Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The second favourite in the WH2020 betting, Kamala Harris, say

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The second favourite in the WH2020 betting, Kamala Harris, says she’s NOT ruling out a run for presidency

One of the key figures in attacking Trump over his immigration policies that have led to children being taken away from their parents is Kamala Harris – Senator from California.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    edited June 2018
    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sad day for Turkey. A lot of parallels between Erdogan supporters and Remainers.

    Nah, if anything it's the opposite ... ;)
    Not really, a vote for Erdogan is a vote for the same old shit (remain), a vote for the opposition was a vote for change (leave). If this is legitimate then Turkey has voted to cling to their nurse just like the remainers.
    That's rubbish.

    Yes, I get you hate Erdogan - I'm not exactly a fan myself. And yes, I know you hate Remainers. But two things you hate do not need to have parallels, and the ones you mention above are just ridiculous.
    A vote for Erdogan, a vote for stability. A vote for remain, a vote for stability. Erdogan = remain.
    LOL. No.

    I could easily construct a case that Erdogan=leave, based on his foreign policy and rampant nationalism ...
    Doesn't Turkey "aspire" to EU membership?
    "Aspiring" for 40 years is no longer an aspiration. Turkey actually does not give a sh1t anymore. They have a form of customs union already.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    surby said:

    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!

    Trump voters are not going to change their minds. What Democrats need is more African Americans and other minorities turning out than in 2016. That’s why the Republicans are so focused on voter suppression, of course.

  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    edited June 2018

    surby said:

    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!

    Trump voters are not going to change their minds. What Democrats need is more African Americans and other minorities turning out than in 2016. That’s why the Republicans are so focused on voter suppression, of course.

    Do they ? Will adding to the already useless winning margins in California help at all ?

    They need to win in the rust belt.
  • asjohnstoneasjohnstone Posts: 1,276
    surby said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sad day for Turkey. A lot of parallels between Erdogan supporters and Remainers.

    Nah, if anything it's the opposite ... ;)
    Not really, a vote for Erdogan is a vote for the same old shit (remain), a vote for the opposition was a vote for change (leave). If this is legitimate then Turkey has voted to cling to their nurse just like the remainers.
    That's rubbish.

    Yes, I get you hate Erdogan - I'm not exactly a fan myself. And yes, I know you hate Remainers. But two things you hate do not need to have parallels, and the ones you mention above are just ridiculous.
    A vote for Erdogan, a vote for stability. A vote for remain, a vote for stability. Erdogan = remain.
    LOL. No.

    I could easily construct a case that Erdogan=leave, based on his foreign policy and rampant nationalism ...
    Doesn't Turkey "aspire" to EU membership?
    "Aspiring" for 40 years is no longer an aspiration. Turkey actually does not give a sh1t anymore. They have a form of customs union already.
    I've been aspiring to marrying Elizabeth Hurley for 20 years. I'd put my chances on par with Turkish EU membership
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    surby said:

    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!

    Trump voters are not going to change their minds. What Democrats need is more African Americans and other minorities turning out than in 2016. That’s why the Republicans are so focused on voter suppression, of course.

    Do they ? Will adding to the already useless winning margins in California help at all ?

    They need to win in the rust belt.
    California doesn't have that many African Americans. It's 29th out of 50, with well under half the proportio of Ohio, or Missouri.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    She's got no executive experience. Not that this stopped Trump, Hilary Clinton, Obama, McCain or Romney, or told against Sanders. However, you wonder if it might be an issue should Cuomo run.

    I also can't help but think they're asking the wrong question. If personality and identity were key, Clinton would probably have beaten Trump (who is, after all, a wealthy businessman and the son of a wealthy businessman). It wasn't. Her ambiguity and lack of understanding of the real economic concerns of voters cost her dearly. Yet the Dems are still thinking, 'who will appeal to swing voters?' rather than asking the much more pertinent question, 'why did our policies bomb in the rust belt?'
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    The Presidential election candidates for the two main parties in 2020 should be
    Roberta McCain (Republican) and Virginia McLaurin (Democrat).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    How can someone with a name like Harris possibly expect to win against a guy with the surname Hickenlooper? It's simply absurd.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    rcs1000 said:

    How can someone with a name like Harris possibly expect to win against a guy with the surname Hickenlooper? It's simply absurd.

    In the 1945 election, Broxtowe was contested by Seymour Cocks and Stanley Bowman.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    Would Major have been voted in in his own strength from opposition? I have to say I would doubt it. Even though tactical voting made his victory look less impressive than it was, it was a win on Thatcher's coat-tails.

    A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.

    *Even if I extend the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How can someone with a name like Harris possibly expect to win against a guy with the surname Hickenlooper? It's simply absurd.

    In the 1945 election, Broxtowe was contested by Seymour Cocks and Stanley Bowman.
    And was handily won by the candidate with the sillier name.

    I rest my case.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good morning, everyone.

    Having just checked I backed her at long odds (tipped by Mr. Smithson), she is clearly a worth Democrat nominee.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    How can someone with a name like Harris possibly expect to win against a guy with the surname Hickenlooper? It's simply absurd.

    In the 1945 election, Broxtowe was contested by Seymour Cocks and Stanley Bowman.
    And was handily won by the candidate with the sillier name..
    I'm declaring that pun a flop...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    edited June 2018
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    Would Major have been voted in in his own strength from opposition? I have to say I would doubt it. Even though tactical voting made his victory look less impressive than it was, it was a win on Thatcher's coat-tails.

    A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.

    *Even if I wxetebd the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
    86 years sounds like a lot doesn't it?

    But really, that's twenty odd elections. And we can't count those where there is no standing incumbent. So, now we're down to about 12. So, actually, you're saying that one in four times, Presidents are one term. Which is not so extraordinary.

    Edit to add: you forgot to mention that Perot stood in 1992.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,136
    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    That did occur to me but no, I think social media changed the rules. Being dull on Twitter is like refusing to put on make up on telly.

    Also if anti-Trumpian stability is the pitch then you want experience to go with it, and as @ydoethur says Harris doesn't have a great story to tell there either.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    As always, lay the flavour of the week. You’ll lose once in a while but not often.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    edited June 2018

    surby said:

    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!

    Trump voters are not going to change their minds. What Democrats need is more African Americans and other minorities turning out than in 2016. That’s why the Republicans are so focused on voter suppression, of course.

    Do they ? Will adding to the already useless winning margins in California help at all ?

    They need to win in the rust belt.
    They have plenty of paths to victory.
    This article estimated that the Dems would pick up Georgia next time if they could get African Americans to vote like they did in 2012 (leaving other groups voting the same). They'd also pick up MI, PA, FL and WI.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/demographic-shifts-show-2020-presidential-race-could-be-close-n868146
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    Would Major have been voted in in his own strength from opposition? I have to say I would doubt it. Even though tactical voting made his victory look less impressive than it was, it was a win on Thatcher's coat-tails.

    A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.

    *Even if I wxetebd the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
    86 years sounds like a lot doesn't it?

    But really, that's twenty odd elections. And we can't count those where there is no standing incumbent. So, now we're down to about 12. So, actually, you're saying that one in four times, Presidents are one term. Which is not so extraordinary.

    Edit to add: you forgot to mention that Perot stood in 1992.
    Roosevelt - constantly re-elected, died in office.
    Truman - withdrew from 1952 election having been reluctant to take part in the primaries. Had been unexpectedly re-elected in 1948.
    Eisenhower - two terms
    Kennedy - assassinated
    Johnson - withdrew from 1968 election after losing initial primary support.
    Nixon - resigned.
    Ford - hopeless task, DEFEATED.
    Carter - 'incomplete success,' issues with rabbits, DEFEATED.
    Reagan - two terms.
    George H. Bush - economy, health issues, third term, DEFEATED.
    Clinton - two terms
    George W. Bush - two terms
    Obama - two terms.

    I make that 9 who secured re-election at least once against 3 who didn't (one of them was never elected in any way) with one who was shot. So your figures are quite close.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    Would Major have been voted in in his own strength from opposition? I have to say I would doubt it. Even though tactical voting made his victory look less impressive than it was, it was a win on Thatcher's coat-tails.

    A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.

    *Even if I wxetebd the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
    86 years sounds like a lot doesn't it?

    But really, that's twenty odd elections. And we can't count those where there is no standing incumbent. So, now we're down to about 12. So, actually, you're saying that one in four times, Presidents are one term. Which is not so extraordinary.

    Edit to add: you forgot to mention that Perot stood in 1992.
    Roosevelt - constantly re-elected, died in office.
    Truman - withdrew from 1952 election having been reluctant to take part in the primaries. Had been unexpectedly re-elected in 1948.
    Eisenhower - two terms
    Kennedy - assassinated
    Johnson - withdrew from 1968 election after losing initial primary support.
    Nixon - resigned.
    Ford - hopeless task, DEFEATED.
    Carter - 'incomplete success,' issues with rabbits, DEFEATED.
    Reagan - two terms.
    George H. Bush - economy, health issues, third term, DEFEATED.
    Clinton - two terms
    George W. Bush - two terms
    Obama - two terms.

    I make that 9 who secured re-election at least once against 3 who didn't (one of them was never elected in any way) with one who was shot. So your figures are quite close.
    Arguably Truman and Johnson would have gone down to defeat, but chose not to run.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Kamala Harris looks like an actor who might be cast as POTUS in a Netflix show. I think that's as important as any other factor in these last, turbulent days of the American hegemony.

    Although she will have to beware of the Old Men in a Hurry (Joe and Bernie, combined age 151) who may think she will settle for balancing the ticket as Veep.

    A Warren-Harris ticket would be the stuff of broflake nightmares.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited June 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    Would Major have been voted in in his own strength from opposition? I have to say I would doubt it. Even though tactical voting made his victory look less impressive than it was, it was a win on Thatcher's coat-tails.

    A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.

    *Even if I wxetebd the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
    86 years sounds like a lot doesn't it?

    But really, that's twenty odd elections. And we can't count those where there is no standing incumbent. So, now we're down to about 12. So, actually, you're saying that one in four times, Presidents are one term. Which is not so extraordinary.

    Edit to add: you forgot to mention that Perot stood in 1992.
    Roosevelt - constantly re-elected, died in office.
    Truman - withdrew from 1952 election having been reluctant to take part in the primaries. Had been unexpectedly re-elected in 1948.
    Eisenhower - two terms
    Kennedy - assassinated
    Johnson - withdrew from 1968 election after losing initial primary support.
    Nixon - resigned.
    Ford - hopeless task, DEFEATED.
    Carter - 'incomplete success,' issues with rabbits, DEFEATED.
    Reagan - two terms.
    George H. Bush - economy, health issues, third term, DEFEATED.
    Clinton - two terms
    George W. Bush - two terms
    Obama - two terms.

    I make that 9 who secured re-election at least once against 3 who didn't (one of them was never elected in any way) with one who was shot. So your figures are quite close.
    Arguably Truman and Johnson would have gone down to defeat, but chose not to run.
    Yes, but both had been re-elected before. Truman would not even have been eligible to stand ten years later.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    Would Major have been voted in in his own strength from opposition? I have to say I would doubt it. Even though tactical voting made his victory look less impressive than it was, it was a win on Thatcher's coat-tails.

    A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.

    *Even if I wxetebd the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
    86 years sounds like a lot doesn't it?

    But really, that's twenty odd elections. And we can't count those where there is no standing incumbent. So, now we're down to about 12. So, actually, you're saying that one in four times, Presidents are one term. Which is not so extraordinary.

    Edit to add: you forgot to mention that Perot stood in 1992.
    Roosevelt - constantly re-elected, died in office.
    Truman - withdrew from 1952 election having been reluctant to take part in the primaries. Had been unexpectedly re-elected in 1948.
    Eisenhower - two terms
    Kennedy - assassinated
    Johnson - withdrew from 1968 election after losing initial primary support.
    Nixon - resigned.
    Ford - hopeless task, DEFEATED.
    Carter - 'incomplete success,' issues with rabbits, DEFEATED.
    Reagan - two terms.
    George H. Bush - economy, health issues, third term, DEFEATED.
    Clinton - two terms
    George W. Bush - two terms
    Obama - two terms.

    I make that 9 who secured re-election at least once against 3 who didn't (one of them was never elected in any way) with one who was shot. So your figures are quite close.
    I think what you meant to say was "Hey rcs1000, you're absolutely right. Look at the history below, and remember that Johnson could probably be pegged as a loss too."
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    Would Major have been voted in in his own strength from opposition? I have to say I would doubt it. Even though tactical voting made his victory look less impressive than it was, it was a win on Thatcher's coat-tails.

    A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.

    *Even if I extend the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
    Thatcher was poison by 1990. Major won despite her.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Barnesian said:

    My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.

    Biden would probably have won, yes.

    But:

    Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.

    Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    surby said:

    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!

    Trump voters are not going to change their minds. What Democrats need is more African Americans and other minorities turning out than in 2016. That’s why the Republicans are so focused on voter suppression, of course.

    Do they ? Will adding to the already useless winning margins in California help at all ?

    They need to win in the rust belt.

    Trump won several states by the smallest of margins. These are states in which the turnout among African Americans and other minorities was down on the 2012 number.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    The Dems must choose someone who can unite the anti-Trump vote. It would be a disaster to have a serious third party candidate, either from the centre or the left.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    ydoethur said:

    She's got no executive experience. Not that this stopped Trump, Hilary Clinton, Obama, McCain or Romney, or told against Sanders. However, you wonder if it might be an issue should Cuomo run....'

    Six years as attorney general for the largest state in the US is hardly 'no executive experience'.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 1000, having just checked, I backed Hickenlooper at even longer odds than Harris. You're right, he's clearly the best person to be Democrat nominee.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    I think what you meant to say was "Hey rcs1000, you're absolutely right. Look at the history below, and remember that Johnson could probably be pegged as a loss too."

    As pointed out, you could add Truman to the list too. But a further point you don't seem to have considered is (a) how closely clustered those defeats are in a time when America was suffering economically and socially appeared next to ungovernable and (b) that some really surprising names are in the other list. Truman was re-elected to general astonishment. Eisenhower suffered two heart attacks before re-election. Clinton was scandal struck even before Lewinsky (Whitewater springs to mind). George W. Bush was unimpressive and was already mired in Iraq. Moreover, given Ford's unique status as an unelected president, arguably he doesn't count.

    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.

    Biden would probably have won, yes.

    But:

    Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.

    Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
    Boring is why he won't get the nomination, however plausible a candidate he might be. In the age of Trump, the Democrats are not going to be looking for a healer - Biden is about the only real centrist with a chance.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.

    Biden would probably have won, yes.

    But:

    Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.

    Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/joe-biden-2020/index.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think what you meant to say was "Hey rcs1000, you're absolutely right. Look at the history below, and remember that Johnson could probably be pegged as a loss too."

    As pointed out, you could add Truman to the list too. But a further point you don't seem to have considered is (a) how closely clustered those defeats are in a time when America was suffering economically and socially appeared next to ungovernable and (b) that some really surprising names are in the other list. Truman was re-elected to general astonishment. Eisenhower suffered two heart attacks before re-election. Clinton was scandal struck even before Lewinsky (Whitewater springs to mind). George W. Bush was unimpressive and was already mired in Iraq. Moreover, given Ford's unique status as an unelected president, arguably he doesn't count.

    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.
    Remember though, that Clinton was reelected because Perot stood again in 1996.

    My point is that incumbents lose about one in four times. Equally, though, the record of Presidents improving their position between first election and second is about fifty-fifty.

    Obama: worse
    Bush II: better
    Clinton: better
    Bush I: worse
    Reagan: better
    Carter: worse
    Nixon: worse

    So, I would say that - all things being equal - there should be about a 66% chance of Trump being reelected. However, all things are not equal, and so I'd go with something closer to 50:50, and maybe slightly worse.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.

    Biden would probably have won, yes.

    But:

    Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.

    Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/joe-biden-2020/index.html
    The bigger question about Biden is whether he will run.
    I've backed him, but also profitably laid some of the stake, as I think it's maybe 50/50, and the longer he remains undecided, the less likely his candidature.

    I have some money on Harris, too. If nothing else, she has guts:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0
    In April 2004, four months after she took office in San Francisco, a 29-year-old police officer, Isaac Espinoza, was shot and killed on patrol. The city’s police union urged Harris to seek the death penalty for the suspect. Three days after Espinoza’s death, Harris announced that she would not. More than 2,000 uniformed police officers packed St. Mary’s Cathedral for the funeral. With Harris in the front row, Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, took the pulpit and called for the death penalty. Waves of cops rose to their feet and applauded. Shyamala sent white roses to her daughter’s office with a card that read “Courage!” Harris held firm, and Espinoza’s killer received a sentence of life in prison. “Our members never forgave Harris,” says Gary Delagnes, then the president of the union…
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think what you meant to say was "Hey rcs1000, you're absolutely right. Look at the history below, and remember that Johnson could probably be pegged as a loss too."

    As pointed out, you could add Truman to the list too. But a further point you don't seem to have considered is (a) how closely clustered those defeats are in a time when America was suffering economically and socially appeared next to ungovernable and (b) that some really surprising names are in the other list. Truman was re-elected to general astonishment. Eisenhower suffered two heart attacks before re-election. Clinton was scandal struck even before Lewinsky (Whitewater springs to mind). George W. Bush was unimpressive and was already mired in Iraq. Moreover, given Ford's unique status as an unelected president, arguably he doesn't count.

    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.
    Remember though, that Clinton was reelected because Perot stood again in 1996.

    My point is that incumbents lose about one in four times. Equally, though, the record of Presidents improving their position between first election and second is about fifty-fifty.

    Obama: worse
    Bush II: better
    Clinton: better
    Bush I: worse
    Reagan: better
    Carter: worse
    Nixon: worse

    So, I would say that - all things being equal - there should be about a 66% chance of Trump being reelected. However, all things are not equal, and so I'd go with something closer to 50:50, and maybe slightly worse.
    Nixon significantly improved his position from 1968 to 1972!

    Or are you referring to Ford compared to Nixon?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    ydoethur said:



    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.

    I think you're overrating incumbency, and inventing justifications for why it didn't apply in particular cases. It's a small sample size, and it certainly doesn't justify your opinion that it's bloody difficult or that Trump holds 3 aces. The odds on D vs. R next time should be around 50/50. If you think otherwise, then you have a great opportunity to make money betting.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.

    Biden would probably have won, yes.

    But:

    Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.

    Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/joe-biden-2020/index.html
    The bigger question about Biden is whether he will run.
    I've backed him, but also profitably laid some of the stake, as I think it's maybe 50/50, and the longer he remains undecided, the less likely his candidature.

    I have some money on Harris, too. If nothing else, she has guts:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0
    In April 2004, four months after she took office in San Francisco, a 29-year-old police officer, Isaac Espinoza, was shot and killed on patrol. The city’s police union urged Harris to seek the death penalty for the suspect. Three days after Espinoza’s death, Harris announced that she would not. More than 2,000 uniformed police officers packed St. Mary’s Cathedral for the funeral. With Harris in the front row, Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, took the pulpit and called for the death penalty. Waves of cops rose to their feet and applauded. Shyamala sent white roses to her daughter’s office with a card that read “Courage!” Harris held firm, and Espinoza’s killer received a sentence of life in prison. “Our members never forgave Harris,” says Gary Delagnes, then the president of the union…
    There is an anomaly in the betting on Biden. He's 8.4 to be Democrat nominee but 19 to be president. IF he stands and is chosen as nominee, surely he is odds on to beat Trump?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think what you meant to say was "Hey rcs1000, you're absolutely right. Look at the history below, and remember that Johnson could probably be pegged as a loss too."

    As pointed out, you could add Truman to the list too. But a further point you don't seem to have considered is (a) how closely clustered those defeats are in a time when America was suffering economically and socially appeared next to ungovernable and (b) that some really surprising names are in the other list. Truman was re-elected to general astonishment. Eisenhower suffered two heart attacks before re-election. Clinton was scandal struck even before Lewinsky (Whitewater springs to mind). George W. Bush was unimpressive and was already mired in Iraq. Moreover, given Ford's unique status as an unelected president, arguably he doesn't count.

    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.
    Remember though, that Clinton was reelected because Perot stood again in 1996.

    My point is that incumbents lose about one in four times. Equally, though, the record of Presidents improving their position between first election and second is about fifty-fifty.

    Obama: worse
    Bush II: better
    Clinton: better
    Bush I: worse
    Reagan: better
    Carter: worse
    Nixon: worse

    So, I would say that - all things being equal - there should be about a 66% chance of Trump being reelected. However, all things are not equal, and so I'd go with something closer to 50:50, and maybe slightly worse.
    Nixon significantly improved his position from 1968 to 1972!

    Or are you referring to Ford compared to Nixon?
    Ah you see, that's what happens when you read raw numbers off a screen without checking them.

    You are right: I compared Ford with Nixon :)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:



    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.

    I think you're overrating incumbency, and inventing justifications for why it didn't apply in particular cases. It's a small sample size, and it certainly doesn't justify your opinion that it's bloody difficult or that Trump holds 3 aces. The odds on D vs. R next time should be around 50/50. If you think otherwise, then you have a great opportunity to make money betting.
    OK. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me, for example, how it's entirely obvious that a 66 year old man who had had two heart attacks would have been elected even if he hadn't been the incumbent.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,784
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I dunno, she looks good on paper, but in the social media era I think you need a bit more spikiness. I follow 1547 accounts on Twitter and hers is far-and-away the dullest.

    The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.

    After Trump, maybe the country will want dull. (Major after Thatcher...)
    Would Major have been voted in in his own strength from opposition? I have to say I would doubt it. Even though tactical voting made his victory look less impressive than it was, it was a win on Thatcher's coat-tails.

    A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.

    *Even if I wxetebd the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
    86 years sounds like a lot doesn't it?

    But really, that's twenty odd elections. And we can't count those where there is no standing incumbent. So, now we're down to about 12. So, actually, you're saying that one in four times, Presidents are one term. Which is not so extraordinary.

    Edit to add: you forgot to mention that Perot stood in 1992.
    Roosevelt - constantly re-elected, died in office.
    Truman - withdrew from 1952 election having been reluctant to take part in the primaries. Had been unexpectedly re-elected in 1948.
    Eisenhower - two terms
    Kennedy - assassinated
    Johnson - withdrew from 1968 election after losing initial primary support.
    Nixon - resigned.
    Ford - hopeless task, DEFEATED.
    Carter - 'incomplete success,' issues with rabbits, DEFEATED.
    Reagan - two terms.
    George H. Bush - economy, health issues, third term, DEFEATED.
    Clinton - two terms
    George W. Bush - two terms
    Obama - two terms.

    I make that 9 who secured re-election at least once against 3 who didn't (one of them was never elected in any way) with one who was shot. So your figures are quite close.
    Arguably Truman and Johnson would have gone down to defeat, but chose not to run.
    Of course, the "it's all fake news, but stuff it" option will be open to Trump as well.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:



    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.

    I think you're overrating incumbency, and inventing justifications for why it didn't apply in particular cases. It's a small sample size, and it certainly doesn't justify your opinion that it's bloody difficult or that Trump holds 3 aces. The odds on D vs. R next time should be around 50/50. If you think otherwise, then you have a great opportunity to make money betting.
    OK. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me, for example, how it's entirely obvious that a 66 year old man who had had two heart attacks would have been elected even if he hadn't been the incumbent.
    I would argue that 50/50 is wrong in general (albeit not necessarily for Trump). But so is three aces. In a game of five card draw, three aces will win 98% of the time.

    One in four times, the incumbent has lost. If you include Johnson not restanding, then the odds look more like 2:1. But Trump only won marginally first time around, is not a great President, and therefore the right number is probably closer to 50:50.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,881
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:



    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.

    I think you're overrating incumbency, and inventing justifications for why it didn't apply in particular cases. It's a small sample size, and it certainly doesn't justify your opinion that it's bloody difficult or that Trump holds 3 aces. The odds on D vs. R next time should be around 50/50. If you think otherwise, then you have a great opportunity to make money betting.
    OK. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me, for example, how it's entirely obvious that a 66 year old man who had had two heart attacks would have been elected even if he hadn't been the incumbent.
    3 Aces is a very strong hand in poker. You'd win something like >95% of the time against a random hand. But your limited sample shows the incumbent wins something like 70% of the time. And it's less when you consider sometimes incumbents don't run because they think they will lose. So that's how you're overstating it. That's the best I can do to explain I'm afraid.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:



    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.

    I think you're overrating incumbency, and inventing justifications for why it didn't apply in particular cases. It's a small sample size, and it certainly doesn't justify your opinion that it's bloody difficult or that Trump holds 3 aces. The odds on D vs. R next time should be around 50/50. If you think otherwise, then you have a great opportunity to make money betting.
    OK. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me, for example, how it's entirely obvious that a 66 year old man who had had two heart attacks would have been elected even if he hadn't been the incumbent.
    I would argue that 50/50 is wrong in general (albeit not necessarily for Trump). But so is three aces. In a game of five card draw, three aces will win 98% of the time.

    One in four times, the incumbent has lost. If you include Johnson not restanding, then the odds look more like 2:1. But Trump only won marginally first time around, is not a great President, and therefore the right number is probably closer to 50:50.
    An alternative way of looking at it is:

    52-60 2x Rep
    60-68 2xDem
    68-76 2xRep
    76-80 1xDem
    80-92 3xRep
    92-00 2xDem
    00-08 2xRep
    08-16 2xDem

    So 7/8 times the incumbent party has been re-elected or 8/9 if you take a step back to Trueman in 1948.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    Before I go to bed, here's a Yes Minister sketch I hadn't seen before:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vShJa6GobFQ
  • surbysurby Posts: 1,227
    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Ironically, I , a red, fully agree with you. No replacement of Trident. Just tinker with it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:



    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.

    I think you're overrating incumbency, and inventing justifications for why it didn't apply in particular cases. It's a small sample size, and it certainly doesn't justify your opinion that it's bloody difficult or that Trump holds 3 aces. The odds on D vs. R next time should be around 50/50. If you think otherwise, then you have a great opportunity to make money betting.
    OK. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me, for example, how it's entirely obvious that a 66 year old man who had had two heart attacks would have been elected even if he hadn't been the incumbent.
    I would argue that 50/50 is wrong in general (albeit not necessarily for Trump). But so is three aces. In a game of five card draw, three aces will win 98% of the time.

    One in four times, the incumbent has lost. If you include Johnson not restanding, then the odds look more like 2:1. But Trump only won marginally first time around, is not a great President, and therefore the right number is probably closer to 50:50.
    An alternative way of looking at it is:

    52-60 2x Rep
    60-68 2xDem
    68-76 2xRep
    76-80 1xDem
    80-92 3xRep
    92-00 2xDem
    00-08 2xRep
    08-16 2xDem

    So 7/8 times the incumbent party has been re-elected or 8/9 if you take a step back to Trueman in 1948.
    That's persuasive, although we need to remember that it is not impossible that the Republicans candidate in 2020 will not be Donald Trump - either because of health, a challenge from his own party, retirement, or legal issues.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    edited June 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:



    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.

    I think you're overrating incumbency, and inventing justifications for why it didn't apply in particular cases. It's a small sample size, and it certainly doesn't justify your opinion that it's bloody difficult or that Trump holds 3 aces. The odds on D vs. R next time should be around 50/50. If you think otherwise, then you have a great opportunity to make money betting.
    OK. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me, for example, how it's entirely obvious that a 66 year old man who had had two heart attacks would have been elected even if he hadn't been the incumbent.
    I would argue that 50/50 is wrong in general (albeit not necessarily for Trump). But so is three aces. In a game of five card draw, three aces will win 98% of the time.

    One in four times, the incumbent has lost. If you include Johnson not restanding, then the odds look more like 2:1. But Trump only won marginally first time around, is not a great President, and therefore the right number is probably closer to 50:50.
    What makes you think I was playing poker? I was thinking of whist! There, three aces are strong but not unassailable.

    Trump is a duff president who won narrowly while losing the popular vote. So was George W. Bush, yet he still won re-election. Oddly, the two elected presidents who stood and were defeated had both been comfortably elected - Bush by a wide margin of seven points, and Carter by admittedly a 2% margin but an overall majority of the vote.

    Trump is in situ. He's news, whatever he does. His policies are controversial and usually stupid, but they're clear and present. The Democrats have currently no obvious challenger, no clear policies and limited time to turn things around.
    This is not to say I think he will win (and I'm hoping he doesn't). Just to say I think he's currently hot favourite* if he stands, and past form would bear out that analysis - only two elected presidents who contested the election have lost from the past 13, and only one of those was in the first term for their party.

    Anyway, I hope you found that interesting/entertaining. School beckons. Have a good evening.

    *just like I thought Clinton, May, Remain were hot favourites - I hope...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. 1000, ha, that's rather good. I do like Humphrey's jargon-laden monologues.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Barnesian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.

    Biden would probably have won, yes.

    But:

    Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.

    Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/joe-biden-2020/index.html
    The bigger question about Biden is whether he will run.
    I've backed him, but also profitably laid some of the stake, as I think it's maybe 50/50, and the longer he remains undecided, the less likely his candidature.

    I have some money on Harris, too. If nothing else, she has guts:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0
    In April 2004, four months after she took office in San Francisco, a 29-year-old police officer, Isaac Espinoza, was shot and killed on patrol. The city’s police union urged Harris to seek the death penalty for the suspect. Three days after Espinoza’s death, Harris announced that she would not. More than 2,000 uniformed police officers packed St. Mary’s Cathedral for the funeral. With Harris in the front row, Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, took the pulpit and called for the death penalty. Waves of cops rose to their feet and applauded. Shyamala sent white roses to her daughter’s office with a card that read “Courage!” Harris held firm, and Espinoza’s killer received a sentence of life in prison. “Our members never forgave Harris,” says Gary Delagnes, then the president of the union…
    There is an anomaly in the betting on Biden. He's 8.4 to be Democrat nominee but 19 to be president. IF he stands and is chosen as nominee, surely he is odds on to beat Trump?
    Absolutely.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830

    surby said:

    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!

    Trump voters are not going to change their minds. What Democrats need is more African Americans and other minorities turning out than in 2016. That’s why the Republicans are so focused on voter suppression, of course.

    This.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517
    surby said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Ironically, I , a red, fully agree with you. No replacement of Trident. Just tinker with it.
    "Just tinker with it."

    What do you have in mind?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    surby said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Ironically, I , a red, fully agree with you. No replacement of Trident. Just tinker with it.
    "Just tinker with it."

    What do you have in mind?
    Tinkering with thermonuclear bombs didn't seem an awfully good idea to me, either...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    rcs1000 said:

    Before I go to bed, here's a Yes Minister sketch I hadn't seen before:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vShJa6GobFQ

    New to me as well, many thanks. My favourite programme of all time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    Isn't it meant to be a rule that every senior politician has at leaSt one very embarrassing relative? Piers admirably steps up to the plate
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    A coastal, pro unrestricted migration elite liberal Democrat is not what the Democrats need to win back the rustbelt. Sanders or Biden are more likely to do that
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Corbyn’s brother:
    twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/1011127561542348800?s=21

    Piers Corbyn was a revered prophet of the anti-climate change brigade until his brother became leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Can't think why this would have altered the likelihood of weather being driven by solar activity but apparently it has.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.

    The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    surby said:

    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!

    Trump voters are not going to change their minds. What Democrats need is more African Americans and other minorities turning out than in 2016. That’s why the Republicans are so focused on voter suppression, of course.

    Do they ? Will adding to the already useless winning margins in California help at all ?

    They need to win in the rust belt.

    Trump won several states by the smallest of margins. These are states in which the turnout among African Americans and other minorities was down on the 2012 number.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/

    It’s one heck of a gamble for Democrats to rely on that to win in 2020 though.

    Reminds me of Ed Miliband’s 35% strategy. Far better that the Democrats find a way to speak to the left behinds in the mid-West as well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:



    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.

    I think you're overrating incumbency, and inventing justifications for why it didn't apply in particular cases. It's a small sample size, and it certainly doesn't justify your opinion that it's bloody difficult or that Trump holds 3 aces. The odds on D vs. R next time should be around 50/50. If you think otherwise, then you have a great opportunity to make money betting.
    OK. Show me where I'm wrong. Show me, for example, how it's entirely obvious that a 66 year old man who had had two heart attacks would have been elected even if he hadn't been the incumbent.
    I would argue that 50/50 is wrong in general (albeit not necessarily for Trump). But so is three aces. In a game of five card draw, three aces will win 98% of the time.

    One in four times, the incumbent has lost. If you include Johnson not restanding, then the odds look more like 2:1. But Trump only won marginally first time around, is not a great President, and therefore the right number is probably closer to 50:50.
    Ford and Bush Senior both most after 2 and 3 terms respectively of their party in the White House.

    Carter in 1980 is the only President since WW2 to lose after only one term of his party in the White House and that is the closer comparison to Trump and he lost to Reagan, the ageing candidate who had been runner up in the Republican primaries 4 years earlier, so that comparison is good for Sanders
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Great article by IFS. Well worth a read.

    "We haven’t seen a compression in earnings inequality like that since the 1970s."

    "We continue to treat pensioners as though they need free travel, winter fuel allowances and the like, despite the fact they are on average now the best-off demographic group in the country"

    "The 1980s saw hugely increasing inequality, rising rates of poverty and mass unemployment. We are still living with the consequences, but we should not ignore much more recent trends. Of these the increasing numbers of, and poverty among, the mentally ill is perhaps the most urgent to address."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13107
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think what you meant to say was "Hey rcs1000, you're absolutely right. Look at the history below, and remember that Johnson could probably be pegged as a loss too."

    As pointed out, you could add Truman to the list too. But a further point you don't seem to have considered is (a) how closely clustered those defeats are in a time when America was suffering economically and socially appeared next to ungovernable and (b) that some really surprising names are in the other list. Truman was re-elected to general astonishment. Eisenhower suffered two heart attacks before re-election. Clinton was scandal struck even before Lewinsky (Whitewater springs to mind). George W. Bush was unimpressive and was already mired in Iraq. Moreover, given Ford's unique status as an unelected president, arguably he doesn't count.

    My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.
    Remember though, that Clinton was reelected because Perot stood again in 1996.

    My point is that incumbents lose about one in four times. Equally, though, the record of Presidents improving their position between first election and second is about fifty-fifty.

    Obama: worse
    Bush II: better
    Clinton: better
    Bush I: worse
    Reagan: better
    Carter: worse
    Nixon: worse

    So, I would say that - all things being equal - there should be about a 66% chance of Trump being reelected. However, all things are not equal, and so I'd go with something closer to 50:50, and maybe slightly worse.
    Clinton would have beaten Dole even without Perot, exit polls showed Perot voters splitting almost evenly between Clinton and Dole had Perot not stood and the same was true in 1992
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Trying to divine two term one term probabilities from history is nuts.

    Events, it is always events.

    Bush W would have been almost certainly been a 1 termer if not for 9/11. His mere existence had fired up the utterly complacent Dem base.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Nigelb said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    My money is on Joe Biden. He's well known, likeable, experienced, appeals to the rust belt. He would have run and beat Trump last time had he not had a family tragedy.

    Biden would probably have won, yes.

    But:

    Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.

    Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/joe-biden-2020/index.html
    The bigger question about Biden is whether he will run.
    I've backed him, but also profitably laid some of the stake, as I think it's maybe 50/50, and the longer he remains undecided, the less likely his candidature.

    I have some money on Harris, too. If nothing else, she has guts:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0
    In April 2004, four months after she took office in San Francisco, a 29-year-old police officer, Isaac Espinoza, was shot and killed on patrol. The city’s police union urged Harris to seek the death penalty for the suspect. Three days after Espinoza’s death, Harris announced that she would not. More than 2,000 uniformed police officers packed St. Mary’s Cathedral for the funeral. With Harris in the front row, Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, took the pulpit and called for the death penalty. Waves of cops rose to their feet and applauded. Shyamala sent white roses to her daughter’s office with a card that read “Courage!” Harris held firm, and Espinoza’s killer received a sentence of life in prison. “Our members never forgave Harris,” says Gary Delagnes, then the president of the union…
    That is a Trump attack ad in the making if ever there was one, Harris would be a sitting duck in Middle America as Dukakis was in 1988
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    DavidL said:

    Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.

    The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.

    Democrats in Ohio are calling on Biden to rally the troops.

    https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/06/22/oh-gov-democrats-enthused-by-surge-in-dem-voters-party-calls-in-joe-biden-to-rally-the-base

    Biden was born in Pennsylvania, another swing state now.

    If you fancy betting on Biden, I suggest you bet on him being President (19) rather than Democrat nominee (8.4).
  • Corbyn’s brother:
    twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/1011127561542348800?s=21

    Piers Corbyn was a revered prophet of the anti-climate change brigade until his brother became leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Can't think why this would have altered the likelihood of weather being driven by solar activity but apparently it has.
    Piers Corbyn has been an anthropogenic climate change denying loon ever since the miners' strike in the 1980s, at which time he claimed that Margaret Thatcher's endorsement of the science was simply an excuse for closing coal mines.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    surby said:

    The Democrats also need to get back some of the working class people they lost to Trump. Kamala Harris will not get them back.

    Oh, and first!

    Trump voters are not going to change their minds. What Democrats need is more African Americans and other minorities turning out than in 2016. That’s why the Republicans are so focused on voter suppression, of course.

    No, Democrats are unlikely to win any Southern states beyond Virginia against Trump nor is there any point buildingeven bigger majorities on the coast, what they need to do is win the rustbelt swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which even Kerry and Gore managed to win and Hillary lost by less than 1% and hold the Hillary states and they have a small Electoral College majority and the Presidency
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Great article by IFS. Well worth a read.

    "We haven’t seen a compression in earnings inequality like that since the 1970s."

    "We continue to treat pensioners as though they need free travel, winter fuel allowances and the like, despite the fact they are on average now the best-off demographic group in the country"

    "The 1980s saw hugely increasing inequality, rising rates of poverty and mass unemployment. We are still living with the consequences, but we should not ignore much more recent trends. Of these the increasing numbers of, and poverty among, the mentally ill is perhaps the most urgent to address."


    https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13107

    It is a great article. Also worth reading is John Harris's critique of the Labour leadership:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/25/where-is-jeremy-corbyn-rose-tinted-vision-labour-past
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    DavidL said:

    Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.

    The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.

    Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    edited June 2018
    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    I wouldn't say it's necessarily wrong. After all its the defensive posture of just about every other maritime power in the world. What is wrong is the way the MoD continually aspires to the trappings of quasi superpower status (QEC, Trident, etc.) but then can't fund the less visible support elements that make those incredibly expensive platforms viable. How can a carrier strike force be credibly sustained when the entire surface fleet is relying on 6 oilers, only a few of which are ever available at one time. It can't.

    It's a similar story everywhere else in the British forces. Once you lift the fine silk rug you find rotten floorboards. We have F-35 and Typhoon but no SEAD, no offensive EW, not enough AAR and AEW&C that has been allowed to decay into obsolescence and unreliability.

    Our capacity for major and independent action outside a US led coalition is now zero. Nobody whether at 1* rank in the force, the MoD or the political establishment is willing to acknowledge the truth that our aspiration far exceeds our willingness to pay. But appearances have to be maintained hence we end up with grotesquely imbalanced forces and essential capabilities that are "gapped".
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.

    The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.

    Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
    If the Dems lose Florida and Ohio they lose. I agree they lean Trump. That is why they need someone who can lean one of them back again.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
    Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.

    The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.

    Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
    If the Dems lose Florida and Ohio they lose. I agree they lean Trump. That is why they need someone who can lean one of them back again.
    There is a path to victory without those States, but it's narrow.

    If the Dems won back Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, they would scrape home.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
    Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
    The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.

    Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Corbyn's lot getting rattled by young starting to notice that Labour is Brexit too:

    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1010956065201098752
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
    Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
    The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.

    Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
    To be fair, France was helpful.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.

    The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.

    Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
    If the Dems lose Florida and Ohio they lose. I agree they lean Trump. That is why they need someone who can lean one of them back again.
    There is a path to victory without those States, but it's narrow.

    If the Dems won back Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, they would scrape home.
    I would suggest that if the Dems can't retaken these states then they don't deserve to win anyway.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.

    The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.

    Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
    Another few tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans fleeing the disasterous cluster fuck of Trump's botched relief efforts could swing Florida back to Lean Dem.

    https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/exodus-the-post-hurricane-puerto-rican-diaspora-mapped/555401/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Thompson, why didn't NATO get involved in the Falklands?

    On that sort of note, Erdogan's entirely democratic victory looks like it'll make him even more powerful, and the country even less free and democratic.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
    Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
    The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.

    Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
    That’s not true.

    France came to our aid and the EC put strong sanctions on Argentina.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Sean_F said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
    Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
    The alliance that has successfully helped defend us for the last 70 years is NATO not Europe.

    Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
    To be fair, France was helpful.
    It's easy to forget that we succeeded in Operation Corporate by a gnat's bollock hair. It's very possible that without the help we got from France (DGSE holding up the Peruvian Exocet shipment, DACT with Mirage V, etc.) we would have lost.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    As British warships steamed for the Falkland Islands, West European governments last week were closing ranks behind Britain with uncharacteristic unanimity and speed.

    Only hours after Argentine troops landed on the islands, the 10 European Community countries jointly condemned the ''flagrant violation'' of international law.

    And in a weeklong flurry of diplomatic activity unmatched even at the height of the Polish crisis, ambassadors were recalled, arms shipments to Argentina halted, and imports worth nearly $2 billion a year to the Argentine economy banned.

    Few diplomats could recall when the EC had pulled together so resolutely for a cause - and an ally.

    Early last week, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher appealed personally to several European leaders, including French President Francois Mitterrand and West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, to take measures ''similar'' to those Britain adopted against Argentina immediately after the Argentine invasion.

    But when the EC agreed April 10 to impose a complete ban on Argentine imports , meeting Britain's request to the letter, even seasoned diplomats were surprised. They recall the nit-picking and foot-dragging within the EC following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 and the military crackdown in Poland four months ago. The action against Argentina is the Community's toughest collective economic sanction ever.

    As punishment for the Soviet role in the imposition of martial law in Poland, the diplomats note, the EC wound up cutting Soviet imports by an almost laughable 1.5 percent.

    Several times last week the EC called for the immediate application of UN Resolution 502, which demands the withdrawal of Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands and the resolution of the crisis by diplomatic means.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1982/0412/041231.html
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830

    Corbyn's lot getting rattled by young starting to notice that Labour is Brexit too:

    https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1010956065201098752

    If Corbynistas defending Corbyn to the hilt and being on the defensive is them being ‘rattled’, then they are constantly and always rattled.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited June 2018
    Scott_P said:
    Does she ever give up? The you gov and Populus public polls published at 10pm on 23 June had remain ahead by 4 and 10 per cent.

    Everyone thought remain had won including the pundits and the City and the politicians - and then the votes were counted. Farage just said out loud what everyone was hinting at - which is and was his way.

    Gina Miller and her court case was backed by hedge funds (her hubby runs one) - yes they have too much money and too much influence but they are hardly generally pro Brexit - but that is presumably fine for the Observer as those hedge funds are on the right side.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
    Please read my post again; it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

    What Dura Ace said is that the French Navy has less ability to deploy on a sustained basis than the RN (or at least, did until the recent past). In term of actual combat ships we’re more or less even.

    The question is, when will we be required to maintain most of our fleet at sea for an extended period without the support of the USA? I can’t foresee a scenario. Which rising power would want to cut the sea lanes to and from the U.K.? It certainly isn’t China.

    At some point, financial reality has to enter your grand schemes. 1945-1970 was a dismal period when we overspent on defence at the expense of re-equipping our industrial base, leaving us 30-40% behind France and Germany on a per capita GDP basis. It would be a mistake to repeat that policy, and in any case, there is no meaningful constituency to do so.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Mr. Thompson, why didn't NATO get involved in the Falklands?

    On that sort of note, Erdogan's entirely democratic victory looks like it'll make him even more powerful, and the country even less free and democratic.

    NATO only applies to Europe and North America. The Falklands were outside the scope of NATO's Article 5.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited June 2018

    Mr. Thompson, why didn't NATO get involved in the Falklands?

    On that sort of note, Erdogan's entirely democratic victory looks like it'll make him even more powerful, and the country even less free and democratic.

    Because we didn’t ask for Article V to be invoked.

    Mrs Thatcher realised it would have placed America in an invidious position.

    Much better to have their support under the radar.

    If you want to know how much America and the EC helped the UK regain the Falklands read the book by Sir Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins on the war, and Mrs Thatcher’s autobiography and Charles Moore’s biography.

    Plus it was good for the national psyche if people thought it was just us that retook the Falklands.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Dura_Ace said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    I wouldn't say it's necessarily wrong. After all its the defensive posture of just about every other maritime power in the world. What is wrong is the way the MoD continually aspires to the trappings of quasi superpower status (QEC, Trident, etc.) but then can't fund the less visible support elements that make those incredibly expensive platforms viable. How can a carrier strike force be credibly sustained when the entire surface fleet is relying on 6 oilers, only a few of which are ever available at one time. It can't.

    It's a similar story everywhere else in the British forces. Once you lift the fine silk rug you find rotten floorboards. We have F-35 and Typhoon but no SEAD, no offensive EW, not enough AAR and AEW&C that has been allowed to decay into obsolescence and unreliability.

    Our capacity for major and independent action outside a US led coalition is now zero. Nobody whether at 1* rank in the force, the MoD or the political establishment is willing to acknowledge the truth that our aspiration far exceeds our willingness to pay. But appearances have to be maintained hence we end up with grotesquely imbalanced forces and essential capabilities that are "gapped".
    Oh and also get or are in far greater danger of getting a shellacking when we do deploy on account, as you say, of that conspiracy of delusion of the 1* ranks, MoD and politicos.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Thompson/Mr. Eagles, cheers.

    F1: vague aside but with the power of the new Mercedes engine, but perhaps dubious reliability (Perez retired due to it), that could mean the Silver Arrows will have either great success or unremitting woe in the next few races.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    Was Kamala Harris REALLY born in the US?

    She grew up in Canada. Isn't she Canadian?

    Or Indian?

    Or Jamaican?

    Or...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
    Unbelievable that you can write that with a straight face and support Brexit like your life depends on it.
    There is no connection between the two.

    Multilateral defense and security alliances do not require political union.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Dura_Ace said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    I wouldn't say it's necessarily wrong. After all its the defensive posture of just about every other maritime power in the world. What is wrong is the way the MoD continually aspires to the trappings of quasi superpower status (QEC, Trident, etc.) but then can't fund the less visible support elements that make those incredibly expensive platforms viable. How can a carrier strike force be credibly sustained when the entire surface fleet is relying on 6 oilers, only a few of which are ever available at one time. It can't.

    It's a similar story everywhere else in the British forces. Once you lift the fine silk rug you find rotten floorboards. We have F-35 and Typhoon but no SEAD, no offensive EW, not enough AAR and AEW&C that has been allowed to decay into obsolescence and unreliability.

    Our capacity for major and independent action outside a US led coalition is now zero. Nobody whether at 1* rank in the force, the MoD or the political establishment is willing to acknowledge the truth that our aspiration far exceeds our willingness to pay. But appearances have to be maintained hence we end up with grotesquely imbalanced forces and essential capabilities that are "gapped".
    Yup. Depressing stuff.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,765
    RoyalBlue said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    RoyalBlue said:

    FPT

    Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.

    Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?

    Yes, it is a bad choice.

    The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.

    We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global

    The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.

    You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
    Please read my post again; it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

    What Dura Ace said is that the French Navy has less ability to deploy on a sustained basis than the RN (or at least, did until the recent past). In term of actual combat ships we’re more or less even.

    The question is, when will we be required to maintain most of our fleet at sea for an extended period without the support of the USA? I can’t foresee a scenario. Which rising power would want to cut the sea lanes to and from the U.K.? It certainly isn’t China.

    At some point, financial reality has to enter your grand schemes. 1945-1970 was a dismal period when we overspent on defence at the expense of re-equipping our industrial base, leaving us 30-40% behind France and Germany on a per capita GDP basis. It would be a mistake to repeat that policy, and in any case, there is no meaningful constituency to do so.
    Yet, 1945-1970 was also a time of strong economic growth.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Can’t see what the Dems get out of having a Californian candidate. It’s a positive disadvantage. That disadvantage could be overcome if she was truly exceptional but I see little evidence of that.

    The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.

    Pennsylvania is now the key swing state, Florida and Ohio lean Trump
    The GOP is in trouble if PA is THE swing state at the next election, the Democrats have been getting HUGE swings there in various house races.
This discussion has been closed.