politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2016: New early state polling has Trump looking even stronger in the battle for the GOP nomination
New polling overnight shows the extent that Donald Trump is dominating the effort to win the Republican party nomination in the so called early states which are first to decide in the nomination race.
Thank you. I am, in fact, a daily lurker but only post once every year or two. One doesn't want to overdo it.
Out of curiousity does the average lurker wade through the fulminations below the line, or just sample the headline articles?
All this hasty conversation!
I generally read the headline articles and then go through the comments, reading those from posters who have proved enlightening or disturbing in the past. I'd guess, about half the comments. I love PB. it is like being able to go to a good pub at any hour of the day or night. Many of the discussions are truly informative - and the abuse of a very high standard. I know of a number of other lurkers, I hope I am not about to be blackballed.
Thank you. I am, in fact, a daily lurker but only post once every year or two. One doesn't want to overdo it.
Out of curiousity does the average lurker wade through the fulminations below the line, or just sample the headline articles?
All this hasty conversation!
I generally read the headline articles and then go through the comments, reading those from posters who have proved enlightening or disturbing in the past. I'd guess, about half the comments. I love PB. it is like being able to go to a good pub at any hour of the day or night. Many of the discussions are truly informative - and the abuse of a very high standard. I know of a number of other lurkers, I hope I am not about to be blackballed.
When it comes to the election game etc, there are a large number of people who enter but rarely if ever post.
Thank you. I am, in fact, a daily lurker but only post once every year or two. One doesn't want to overdo it.
Out of curiousity does the average lurker wade through the fulminations below the line, or just sample the headline articles?
All this hasty conversation!
I generally read the headline articles and then go through the comments, reading those from posters who have proved enlightening or disturbing in the past. I'd guess, about half the comments. I love PB. it is like being able to go to a good pub at any hour of the day or night. Many of the discussions are truly informative - and the abuse of a very high standard. I know of a number of other lurkers, I hope I am not about to be blackballed.
I do like the PB as a pub metaphor, I think it's quite apt.
Thank you. I am, in fact, a daily lurker but only post once every year or two. One doesn't want to overdo it.
Out of curiousity does the average lurker wade through the fulminations below the line, or just sample the headline articles?
All this hasty conversation!
I generally read the headline articles and then go through the comments, reading those from posters who have proved enlightening or disturbing in the past. I'd guess, about half the comments. I love PB. it is like being able to go to a good pub at any hour of the day or night. Many of the discussions are truly informative - and the abuse of a very high standard. I know of a number of other lurkers, I hope I am not about to be blackballed.
Oh dear - once Corbynamania triumphs 'blackballed' will be disallowed
(Come to think of it, that might improve some of the posts)
Peter Oborne on fine form in the Mail today. Complete rant, so facts strung together in a barely coherent potage. But fun to read!
Osborne as heir to Brown? Larger deficits than Brown; record government debt; lax banking supervision. How shocking.
You're having a laugh, surely!
Not at all; look at the statistics [edit: or read the Mail article Charles mentioned;l link below] -- and then wonder why Ed Miliband chose to spend the last five years not attacking the Conservatives. Osborne is heir to Brown in another way too -- he is trying to run the whole of Whitehall from the Treasury.
(Come to think of it, that might improve some of the posts)
Peter Oborne on fine form in the Mail today. Complete rant, so facts strung together in a barely coherent potage. But fun to read!
Osborne as heir to Brown? Larger deficits than Brown; record government debt; lax banking supervision. How shocking.
You're having a laugh, surely!
Not at all; look at the statistics -- and then wonder why Ed Miliband chose to spend the last five years not attacking the Conservatives. Osborne is heir to Brown in another way too -- he is trying to run the whole of Whitehall from the Treasury.
So Osborne should have cut the deficit by £100bn in the first year?
(Come to think of it, that might improve some of the posts)
Peter Oborne on fine form in the Mail today. Complete rant, so facts strung together in a barely coherent potage. But fun to read!
Osborne as heir to Brown? Larger deficits than Brown; record government debt; lax banking supervision. How shocking.
You're having a laugh, surely!
Not at all; look at the statistics -- and then wonder why Ed Miliband chose to spend the last five years not attacking the Conservatives. Osborne is heir to Brown in another way too -- he is trying to run the whole of Whitehall from the Treasury.
So Osborne should have cut the deficit by £100bn in the first year?
The first year was a long time ago. The proposed legal requirement to run a surplus was surely not just political mischief to embarrass Labour (who actually have run more surpluses than the Conservatives since the war) and distract from Osborne's own record? The things politicians get up to, eh?!
The Oborne article really is incoherent gibberish and contains no useful information at all.
That said, it is true that the government has taken a risk (to optimise growth) with the pace of deficit reduction and the consequential rebalancing of the economy. The plan back to balance is contingent upon there not being another world recession within the next 5 years and that is undoubtedly a gamble where the odds are less good than they were, if still probably odds on, just.
If only he had listened to Ed Balls when he was arguing that Osborne was not going fast enough or far enough on deficit reduction. If only he was listening to the critique of the Labour leadership contenders and the importance of genuine austerity to protect our economy from future risk. I mean it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
Weirdly, I think a Biden bid helps Clinton. It gives her an old white - centrist - guy to run against as a foil. With him, she can drop being Elizabeth Warren-lite and focus more on being the first woman President.
Interesting comment on Biden, BTW. I hadn't thought of it, but I think Lightman is correct:
Though many vice presidents have won their party’s nomination for president – recent examples include Al Gore in 2000, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Walter Mondale in 1984, Hubert Humphrey in 1968 – only one since 1840 has won the top office as a sitting vice president who succeeded a president serving a full term, Bush in 1988.
Weirdly, I think a Biden bid helps Clinton. It gives her an old white - centrist - guy to run against as a foil. With him, she can drop being Elizabeth Warren-lite and focus more on being the first woman President.
Wasn't that the reasoning that led Andy Burnham to support Jeremy Corbyn's nomination?
That said, it still does not look like Biden will run unless Hillary trips up.
Mr. Eagles, indeed, though I was under the impression Obama hasn't been flavour of the month for quite a long time now [to the extent the last Congress election had candidates asking him not to campaign for them as it would damage their prospects].
it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
As opposed to what? Osborne's genius is to have convinced everyone he is running a surplus, paying down debt, and regulating the City. He is doing none of these things.
Mr. Eagles, indeed, though I was under the impression Obama hasn't been flavour of the month for quite a long time now [to the extent the last Congress election had candidates asking him not to campaign for them as it would damage their prospects].
It might help negate Clinton's financial advantage.
it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
As opposed to what? Osborne's genius is to have convinced everyone he is running a surplus, paying down debt, and regulating the City. He is doing none of these things.
it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
As opposed to what? Osborne's genius is to have convinced everyone he is running a surplus, paying down debt, and regulating the City. He is doing none of these things.
Osborne has convinced everyone that he intends to do all of those things as soon as he can, rather than 'he is doing them'. Miliband, on the other hand, gave the impression that he intended to none of those things apart from the last, and he intended to do it in a way that caused the maximum number of banks to decamp to Hong Kong and Geneva.
As a man said when putting on running shoes while he and his friend were being chased by a bear: 'It doesn't matter if I'm faster than the bear, I only have to be faster than you.'
Mr. Pulpstar, Antigonus Monopthalmus was older than that when he very nearly became ruler of (more or less) the entire known world.
Odd to think that if Seleucus' father-in-law had given him a different present to celebrate the treaty/wedding the battle, and world history, would've gone very differently.
Biden would be running for one term only I'm guessing ?
73-77 doesn't sound that outlandishly old for a president to me actually - but 80+ is a bit old.
Oldest president was Reagan, 77 (nearly 78) in 1989. Next oldest was Eisenhower, 70 in 1961. No other president has been over 70 while in office, never mind when elected.
I've been harping on about this and told it may not matter this time. If the candidates are Clinton/Biden and Trump, of course, it surely won't unless an independent with broad appeal and loads of cash emerges. And the only one who's been mentioned in that context is Bloomberg, who is also in his 70s!
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
As opposed to what? Osborne's genius is to have convinced everyone he is running a surplus, paying down debt, and regulating the City. He is doing none of these things.
Osborne has convinced everyone that he intends to do all of those things as soon as he can, rather than 'he is doing them'. Miliband, on the other hand, gave the impression that he intended to none of those things apart from the last, and he intended to do it in a way that caused the maximum number of banks to decamp to Hong Kong and Geneva.
As a man said when putting on running shoes while he and his friend were being chased by a bear: 'It doesn't matter if I'm faster than the bear, I only have to be faster than you.'
The incoherence of Balls shines through. "Osborne is cutting too far too fast, and not paying off the debt". The voters didn't buy that last parliament and they are not going to buy it this one.
Corbyn is at least consistent. He cares little for growth or debt, just wants to borrow or print money and spend. That should pretty certainly result in devaluation and inflation.
Trump is also ahead in Iowa at the moment too by contrast in New Hampshire at least Hillary is already trailing Bernie Sanders even while she still leads nationally. In fact on present polling Biden is third so he would have to overtake Sanders first before he even got to Hillary
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
Biden would be running for one term only I'm guessing ?
73-77 doesn't sound that outlandishly old for a president to me actually - but 80+ is a bit old.
Oldest president was Reagan, 77 (nearly 78) in 1989. Next oldest was Eisenhower, 70 in 1961. No other president has been over 70 while in office, never mind when elected.
I've been harping on about this and told it may not matter this time. If the candidates are Clinton/Biden and Trump, of course, it surely won't unless an independent with broad appeal and loads of cash emerges. And the only one who's been mentioned in that context is Bloomberg, who is also in his 70s!
You have to make your pile first these days - only then can you run. How wealthy were the POTUSes of the C19?
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
Corbyn is at least consistent. He cares little for growth or debt, just wants to borrow or print money and spend. That should pretty certainly result in devaluation and inflation.
Every admirer of Corbyn should read this classic book from the 1970s:
According to Amazon, when it first came out the Times said that the then PM (I think it was Wilson at that stage) should put a copy beside every bed at Chequers as bedtime reading for his ministers!
it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
As opposed to what? Osborne's genius is to have convinced everyone he is running a surplus, paying down debt, and regulating the City. He is doing none of these things.
Osborne has convinced everyone that he intends to do all of those things as soon as he can, rather than 'he is doing them'. Miliband, on the other hand, gave the impression that he intended to none of those things apart from the last, and he intended to do it in a way that caused the maximum number of banks to decamp to Hong Kong and Geneva.
As a man said when putting on running shoes while he and his friend were being chased by a bear: 'It doesn't matter if I'm faster than the bear, I only have to be faster than you.'
The incoherence of Balls shines through. "Osborne is cutting too far too fast, and not paying off the debt". The voters didn't buy that last parliament and they are not going to buy it this one.
Corbyn is at least consistent. He cares little for growth or debt, just wants to borrow or print money and spend. That should pretty certainly result in devaluation and inflation.
Borrow or print money, eh? How does that differ from what Osborne is doing right now, and has been doing for the past five years?
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
Nope. Brown from the very start kept things from Blair, such as things he would do in his budget.
Biden would be running for one term only I'm guessing ?
73-77 doesn't sound that outlandishly old for a president to me actually - but 80+ is a bit old.
Oldest president was Reagan, 77 (nearly 78) in 1989. Next oldest was Eisenhower, 70 in 1961. No other president has been over 70 while in office, never mind when elected.
I've been harping on about this and told it may not matter this time. If the candidates are Clinton/Biden and Trump, of course, it surely won't unless an independent with broad appeal and loads of cash emerges. And the only one who's been mentioned in that context is Bloomberg, who is also in his 70s!
You have to make your pile first these days - only then can you run. How wealthy were the POTUSes of the C19?
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
Nope. Brown from the very start kept things from Blair, such as things he would do in his budget.
We simply do not know yet what has been going on in Cameron's Downing St. I imagine the Coalition kept them together in the past five years.
Biden would be running for one term only I'm guessing ?
73-77 doesn't sound that outlandishly old for a president to me actually - but 80+ is a bit old.
Oldest president was Reagan, 77 (nearly 78) in 1989. Next oldest was Eisenhower, 70 in 1961. No other president has been over 70 while in office, never mind when elected.
I've been harping on about this and told it may not matter this time. If the candidates are Clinton/Biden and Trump, of course, it surely won't unless an independent with broad appeal and loads of cash emerges. And the only one who's been mentioned in that context is Bloomberg, who is also in his 70s!
You have to make your pile first these days - only then can you run. How wealthy were the POTUSes of the C19?
The honest answer is I don't know, but my impression from what I do know is that they were a lot richer than they pretended to be. Most of them were lawyers, merchants or plantation owners and had inherited wealth of their own. They also tended to have quite long political careers behind them as well, despite a fairly young average age (which can be explained by shorter life expectancy).
Of course, at the very start candidates stood on their own, and the winner became POTUS and the runner-up VPOTUS. This then meant the VP was clear favourite next time around, which is why up to 1840 they often succeeded the President. Since then, the Vice President has generally spent eight years doing not much and becoming identified with unpopular policies (usually lots of them around after 8 years!) which is why I think they struggle to get elected in their own right (unless of course they 'ascend' to the presidency before that, but sometimes not even then - Ford, Arthur, Jackson).
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
As an economic issue, 9/11 is nowhere near as serious as the Eurozone debt crisis. Gordon Brown had a good first term because he followed Conservative spending plans.
it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
As opposed to what? Osborne's genius is to have convinced everyone he is running a surplus, paying down debt, and regulating the City. He is doing none of these things.
Osborne has convinced everyone that he intends to do all of those things as soon as he can, rather than 'he is doing them'. Miliband, on the other hand, gave the impression that he intended to none of those things apart from the last, and he intended to do it in a way that caused the maximum number of banks to decamp to Hong Kong and Geneva.
As a man said when putting on running shoes while he and his friend were being chased by a bear: 'It doesn't matter if I'm faster than the bear, I only have to be faster than you.'
The incoherence of Balls shines through. "Osborne is cutting too far too fast, and not paying off the debt". The voters didn't buy that last parliament and they are not going to buy it this one.
Corbyn is at least consistent. He cares little for growth or debt, just wants to borrow or print money and spend. That should pretty certainly result in devaluation and inflation.
Borrow or print money, eh? How does that differ from what Osborne is doing right now, and has been doing for the past five years?
Multiply it by at least 10 for Corbyn.
To go with the bear escape analogy: running shoes are not required. A gentle stroll in flip flops is all that is fine. Corbyn is running towards the bear smearing himself in honey.
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
(1) Nonsense. It may have been significant on a geopolitical level but it doesn't even compare to the £156 billion deficit that Osborne inherited that he has faced since 2010. On a purely financial basis Gordon Brown was worse than 9/11.
(2) At this stage was 2002. You're saying nobody in 2002 was writing about Blairites vs Brownites as I have a different recollection to you.
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
Nope. Brown from the very start kept things from Blair, such as things he would do in his budget.
Really? Isn't the convention that the Chancellor would reveal his budget to the Cabinet on Budget Day itself, or perhaps the day before?
it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
As opposed to what? Osborne's genius is to have convinced everyone he is running a surplus, paying down debt, and regulating the City. He is doing none of these things.
Osborne has convinced everyone that he intends to do all of those things as soon as he can, rather than 'he is doing them'. Miliband, on the other hand, gave the impression that he intended to none of those things apart from the last, and he intended to do it in a way that caused the maximum number of banks to decamp to Hong Kong and Geneva.
As a man said when putting on running shoes while he and his friend were being chased by a bear: 'It doesn't matter if I'm faster than the bear, I only have to be faster than you.'
The incoherence of Balls shines through. "Osborne is cutting too far too fast, and not paying off the debt". The voters didn't buy that last parliament and they are not going to buy it this one.
Corbyn is at least consistent. He cares little for growth or debt, just wants to borrow or print money and spend. That should pretty certainly result in devaluation and inflation.
Borrow or print money, eh? How does that differ from what Osborne is doing right now, and has been doing for the past five years?
Multiply it by at least 10 for Corbyn.
To go with the bear escape analogy: running shoes are not required. A gentle stroll in flip flops is all that is fine. Corbyn is running towards the bear smearing himself in honey.
As someone who has been racially abused on the train recently and the conductor told me that, violence and sexual attacks were on the rise, rather than having female/minority only trains how about focussing all our energies on dealing with these idiots instead.
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
As an economic issue, 9/11 is nowhere near as serious as the Eurozone debt crisis. Gordon Brown had a good first term because he followed Conservative spending plans.
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
Nope. Brown from the very start kept things from Blair, such as things he would do in his budget.
Really? Isn't the convention that the Chancellor would reveal his budget to the Cabinet on Budget Day itself, or perhaps the day before?
Nope the convention has always been to keep the PM informed all along the way. Brown didn't even like sharing stuff with his Chief Secretaries
Blair didn't know stuff until it was announced in the actual budget.
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
As an economic issue, 9/11 is nowhere near as serious as the Eurozone debt crisis. Gordon Brown had a good first term because he followed Conservative spending plans.
Biden would be running for one term only I'm guessing ?
73-77 doesn't sound that outlandishly old for a president to me actually - but 80+ is a bit old.
Oldest president was Reagan, 77 (nearly 78) in 1989. Next oldest was Eisenhower, 70 in 1961. No other president has been over 70 while in office, never mind when elected.
I've been harping on about this and told it may not matter this time. If the candidates are Clinton/Biden and Trump, of course, it surely won't unless an independent with broad appeal and loads of cash emerges. And the only one who's been mentioned in that context is Bloomberg, who is also in his 70s!
You have to make your pile first these days - only then can you run. How wealthy were the POTUSes of the C19?
The honest answer is I don't know, but my impression from what I do know is that they were a lot richer than they pretended to be. Most of them were lawyers, merchants or plantation owners and had inherited wealth of their own. They also tended to have quite long political careers behind them as well, despite a fairly young average age (which can be explained by shorter life expectancy).
Of course, at the very start candidates stood on their own, and the winner became POTUS and the runner-up VPOTUS. This then meant the VP was clear favourite next time around, which is why up to 1840 they often succeeded the President. Since then, the Vice President has generally spent eight years doing not much and becoming identified with unpopular policies (usually lots of them around after 8 years!) which is why I think they struggle to get elected in their own right (unless of course they 'ascend' to the presidency before that, but sometimes not even then - Ford, Arthur, Jackson).
Reports circulating the highest echelons of PB indicate that Jezza Corbyn has extended his women only night time railway carriage policy.
In an exclusive coup for PB and after extensive negotiations Mike Smithson has secured a policy commitment from the putative Labour leader that post PB functions any befuddled Hersham councillors of a certain vintage will be allowed exclusive use of railway carriages for 24 hours.
Biden would be running for one term only I'm guessing ?
73-77 doesn't sound that outlandishly old for a president to me actually - but 80+ is a bit old.
Oldest president was Reagan, 77 (nearly 78) in 1989. Next oldest was Eisenhower, 70 in 1961. No other president has been over 70 while in office, never mind when elected.
I've been harping on about this and told it may not matter this time. If the candidates are Clinton/Biden and Trump, of course, it surely won't unless an independent with broad appeal and loads of cash emerges. And the only one who's been mentioned in that context is Bloomberg, who is also in his 70s!
If the two main party nominees are Trump and Sanders Bloomberg may well run as an independent and don't forget he is even richer than Trump and worth about $35 billion to Trump's $8 billion
Biden would be running for one term only I'm guessing ?
73-77 doesn't sound that outlandishly old for a president to me actually - but 80+ is a bit old.
Oldest president was Reagan, 77 (nearly 78) in 1989. Next oldest was Eisenhower, 70 in 1961. No other president has been over 70 while in office, never mind when elected.
I've been harping on about this and told it may not matter this time. If the candidates are Clinton/Biden and Trump, of course, it surely won't unless an independent with broad appeal and loads of cash emerges. And the only one who's been mentioned in that context is Bloomberg, who is also in his 70s!
If the two main party nominees are Trump and Sanders Bloomberg may well run as an independent and don't forget he is even richer than Trump and worth about $35 billion to Trump's $8 billion
So in that case the choice would be between two blokes aged around 74 and one aged around 70?
Well you've got to hand it to the US, if that comes off they'll doing their bit to extend the working age to deal with the international pensions crisis!
Osborne and Brown are very alike. Both uber political, both ran successful electoral strategies, both widely celebrated for their genius five years into office as CoE.
Except for two major differences.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
On (1) Brown had 9/11 and the aftermath to deal with, which is more significant than anything Osborne has faced since 2010.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
As an economic issue, 9/11 is nowhere near as serious as the Eurozone debt crisis. Gordon Brown had a good first term because he followed Conservative spending plans.
Arguably 9/11 precipitated the whole sorry mess.
Explain how.
There was a deliberate effort to remove any kind of fiscal control of the economy following the dotcom collapse in order to prevent a recession. This was supposed to be a temporary measure, 9/11 followed very shortly after.
Fiscal loosening helped the USA in making the following recession short and shallow, while in the UK, Brown managed to avoid entirely any recession.
At this point we had seen about nine years of uninterrupted economic growth, some of it eye watering. A recession was due.
The US went from healthy surpluses to exploding deficits. Both of these downturns/recessions ordinarily would have cleared the decks, and resulted in a housing crash...
Also Burnham to offer Westminster bubble free carriages.
@twlldun: Andy Burnham to offer "Northerner only" train carriages if elected.
Cameron was set to offer rich people only carriages until he realised with First Class they already do it.
When people from here (Chesterfield) go to London, I think the upgrade to First Class costs a whole fiver.
On the Blair-Brown thing, I think the relationship was poisoned from when Blair went back on agreements not to stand for the leadership.
Then more so when Lord Mandelbrot took Blairs side in the dispute and the machinations.
Brown had that whole "Kitchen Cabinet at the Savoy" thing that used to meet in Geoffrey Robinson's suite. I can recall policies being (allegedly!) scuppered out of pique because they didn't get on.
Written at at length by Andrew Rawnsley, amongst others.
Female-only carriages are transparently sexist and should be resisted for that reason alone.
Reading through threads, a question: who is this Tim who keeps being mentioned? And "Ave it"?
Tim is late of this parish, but maintains an 'entertaining' twitter account. Ave it, famous for predicting 'CON gain Bootle', and all round throughly good egg.
Comments
Why Trump will never be POTUS, in one diagram
http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/08/TrumpHispanics-620x519.jpg
I generally read the headline articles and then go through the comments, reading those from posters who have proved enlightening or disturbing in the past. I'd guess, about half the comments. I love PB. it is like being able to go to a good pub at any hour of the day or night. Many of the discussions are truly informative - and the abuse of a very high standard. I know of a number of other lurkers, I hope I am not about to be blackballed.
(Come to think of it, that might improve some of the posts)
Peter Oborne on fine form in the Mail today. Complete rant, so facts strung together in a barely coherent potage. But fun to read!
The Jeremy Corbyn of the American Right.
Highly entertaining: shows up most other blog discussions as the dross they are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34059249
Harriet's pink bus was a warning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3210965/PETER-OBORNE-China-s-meltdown-believe-d-deluded-think-Britain-s-economy-safe.html
Betfair and Publicity Shy Paddy Power agree to a merger.
http://www.ft.com/fastft/382221/paddy-power-betfair-merge
There's a sentence that would have sent you to the funny farm a few weeks ago but now....
And welcome.
That's not really much better.
Is this shaping up to be the first American presidential election with turnout under 40%, and the first one where both candidates are over 70?
How much does it matter that Biden appears to have the nod from Obama?
Oops you said nomination not Presidency
That said, it is true that the government has taken a risk (to optimise growth) with the pace of deficit reduction and the consequential rebalancing of the economy. The plan back to balance is contingent upon there not being another world recession within the next 5 years and that is undoubtedly a gamble where the odds are less good than they were, if still probably odds on, just.
If only he had listened to Ed Balls when he was arguing that Osborne was not going fast enough or far enough on deficit reduction. If only he was listening to the critique of the Labour leadership contenders and the importance of genuine austerity to protect our economy from future risk. I mean it is not as if Labour would be insane enough to elect a leader whose answer to everything is more investment/spending by the State is it?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/what-corbyn-moment-means-left
If it is a public endorsement and he goes campaigning for Biden then it will very significant.
That said, it still does not look like Biden will run unless Hillary trips up.
As a man said when putting on running shoes while he and his friend were being chased by a bear: 'It doesn't matter if I'm faster than the bear, I only have to be faster than you.'
73-77 doesn't sound that outlandishly old for a president to me actually - but 80+ is a bit old.
Odd to think that if Seleucus' father-in-law had given him a different present to celebrate the treaty/wedding the battle, and world history, would've gone very differently.
Edited extra bit: ahem, son-in-law*.
I've been harping on about this and told it may not matter this time. If the candidates are Clinton/Biden and Trump, of course, it surely won't unless an independent with broad appeal and loads of cash emerges. And the only one who's been mentioned in that context is Bloomberg, who is also in his 70s!
Corbyn is at least consistent. He cares little for growth or debt, just wants to borrow or print money and spend. That should pretty certainly result in devaluation and inflation.
1) Osborne unlike Brown was given a very poor economic inheritance when he became Chancellor
2) Osborne has never sought to undermine his PM unlike Brown
Because I will have in no way any fun writing about Trump and the Santorum surge.
On (2) we don't know that for sure. At this stage of new Labour the public persona was all sweetness and light.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/When-Money-Dies-nightmare-Hyper-Inflation-x/dp/1906964440
According to Amazon, when it first came out the Times said that the then PM (I think it was Wilson at that stage) should put a copy beside every bed at Chequers as bedtime reading for his ministers!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34051133
Methodists are covered at least twice
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/25/woman-downs-whole-bottle-of-cognac-at-beijing-airport-security-control
It is also odd that left-leaners are still trying to criticise Osborne for cutting too fast and not cutting fast enough simultaneously.
Of course, at the very start candidates stood on their own, and the winner became POTUS and the runner-up VPOTUS. This then meant the VP was clear favourite next time around, which is why up to 1840 they often succeeded the President. Since then, the Vice President has generally spent eight years doing not much and becoming identified with unpopular policies (usually lots of them around after 8 years!) which is why I think they struggle to get elected in their own right (unless of course they 'ascend' to the presidency before that, but sometimes not even then - Ford, Arthur, Jackson).
@twlldun: Andy Burnham to offer "Northerner only" train carriages if elected.
To go with the bear escape analogy: running shoes are not required. A gentle stroll in flip flops is all that is fine. Corbyn is running towards the bear smearing himself in honey.
(2) At this stage was 2002. You're saying nobody in 2002 was writing about Blairites vs Brownites as I have a different recollection to you.
Blair didn't know stuff until it was announced in the actual budget.
Reports circulating the highest echelons of PB indicate that Jezza Corbyn has extended his women only night time railway carriage policy.
In an exclusive coup for PB and after extensive negotiations Mike Smithson has secured a policy commitment from the putative Labour leader that post PB functions any befuddled Hersham councillors of a certain vintage will be allowed exclusive use of railway carriages for 24 hours.
Female-only carriages are transparently sexist and should be resisted for that reason alone.
Reading through threads, a question: who is this Tim who keeps being mentioned? And "Ave it"?
Well you've got to hand it to the US, if that comes off they'll doing their bit to extend the working age to deal with the international pensions crisis!
Fiscal loosening helped the USA in making the following recession short and shallow, while in the UK, Brown managed to avoid entirely any recession.
At this point we had seen about nine years of uninterrupted economic growth, some of it eye watering. A recession was due.
The US went from healthy surpluses to exploding deficits. Both of these downturns/recessions ordinarily would have cleared the decks, and resulted in a housing crash...
Funny how segregating the well healed from the masses is no problem...
On the Blair-Brown thing, I think the relationship was poisoned from when Blair went back on agreements not to stand for the leadership.
Then more so when Lord Mandelbrot took Blairs side in the dispute and the machinations.
Brown had that whole "Kitchen Cabinet at the Savoy" thing that used to meet in Geoffrey Robinson's suite. I can recall policies being (allegedly!) scuppered out of pique because they didn't get on.
Written at at length by Andrew Rawnsley, amongst others.