Speedy Gillard did not enter office elected in her own right, which Hillary would have to in 2016. The bad blood of her feud with Rudd also hit her campaign, Hillary largely mended fences with Obama.
Speedy Well you could look at John Adams and John Quincy Adams too, as well as the Roosevelts, family influence strong in US presidential politics and Bobby Kennedy would likely have been elected president in 1968 had he not been assassinated. The Bush, Clinton and Kennedy brands are very powerful
Gillard was the most unpopular and incompetent PM in the history of Australia, she was going so bad she almost destroyed the ALP. Being a woman didn't save her, she did have a gender gap in favour of her with women but she had a bigger gender gap against her with men, that is the key. That is why having female leaders isn't an electoral panacea. I'll give you another example, Kim Campbell.
Ultimately, Christie is simply not going to win primaries in the South or in the more religious parts of the US, which makes him dead in the water.
Paul or Ryan can win those contests (as can Huckabee, although he is doomed in the general), and they are therefore the value plays. Cruz will not perform in the early states, and would be suicidal as a pick against Hillary (or anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren).
RCS1000 The way I see it Christie is still a contendor if he wins NH, and a Northeastern candidate normally does well there. Say Paul wins Iowa and Cruz SC, if Christie then wins Florida he becomes the one to beat
Even outside US family brand helpful, look at Trudeau likely to be next Canadian PM following in his father's footsteps. In France Hollande succeeded his ex wife as Socialist candidate, in Argentina Kirchner her husband.
Hollande doesn't count. There are many examples of hereditary PM's and Presidents, but far away between them in time and they usually end up in failure as they have nothing to offer but their surname. So your point actually favors my analysis of Hillary being booted out in 2020. And on that note, goodnight.
Speedy Hillary was married to the second most popular president of the last 50 years according to a recent poll, a ridiculous comparison. She is also far tougher and more experienced than Gillard or Campbell as a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.
Kim Campbell had a split rightwing due to the reform Party and was the incumbent PM at the fag end of an administration for which she took the flack
RCS1000 The way I see it Christie is still a contendor if he wins NH, and a Northeastern candidate normally does well there. Say Paul wins Iowa and Cruz SC, if Christie then wins Florida he becomes the one to beat
You've done a mistake in your calculations, Nevada not Florida is after South Carolina. I told you to check the new calendar. Huckabee is miles ahead in Iowa, Paul is leading in New Hampshire and Bush in South Carolina, no polls yet in Nevada but probably a Paul win.
RCS1000 The way I see it Christie is still a contendor if he wins NH, and a Northeastern candidate normally does well there. Say Paul wins Iowa and Cruz SC, if Christie then wins Florida he becomes the one to beat
But he will still get beaten in that (optimistic) scenario as he has no friends on the right of the party, and precious few on the left.
The original point of Obamacare was was to insure the uninsured. Surveys are fine, but the facts are better. I would be suspicious of that survey - of the 40+ unilateral changes Obama has made to the law since it passed, the vast majority were to delay or minimise aspects of its implementation.If it was that popular why would he do that? The last poll I saw 54% of the country wants this law repealed.
It provides insurance, but what it is not good is the access. My daughter was under Obamacare and had to have gall bladder surgery in the summer. Once she found someone who would accept Obamacare she ended up with a $4k deductible. My wife called her insurance coordinator to find out that the deductible under our plan was $150.
Deductibles and copays are much higher under Obamacare than regular insurance - they have to be or it doesn't work financially with the subsidies which are on premiums not deductibles and copays.
There's no such thing as "regular insurance". They vary enormously in cost and coverage. Many non-Obamacare plans had lifetime limits on them, for example. Obamacare plans come quite clearly in bronze, silver, gold and platinum. The bronze ones aren't great admittedly, but they're a damn sight better than the crap ones in the wild west that previously existed.
And as for the uninsured population, that has definitely fallen:
I have not had a lifetime cap on my health insurance since the mid 1980s.
Regular insurance - poor choice of words. I meant not Obamacare.
Actually, they don't vary enormously. Pretty much all health insurance these days - certainly in my part of the US - is the same bronze, silver etc as Obamacare has.
The difference is that non-Obamacare insurance doesn't subsidize premiums, so deductibles and copays are much lower.
'the crap ones in the wild west' - we had this discussion at my Rotary club a few weeks back. In the market targeted by Obamacare - the individual insurance market - to which most of my Rotary colleagues belonged, premiums were higher before Obamacare, but deductibles and copays were much lower. Overall they were about 25% cheaper than Obamacare. This is the first year of Obamacare, and early word is that premums will go up substantially next year. We'll find out if this is true next month.
We've all heard the horror stories of 300% premium increases in California etc. I just never met anyone who had experience of it.
I know quite a few people who have Obamacare and their experience is surprsingly uniform. Lower premius, higher copays and deductibles, and a very small network.
Speedy Rubbish From Pitt the Elder to Pitt the younger on families have had successful dynasties, the Kennedys for example, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR etc. Justin Trudeau likely to follow his father back to Canadian Premiership next year. On women leaders you conveniently ignored Indira Gandhi, herself from the Nehru dynasty, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and Golda Meir all of whom were successful and reelected
RCS1000 In a Christie v Paul v Cruz scenario he wins the establishment and the moderates and independents while the conservative vote is split, it will be a long battle, but he would sweep the North East, could well win Florida, the West coast and much of the Mid West too
Talking to a Tory activist last night and her feeling was that the defections were making party activists angry and more inclined to confront UKIP and campaign hard against them. I think the Tory leadership is smart enough to exploit this.
There's an irony here insofar as my suspicions are that Labour seats may be more vulnerable than Conservative ones.
Labour could be in the unenviable position of having to fight on four fronts; against the Tories in marginal middle class constituencies. Against the Lib Dems in core Labour seats lost to them, like Redcar and Burnley. Against The SNP in their Scottish heartlands and against UKIP in an undefined number of seats.
This makes messaging very difficult for them. There are likely to be mistakes.
Some interesting betting opportunities as a consequence.
Did someone mention Chris Christie? I thought his prospects had been obliterated months ago, due to the thing which happened which I hardly remember anyway but which showed that he wasn't in control of whatever it was that he should have been.
I am hoping that a loyal Conservative MP might be persuaded to defect to the UKIP and then defect back again to the Conservative Party, just to annoy UKIP.
Comments
Being a woman didn't save her, she did have a gender gap in favour of her with women but she had a bigger gender gap against her with men, that is the key. That is why having female leaders isn't an electoral panacea. I'll give you another example, Kim Campbell.
Paul or Ryan can win those contests (as can Huckabee, although he is doomed in the general), and they are therefore the value plays. Cruz will not perform in the early states, and would be suicidal as a pick against Hillary (or anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren).
There are many examples of hereditary PM's and Presidents, but far away between them in time and they usually end up in failure as they have nothing to offer but their surname.
So your point actually favors my analysis of Hillary being booted out in 2020.
And on that note, goodnight.
Kim Campbell had a split rightwing due to the reform Party and was the incumbent PM at the fag end of an administration for which she took the flack
I told you to check the new calendar.
Huckabee is miles ahead in Iowa, Paul is leading in New Hampshire and Bush in South Carolina, no polls yet in Nevada but probably a Paul win.
Goodnight.
Regular insurance - poor choice of words. I meant not Obamacare.
Actually, they don't vary enormously. Pretty much all health insurance these days - certainly in my part of the US - is the same bronze, silver etc as Obamacare has.
The difference is that non-Obamacare insurance doesn't subsidize premiums, so deductibles and copays are much lower.
'the crap ones in the wild west' - we had this discussion at my Rotary club a few weeks back. In the market targeted by Obamacare - the individual insurance market - to which most of my Rotary colleagues belonged, premiums were higher before Obamacare, but deductibles and copays were much lower. Overall they were about 25% cheaper than Obamacare. This is the first year of Obamacare, and early word is that premums will go up substantially next year. We'll find out if this is true next month.
We've all heard the horror stories of 300% premium increases in California etc. I just never met anyone who had experience of it.
I know quite a few people who have Obamacare and their experience is surprsingly uniform. Lower premius, higher copays and deductibles, and a very small network.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4222990.ece
There's an irony here insofar as my suspicions are that Labour seats may be more vulnerable than Conservative ones.
Labour could be in the unenviable position of having to fight on four fronts; against the Tories in marginal middle class constituencies. Against the Lib Dems in core Labour seats lost to them, like Redcar and Burnley. Against The SNP in their Scottish heartlands and against UKIP in an undefined number of seats.
This makes messaging very difficult for them. There are likely to be mistakes.
Some interesting betting opportunities as a consequence.
I thought his prospects had been obliterated months ago, due to the thing which happened which I hardly remember anyway but which showed that he wasn't in control of whatever it was that he should have been.
https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence#t-236403
"There will be some relief that it is not another name from the Commons, but also disappointment that Mr Farage's party is getting a financial boost."