipal dog wrangler?

    It'd be sheer nepotism to put her forwarded as the candidate. No better than one of the Trump Mini-Mes taking the Repub nomination.

    US presidential politics would be ridiculously dynastic if, since 1988, there'd been 2 Bushes (four nominations), 2 Clintons (3 nominations) and 2 Obamas (3 nominations) chosen as candidates - half the candidates (10 out of 20, across 1988-2024) were closely related to one of the others.
    Just one from the Mycena Acicula family though.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182

    Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.

    And Taylor Swift will be Biden's VP pick.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437

    Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.

    And Taylor Swift will be Biden's VP pick.
    How racist would that be, replacing Kamala with a white woman?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 8,669
    I agree with Mike on Buttigieg. He emits an unusual mixture of managerial competence, intellect and sparky charisma. Not a natural orator but that might come with time.

    I'd love to see him as US president but I suspect he'll never quite make it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,704
    Not bonkers at all. Close to power for eight years so knows how it all works; "normal" which shouldn't be underestimated in a politician; and why does she need anything else. It's not as if DJT went to POTUS school for 20 years.

    I might even have a nibble and I NEVER get involved, still less usually comment on US politics.

    Can someone please tell me the mechanics of it not happening. Or if not now then what about in 2028?

  • isamisam Posts: 40,572

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,278
    HYUFD said:

    Running out of time for any other Democrat to enter the race with Super Tuesday only a month away

    FFS. How many times? That door closed months ago. It's like saying a week before a UK GE that it's running late to declare candidacies. No. It's over. The primary field is all-but set (there may be a few late states where registrations are still open; the great majority aren't).

    No serious candidate will enter the race now unless Biden withdraws or is incapacitated or worse first - and if that happens, it will be the convention not the primaries that decide things.

    (If Biden did withdraw today, then any states where registrations *are* still open would suddenly gain massive significance, acting as a second New Hampshire. Even so, the vast majority of delegates would be Biden's.)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    TOPPING said:

    Not bonkers at all. Close to power for eight years so knows how it all works; "normal" which shouldn't be underestimated in a politician; and why does she need anything else. It's not as if DJT went to POTUS school for 20 years.

    I might even have a nibble and I NEVER get involved, still less usually comment on US politics.

    Can someone please tell me the mechanics of it not happening. Or if not now then what about in 2028?

    Has repeatedly said she has no interest whatsoever of entering politics, is quite happy being a very wealthy woman out of the public eye except when she wants to be.

    Lay all day.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182
    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Turnout will be down because of Tories sitting on their hands and the first time "Get Brexit Done" voters vanishing again. On the flip side, Labourites who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Jezza last time will be back at the ballot box this year.

    So overall, a net reduction in turnout, but perhaps not as big as some might be assuming.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,278
    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.

    He died a quarter of a century ago, can’t see him being Trump’s VP pick
    A dead VP would probably suit Trump tbf
    Would be a better choice than Marjorie Taylor Greene or Kari Lake...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,278
    Pulpstar said:

    Hasn't this sort of thing been a feature of the betting since 2004, and the idea that Gore might run again?

    There is definitely a hunger for Someone Else to run for the Democrats over many election cycles.

    Yep the POTUS book is always a bit wrong at this point,

    I'm convinced Harris would win if Biden dropped dead but others may have different views.

    If the Donald can't run who gets the GOP nomination ? Would that be Haley - it's less obvious to me tbh.
    Depends when he'd be ruled out. If before Super Tuesday, all / most of the candidates who suspended their campaigns would start them up again and you'd be back to a bog-standard (for the times) primary season. If after ST with Trump having already an actual or near-majority of delegates, god knows. That becomes really messy.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,572
    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Looking at a few random YouGovs from the last parliament, they generally have DK/WNV at 25-30 which is not high enough (or maybe it is if @david_herdson ‘s point on registration is taken into account) and at the mo it is about 30
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
    Amongst people who have registered, too ...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
    That really isn’t the purpose of it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,985

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
    Don't worry – if you are over 70 and a confirmed Tory voter you can use an Oyster Card, today's newspaper, or any piece of junk mail that drops through your door.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,985
    Sandpit said:

    TOPPING said:

    Not bonkers at all. Close to power for eight years so knows how it all works; "normal" which shouldn't be underestimated in a politician; and why does she need anything else. It's not as if DJT went to POTUS school for 20 years.

    I might even have a nibble and I NEVER get involved, still less usually comment on US politics.

    Can someone please tell me the mechanics of it not happening. Or if not now then what about in 2028?

    Has repeatedly said she has no interest whatsoever of entering politics, is quite happy being a very wealthy woman out of the public eye except when she wants to be.

    Lay all day.
    Fnarr fnarr
  • The answer is this:

    Many Dems want to ditch Biden but the next in line is Harris, who is just as unpopular. Harris got the job of VP because she was a woman of colour so to ditch her for say Newsom would be a terrible look for the Dems.

    However, if the new candidate was also a woman of colour (e.g.Michelle Obama) then ditching Harris becomes much much easier.

    https://johnkassnews.com/will-the-terrifying-michelle-obama-prophecy-come-true/


    "Biden can drool all over his ties and look vaguely into space but they couldn’t dare replace him because that would mean the ascension of Kamala Harris to the presidency, and that would mean the end of the world. But a Michelle Obama could obliterate Kamala’s idiotic ambition as an identity politics totem, because Michelle could take her off the board and the Democrat political logic still holds.

    Michelle’s Black Queen takes Kamala’s Black Queen of All Word Salads.

    “Because, you know, Gavin Newsom doesn’t do it, JB Pritzker doesn’t do it,” Bevan said. “There’s nobody else, and it’s certainly not Kamala Harris. And that’s the problem. Michelle Obama is the only one who could come in and be coronated in Chicago in July or whatever the convention’s gonna be. And every Democrat around the country would be like, Yep, I get it. I’m on board’. There would be no, you know, even Kamala’s folks would have to be like, yeah, you know, ‘OK, fine.’ Because any other answer gonna have hurt feelings and you’re going to have a tear in the Democrat coalition just weeks before the presidential election. That is gonna be a real problem for for Democrats getting out their voters and so she’s the answer guys.”
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,985
    ....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    What does Michelle Obama have offer other than name recognition? As far as I am aware she has never actually run anything. I just don't see it. I think that the only way she could get the nomination would be if there was some sort of coronation by which other possible contenders all supported her. Why would any of them do that?

    I agree with Mike that Pete Buttigieg would be a much better choice if Biden keels over. He is a superb debater and has a detailed knowledge of infrastructure and the economy from his current post.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,985
    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
    That really isn’t the purpose of it.
    Oh yes it is...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    DavidL said:

    What does Michelle Obama have offer other than name recognition? As far as I am aware she has never actually run anything. I just don't see it. I think that the only way she could get the nomination would be if there was some sort of coronation by which other possible contenders all supported her. Why would any of them do that?

    I agree with Mike that Pete Buttigieg would be a much better choice if Biden keels over. He is a superb debater and has a detailed knowledge of infrastructure and the economy from his current post.

    The only problem with Buttigieg, is that his current record as Transport Secretary is utterly woeful.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,677

    The answer is this:

    Many Dems want to ditch Biden but the next in line is Harris, who is just as unpopular. Harris got the job of VP because she was a woman of colour so to ditch her for say Newsom would be a terrible look for the Dems.

    However, if the new candidate was also a woman of colour (e.g.Michelle Obama) then ditching Harris becomes much much easier.

    https://johnkassnews.com/will-the-terrifying-michelle-obama-prophecy-come-true/


    "Biden can drool all over his ties and look vaguely into space but they couldn’t dare replace him because that would mean the ascension of Kamala Harris to the presidency, and that would mean the end of the world. But a Michelle Obama could obliterate Kamala’s idiotic ambition as an identity politics totem, because Michelle could take her off the board and the Democrat political logic still holds.

    Michelle’s Black Queen takes Kamala’s Black Queen of All Word Salads.

    “Because, you know, Gavin Newsom doesn’t do it, JB Pritzker doesn’t do it,” Bevan said. “There’s nobody else, and it’s certainly not Kamala Harris. And that’s the problem. Michelle Obama is the only one who could come in and be coronated in Chicago in July or whatever the convention’s gonna be. And every Democrat around the country would be like, Yep, I get it. I’m on board’. There would be no, you know, even Kamala’s folks would have to be like, yeah, you know, ‘OK, fine.’ Because any other answer gonna have hurt feelings and you’re going to have a tear in the Democrat coalition just weeks before the presidential election. That is gonna be a real problem for for Democrats getting out their voters and so she’s the answer guys.”

    You missed the final paragraph:

    To keep my sanity I think I’ll find a Hopium pipe and fill a bowl, curl up and hope China Joe hangs on until November.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    President Biden is expected to sign an executive order on Thursday allowing the U.S. to impose new sanctions on Israeli settlers — and potentially Israeli politicians and government officials — involved in violent attacks against Palestinians, two U.S. officials tell Axios.

    https://www.axios.com/2024/02/01/biden-israel-settler-violence-palestinians-executive-order
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,381
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    What does Michelle Obama have offer other than name recognition? As far as I am aware she has never actually run anything. I just don't see it. I think that the only way she could get the nomination would be if there was some sort of coronation by which other possible contenders all supported her. Why would any of them do that?

    I agree with Mike that Pete Buttigieg would be a much better choice if Biden keels over. He is a superb debater and has a detailed knowledge of infrastructure and the economy from his current post.

    The only problem with Buttigieg, is that his current record as Transport Secretary is utterly woeful.
    What makes you say that? My impression is that there has been a real drive in infrastructure spending in the US, which is one of the reasons the economy has been doing well. There are decades of neglect to recover from under administrations of booth stripes. What do you think Buttigieg has done wrong?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 38,654
    edited February 1
    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
    That really isn’t the purpose of it.
    If it weren't, then why are they being so slack about controls with their giving the franchise to people who abandoned the UK [edit] perhaps decades ago and are now immigrants in other states? And why are they setting up an entire party system to put forward folk to offer to vote on these people's behalves?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    What does Michelle Obama have offer other than name recognition? As far as I am aware she has never actually run anything. I just don't see it. I think that the only way she could get the nomination would be if there was some sort of coronation by which other possible contenders all supported her. Why would any of them do that?

    I agree with Mike that Pete Buttigieg would be a much better choice if Biden keels over. He is a superb debater and has a detailed knowledge of infrastructure and the economy from his current post.

    The only problem with Buttigieg, is that his current record as Transport Secretary is utterly woeful.
    What makes you say that? My impression is that there has been a real drive in infrastructure spending in the US, which is one of the reasons the economy has been doing well. There are decades of neglect to recover from under administrations of booth stripes. What do you think Buttigieg has done wrong?
    He’s all up for turning up to the opening of a new bridge, but thinks that a train crash is beneath him.
    https://time.com/6257945/pete-buttigieg-east-palestine-ohio-train/
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    Sandpit said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
    That really isn’t the purpose of it.
    Of course it is.

    We don't have a fraud problem with in-person voters, but they tend towards non-Tory candidates. So the Conservative Government brought in ID. ID that was easier to source for older (Tory,?) voters than for younger ( non-Tory?) voters. We do have a genuine problem with fraudulently cast postal votes. These are predominantly used by older (Tory?) voters and no photo ID is required. Not that the older Tory voter was the fraud issue, but those who were also need no photo ID.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,677

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    At least UK turnout tends to be reported fairly quickly once polls close. Calculating US turnout OTOH....
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    At least UK turnout tends to be reported fairly quickly once polls close. Calculating US turnout OTOH....
    IIRC US turnout is based on population stats rather than registered voters.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565

    Absolutely effing nuts.


    6. Trump has already beaten one ex-First Lady - and she had a stronger CV. Who next? Dolley Madison?

    Deplorable!

    Hillary = 65,853,514 votes
    Trump = 62,984,828 votes
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,278

    Absolutely effing nuts.


    6. Trump has already beaten one ex-First Lady - and she had a stronger CV. Who next? Dolley Madison?

    Deplorable!

    Hillary = 65,853,514 votes
    Trump = 62,984,828 votes
    And? Do you count the winner of a football match by possession stats? Or corners, passes or shots? No - the only thing that counts is goals.

    Likewise, the only thing that counts in US elections is ECVs.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,856
    If something happens to Biden, the default is Kamala Harris takes over.
    I'd expect that in 90% of scenarios where Biden doesn't make it through the election.

    Liking Buttigieg or Michelle is irrelevant I think.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,677
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    At least UK turnout tends to be reported fairly quickly once polls close. Calculating US turnout OTOH....
    IIRC US turnout is based on population stats rather than registered voters.
    Noone ever reports the actual denominator though. So if you're betting on it you don't know where you're at, let alone where you might end up at end of counting. Which takes months.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    rkrkrk said:

    If something happens to Biden, the default is Kamala Harris takes over.
    I'd expect that in 90% of scenarios where Biden doesn't make it through the election.

    Liking Buttigieg or Michelle is irrelevant I think.

    Yes: the only way there could have been a competition would have been if Biden had stood down last September.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308

    Absolutely effing nuts.


    6. Trump has already beaten one ex-First Lady - and she had a stronger CV. Who next? Dolley Madison?

    Deplorable!

    Hillary = 65,853,514 votes
    Trump = 62,984,828 votes
    And? Do you count the winner of a football match by possession stats? Or corners, passes or shots? No - the only thing that counts is goals.

    Likewise, the only thing that counts in US elections is ECVs.
    Similarly,

    Heath 11,872,180
    Wilson 11,645,616

    Or,

    Atlee 13,948,385
    Churchill 13,717,851

    It's not an unusual circumstance in a number of democracies with a variety of voting systems.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308
    edited February 1
    Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.

    I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243
    rcs1000 said:

    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.

    Speak for yourself...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    Sandpit said:

    Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.

    He died a quarter of a century ago, can’t see him being Trump’s VP pick
    I don't know: a dead Kennedy as a running mate ticks a lot of boxes for Trump.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.

    The David Miliband of US politics.
    But value imo at the big 3 digit price a year ago. My scenario (for backing) was the Dems doing whatever was necessary to thwart the unthinkable disaster of Trump2.

    Yes, unlikely, and the precise mechanism not at all clear, but a less than 1% chance in this unprecedented (because of Trump) US election cycle? No way.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.

    The David Miliband of US politics.
    But value imo at the big 3 digit price a year ago. My scenario (for backing) was the Dems doing whatever was necessary to thwart the unthinkable disaster of Trump2.

    Yes, unlikely, and the precise mechanism not at all clear, but a less than 1% chance in this unprecedented (because of Trump) US election cycle? No way.
    I think so. I think the odds are probably lower than 1-in-1000.

    She doesn't want to do it. There are lot's of other potential candidates who do want to do it (some of them at least half decent). The procedural and timing circumstances to get it to happen are awkward and difficult even if she did want to do it.

    The repeal of the 22nd amendment, to give us DJT v BHO, is more likely.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    Absolutely effing nuts.


    6. Trump has already beaten one ex-First Lady - and she had a stronger CV. Who next? Dolley Madison?

    Deplorable!

    Hillary = 65,853,514 votes
    Trump = 62,984,828 votes
    And? Do you count the winner of a football match by possession stats? Or corners, passes or shots? No - the only thing that counts is goals.

    Likewise, the only thing that counts in US elections is ECVs.
    Should Trump win the popular vote, and lose the Electoral College, then that theory might be tested to destruction.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,856
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.

    The David Miliband of US politics.
    But value imo at the big 3 digit price a year ago. My scenario (for backing) was the Dems doing whatever was necessary to thwart the unthinkable disaster of Trump2.

    Yes, unlikely, and the precise mechanism not at all clear, but a less than 1% chance in this unprecedented (because of Trump) US election cycle? No way.
    Glad you've ended up ahead on that. Ready to admit it will be a Biden Trump rerun?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Anyway, according to Facebook, JFK Jr is about to rise up and become Trump's VP pick.
    You heard it here first.

    He died a quarter of a century ago, can’t see him being Trump’s VP pick
    I don't know: a dead Kennedy as a running mate ticks a lot of boxes for Trump.
    Don't think Jello Biafra would be up for it.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059
    @anon_opin

    The Star Wars prequels accurately predicted how inequality and disputes over free trade and free movement led to a major shift to the far right. I'm started to reevaluate those movies as borderline genius despite being tedious borefests.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751

    Has she displayed any political ability outside of scripted first lady speeches? Ever even run for election for the DC municipal dog wrangler?

    It'd be sheer nepotism to put her forwarded as the candidate. No better than one of the Trump Mini-Mes taking the Repub nomination.

    She has a strong legal career and I understand from reading here that that guarantees she'll be excellent at whatever she does.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 44,917
    Yes, but you've got to think about the other things, don't you

    And then there's that, which is also important, and this is similar. I cannot see why this is any different, indeed not, and then the other stuff is also like this, isn't it?

    No one can argue with that, so then we are left with something else, and also of course we continue and then sometimes you realise, and that changes things

    No?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,572
    edited February 1
    1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.

    Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent

    2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.

    We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.

    3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.

    Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.

    It must end.

    .


    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1753066693566611753?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 14,619
    DougSeal said:

    @anon_opin

    The Star Wars prequels accurately predicted how inequality and disputes over free trade and free movement led to a major shift to the far right. I'm started to reevaluate those movies as borderline genius despite being tedious borefests.

    I'm not really seeing much in the way of far right, unless you have a different definition to me, or you are referring to Sein Fein?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,339
    Labour playing bazball with the business community.

    Labour is impressing the business community and their position on the bankers bonuses, which many on social media think should be taxed more to fund the NHS, has helped.

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/labour-playing-bazball-as-starmer-says-business-fingerprints-on-plans-for-power/ar-BB1hCf5Z?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=d8b5c96be13041c3a59bde75a984db36&ei=19
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    edited February 1
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.

    The David Miliband of US politics.
    But value imo at the big 3 digit price a year ago. My scenario (for backing) was the Dems doing whatever was necessary to thwart the unthinkable disaster of Trump2.

    Yes, unlikely, and the precise mechanism not at all clear, but a less than 1% chance in this unprecedented (because of Trump) US election cycle? No way.
    Yes, you should have backed her at 100 a year ago, and laid her at 10 today. As I believe you did.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751

    Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.

    I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.

    But that's because later preferences matter (for voters whose first preference choice is not elected).
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,281
    rcs1000 said:

    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.

    I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.

    Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,281

    Has she displayed any political ability outside of scripted first lady speeches? Ever even run for election for the DC municipal dog wrangler?

    It'd be sheer nepotism to put her forwarded as the candidate. No better than one of the Trump Mini-Mes taking the Repub nomination.

    She has a strong legal career and I understand from reading here that that guarantees she'll be excellent at whatever she does.
    Unlike our learned friends, I fear Heads of State have to show success in terms other than billable hours.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.

    The David Miliband of US politics.
    But value imo at the big 3 digit price a year ago. My scenario (for backing) was the Dems doing whatever was necessary to thwart the unthinkable disaster of Trump2.

    Yes, unlikely, and the precise mechanism not at all clear, but a less than 1% chance in this unprecedented (because of Trump) US election cycle? No way.
    I think so. I think the odds are probably lower than 1-in-1000.

    She doesn't want to do it. There are lot's of other potential candidates who do want to do it (some of them at least half decent). The procedural and timing circumstances to get it to happen are awkward and difficult even if she did want to do it.

    The repeal of the 22nd amendment, to give us DJT v BHO, is more likely.
    Really? 1000+/1? Gosh. Can I open an account?

    I do think her current price of 15 is a bit silly though. If it's based only on my hypothetical scenario (the last resort saviour from Trump) it shouldn't be as short as that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.

    I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.

    Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
    I can't see that passing The House, sadly.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,677
    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.

    I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.

    Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
    A certain South African could also run ;)

    2040 POTUS race - Elon Musk vs Jimmy Donaldson
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473
    rkrkrk said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.

    The David Miliband of US politics.
    But value imo at the big 3 digit price a year ago. My scenario (for backing) was the Dems doing whatever was necessary to thwart the unthinkable disaster of Trump2.

    Yes, unlikely, and the precise mechanism not at all clear, but a less than 1% chance in this unprecedented (because of Trump) US election cycle? No way.
    Glad you've ended up ahead on that. Ready to admit it will be a Biden Trump rerun?
    Sure looking that way, isn't it? But no, not quite yet. I'm still semi-expecting the unexpected.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,838
    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.

    I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.

    Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
    Got to get the 28th to 60th Amendments passed first, before the 61st Amendment can come up.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    isam said:

    1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.

    Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent

    2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.

    We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.

    3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.

    Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.

    It must end.

    .


    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1753066693566611753?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.

    My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 4,281
    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.

    I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.

    Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
    I can't see that passing The House, sadly.
    It’s such a shame. The lines are all ready to go. “Donald, you’re terminated”.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,473
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    My best result. On at 120 with stake laid back at 18. Smug city. But mug city if you back her at the current price.

    The David Miliband of US politics.
    But value imo at the big 3 digit price a year ago. My scenario (for backing) was the Dems doing whatever was necessary to thwart the unthinkable disaster of Trump2.

    Yes, unlikely, and the precise mechanism not at all clear, but a less than 1% chance in this unprecedented (because of Trump) US election cycle? No way.
    Yes, you should have backed her at 100 a year ago, and laid her at 10 today. As I believe you did.
    Not quite as nice as that. I laid her back a bit too early. I'm as surprised as anyone to see her as short as this in the absence of any news or hard rumour.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.

    I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.

    Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
    I can't see that passing The House, sadly.
    It’s such a shame. The lines are all ready to go. “Donald, you’re terminated”.
    It'd also allow Musky Baby to become president. In which case, he'd be saying vaccines are bad because they're just Bill Gates putting chips in your brain, whilst meanwhile mandating everyone get chips in their brains... ;)
  • isamisam Posts: 40,572

    isam said:

    1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.

    Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent

    2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.

    We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.

    3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.

    Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.

    It must end.

    .


    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1753066693566611753?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.

    My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
    Seems like he is spelling out exactly what he thinks, so not really a dog whistle
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196
    isam said:

    isam said:

    1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.

    Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent

    2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.

    We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.

    3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.

    Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.

    It must end.

    .


    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1753066693566611753?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.

    My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
    Seems like he is spelling out exactly what he thinks, so not really a dog whistle
    Jenrick has ambitions and I believe he is playing to the gallery.

    With the exception of Braverman who operates in similar circles, I can't think of a more odious politician than Jenrick.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,796
    edited February 1
    I'm sure this has been analysed to death but the latest Yougov poll shows Labour 44 Tories 23 and the Lanbur lead 27.

    Surely a mistake somewhere?

    Has just been corrected.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,505

    Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.

    I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.

    But that's because later preferences matter (for voters whose first preference choice is not elected).
    There’s also the issue with STV that to maximize the seats you win you need to minimize the number of candidates that stand to ensure you don’t accidentally knock your candidates out in the earlier rounds.

    Which is why most parties will only stand 2 or 3 candidates in a 5 seat constituency - and SF foolishly dis not stand enough candidates in many consistencies where they would otherwise have won a 3rd or 4th seat die to their late polling surge
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,278

    isam said:

    1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.

    Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent

    2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.

    We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.

    3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.

    Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.

    It must end.

    .


    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1753066693566611753?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.

    My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
    It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.

    Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 4,129
    Pulpstar said:

    biggles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think I have a proposal that will suit Donald Trump and the Democrats, and which would result in a much more interesting competition in November:

    Time to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

    This could be sold to Trump as allowing him to rule forever.
    And it would mean he could face off against his arch nemesis: Barack Obama.

    If Trump and the Democratic leadership were both in favour, surely this could be rushed through: It would require just a two thirds majority in both the Senate and the House. (Which could happen this week). And then it would need 38 legislatures to ratify it: which could certainly be done by end the of March.

    And then we have the fight we really all wanted: Barack vs the Donald.

    I have a similar, but different counter-proposal.

    Delete “natural born” from the citizenship requirements. Time for President Arnie to win 50 States.
    A certain South African could also run ;)

    2040 POTUS race - Elon Musk vs Jimmy Donaldson
    For some reason I read that as Elon Musk vs Jim Davidson. Which made me think - have they ever been seen in the same room together???
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,244

    isam said:

    isam said:

    https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48526-voting-intention-con-23-lab-44-30-31-jan-2024

    Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (30-31 Jan)

    Con: 23% (+3 from 23-24 Jan)
    Lab: 44% (-3)
    Lib Dem: 9% (+1)
    Reform UK: 12% (-1)
    Green: 6% (=)
    SNP: 3% (-1)

    This is the opposite movement to Savanta's poll published this morning.

    Very close to convergence though, which would confirm my overall impression that Labour's lead is stable at around 20%.
    But, how will Starmer do in the campaign?

    Remember: most people can barely recall a word from him yet.

    Sunak can't do what Corbyn did, and boom up out of nowhere, but I do wonder if Starmer could bore people into a derisory turnout.
    59.4% is the low record to beat, from 2001. I think Starmer would have to go to some lengths to bore the nation below that level.
    If anyone can, it’s him
    Also worth remembering that in 1997 turnout was down 6.4%, despite the apparent enthusiasm for Blair. If that pattern holds for the Conservatives losing office, then the starting point for turnout will be 60.9% (i.e. 6.4% down on the turnout in 2019). That's actually pretty close!

    Maybe a record low turnout is more likely than I thought? Any odds being offered on it?
    Haven’t seen… or looked!

    I’ve thought for a long while that it would be a very low turnout, but that’s just my hunch rather than any polling

    I suppose you could look at people saying DK/WNV in current polls and comparing to polls from previous elections

    Be careful with definitions on this. Turnout is usually defined as ballots cast / registered electorate x 100%. So the registration rate is a key part of this: if people don't register then that will artificially inflate the turnout.
    Just to add, the requirement for photo ID is also likely to reduce turnout. That's the purpose of it, after all.
    Don't worry – if you are over 70 and a confirmed Tory voter you can use an Oyster Card, today's newspaper, or any piece of junk mail that drops through your door.
    Good job they have closed all the ticket offices and Royal Mail only deign to deliver occassionally then.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 828
    Polling since the Court Case last week:-
    "Joe Biden leads Donald Trump by six points among registered voters – 50 to 44 per cent – up from a one-point lead in December, according to a new poll.

    The president is getting stronger among women voters in the Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday, leading his predecessor by 58 to 36 per cent. In December, Mr Biden’s lead was significantly smaller among women, 53 to 41 per cent"

    This tends to confirm the recent Pennsylvania polling which had him ahead there by 8.
    Perhaps the Republicans need a new candidate?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    DavidL said:

    What does Michelle Obama have offer other than name recognition? As far as I am aware she has never actually run anything. I just don't see it. I think that the only way she could get the nomination would be if there was some sort of coronation by which other possible contenders all supported her. Why would any of them do that?

    I agree with Mike that Pete Buttigieg would be a much better choice if Biden keels over. He is a superb debater and has a detailed knowledge of infrastructure and the economy from his current post.

    She's popular precisely because she has no interest in running for office.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,308
    edited February 1

    Even with STV in Ireland, the last election saw FF win 38 seats to SF 37, despite SF attracting 535,595 first-preference votes to 484,320 for FF.

    I think that's why, in the 1920's and 30's, STV was known as British Proportional Representation.

    But that's because later preferences matter (for voters whose first preference choice is not elected).
    In this particular case I think it was more that SF didn't stand enough candidates, but that's really incidental to the point I'm making.

    Which is that you have another voting system that doesn't simply anoint the recipient of most votes as the winner, this isn't a problem for most people, and it even applies to a voting system regarded as "proportional".

    So the situation with the electoral college in the US sometimes conflicting with the popular vote is very far from being unusual.

    Oh, by the way, you also get transfers of votes above the quota too.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,196

    isam said:

    1/ It is shameful that an MP has been intimidated out of office.

    Our political discourse should improve. But the far bigger problem for our liberal democracy is virulently anti-British Islamist extremism which is both deeply homophobic and antisemitic, and in this case violent

    2/ The ideology has to be confronted and comprehensively defeated.

    We cannot possibly hope to tackle extremism if we keep failing to diagnose it or, worse still, if when we do recognise it we pretend it is something else and reach for warm words.

    3/ Two years ago I wrote about how politicians failed to call out Islamist extremism behind Sir David Amess’s murder.

    Today the same thing is happening as again society turns a blind eye.

    It must end.

    .


    https://x.com/robertjenrick/status/1753066693566611753?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Whereas you and Jenrick are correct that MPs shouldn't be intimidated by political opponents and in David Ames's case summarily executed by a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim.

    My question however is why has Jenrick couched this in terms of potentially Islamophobic rhetoric? It's a dog whistle isn't it?
    It's not Islamophobic if backed by evidence and if not applying generalities (whether accurate or not) against individuals.

    Amess wasn't killed by "a psychopath who happened to be a Muslim"; the murderer's muslim identity was central to his actions and motivations.
    Aren't we heading into Corbyn territory here?The conflation of a creed to an action is unhelpful. There is nothing in the Koran that demanded Mr Ames was assassinated.

    Is Jenrick calling out the acts of terror or focusing on Islam? Perhaps the Mike Freer issue was initiated by some Labour scrote who has an issue with Gaza rather than an Islamic terrorist. I am uncomfortable with the rhetoric used, but I know why Jenrick is happy so to do.
This discussion has been closed.