Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2016: New early state polling has Trump looking even str

SystemSystem Posts: 12,219
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.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.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Rexel56Rexel56 Posts: 807
    First!
  • Trumped.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
  • RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    Thank you. I am, in fact, a daily lurker but only post once every year or two. One doesn't want to overdo it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    Thank you. I am, in fact, a daily lurker but only post once every year or two. One doesn't want to overdo it.
    Blimey, you've already exceeded your limit for this year! See you in 2016 ;)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    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?
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Nellie the Elephant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus...

    Why Trump will never be POTUS, in one diagram
    http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/08/TrumpHispanics-620x519.jpg
  • Yet Jeb remains 7/4 favourite for the GOP nomination (Lads & Others), compared with Betfair's best price of 11/2 for Trump.
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    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?
    find out in 2017
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    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?
    find out in 2017
    Partially my fault for that, sorry you'll have to wait, Charles!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    JohnLoony said:

    Nellie the Elephant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus...

    Why Trump will never be POTUS, in one diagram
    http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/08/TrumpHispanics-620x519.jpg

    I'm astonished - why on earth would Mr trump be so unpopular with Hispanic voters I wonder?
  • Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    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.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    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.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Indeed, but less alcohol!

    (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!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713
    This is insane. Trump is a colossal pillock.

    The Jeremy Corbyn of the American Right.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited August 2015
    CR..You mean American Presidents are not supposed to be colossal pricks....gulp..
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659
    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    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?
    I don;t have time to read all articles ... I just skim read. Go for days without reading.

    Highly entertaining: shows up most other blog discussions as the dross they are.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Charles said:

    Indeed, but less alcohol!

    (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.
  • kle4 said:

    JohnLoony said:

    Nellie the Elephant packed her trunk and said goodbye to the circus...

    Why Trump will never be POTUS, in one diagram
    http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2015/08/TrumpHispanics-620x519.jpg

    I'm astonished - why on earth would Mr trump be so unpopular with Hispanic voters I wonder?
    I have absolutely no idea. Couldn't be anything to do with a wall, could it?

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,175

    Charles said:

    RobD said:

    Trumped.

    By 50 minutes! Belated welcome to PB :)
    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 :)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Charles said:

    Indeed, but less alcohol!

    (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!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Progressives for Corbyn, separate train carriages for women if they consent to them.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34059249

    Harriet's pink bus was a warning.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    dr_spyn said:

    Progressives for Corbyn, separate train carriages for women if they consent to them.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34059249

    Harriet's pink bus was a warning.

    BBC have pipped TSE to the post with their description of AV at the bottom of that article... he's not going to have a good morning :p
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,713

    CR..You mean American Presidents are not supposed to be colossal pricks....gulp..

    Ha. Maybe so!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited August 2015
    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Indeed, but less alcohol!

    (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.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3210965/PETER-OBORNE-China-s-meltdown-believe-d-deluded-think-Britain-s-economy-safe.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Indeed, but less alcohol!

    (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?
  • Wow.

    Betfair and Publicity Shy Paddy Power agree to a merger.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Charles said:

    Indeed, but less alcohol!

    (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?!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Wow.

    Betfair and Publicity Shy Paddy Power agree to a merger.

    WTF? It had better be April 1st.
  • On topic President Trump invites Prime Minister Corbyn to the White House in May 2020.

    There's a sentence that would have sent you to the funny farm a few weeks ago but now....
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,516

    On topic President Trump invites Prime Minister Corbyn to the White House in May 2020.

    There's a sentence that would have sent you to the funny farm a few weeks ago but now....

    .......as the Donald demands First Minister Sturgeon brings him the head of Alexo Salmondia
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,974

    abuse of a very high standard

    That should be on the masthead...!

    And welcome.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm trying to work out the optimal point for laying Donald Trump for the nomination. Not quite yet, I judge.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811

    On topic President Trump invites Prime Minister Corbyn to the White House in May 2020.

    There's a sentence that would have sent you to the funny farm a few weeks ago but now....

    And in an alternate universe, President Biden invites Prime Minister Osborne to the White House.

    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?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Good morning, comrades.

    How much does it matter that Biden appears to have the nod from Obama?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,984
    edited August 2015
    antifrank said:

    I'm trying to work out the optimal point for laying Donald Trump for the nomination. Not quite yet, I judge.

    Wait until at least Joe Biden officially throws his hat into the ring is my thinking.

    Oops you said nomination not Presidency
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    dr_spyn said:

    Progressives for Corbyn, separate train carriages for women if they consent to them.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34059249

    Harriet's pink bus was a warning.

    don't you have these already?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,974

    Good morning, comrades.

    How much does it matter that Biden appears to have the nod from Obama?

    It matters if you are Mrs Clinton. Obama gets to bugger up her two runs at the White House.... She could start to take this personally.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,038
    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.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    "The argument that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable is being made by three candidates who can’t even win an election against Jeremy Corbyn."
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/what-corbyn-moment-means-left
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    edited August 2015
    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.
    http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/presidential-election/article32312256.html
  • Good morning, comrades.

    How much does it matter that Biden appears to have the nod from Obama?

    Depends if it 1) private support 2) just words

    If it is a public endorsement and he goes campaigning for Biden then it will very significant.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    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.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    CorbynRail will introduce separate carriages for rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, and Methodists!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    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].
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    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.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    dr_spyn said:

    CorbynRail will introduce separate carriages for rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, and Methodists!

    Not much use at some of the stations along the south coast, they can only handle 8 and some only 4 carriages.
  • 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.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    DavidL said:

    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.
    You may be convinced, but that is not everyone!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    edited August 2015

    DavidL said:

    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.'
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,417
    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.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    edited August 2015
    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.

    Edited extra bit: ahem, son-in-law*.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    Pulpstar said:

    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!
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    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.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    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
  • Jonathan said:

    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
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,731
    Lefties wet dream; Sanders as POTUS, Corbyn as PM!
  • ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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?

  • I hope Rick Santorum also becomes a front runner too.

    Because I will have in no way any fun writing about Trump and the Santorum surge.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    edited August 2015


    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:

    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!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,973
    Twitter accounts which keep track of tweets deleted by politicians appear to have been axed:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34051133
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    dr_spyn said:

    CorbynRail will introduce separate carriages for rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, and Methodists!

    That's tautology.

    Methodists are covered at least twice ;)
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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?

    Relative to an average C19 American? Very.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • malcolmg said:
    People in Scotland are shocked that somebody drinking an entire bottle of alcohol very quickly is news ?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Osborne has brought in much more restraint to the banking sector. Capital ratios have been raised considerably.

    It is also odd that left-leaners are still trying to criticise Osborne for cutting too fast and not cutting fast enough simultaneously.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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).
  • Also Burnham to offer Westminster bubble free carriages.

    @twlldun: Andy Burnham to offer "Northerner only" train carriages if elected.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2015

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706

    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.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811

    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    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.
    :+1:
  • 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.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    JEO said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • Jonathan said:

    JEO said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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).
    Sounds good to me.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046
    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Where's that like button?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Where's that like button?
    Colon and 1
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Corbyn Carriage News ....

    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.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 124,008
    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Morning all.

    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"?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,811
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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!
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    Jonathan said:

    JEO said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    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...
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,253
    Gender segregation will be compulsory under the rule of the Jezlamic State.

    Funny how segregating the well healed from the masses is no problem...
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Jonathan said:

    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.
    Yes, and they are great. They keep me away from dirty Labour voters.
  • Morning all.

    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"?

    Some of us are trying to forget...

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,955
    Jonathan said:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,046

    Morning all.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.