On thread. Apart from Bristol Central (as tipped by Pip) and Corbyn's seat (covered in the discussion below), the other Labour seat that I would pick as being really in the balance is Birmingham Ladywood, where Shabana Mahmood is defending against Yakoob the Independent candidate.
Yakoob got 12% of the vote running on a Gaza ticket in the West Midlands Mayoral election and 20% in Birmingham, a vote almost entirely gathered from the Muslim electorate. The Muslim population in Birmingham Ladywood amounts to a higher share of the electorate than in any other seat in the West Midlands, that is why Yakoob has chosen that seat. Clearly Yakoob beat Parker in that constituency in the West Midlands election. And he must be running an extremely strong local ground game there to add to his strong social media presence, because I saw his ground game at first hand in the mayoral election - it was extremely strong and yet far harder to deliver because it was not concentrated in one constituency alone.
So I think Shabana Mahmood has her work cut out, which is a shame because I rate her. Hopefully her constituents do so to - 79% of the vote in 2019 was pretty impressive. Perhaps she'll prevail in the context of a general election as opposed to a mayoral election which might be regarded as the opportunity for a protest vote.
The current best odds in the constituency are Labour 1/10 on, Yakoob 6/1. When there is a joker in the pack with a proven ability to shake things up, no defending candidate should be very heavily odds on, so I think Yakoob offers very good value at 6/1. Having said that I won't be taking my own advice, no way am I going to try and make money backing a dodgy misogynist lawyer of that ilk.
It's this factor and the fact he is campaigning alongside him with mutual support and Labour's travails in Birmingham that makes the 10/1 on Jody McIntyre in Yardley value against Jess P. She should hold but it will be much closer I think than 10/1 suggests
No, the two constituencies are very different, the Muslim population doesn't dominate Yardley in the way it does Ladywood. I don't think there is any threat to Jess Phillips and I would take even money that she'll increase her 10k majority.
I think that's unlikely, especially as activists are not being spared from Yardley, but we will see. I think she holds but reduced majority and Jody is more a 5/1 shot. I'm prepared to look silly but we will see soon enough.
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Presumably because no one was recording provincial slang before that*, and etymologies are largely text based ?
* Are there early phonograph records of UK regional dialect which go back much before WWII ? Early BBC radio archives ? Some early US dialect recordings exist in that manner but quite a bit of it was because of music recording projects,
I think it will go back a long way. There are folk song recordings from around the turn of the 20C or earlier. *
I see no reason why the same type of people who were going around taking photographs (eg Francis Frith) wouldn't be doing the same with photographs making sounds recordings, either professionally or in the amateur historian tradition.
I'd expect some in, for example, the Mass Observation Project from WWII. I have a copy of "Nella Last's War" somewhere in the bookcases.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
I don't think you can, really. As you say, well into three figures, worth a punt as a trading bet; and down at 25/1 a lay. Anything in between is just terra incognita.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
David Miliband has been pictured campaigning for Labour in a marginal Tory seat, in a move that will prompt speculation about a future role in the party
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Presumably because no one was recording provincial slang before that*, and etymologies are largely text based ?
* Are there early phonograph records of UK regional dialect which go back much before WWII ? Early BBC radio archives ? Some early US dialect recordings exist in that manner but quite a bit of it was because of music recording projects,
Well, Partridge's dictionary dates from before WW2.
And there were many regional studies in the C19. The various forms of Scots of course, but also area dialects, such as the likes of William Barnes in Dorset. Though I'm not sure if urban demotic got the same attention.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Twenty weeks now until polling day in the US. Nine weeks until the Democratic convention.
Not long until people will have to accept that Biden is the nominee, for good or ill.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Twenty weeks now until polling day in the US. Nine weeks until the Democratic convention.
Not long until people will have to accept that Biden is the nominee, for good or ill.
I hope that gives him that small bounce he needs in the polls.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Presumably because no one was recording provincial slang before that*, and etymologies are largely text based ?
* Are there early phonograph records of UK regional dialect which go back much before WWII ? Early BBC radio archives ? Some early US dialect recordings exist in that manner but quite a bit of it was because of music recording projects,
I think it will go back a long way. There are folk song recordings from around the turn of the 20C or earlier. *
I see no reason why the same type of people who were going around taking photographs (eg Francis Frith) wouldn't be doing the same with photographs making sounds recordings, either professionally or in the amateur historian tradition.
I'd expect some in, for example, the Mass Observation Project from WWII. I have a copy of "Nella Last's War" somewhere in the bookcases.
But way more people had access to photography - particularly portable equipment - than recording devices. And are there any easily searchable archives ?
I've followed Edmund in Tokyo's steer and I've finally backed Biden for POTUS at 3.15. I've also got a small bet on Harris at 70.0. If Biden is to be replaced it will surely be by the Vice President - the person who ranks first in the presidential line of succession.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
The key point there is the 90-95%, and I think more like 95%.
David Miliband has been pictured campaigning for Labour in a marginal Tory seat, in a move that will prompt speculation about a future role in the party
Why is more not being made of Labour's plan to shut down UK oil and gas?
Must be one of the few highly productive industries left in the UK? And would mean less energy security. Madness.
As one of the metropolitan elite cabal who run these things we have decided to keep it under wraps until after the election, whilst simultaneously purchasing copious amounts of shares in MontgomerieBurnsNukesInc. Smithers will be the next Energy Secretary.
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Presumably because no one was recording provincial slang before that*, and etymologies are largely text based ?
* Are there early phonograph records of UK regional dialect which go back much before WWII ? Early BBC radio archives ? Some early US dialect recordings exist in that manner but quite a bit of it was because of music recording projects,
I think it will go back a long way. There are folk song recordings from around the turn of the 20C or earlier. *
I see no reason why the same type of people who were going around taking photographs (eg Francis Frith) wouldn't be doing the same with photographs making sounds recordings, either professionally or in the amateur historian tradition.
I'd expect some in, for example, the Mass Observation Project from WWII. I have a copy of "Nella Last's War" somewhere in the bookcases.
But way more people had access to photography - particularly portable equipment - than recording devices. And are there any easily searchable archives ?
Francis Frith started in 1860, when access to photography was far rarer - so probably decent comparison.
So I think there would have been the equivalent of amateur scientist vicars and nobility, with time on their hands, quite early.
Cecil James Sharp (~1859-1924) - who transcribed folk songs from 1860, experimented with phonograph in ~1910-1920 but stopped for portability and 'it will intimidate them' reasons. Noted in Wiki bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Sharp
I think a bit of sratching around in library and Uni collections will find early recordings, and perhaps some online through lottery funding.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
The other point, of course, is that if you've a significant bet on Biden, then long odds on the most plausible Democratic replacements* represent a decent hedge for that 5/10% chance that it goes a cropper. It's also the reason that up until now I've preferred to lay Trump rather than back Biden directly - though over 2/1 is now pretty generous odds.
*Gavin Newsom is the elephant (or rather, donkey) in the room.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Presumably because no one was recording provincial slang before that*, and etymologies are largely text based ?
* Are there early phonograph records of UK regional dialect which go back much before WWII ? Early BBC radio archives ? Some early US dialect recordings exist in that manner but quite a bit of it was because of music recording projects,
I think it will go back a long way. There are folk song recordings from around the turn of the 20C or earlier. *
I see no reason why the same type of people who were going around taking photographs (eg Francis Frith) wouldn't be doing the same with photographs making sounds recordings, either professionally or in the amateur historian tradition.
I'd expect some in, for example, the Mass Observation Project from WWII. I have a copy of "Nella Last's War" somewhere in the bookcases.
But way more people had access to photography - particularly portable equipment - than recording devices. And are there any easily searchable archives ?
Francis Frith started in 1860, when access to photography was far rarer - so probably decent comparison.
So I think there would have been the equivalent of amateur scientist vicars and nobility, with time on their hands, quite early.
Cecil James Sharp (~1859-1924) - who transcribed folk songs from 1860, experimented with phonograph in ~1910-1920 but stopped for portability and 'it will intimidate them' reasons. Noted in Wiki bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Sharp
I think a bit of sratching around in library and Uni collections will find early recordings, and perhaps some online through lottery funding.
The wiki page on Sharp provides other caveats - note again the primacy of text: ..Harker's contention that much of the material collected by Sharp and others had its origins in commercial print is now widely accepted, however, and Sharp's narrow definition of what constituted "folk song" has been broadened considerably in more recent scholarship...
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
V) there is a queue of people behind Harris, if she didn’t get it for some reason. Michelle would mean jumping that queue.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
One of the reasons why tactical voting is consistently overrated and often falls short of expectations is that the information available for people to use to decide to make tactical voting choices is poor, and often seems designed to confuse the issue.
This thought is prompted by the recommendation by getvoting.org to vote Labour in Exmouth and Exeter East.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
I'm with you, but as always whipping up fear against a small and misunderstood minority pays electoral dividends.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
David Miliband has been pictured campaigning for Labour in a marginal Tory seat, in a move that will prompt speculation about a future role in the party
Why? He buggered off when it was hard. Those aren't the people you recruit. Those are the people you don't.
Why so prescriptive ?
Given the lack of ministerial experience in the Labour team, I would have thought he'd be of some use. And being almost 60, isn't going to be any sort of competition for Labour's ambitious shadow ministers.
He's a diminished figure compared to his brother, whose standing has grown since his electoral humiliation as leader, but is he completely useless to Labour ?
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
I'm with you, but as always whipping up fear against a small and misunderstood minority pays electoral dividends.
One of the reasons why tactical voting is consistently overrated and often falls short of expectations is that the information available for people to use to decide to make tactical voting choices is poor, and often seems designed to confuse the issue.
This thought is prompted by the recommendation by getvoting.org to vote Labour in Exmouth and Exeter East.
Done solely off the back of an MRP, of course. They do pay attention to local factors in some places, but evidently their information is far from complete.
Sir Stephen Timms and half a dozen activists (including a couple of Newham Councillors) at their usual spot in East Ham High Street near the fish and chip shop and Sainsburys. Timms looks visibly older and I'm slightly surprised he decided to put himself up for another term - there will be a right bunfight (no buns) when he retires or whatever.
East Ham has been mooted as a seat for Sadiq Khan or perhaps for the local Mayor Roksana Fiaz.
Plenty of people coming up to say hello, others looking a bit confused but I'm sure Timms will be returned more than comfortably though I suspect his wafer thin majority of 33,000 will be trimmed further.
In even greater election excitement, two local Hindu owned businesses are sporting posters for Anand Kumar (one of the Independents).
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
I don't think you can, really. As you say, well into three figures, worth a punt as a trading bet; and down at 25/1 a lay. Anything in between is just terra incognita.
Pretty much yes. I'm just pushing back a bit at this 'mug' and 'lol' thing.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
Trump2 is likely! Quite what that might mean seems opaque. On his first go at the Presidency pretty much everyone was digging shelters. It turned out he just loafed about a bit.
Does he regret his indolence? Will he now do anything other than tell everyone how great he is? I doubt it, but if he does act it'll be finding a way for a third term.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
1) Inertia 2) lack of a prime replacement - Harris often polls worse than Biden. 3) displacing a sitting president, who wants to run, is pretty much unprecedented. 4) Biden is your classic alliance building politician. He has a big coalition in the party.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
The reason Biden is still in situ is that the Democratic Party are not willing to think the unthinkable. This is also why H Clinton was the nominee in 2016, despite her atrocious negative ratings with independent voters.
It's why Harris will be the nominee if, for whatever reason at this late stage, Biden is not the nominee.
You've been consistently very resistant to accepting the obvious conclusion that 2024 will be a rerun of 2020, and you're still looking for reasons to avoid it.
You did well with predicting how the market would move by backing M Obama at long odds, but I think your instincts about what will actually happen are still very wrong.
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Presumably because no one was recording provincial slang before that*, and etymologies are largely text based ?
* Are there early phonograph records of UK regional dialect which go back much before WWII ? Early BBC radio archives ? Some early US dialect recordings exist in that manner but quite a bit of it was because of music recording projects,
I think it will go back a long way. There are folk song recordings from around the turn of the 20C or earlier. *
I see no reason why the same type of people who were going around taking photographs (eg Francis Frith) wouldn't be doing the same with photographs making sounds recordings, either professionally or in the amateur historian tradition.
I'd expect some in, for example, the Mass Observation Project from WWII. I have a copy of "Nella Last's War" somewhere in the bookcases.
But way more people had access to photography - particularly portable equipment - than recording devices. And are there any easily searchable archives ?
Francis Frith started in 1860, when access to photography was far rarer - so probably decent comparison.
So I think there would have been the equivalent of amateur scientist vicars and nobility, with time on their hands, quite early.
Cecil James Sharp (~1859-1924) - who transcribed folk songs from 1860, experimented with phonograph in ~1910-1920 but stopped for portability and 'it will intimidate them' reasons. Noted in Wiki bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Sharp
I think a bit of sratching around in library and Uni collections will find early recordings, and perhaps some online through lottery funding.
The wiki page on Sharp provides other caveats - note again the primacy of text: ..Harker's contention that much of the material collected by Sharp and others had its origins in commercial print is now widely accepted, however, and Sharp's narrow definition of what constituted "folk song" has been broadened considerably in more recent scholarship...
My own memory of "marmelise" in 1950s Liverpool is that the word was practically always spoken in a cod-Irish accent, and with emphasis on the word's last syllabus. So: "Oi'll marmelOISE the sod who's eaten the last chip". Obvs, in most cases, it was your parents whose pronunciation you were mimicking.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
Trump2 is likely! Quite what that might mean seems opaque. On his first go at the Presidency pretty much everyone was digging shelters. It turned out he just loafed about a bit.
Does he regret his indolence? Will he now do anything other than tell everyone how great he is? I doubt it, but if he does act it'll be finding a way for a third term.
I think the issue (and the worry) is the ultras he would let loose in the federal government. Working Towards The Trump…..
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Presumably because no one was recording provincial slang before that*, and etymologies are largely text based ?
* Are there early phonograph records of UK regional dialect which go back much before WWII ? Early BBC radio archives ? Some early US dialect recordings exist in that manner but quite a bit of it was because of music recording projects,
I think it will go back a long way. There are folk song recordings from around the turn of the 20C or earlier. *
I see no reason why the same type of people who were going around taking photographs (eg Francis Frith) wouldn't be doing the same with photographs making sounds recordings, either professionally or in the amateur historian tradition.
I'd expect some in, for example, the Mass Observation Project from WWII. I have a copy of "Nella Last's War" somewhere in the bookcases.
But way more people had access to photography - particularly portable equipment - than recording devices. And are there any easily searchable archives ?
Francis Frith started in 1860, when access to photography was far rarer - so probably decent comparison.
So I think there would have been the equivalent of amateur scientist vicars and nobility, with time on their hands, quite early.
Cecil James Sharp (~1859-1924) - who transcribed folk songs from 1860, experimented with phonograph in ~1910-1920 but stopped for portability and 'it will intimidate them' reasons. Noted in Wiki bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Sharp
I think a bit of sratching around in library and Uni collections will find early recordings, and perhaps some online through lottery funding.
The wiki page on Sharp provides other caveats - note again the primacy of text: ..Harker's contention that much of the material collected by Sharp and others had its origins in commercial print is now widely accepted, however, and Sharp's narrow definition of what constituted "folk song" has been broadened considerably in more recent scholarship...
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
Trump2 is likely! Quite what that might mean seems opaque. On his first go at the Presidency pretty much everyone was digging shelters. It turned out he just loafed about a bit.
Does he regret his indolence? Will he now do anything other than tell everyone how great he is? I doubt it, but if he does act it'll be finding a way for a third term.
I have a proposal I haven’t see anywhere else. Biden and the state governors all offer him free pardons for past crimes if he buggers off to Florida and just plays golf until he dies.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
As I noted in the last thread it's not like replacing a party leader in the UK; a party unseating its own sitting president isn't a few party leaders deciding his time's up - it would need a broad movement across all Democrats (and there's no sign of such consensus). And it's also pretty well impossible to do if you want to carry on governing the country at the same time.
The only way would have been Biden deciding to step down (which he arguably ought to have done - though that too is no easy decision). Unless he has a shock change of mind, or is incapacitated, that's pretty well it.
It's not really an interesting question why a fairly successful president wants to run for re-election, against an opponent they beat last time. It would be considerably more interesting if they didn't.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
1) Inertia 2) lack of a prime replacement - Harris often polls worse than Biden. 3) displacing a sitting president, who wants to run, is pretty much unprecedented. 4) Biden is your classic alliance building politician. He has a big coalition in the party.
Perhaps the latter is a bigger effect than we realise. Maybe he and his friends simply are the Democratic party.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
I think if Biden was unavailable and Michelle Obama was interested, the ONLY contenders at this point would be her and Harris. Had it been pre-primaries, certainly others would have come forward and some might have proved themselves over the campaign. But in a VP v First Lady snap contest right now, there just wouldn't be enough oxygen in the room for anyone else.
Although I agree the odds on Michelle Obama are way too short, and I personally believe her when she says she's not interested, I would just note that she has absolutely no option but to go full General Sherman on denial of interest. Even if there is a tiny "maybe" in her mind, it would be madness to articulate it and she knows it. It would just be such an explosive political story that she can't possibly hint at it.
It's not like Senator Sadcase or Governor Nobody floating the possibility he might one day seek higher office, to test the water - that happens all the time and isn't very exciting because it's exactly what a Governor or Senator might do. With Michelle Obama, it'd be such a huge story that "maybe" is impossible - she's either all in or all out.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
Trump2 is likely! Quite what that might mean seems opaque. On his first go at the Presidency pretty much everyone was digging shelters. It turned out he just loafed about a bit.
Does he regret his indolence? Will he now do anything other than tell everyone how great he is? I doubt it, but if he does act it'll be finding a way for a third term.
Yes, so if a Must Not Happen is a Likely To Happen that's an interesting situation.
"Necessity is the mother of invention" and all that.
But anyway, the prosaic is what usually transpires and in this case that means Joe runs and wins in November.
One of the reasons why tactical voting is consistently overrated and often falls short of expectations is that the information available for people to use to decide to make tactical voting choices is poor, and often seems designed to confuse the issue.
This thought is prompted by the recommendation by getvoting.org to vote Labour in Exmouth and Exeter East.
Done solely off the back of an MRP, of course. They do pay attention to local factors in some places, but evidently their information is far from complete.
Solely off the back of an MRP from a single firm.
The ironic thing about this is that tactical voting is trying to solve the problem of having multiple anti-Tory parties that are to the left of the Tories. But it has spawned multiple sets of tactical voting recommendations, recreating the same problem in a different form.
Everyone already knew who and what Trump is. The convinction might still have an impact if it makes him even more unstable in the campaign, but even then how will we tell the difference?
1st like Labour, but not as much as current polling tells you
I know what you mean, but we've all been expecting swingback for ages, and it hasn't happened yet and there are- at most- 17 days to go.
(And for the 1 in 6 or so who vote by post, voting day is approximately now.)
Yep and those people are likely to be older voters.
I do, however, need to point out we have seen some swing back - note BigG’s change of vote
True, though BigG is unusual, in the ways most of us here are.
Partly in following the ebb and flow so closely. But also in having a partisan loyalty that, when push comes to shove, takes an awful lot to overcome.
(Really hope I've phrased that in a way that doesn't cause offence.)
Just a shame we had to read months of his rubbish when it always would come down to doing whatever his wife told him to do, with exactly the same trajectory and outcome as in 2019.
But I agree it's a straw in the wind and the betting value is surely in the Tory holds right now.
The whole "I had a conversation with my wife" thing is entirely him hiding behind her skirts to justify his reversion to the rut. It's his way of taking offence at any criticism by pretending that they're somehow attacking his wife. He's hair-trigger touchy these days. He's accused two different people of personal attacks in recent days when they were simply disagreeing with him or probing something he was saying that didn't sound right. But that's what happens when you adopt a position you yourself have spent months attacking. You're bound to be touchy.
Still, plenty of time for him to change his mind again and vote for Plaid Cymru and the future glory of an independent Wales. Cymru am byth!
Time to leave Big_G alone, I think.
I was happy to gently take the piss when he announced his 'shock' decision, but it's really unfair to continue attacking a single PBer for what isn't a particularly outlandish decision. He understandably touchy if everyone continues piling on.
I got thinking about it because of his super-sensitive touchiness about things that were utterly unrelated to his vote volte-face. It was very weird so I got thinking about what must be going on in his head. Wallowing in victimhood when other people were very gently debating things like drones is a kind of control drama. It's a way of silencing other people by making any kind of disagreement haram.
G can vote however he likes. Like others, I never believed him about switching and found his inevitable u-turn simply amusing. But since then he's been excessively whiny about, frankly, nothing at all. Example: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4838775#Comment_4838775 and of course the nonsense about showering that successfully got him out of an awkward spot when he was talking out of his hat about drones.
That kind of grievance-mongering doesn't help debate, and indulging it just makes it worse. If HYUFD's comment really was "amazingly disrespectful" to him and his wife then what hope is there for any political conversations at all?
Point of order
Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath, it is a fact
The drone issue in Wales is widely reported here and has not be denied by the Welsh government who are committed to increasing council tax bands, a policy I favour
Expanding on Dewsbury & Batley, here are the local results from May, with changes expressed from the 2023 local:
Ind 49.2 (+47.9) Lab 23.3 (-30.9) Con 12.4 (-19.5) Green 8.1 (+1.7) LD 7.0 (+0.8)
The Independent vote can be uniformly regarded as coming from Labour's left and the terrifying thing is that Ind failed to stand in one of the five full wards - this could easily have been 60/20. That ward also account for most of the slight uplift in LD and Green votes.
Turnout rose by around 7% overall.
Also note that a lot of the Conservative vote, which does seem to also have a Muslim element, also swung Independent.
Effectively Labour need to use the fact it is a general election, that it will be higher turnout, to pull back something like a 20% swing from a local election that itself was fought on international issues.
That doesn't look easy to me.
EDIT: I suppose the counter point might come from apportioning the Birmingham vote from the WM Mayoral vote between constituencies - that is possibly a better model for how Labour might hold up with wider things at stake.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
The reason Biden is still in situ is that the Democratic Party are not willing to think the unthinkable. This is also why H Clinton was the nominee in 2016, despite her atrocious negative ratings with independent voters.
It's why Harris will be the nominee if, for whatever reason at this late stage, Biden is not the nominee.
You've been consistently very resistant to accepting the obvious conclusion that 2024 will be a rerun of 2020, and you're still looking for reasons to avoid it.
You did well with predicting how the market would move by backing M Obama at long odds, but I think your instincts about what will actually happen are still very wrong.
There is no "the Democratic Party" which makes such a decision. There is a contest for the nomination, which is decided by a huge number of individual voters, and it's exceedingly difficult to oust a sitting president.
Everyone already knew who and what Trump is. The convinction might still have an impact if it makes him even more unstable in the campaign, but even then how will we tell the difference?
I think the issue is likely to be that if the top line most people take from the case is “he paid Stormy Daniels to shut up” then a lot of them will conclude “so what”. (I know that’s not the case but we’re talking about perceptions).
I suspect he needs to be found guilty of someone that caused “real” harm to change minds. His supporters know he’s a liar and a chancer. They love him for it.
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Presumably because no one was recording provincial slang before that*, and etymologies are largely text based ?
* Are there early phonograph records of UK regional dialect which go back much before WWII ? Early BBC radio archives ? Some early US dialect recordings exist in that manner but quite a bit of it was because of music recording projects,
I think it will go back a long way. There are folk song recordings from around the turn of the 20C or earlier. *
I see no reason why the same type of people who were going around taking photographs (eg Francis Frith) wouldn't be doing the same with photographs making sounds recordings, either professionally or in the amateur historian tradition.
I'd expect some in, for example, the Mass Observation Project from WWII. I have a copy of "Nella Last's War" somewhere in the bookcases.
But way more people had access to photography - particularly portable equipment - than recording devices. And are there any easily searchable archives ?
Francis Frith started in 1860, when access to photography was far rarer - so probably decent comparison.
So I think there would have been the equivalent of amateur scientist vicars and nobility, with time on their hands, quite early.
Cecil James Sharp (~1859-1924) - who transcribed folk songs from 1860, experimented with phonograph in ~1910-1920 but stopped for portability and 'it will intimidate them' reasons. Noted in Wiki bio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Sharp
I think a bit of sratching around in library and Uni collections will find early recordings, and perhaps some online through lottery funding.
The wiki page on Sharp provides other caveats - note again the primacy of text: ..Harker's contention that much of the material collected by Sharp and others had its origins in commercial print is now widely accepted, however, and Sharp's narrow definition of what constituted "folk song" has been broadened considerably in more recent scholarship...
...Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath...
If it helps, you can get walk-in showers with seats in them and the council will chip in with things like rails. I have disabled rellies and they get stuff like that. Although I don't know if you already have them.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
I agree your general point (re intuition vs analysis) but that's a bum rap on my efforts there. Ok it's presented in a quirky way but it was totally serious. It sets out the reasons why I thought MO was overpriced at 100 (and it turns out she was). Not all of the shortening of her price since then is MAGA money and conspiracy thinking. Some of it is based on the factors I described.
For her to have a chance would require both Biden to step aside and a number of people to remove their hats from the ring. They would litterally have to hand over their political coalitions to her. That’s West Wing stuff.
Well I think everyone agrees the current 20s is too short. But Trump2 is unthinkable - and to stop the unthinkable you might have to consider the normally unthinkable. Hence why the 100+ available a while ago was imo value.
The reason Biden is still in situ is that the Democratic Party are not willing to think the unthinkable. This is also why H Clinton was the nominee in 2016, despite her atrocious negative ratings with independent voters.
It's why Harris will be the nominee if, for whatever reason at this late stage, Biden is not the nominee.
You've been consistently very resistant to accepting the obvious conclusion that 2024 will be a rerun of 2020, and you're still looking for reasons to avoid it.
You did well with predicting how the market would move by backing M Obama at long odds, but I think your instincts about what will actually happen are still very wrong.
There is no "the Democratic Party" which makes such a decision. There is a contest for the nomination, which is decided by a huge number of individual voters, and it's exceedingly difficult to oust a sitting president.
I was using "the Democratic Party" as shorthand for the gestalt entity. And I think that's fine when drawing parallels between what is happening now, what happened in 2016, and what would be likely to happen if Biden wasn't the 2024 nominee (because of death, incapacitation, or decision to retire).
Everyone already knew who and what Trump is. The convinction might still have an impact if it makes him even more unstable in the campaign, but even then how will we tell the difference?
I think the issue is likely to be that if the top line most people take from the case is “he paid Stormy Daniels to shut up” then a lot of them will conclude “so what”. (I know that’s not the case but we’re talking about perceptions).
I suspect he needs to be found guilty of someone that caused “real” harm to change minds. His supporters know he’s a liar and a chancer. They love him for it.
I mean lets say he gets found guilty of electoral fraud - its not going to make any difference either. Most MAGAs applaud him for it and think Biden et al are worse for electoral fraud. For any independents who want to make an objective opinion on it, that info has been in the public domain for years, and they have made their mind up and enough either agree with him or don't consider stealing an election important enough.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
As I noted in the last thread it's not like replacing a party leader in the UK; a party unseating its own sitting president isn't a few party leaders deciding his time's up - it would need a broad movement across all Democrats (and there's no sign of such consensus). And it's also pretty well impossible to do if you want to carry on governing the country at the same time.
The only way would have been Biden deciding to step down (which he arguably ought to have done - though that too is no easy decision). Unless he has a shock change of mind, or is incapacitated, that's pretty well it.
It's not really an interesting question why a fairly successful president wants to run for re-election, against an opponent they beat last time. It would be considerably more interesting if they didn't.
The other thing about this is: Say he decided not to run at this point. What's the story? He's incapable of running for president, but for the next 8 months he remains capable of *being* president? It doesn't make sense. What if something happens and they someone to do some presidenting?
If were to decide he couldn't make it to the election, the move would be to stand down *as president*. Then you've got a new president, Kamala Harris, and she is obviously the candidate.
Everyone already knew who and what Trump is. The convinction might still have an impact if it makes him even more unstable in the campaign, but even then how will we tell the difference?
I think the issue is likely to be that if the top line most people take from the case is “he paid Stormy Daniels to shut up” then a lot of them will conclude “so what”. (I know that’s not the case but we’re talking about perceptions).
I suspect he needs to be found guilty of someone that caused “real” harm to change minds. His supporters know he’s a liar and a chancer. They love him for it.
Everyone already knew who and what Trump is. The convinction might still have an impact if it makes him even more unstable in the campaign, but even then how will we tell the difference?
I think the issue is likely to be that if the top line most people take from the case is “he paid Stormy Daniels to shut up” then a lot of them will conclude “so what”. (I know that’s not the case but we’re talking about perceptions).
I suspect he needs to be found guilty of someone that caused “real” harm to change minds. His supporters know he’s a liar and a chancer. They love him for it.
I mean lets say he gets found guilty of electoral fraud - its not going to make any difference either. Most MAGAs applaud him for it and think Biden et al are worse for electoral fraud. For any independents who want to make an objective opinion on it, that info has been in the public domain for years, and they have made their mind up and enough either agree with him or don't consider stealing an election important enough.
The info is in the public domain, but what people see of the info is very dependent on what media they consume. Within right-wing bubbles, they get a very different picture of reality. If Fox News, say, actually reported on one of Trump’s trials in a vaguely neutral way, his support would dive.
Everyone already knew who and what Trump is. The convinction might still have an impact if it makes him even more unstable in the campaign, but even then how will we tell the difference?
I think the issue is likely to be that if the top line most people take from the case is “he paid Stormy Daniels to shut up” then a lot of them will conclude “so what”. (I know that’s not the case but we’re talking about perceptions).
I suspect he needs to be found guilty of someone that caused “real” harm to change minds. His supporters know he’s a liar and a chancer. They love him for it.
I mean lets say he gets found guilty of electoral fraud - its not going to make any difference either. Most MAGAs applaud him for it and think Biden et al are worse for electoral fraud. For any independents who want to make an objective opinion on it, that info has been in the public domain for years, and they have made their mind up and enough either agree with him or don't consider stealing an election important enough.
The info is in the public domain, but what people see of the info is very dependent on what media they consume. Within right-wing bubbles, they get a very different picture of reality. If Fox News, say, actually reported on one of Trump’s trials in a vaguely neutral way, his support would dive.
Of course, but they will continue to watch Fox News, and increasingly social media more extreme and fictional than Fox News, so thats where we are.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
One of the problems trans people in the UK face is - rather similar to everyone else on the NHS - enormous wait times.
AIUI, the average time from being referred by your GP for gender issues to a specialist clinic is about 5 years, so a 5 year wait time before you can even receive a diagnosis, let alone be put on hormone therapy. There will then be a further 5 or more year wait before a trans person reaches the top of the wait list for gender affirming surgery, meaning the whole process, on the NHS, takes 10 years. Which, for people whose gender identity is incongruent to their biological bodies, is a bloody long time to be in pain.
As a result, most have to pay to go private, with many being forced into sex work in order to pay for it. Which is one of the reasons why trans women are far, far, far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the perpetrators of it.
Furthermore, there is likely to be a very long period of time - up to ten years from initial consultation to final operation - where some people will regard them as 'a man in a dress', others as 'a transitioning person', others as 'a woman who has not yet had gender confirmation surgery' and - if you're a hardcore TERF - 'a man in a dress, even after ten years of hormone therapy and surgical removal of the penis'.
So unfortunately there is a whole range of ways in which trans people can be discriminated against during and even after their transition. I suspect most trans people, if they could magically walk into a clinic tomorrow, and have their body remade to align with their own internal gender, would do it, at the push of a button. The reality is it's a long medical process that can take ten years or more when using the NHS. And for most it is that "where in the ten years during the process do you start considering them a 'real' woman. Some people say it's on day 1. Others will say never. Most will be somewhere in between.
But it is not as clear cut as it seems, and all too easy for politicians to make a name for themselves stirring up hate against a bunch of people who really just want to be left alone to live their lives, and not be discriminated against.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
V) there is a queue of people behind Harris, if she didn’t get it for some reason. Michelle would mean jumping that queue.
Yes. But the thesis here is the swap is done in order to stop the horror that would be Trump2, so popularity overrides place in any queue.
All agree it's unlikely but HOW unlikely? For me, in these craziest of times, with Trump2 becoming more real than hypothetical, it's not a fantastical impossibility.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
In Leicester East the LD Candidate is Zuffar Haq. He is a local councillor, very well known, a local Muslim and a passionate supporter of the NHS. With a split vote he is worth a flutter at 100-1. He is fighting a vigorous campaign.
I'm always very suspicious when a candidate is tipped at 100-1 with candidates named and an election just days away. If that was coming through on the ground, that kind of insane value would be snapped up by campaigners involved in the seat (including opponents) and would swiftly disappear.
Fine when it's about who will be President or PM in a few years - it's all theories and there is lots of time for surprises. But not when doors are being knocked on and there actually is data that some people at least have.
They got 5.7% last time and lost deposits in 17 and 15, there is no means by which they surpass Labour and the indies and Con this time. 100/1 is spot on I'd say.
Fair point, but the 100-1 is ludicrous. In the Evington Ward of this constituency he topped the poll last year with 1891 votes seeing off 2 Conservative candidates. The 2 former labour MPs standing as independents must split the vote as Keith Vaz still has a lot of local supporters. If I had been advising the bookies I would have priced him at about 8-1. So there must be value at 100-1.
I just don't see it. It's too much of a climb. 8/1 is way too short, Con, Lab and the indies cover 90% of the 2019 vote (Reform get another 2.5%) you don't break down that in one go and the 90% will be switching around within themselves not jumping to an entirely different party. The LDs simply won't be heard in that maelstrom. In my opinion of course
We shall see - we certainly won’t see Zuffar and his bands of supporters queuing at the local bookies as they are mostly Muslims!
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
1) Inertia 2) lack of a prime replacement - Harris often polls worse than Biden. 3) displacing a sitting president, who wants to run, is pretty much unprecedented. 4) Biden is your classic alliance building politician. He has a big coalition in the party.
Perhaps the latter is a bigger effect than we realise. Maybe he and his friends simply are the Democratic party.
More that he has spent decades building an alliance with every group he can. One reason he was picked as VP.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
I still expect him to win in November personally.
I like Harris but she's not popular over there apparently.
Mind you, the betting does not reflect this. Her implied chance if she is the nominee is well over 50%.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
Where would you price her though (for the Nom) if you had to? For me it's more of a Very Unlikely than a Not Happening.
Biden is 90-95% for me. So lets be generous and say that leaves 10%. Harris has to be at least half of that. Which leaves 5% for the rest, maybe 10-20 plausible candidates, of which she would be the most popular but the least likely to be interested. Being generous again I could get to average of 10 plausible candidates for 0.5% and 200/1.
Makes sense. I'd be a bit shorter for Michelle. Reason: If the driver of the change is acute fear of Trump2 there's logic in picking somebody with very strong ratings.
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Biden is just a dead man walking. Quite why the Democratic Party wish to prop him up - almost literally - and fail to offer something new is an interesting question.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
As I noted in the last thread it's not like replacing a party leader in the UK; a party unseating its own sitting president isn't a few party leaders deciding his time's up - it would need a broad movement across all Democrats (and there's no sign of such consensus). And it's also pretty well impossible to do if you want to carry on governing the country at the same time.
The only way would have been Biden deciding to step down (which he arguably ought to have done - though that too is no easy decision). Unless he has a shock change of mind, or is incapacitated, that's pretty well it.
It's not really an interesting question why a fairly successful president wants to run for re-election, against an opponent they beat last time. It would be considerably more interesting if they didn't.
The other thing about this is: Say he decided not to run at this point. What's the story? He's incapable of running for president, but for the next 8 months he remains capable of *being* president? It doesn't make sense. What if something happens and they someone to do some presidenting?
If were to decide he couldn't make it to the election, the move would be to stand down *as president*. Then you've got a new president, Kamala Harris, and she is obviously the candidate.
I think most of the scenarios where he doesn't run at this stage would, as you say, involve him standing down for his VP now, making her tough to see past as nominee.
However, the obvious scenario where that isn't the case is something like a diagnosis of a serious, life limiting condition. That would potentially leave him able to do the job now, but make it unrealistic for any sustained period after January.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
One of the problems trans people in the UK face is - rather similar to everyone else on the NHS - enormous wait times.
AIUI, the average time from being referred by your GP for gender issues to a specialist clinic is about 5 years, so a 5 year wait time before you can even receive a diagnosis, let alone be put on hormone therapy. There will then be a further 5 or more year wait before a trans person reaches the top of the wait list for gender affirming surgery, meaning the whole process, on the NHS, takes 10 years. Which, for people whose gender identity is incongruent to their biological bodies, is a bloody long time to be in pain.
As a result, most have to pay to go private, with many being forced into sex work in order to pay for it. Which is one of the reasons why trans women are far, far, far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the perpetrators of it.
Furthermore, there is likely to be a very long period of time - up to ten years from initial consultation to final operation - where some people will regard them as 'a man in a dress', others as 'a transitioning person', others as 'a woman who has not yet had gender confirmation surgery' and - if you're a hardcore TERF - 'a man in a dress, even after ten years of hormone therapy and surgical removal of the penis'.
So unfortunately there is a whole range of ways in which trans people can be discriminated against during and even after their transition. I suspect most trans people, if they could magically walk into a clinic tomorrow, and have their body remade to align with their own internal gender, would do it, at the push of a button. The reality is it's a long medical process that can take ten years or more when using the NHS. And for most it is that "where in the ten years during the process do you start considering them a 'real' woman. Some people say it's on day 1. Others will say never. Most will be somewhere in between.
But it is not as clear cut as it seems, and all too easy for politicians to make a name for themselves stirring up hate against a bunch of people who really just want to be left alone to live their lives, and not be discriminated against.
People overcomplicate it:
1) Address people with the title they wish to be addressed by. You might make a mistake but try your best and if you keep using the wrong title you’re a ####.
2) In a number of edge cases, people who have transitioned cannot have the same rights as natural born men, and in particular women. Not something to revel in and we should minimise those cases.
3) Medical treatment is a question for clinicians. This can’t be the spending priority, but the waiting times you note are not ok.
I think 95% of people can get behind something like that.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
They fall into the trap of thinking anyone stmpathetic is a racist deplorable and acting accordingly.
Just because in a country that already has high population density you are opposed to importing far more people than housing stocks, infrastructure and public services can cope with, dosent mean you are against brown people living in the country.
As with Brexit, the winners are the wealthy who get cheap labour, more breadth of cultural life in cities etc. The losers are artisans and low skilled workers who get eyewatering rents, wage suppression and about as much chance of successfully registering for an NHS dentist as the DUP have of winning West Belfast.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
Not just the BBC. Peston had an article yesterday linking support for Reform online with Bots from overseas. All reds under the bed stuff.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
That may or may not true, but we do know one thing - he won’t pick up many voters from their listeners. A waste of his own time as much as anything.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
They fall into the trap of thinking anyone stmpathetic is a racist deplorable and acting accordingly.
Just because in a country that already has high population density you are opposed to importing far more people than housing stocks, infrastructure and public services can cope with, dosent mean you are against brown people living in the country.
As with Brexit, the winners are the wealthy who get cheap labour, more breadth of cultural life in cities etc. The losers are artisans and low skilled workers who get eyewatering rents, wage suppression and about as much chance of successfully registering for an NHS dentist as the DUP have of winning West Belfast.
I am not sure that even private dentists can afford artisanal sourdough any more, let alone an NHS one.
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
"Tony Blair says 'a woman has a vagina and a man has a penis' as he takes aim at politicians in a 'muddle' over 'common sense' transgender issues in veiled swipe at Keir Starmer"
Trouble is, of course, that there are a small number of people to whom the gods who deal with genes has been particularly unkind and who therefore regard themselves as either women with penises or men with vaginas. In other words their brains, and some at least of their hormones, do not match their genitals. Once upon a time such people either kept their heads well down and lived their lives in various degrees of misery, or, if they were sufficiently wealthy, managed on a 'damn you, I don't care' basis towards the world. An attitude which, at least in the UK appears to have been easier for women than men. Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that? As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
One of the problems trans people in the UK face is - rather similar to everyone else on the NHS - enormous wait times.
AIUI, the average time from being referred by your GP for gender issues to a specialist clinic is about 5 years, so a 5 year wait time before you can even receive a diagnosis, let alone be put on hormone therapy. There will then be a further 5 or more year wait before a trans person reaches the top of the wait list for gender affirming surgery, meaning the whole process, on the NHS, takes 10 years. Which, for people whose gender identity is incongruent to their biological bodies, is a bloody long time to be in pain.
As a result, most have to pay to go private, with many being forced into sex work in order to pay for it. Which is one of the reasons why trans women are far, far, far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the perpetrators of it.
Furthermore, there is likely to be a very long period of time - up to ten years from initial consultation to final operation - where some people will regard them as 'a man in a dress', others as 'a transitioning person', others as 'a woman who has not yet had gender confirmation surgery' and - if you're a hardcore TERF - 'a man in a dress, even after ten years of hormone therapy and surgical removal of the penis'.
So unfortunately there is a whole range of ways in which trans people can be discriminated against during and even after their transition. I suspect most trans people, if they could magically walk into a clinic tomorrow, and have their body remade to align with their own internal gender, would do it, at the push of a button. The reality is it's a long medical process that can take ten years or more when using the NHS. And for most it is that "where in the ten years during the process do you start considering them a 'real' woman. Some people say it's on day 1. Others will say never. Most will be somewhere in between.
But it is not as clear cut as it seems, and all too easy for politicians to make a name for themselves stirring up hate against a bunch of people who really just want to be left alone to live their lives, and not be discriminated against.
Agree about the practical problems involved for the unfortunate folk trying to use the technologies which are now available. It’s very sad, and they deserve sympathy.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
Reform UK on polling is not a small party. They are a mid-sized party. I think the only party that can complain are the LibDems, and Reform UK do nearly always outpoll the LibDems.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
They fall into the trap of thinking anyone stmpathetic is a racist deplorable and acting accordingly.
Just because in a country that already has high population density you are opposed to importing far more people than housing stocks, infrastructure and public services can cope with, dosent mean you are against brown people living in the country.
As with Brexit, the winners are the wealthy who get cheap labour, more breadth of cultural life in cities etc. The losers are artisans and low skilled workers who get eyewatering rents, wage suppression and about as much chance of successfully registering for an NHS dentist as the DUP have of winning West Belfast.
I am a winner from Brexit and I don't get cheap labour.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
That may or may not true, but we do know one thing - he won’t pick up many voters from their listeners. A waste of his own time as much as anything.
But good for the Conservatives. It's giving hesitant Tory voters the excuse they all needed to come back home.
Farage at Reform manifesto launch says it would cut corporation tax from 25% to 20%. Healthcare workers would be exempt from basic income tax rate for three years
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
It's a f-ing disgrace in my opinion. Why are other small parties not getting this kind of daily exposure?
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
That may or may not true, but we do know one thing - he won’t pick up many voters from their listeners. A waste of his own time as much as anything.
But good for the Conservatives. It's giving hesitant Tory voters the excuse they all needed to come back home.
Some of them come back, sure. Whilst an equal number head off to reform.
The BBC are all over Farage and his campaign. He's been up front pretty much every day for a week. I think it's a sort of BBC project fear, but I'm sure that they've miscalculated.
I am planning to watch the results on ITV, but if Reform do badly, I will turn over to the BBC to watch the presenters’ faces. I would expect Kuenssberg to look like a melted wellie.
Farage at Reform manifesto launch says it would cut corporation tax from 25% to 20%. Healthcare workers would be exempt from basic income tax rate for three years
Everyone finds a Magic Money Tree when there's an election on...
Bad enough we had every manifesto finding a bigger amount of tax avoidance which can be easily stopped (but governments have ignored for the fun of it?), now we're just diving into pure fantasy.
Love to hear more detail on the 5% of all public spending they think can be cut with no harms at all. Or exactly why their policies will grow GDP by an extra 1-1.5% per year (i.e. doubling it at least).
Like, I'd love to believe they were right and everyone else was just stupid. But I simply don't believe economic management is that simple.
Comments
I see no reason why the same type of people who were going around taking photographs (eg Francis Frith) wouldn't be doing the same with photographs making sounds recordings, either professionally or in the amateur historian tradition.
I'd expect some in, for example, the Mass Observation Project from WWII. I have a copy of "Nella Last's War" somewhere in the bookcases.
*eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PxQ37K3rQs
As you say, well into three figures, worth a punt as a trading bet; and down at 25/1 a lay. Anything in between is just terra incognita.
And there were many regional studies in the C19. The various forms of Scots of course, but also area dialects, such as the likes of William Barnes in Dorset. Though I'm not sure if urban demotic got the same attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_Slang_and_Unconventional_English
Not long until people will have to accept that Biden is the nominee, for good or ill.
And are there any easily searchable archives ?
Mass Observation is an interesting one - but started in 1937.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-Observation
His current implied odds are about 80%.
So I think there would have been the equivalent of amateur scientist vicars and nobility, with time on their hands, quite early.
Cecil James Sharp (~1859-1924) - who transcribed folk songs from 1860, experimented with phonograph in ~1910-1920 but stopped for portability and 'it will intimidate them' reasons. Noted in Wiki bio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Sharp
I think a bit of sratching around in library and Uni collections will find early recordings, and perhaps some online through lottery funding.
It's also the reason that up until now I've preferred to lay Trump rather than back Biden directly - though over 2/1 is now pretty generous odds.
*Gavin Newsom is the elephant (or rather, donkey) in the room.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-queen-victorias-voice-98809025/
(In contrast, how many photographs of Victoria do we have ?)
The wiki page on Sharp provides other caveats - note again the primacy of text:
..Harker's contention that much of the material collected by Sharp and others had its origins in commercial print is now widely accepted, however, and Sharp's narrow definition of what constituted "folk song" has been broadened considerably in more recent scholarship...
But it's a long shot because (i) Biden is at least 90% as you say, (ii) as far as we know she wouldn't want it, (iii) Harris is in situe and certainly would want it, (iv) it's mid June now and there's no whiff of such a plan.
False precision but 50/1 for me.
Now we are, perhaps, more forgiving, and are prepared to make allowances.
The question is, how do we do that?
As an old man, I'm inclined to the view that, so long as they don't brighten the horses, I'm for live and let live.
Harris is the better and calmer choice.
This thought is prompted by the recommendation by getvoting.org to vote Labour in Exmouth and Exeter East.
https://www.getvoting.org/constituency/E14001232
Given the lack of ministerial experience in the Labour team, I would have thought he'd be of some use. And being almost 60, isn't going to be any sort of competition for Labour's ambitious shadow ministers.
He's a diminished figure compared to his brother, whose standing has grown since his electoral humiliation as leader, but is he completely useless to Labour ?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyxx243yr16o
Signs of panic in the Labour camp or perhaps not?
Sir Stephen Timms and half a dozen activists (including a couple of Newham Councillors) at their usual spot in East Ham High Street near the fish and chip shop and Sainsburys. Timms looks visibly older and I'm slightly surprised he decided to put himself up for another term - there will be a right bunfight (no buns) when he retires or whatever.
East Ham has been mooted as a seat for Sadiq Khan or perhaps for the local Mayor Roksana Fiaz.
Plenty of people coming up to say hello, others looking a bit confused but I'm sure Timms will be returned more than comfortably though I suspect his wafer thin majority of 33,000 will be trimmed further.
In even greater election excitement, two local Hindu owned businesses are sporting posters for Anand Kumar (one of the Independents).
These are crazy times in America.
There's the whole local economy around the uni
Does he regret his indolence? Will he now do anything other than tell everyone how great he is? I doubt it, but if he does act it'll be finding a way for a third term.
2) lack of a prime replacement - Harris often polls worse than Biden.
3) displacing a sitting president, who wants to run, is pretty much unprecedented.
4) Biden is your classic alliance building politician. He has a big coalition in the party.
It's why Harris will be the nominee if, for whatever reason at this late stage, Biden is not the nominee.
You've been consistently very resistant to accepting the obvious conclusion that 2024 will be a rerun of 2020, and you're still looking for reasons to avoid it.
You did well with predicting how the market would move by backing M Obama at long odds, but I think your instincts about what will actually happen are still very wrong.
https://youtu.be/ax3B4gRQNU4?si=2J6Mc3W3IUoF0f4Q
https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/trump-biden-polls
"Trump 45%
Biden 44%"
And it's also pretty well impossible to do if you want to carry on governing the country at the same time.
The only way would have been Biden deciding to step down (which he arguably ought to have done - though that too is no easy decision). Unless he has a shock change of mind, or is incapacitated, that's pretty well it.
It's not really an interesting question why a fairly successful president wants to run for re-election, against an opponent they beat last time. It would be considerably more interesting if they didn't.
Although I agree the odds on Michelle Obama are way too short, and I personally believe her when she says she's not interested, I would just note that she has absolutely no option but to go full General Sherman on denial of interest. Even if there is a tiny "maybe" in her mind, it would be madness to articulate it and she knows it. It would just be such an explosive political story that she can't possibly hint at it.
It's not like Senator Sadcase or Governor Nobody floating the possibility he might one day seek higher office, to test the water - that happens all the time and isn't very exciting because it's exactly what a Governor or Senator might do. With Michelle Obama, it'd be such a huge story that "maybe" is impossible - she's either all in or all out.
"Necessity is the mother of invention" and all that.
But anyway, the prosaic is what usually transpires and in this case that means Joe runs and wins in November.
🤞
The ironic thing about this is that tactical voting is trying to solve the problem of having multiple anti-Tory parties that are to the left of the Tories. But it has spawned multiple sets of tactical voting recommendations, recreating the same problem in a different form.
Since my recent health and mobility issues it was not nonsense when I said I cannot shower in the bath, it is a fact
The drone issue in Wales is widely reported here and has not be denied by the Welsh government who are committed to increasing council tax bands, a policy I favour
Ind 49.2 (+47.9)
Lab 23.3 (-30.9)
Con 12.4 (-19.5)
Green 8.1 (+1.7)
LD 7.0 (+0.8)
The Independent vote can be uniformly regarded as coming from Labour's left and the terrifying thing is that Ind failed to stand in one of the five full wards - this could easily have been 60/20. That ward also account for most of the slight uplift in LD and Green votes.
Turnout rose by around 7% overall.
Also note that a lot of the Conservative vote, which does seem to also have a Muslim element, also swung Independent.
Effectively Labour need to use the fact it is a general election, that it will be higher turnout, to pull back something like a 20% swing from a local election that itself was fought on international issues.
That doesn't look easy to me.
EDIT: I suppose the counter point might come from apportioning the Birmingham vote from the WM Mayoral vote between constituencies - that is possibly a better model for how Labour might hold up with wider things at stake.
There is a contest for the nomination, which is decided by a huge number of individual voters, and it's exceedingly difficult to oust a sitting president.
I suspect he needs to be found guilty of someone that caused “real” harm to change minds. His supporters know he’s a liar and a chancer. They love him for it.
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts
https://library.leeds.ac.uk/special-collections/collection/2571
I have heard them played on the radio, and regional accents were much stronger back then.
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-gets-good-sign-new-critical-battleground-states-poll-1910194
If were to decide he couldn't make it to the election, the move would be to stand down *as president*. Then you've got a new president, Kamala Harris, and she is obviously the candidate.
Apologies if upload not peermitted but from what I can make out one per day is.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1802629175079002496?t=ve1MEcxn8aM3y_bCaw_JsA&s=19
AIUI, the average time from being referred by your GP for gender issues to a specialist clinic is about 5 years, so a 5 year wait time before you can even receive a diagnosis, let alone be put on hormone therapy. There will then be a further 5 or more year wait before a trans person reaches the top of the wait list for gender affirming surgery, meaning the whole process, on the NHS, takes 10 years. Which, for people whose gender identity is incongruent to their biological bodies, is a bloody long time to be in pain.
As a result, most have to pay to go private, with many being forced into sex work in order to pay for it. Which is one of the reasons why trans women are far, far, far more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the perpetrators of it.
Furthermore, there is likely to be a very long period of time - up to ten years from initial consultation to final operation - where some people will regard them as 'a man in a dress', others as 'a transitioning person', others as 'a woman who has not yet had gender confirmation surgery' and - if you're a hardcore TERF - 'a man in a dress, even after ten years of hormone therapy and surgical removal of the penis'.
So unfortunately there is a whole range of ways in which trans people can be discriminated against during and even after their transition. I suspect most trans people, if they could magically walk into a clinic tomorrow, and have their body remade to align with their own internal gender, would do it, at the push of a button. The reality is it's a long medical process that can take ten years or more when using the NHS. And for most it is that "where in the ten years during the process do you start considering them a 'real' woman. Some people say it's on day 1. Others will say never. Most will be somewhere in between.
But it is not as clear cut as it seems, and all too easy for politicians to make a name for themselves stirring up hate against a bunch of people who really just want to be left alone to live their lives, and not be discriminated against.
All agree it's unlikely but HOW unlikely? For me, in these craziest of times, with Trump2 becoming more real than hypothetical, it's not a fantastical impossibility.
I'd lay it at 25, yes, but not at 75.
Farage is never off the Today programme this campaign.
I like Harris but she's not popular over there apparently.
Mind you, the betting does not reflect this. Her implied chance if she is the nominee is well over 50%.
However, the obvious scenario where that isn't the case is something like a diagnosis of a serious, life limiting condition. That would potentially leave him able to do the job now, but make it unrealistic for any sustained period after January.
1) Address people with the title they wish to be addressed by. You might make a mistake but try your best and if you keep using the wrong title you’re a ####.
2) In a number of edge cases, people who have transitioned cannot have the same rights as natural born men, and in particular women. Not something to revel in and we should minimise those cases.
3) Medical treatment is a question for clinicians. This can’t be the spending priority, but the waiting times you note are not ok.
I think 95% of people can get behind something like that.
Just because in a country that already has high population density you are opposed to importing far more people than housing stocks, infrastructure and public services can cope with, dosent mean you are against brown people living in the country.
As with Brexit, the winners are the wealthy who get cheap labour, more breadth of cultural life in cities etc. The losers are artisans and low skilled workers who get eyewatering rents, wage suppression and about as much chance of successfully registering for an NHS dentist as the DUP have of winning West Belfast.
Same with Mariana Spring's piece.
They get an embargoed copy so I think we can assume it's likely there's another crossover given there was one point in it last time with them.
Corbyn should win Islington North as an Independent
Bad enough we had every manifesto finding a bigger amount of tax avoidance which can be easily stopped (but governments have ignored for the fun of it?), now we're just diving into pure fantasy.
Love to hear more detail on the 5% of all public spending they think can be cut with no harms at all. Or exactly why their policies will grow GDP by an extra 1-1.5% per year (i.e. doubling it at least).
Like, I'd love to believe they were right and everyone else was just stupid. But I simply don't believe economic management is that simple.
Leaving the ECHR breaches the GFA , risks losing security co-operation with the EU .