politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters: US midterms special (part three) wit

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters: US midterms special (part three) with GOP pollster Patrick Ruffini

In the final part of our mini-series on the US midterms ahead of Tuesday’s vote Keiran talks to Patrick Ruffini from Echelon insights on the races to watch, the prospects for a Democratic wave and the likelihood of Trump winning re-election in 2020.

Read the full story here

Foxy

first! like the Dems.

HYUFD

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

MikeSmithson

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Agreed. Essentially haven't moved that much. Trump got a Kavanaugh bounce which has now dissipated. A lot depends on turnout and whether the Dems can do what Corbyn did at GE2017 and motivate the young to vote.

I think there's going to be a higher turnout than the 35-36% of the last midterms.

HYUFD

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Agreed. Essentially haven't moved that much. Trump got a Kavanaugh bounce which has now dissipated. A lot depends on turnout and whether the Dems can do what Corbyn did at GE2017 and motivate the young to vote.

I think there's going to be a higher turnout than the 35-36% of the last midterms.

It may be a bit higher but remember you have to go back to 1914 to find the last time over 50% of US voters voted in midterms, normally midterms get about the same turnout as UK local elections

Foxy

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Agreed. Essentially haven't moved that much. Trump got a Kavanaugh bounce which has now dissipated. A lot depends on turnout and whether the Dems can do what Corbyn did at GE2017 and motivate the young to vote.

I think there's going to be a higher turnout than the 35-36% of the last midterms.

It may be a bit higher but remember you have to go back to 1914 to find the last time over 50% of US voters voted in midterms, normally midterms get about the same turnout as UK local elections

Even POTUS elections fail to reach 60% turnout, but as I recall the US calculates turnout a bit differently to the UK.

YBarddCwsc

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Stereotomy

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Governors will probably affect 2020 more directly than the House

Alistair

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Agreed. Essentially haven't moved that much. Trump got a Kavanaugh bounce which has now dissipated. A lot depends on turnout and whether the Dems can do what Corbyn did at GE2017 and motivate the young to vote.

I think there's going to be a higher turnout than the 35-36% of the last midterms.

It may be a bit higher but remember you have to go back to 1914 to find the last time over 50% of US voters voted in midterms, normally midterms get about the same turnout as UK local elections

It is going to be over 40%

ydoethur

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Insanity - carrying out the same process twice in the expectation of a different result.

In this case, it would be three times. But surely the answer's no. The super delegates that were crucial in given her candidacy he sense of inevitability last time would surely veto her on the basis of age, repeated failure and inability to reach swing voters in key states.

HYUFD

Stereotomy said:

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Governors will probably affect 2020 more directly than the House

In the key swing states maybe but obviously if the Democrats take the House they can block Trump's budget and domestic priorities

HYUFD

Alistair said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Agreed. Essentially haven't moved that much. Trump got a Kavanaugh bounce which has now dissipated. A lot depends on turnout and whether the Dems can do what Corbyn did at GE2017 and motivate the young to vote.

I think there's going to be a higher turnout than the 35-36% of the last midterms.

It may be a bit higher but remember you have to go back to 1914 to find the last time over 50% of US voters voted in midterms, normally midterms get about the same turnout as UK local elections

It is going to be over 40%

Which even then would not be much higher than the 36% who voted in the 2018 English local elections

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-43997872

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

Stereotomy said:

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Governors will probably affect 2020 more directly than the House

In the key swing states maybe but obviously if the Democrats take the House they can block Trump's budget and domestic priorities

Would that help or hinder him though?

At the moment he has no alibi for his programme being a failure. It's failing because it's incoherent, illegal and Trump couldn't run a bath effectively. If the House goes Blue, he can do what Truman did and blame them for all his failures.

I can foresee a Trump presidency being no different with a a Democratic house and yet being much more likely to continue beyond 2020.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

HYUFD said:

Still looks like the Denocrats will gain the House and the Republicans hold the Senate.

In terms of 2020 it probably means very little, both Bill Clinton and Obama were re elected despite losing the House in their first midterms

Agreed. Essentially haven't moved that much. Trump got a Kavanaugh bounce which has now dissipated. A lot depends on turnout and whether the Dems can do what Corbyn did at GE2017 and motivate the young to vote.

I think there's going to be a higher turnout than the 35-36% of the last midterms.

It may be a bit higher but remember you have to go back to 1914 to find the last time over 50% of US voters voted in midterms, normally midterms get about the same turnout as UK local elections

Even POTUS elections fail to reach 60% turnout, but as I recall the US calculates turnout a bit differently to the UK.

Though 58% voted in the 2008 US presidential election

OldKingCole

Interesting podcast, but I’m not sure it added much to what we already know.

HYUFD

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

Morris_Dancer

Mr. HYUFD, easy to forget that a number of early states were very close between Sanders and Clinton, and could have tipped the other way with only minor changes.

rottenborough

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Oh dear God...

rottenborough

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

rottenborough

Clinton is 95 on BF.

I found my finger hovering over the 'Back' button.

Should I seek medical help?

MikeSmithson

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

YBarddCwsc

rottenborough said:

Clinton is 95 on BF.

I found my finger hovering over the 'Back' button.

Should I seek medical help?

We will all need medical help if there is a repeat of the bummer that was Clinton v Trump.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Borough, for the presidency or the nomination?

For the latter, maybe.

rottenborough

Bloomberg has re-registered as a Democrat.

rottenborough

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Borough, for the presidency or the nomination?

For the latter, maybe.

POTUS.

28 for nomination.

rottenborough

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

OldKingCole

YBarddCwsc said:

rottenborough said:

Clinton is 95 on BF.

I found my finger hovering over the 'Back' button.

Should I seek medical help?

We will all need medical help if there is a repeat of the bummer that was Clinton v Trump.

She’ll be 73 in 2020, consequently 77 at the end of her term(!). And she’s run three times, twice against Obama in the primaries and once ‘for real’ against Trump. I know she won the popular vote last time, but I still think that, surely, enough is enough!

rottenborough

Republicans Need A Systematic Polling Error To Win The House

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-need-a-systematic-polling-error-to-win-the-house/

rottenborough

OldKingCole said:

YBarddCwsc said:

rottenborough said:

Clinton is 95 on BF.

I found my finger hovering over the 'Back' button.

Should I seek medical help?

We will all need medical help if there is a repeat of the bummer that was Clinton v Trump.

She’ll be 73 in 2020, consequently 77 at the end of her term(!). And she’s run three times, twice against Obama in the primaries and once ‘for real’ against Trump. I know she won the popular vote last time, but I still think that, surely, enough is enough!

That popular vote stuff must eat at her soul though.

AndyJS

O/T

"Tory MP asks government to consider bringing back death penalty

Former minister John Hayes urges justice secretary to consider ‘potential merits’ of hanging violent criminals"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-mp-bring-back-death-penalty-john-hayes-lincolnshire-capital-punishment-a8615731.html

stodge

Afternoon all

I have to confess the betting event of interest for me on Tuesday isn't in America but several hours earlier in Australia, the Melbourne Cup. I've had a small bet on CROSS COUNTER who has no weight but it's as always a very open race.

stodge

OldKingCole said:

She’ll be 73 in 2020, consequently 77 at the end of her term(!). And she’s run three times, twice against Obama in the primaries and once ‘for real’ against Trump. I know she won the popular vote last time, but I still think that, surely, enough is enough!

Nixon fought five elections, twice as VP to Eisenhower, was defeated by JFK in 1960 and won again in both 68 and 72. He wasn't 60 when he won re-election in 72.

RobD

rottenborough said:

Republicans Need A Systematic Polling Error To Win The House

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-need-a-systematic-polling-error-to-win-the-house/

Remind me what happened in 2016? (not that I think it will happen). I think there was a similar article about the Dem’s chances of winning the senate.

MikeSmithson

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

MikeSmithson

RobD said:

rottenborough said:

Republicans Need A Systematic Polling Error To Win The House

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-need-a-systematic-polling-error-to-win-the-house/

Remind me what happened in 2016? (not that I think it will happen). I think there was a similar article about the Dem’s chances of winning the senate.

The potential for a polling error most likely if voters segments previously regarded as less likely to participate actually do so

OldKingCole

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

NickPalmer

Anecdote department - spent a couple of hours with colleagues leafleting shoppers with post-budget Labour material in Seriously Tory Waverley (Godalming/Farnmham/Haslemere). About 30% took leaflets, often with supportive comments, though I think some of the elderly ones just didn't like to say no to my courteous Jeeves-like offer ("Good morning, madam, may I offer you a Labour Party communication?"). About 35% were affably dismissive, and the rest just wandered by in mock or genuine obliviousness.

There's scope for an article on leaflet dynamics - e.g. if someone takes a leaflet, the probability is unusually high that the next person will, but if they refuse, the next person is almost guaranteed to refuse too (in fact you should stop offering until that group has moved on).

I'm not convinced that this or any other leaflet will change a single mind. It's all about profile-raising and making supporters feel it's worth bothering to vote. It's also, like most human interactions, just a pleasant way to spend a morning in the sun. I now have the details of my ward in the May locals (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ward/4591/) - time to start canvassing...

ydoethur

stodge said:

OldKingCole said:

She’ll be 73 in 2020, consequently 77 at the end of her term(!). And she’s run three times, twice against Obama in the primaries and once ‘for real’ against Trump. I know she won the popular vote last time, but I still think that, surely, enough is enough!

Nixon fought five elections, twice as VP to Eisenhower, was defeated by JFK in 1960 and won again in both 68 and 72. He wasn't 60 when he won re-election in 72.

Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis.

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

kjh

NickPalmer said:

Anecdote department - spent a couple of hours with colleagues leafleting shoppers with post-budget Labour material in Seriously Tory Waverley (Godalming/Farnmham/Haslemere). About 30% took leaflets, often with supportive comments, though I think some of the elderly ones just didn't like to say no to my courteous Jeeves-like offer ("Good morning, madam, may I offer you a Labour Party communication?"). About 35% were affably dismissive, and the rest just wandered by in mock or genuine obliviousness.

There's scope for an article on leaflet dynamics - e.g. if someone takes a leaflet, the probability is unusually high that the next person will, but if they refuse, the next person is almost guaranteed to refuse too (in fact you should stop offering until that group has moved on).

I'm not convinced that this or any other leaflet will change a single mind. It's all about profile-raising and making supporters feel it's worth bothering to vote. It's also, like most human interactions, just a pleasant way to spend a morning in the sun. I now have the details of my ward in the May locals (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ward/4591/) - time to start canvassing...

It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Ferraro was OK.

Recidivist

NickPalmer said:

Anecdote department - spent a couple of hours with colleagues leafleting shoppers with post-budget Labour material in Seriously Tory Waverley (Godalming/Farnmham/Haslemere). About 30% took leaflets, often with supportive comments, though I think some of the elderly ones just didn't like to say no to my courteous Jeeves-like offer ("Good morning, madam, may I offer you a Labour Party communication?"). About 35% were affably dismissive, and the rest just wandered by in mock or genuine obliviousness.

There's scope for an article on leaflet dynamics - e.g. if someone takes a leaflet, the probability is unusually high that the next person will, but if they refuse, the next person is almost guaranteed to refuse too (in fact you should stop offering until that group has moved on).

I'm not convinced that this or any other leaflet will change a single mind. It's all about profile-raising and making supporters feel it's worth bothering to vote. It's also, like most human interactions, just a pleasant way to spend a morning in the sun. I now have the details of my ward in the May locals (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ward/4591/) - time to start canvassing...

It has just crossed my mind that I don't know where Waverley actually is. I guess it was chosen as the name of the council district to avoid having to chose between Godalming, Farnham or Haslemere which must be roughly the same size. I would think that in any of them people giving out political leaflets at all, let alone Labour ones, is a pretty rare event. You've probably picked up a few votes on the 'they are the only people I've ever seen' basis, but even so I think you will have a long job to win that one over. Best of luck though. We only have democracy at all because some people are willing to put the hours in.

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Ferraro was OK.

Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.

rottenborough

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Impressive. I have only managed 34.

rottenborough

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Palin and ? I can't remember.

kjh

Recidivist said:

NickPalmer said:

Anecdote department - spent a couple of hours with colleagues leafleting shoppers with post-budget Labour material in Seriously Tory Waverley (Godalming/Farnmham/Haslemere). About 30% took leaflets, often with supportive comments, though I think some of the elderly ones just didn't like to say no to my courteous Jeeves-like offer ("Good morning, madam, may I offer you a Labour Party communication?"). About 35% were affably dismissive, and the rest just wandered by in mock or genuine obliviousness.

There's scope for an article on leaflet dynamics - e.g. if someone takes a leaflet, the probability is unusually high that the next person will, but if they refuse, the next person is almost guaranteed to refuse too (in fact you should stop offering until that group has moved on).

I'm not convinced that this or any other leaflet will change a single mind. It's all about profile-raising and making supporters feel it's worth bothering to vote. It's also, like most human interactions, just a pleasant way to spend a morning in the sun. I now have the details of my ward in the May locals (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ward/4591/) - time to start canvassing...

It has just crossed my mind that I don't know where Waverley actually is. I guess it was chosen as the name of the council district to avoid having to chose between Godalming, Farnham or Haslemere which must be roughly the same size. I would think that in any of them people giving out political leaflets at all, let alone Labour ones, is a pretty rare event. You've probably picked up a few votes on the 'they are the only people I've ever seen' basis, but even so I think you will have a long job to win that one over. Best of luck though. We only have democracy at all because some people are willing to put the hours in.

When it was a tight LD/Tory marginal, both at a local and national level the population was absolutely inundated with leaflets.

ydoethur

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Palin and ? I can't remember.

Geraldine Ferraro, 1984.

rottenborough

Ohhh.....

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1058744146565963776

stodge

kjh said:

It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.

If memory serves, Waverley was one of the Councils gained in 1995 when the Conservatives lost 2,000 seats in a single night. The big winners were Labour but the LDs picked up around 500 seats and Waverley was one of those councils captured from NOC.

As you say, control switched for the next few years with both Conservatives and LDs having spells of majority control and spells of NOC. It's been solidly Conservative since the mid noughties so before the Coalition and indeed the LDs were completely wiped off in 2011.

NickPalmer

kjh said:

It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.

I didn't know that - that's interesting. What were they arguing about? At present the Tories have a completely dominant majority, and "that's unhealthy even for the Tories" is a productive line on the doorstep (just as it was for the Tories in ultra-Labour Nottingham). I think the argument for PR at local level is overwhelming - effectively one-party boroughs are a Really Bad Idea.

Apparently the borough is named after Waverley Abbey, near Farnham, the earliest Cistercian monastery in Britain. I suspect Recidivist is right that the name was designed to avoid picking one town as the core - the three towns have very little to do with each other.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1058481230843383809

rottenborough

Does he read PB?

rottenborough

NickPalmer said:

kjh said:

It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.

I didn't know that - that's interesting. What were they arguing about? At present the Tories have a completely dominant majority, and "that's unhealthy even for the Tories" is a productive line on the doorstep (just as it was for the Tories in ultra-Labour Nottingham). I think the argument for PR at local level is overwhelming - effectively one-party boroughs are a Really Bad Idea.

Apparently the borough is named after Waverley Abbey, near Farnham, the earliest Cistercian monastery in Britain. I suspect Recidivist is right that the name was designed to avoid picking one town as the core - the three towns have very little to do with each other.

as far as time for PR at local level.

Not at national level. Not these days. Just opens the door to radical Right.

rottenborough

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Palin and ? I can't remember.

Geraldine Ferraro, 1984.

Oh yes. Was she so bad? I don't recall much, if anything, about her.

kjh

stodge said:

kjh said:

It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.

If memory serves, Waverley was one of the Councils gained in 1995 when the Conservatives lost 2,000 seats in a single night. The big winners were Labour but the LDs picked up around 500 seats and Waverley was one of those councils captured from NOC.

As you say, control switched for the next few years with both Conservatives and LDs having spells of majority control and spells of NOC. It's been solidly Conservative since the mid noughties so before the Coalition and indeed the LDs were completely wiped off in 2011.

There was a reason for that. If you note I mentioned they committed suicide with the most extraordinary public infighting with LDs fighting ex-LDs as independents, expulsions, etc, etc. The local activists and councillors managed to wipe themselves out in a civil war without the help of the national LD decline. A very sad state of affairs.

rottenborough

kjh said:

stodge said:

kjh said:

It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.

If memory serves, Waverley was one of the Councils gained in 1995 when the Conservatives lost 2,000 seats in a single night. The big winners were Labour but the LDs picked up around 500 seats and Waverley was one of those councils captured from NOC.

As you say, control switched for the next few years with both Conservatives and LDs having spells of majority control and spells of NOC. It's been solidly Conservative since the mid noughties so before the Coalition and indeed the LDs were completely wiped off in 2011.

There was a reason for that. If you note I mentioned they committed suicide with the most extraordinary public infighting with LDs fighting ex-LDs as independents, expulsions, etc, etc. The local activists and councillors managed to wipe themselves out in a civil war without the help of the national LD decline. A very sad state of affairs.

Was there an actual policy issue or was it all personalities?

stodge

kjh said:

There was a reason for that. If you note I mentioned they committed suicide with the most extraordinary public infighting with LDs fighting ex-LDs as independents, expulsions, etc, etc. The local activists and councillors managed to wipe themselves out in a civil war without the help of the national LD decline. A very sad state of affairs.

Regrettably this was something I saw in other areas where the LDs advanced spectacularly in the early and mid 90s. Activists who had been used to doing things their way in their patch suddenly found themselves elected and having to work together as a coherent group. That often meant some quite forceful personalities in the same room.

The other problem was they had spent so much time fighting their own corner they had little notion of trying to govern the whole authority which occasionally meant having to do unpopular things in one area to derive a wider benefit.

Conservative and Labour groups seem to be better disciplined on the whole but that's not to say personality conflicts don't happen in factional groups.

kjh

NickPalmer said:

kjh said:

It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.

I didn't know that - that's interesting. What were they arguing about? At present the Tories have a completely dominant majority, and "that's unhealthy even for the Tories" is a productive line on the doorstep (just as it was for the Tories in ultra-Labour Nottingham). I think the argument for PR at local level is overwhelming - effectively one-party boroughs are a Really Bad Idea.

Apparently the borough is named after Waverley Abbey, near Farnham, the earliest Cistercian monastery in Britain. I suspect Recidivist is right that the name was designed to avoid picking one town as the core - the three towns have very little to do with each other.

I can't remember the full details now, but there were some serious personality clashes. The sad thing about this sort of thing for the LDs is that if it happens to Lab or Torys, as it does, they take an immediate hit but recover their natural base when it is forgotten about. The LDs don't have such a large natural base and build up the support from years of local work. So having destroyed that support, it isn't then going to come back again just through the passing of time.

kjh

rottenborough said:

kjh said:

stodge said:

kjh said:

It is only seriously Tory because the LDs committed suicide there, plus the national demise of the LDs. Waverley has been controlled by the LDs several times as has Guildford and when the Guildford parliamentary seat was won by the LDs it was a joint campaign with SW Surrey and SW Surrey was the number 1 target and Guildford number 2 and they only just missed winning both. Then the infighting started in SW Surrey / Waverley.

If memory serves, Waverley was one of the Councils gained in 1995 when the Conservatives lost 2,000 seats in a single night. The big winners were Labour but the LDs picked up around 500 seats and Waverley was one of those councils captured from NOC.

As you say, control switched for the next few years with both Conservatives and LDs having spells of majority control and spells of NOC. It's been solidly Conservative since the mid noughties so before the Coalition and indeed the LDs were completely wiped off in 2011.

There was a reason for that. If you note I mentioned they committed suicide with the most extraordinary public infighting with LDs fighting ex-LDs as independents, expulsions, etc, etc. The local activists and councillors managed to wipe themselves out in a civil war without the help of the national LD decline. A very sad state of affairs.

Was there an actual policy issue or was it all personalities?

I'm struggling to remember but I think the latter.

ydoethur

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Palin and ? I can't remember.

Geraldine Ferraro, 1984.

Oh yes. Was she so bad? I don't recall much, if anything, about her.

As I said to His Venerable Cheerful Majesty, personally she was fine. However, the campaign became dominated by the news that her husband had failed to pay $53,000 in tax and her frankly amateurish attempts to cover it up.

I don't for a moment suppose it made a difference to the result, but it wasn't exactly a dazzling success.

Omnium

NickPalmer said:

Anecdote department - spent a couple of hours with colleagues leafleting shoppers with post-budget Labour material in Seriously Tory Waverley (Godalming/Farnmham/Haslemere). About 30% took leaflets, often with supportive comments, though I think some of the elderly ones just didn't like to say no to my courteous Jeeves-like offer ("Good morning, madam, may I offer you a Labour Party communication?"). About 35% were affably dismissive, and the rest just wandered by in mock or genuine obliviousness.

There's scope for an article on leaflet dynamics - e.g. if someone takes a leaflet, the probability is unusually high that the next person will, but if they refuse, the next person is almost guaranteed to refuse too (in fact you should stop offering until that group has moved on).

I'm not convinced that this or any other leaflet will change a single mind. It's all about profile-raising and making supporters feel it's worth bothering to vote. It's also, like most human interactions, just a pleasant way to spend a morning in the sun. I now have the details of my ward in the May locals (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ward/4591/) - time to start canvassing...

Depends on the leaflet.

A leaflet espousing the benefits of McDonnell as chancellor? If you happen to inadvertently hand me one I'll chase you down the street, nail your ears to a plank, and set you adrift in the Thames. And that's if it's a bright and lovely day, and I'm in a good mood.

Pulpstar

When did all the in bounds kicking come into fashion in rugby union ?

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

rottenborough said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Palin and ? I can't remember.

Geraldine Ferraro, 1984.

Oh yes. Was she so bad? I don't recall much, if anything, about her.

As I said to His Venerable Cheerful Majesty, personally she was fine. However, the campaign became dominated by the news that her husband had failed to pay $53,000 in tax and her frankly amateurish attempts to cover it up.

I don't for a moment suppose it made a difference to the result, but it wasn't exactly a dazzling success.

Top of the bill Walter Mondale wasn’t wonderful either, and they were up against Reagan

Would have come back sooner, only been keeping an eye on the Rugby. Good, if not comfortable, win for Wales.
England vs Saffirs is tight.

PClipp

Omnium said:

NickPalmer said:

Anecdote department - spent a couple of hours with colleagues leafleting shoppers with post-budget Labour material in Seriously Tory Waverley (Godalming/Farnmham/Haslemere). About 30% took leaflets, often with supportive comments, though I think some of the elderly ones just didn't like to say no to my courteous Jeeves-like offer ("Good morning, madam, may I offer you a Labour Party communication?"). About 35% were affably dismissive, and the rest just wandered by in mock or genuine obliviousness.
There's scope for an article on leaflet dynamics - e.g. if someone takes a leaflet, the probability is unusually high that the next person will, but if they refuse, the next person is almost guaranteed to refuse too (in fact you should stop offering until that group has moved on).
I'm not convinced that this or any other leaflet will change a single mind. It's all about profile-raising and making supporters feel it's worth bothering to vote. It's also, like most human interactions, just a pleasant way to spend a morning in the sun. I now have the details of my ward in the May locals (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ward/4591/) - time to start canvassing...

Depends on the leaflet.
A leaflet espousing the benefits of McDonnell as chancellor? If you happen to inadvertently hand me one I'll chase you down the street, nail your ears to a plank, and set you adrift in the Thames. And that's if it's a bright and lovely day, and I'm in a good mood.

The Labour Party have been allowed to get away with murder for far too long. On Brexit, for example, they have a whole line of their top politicians who will solemnly turn up to assure us what the Labour line is. And they are all different. And then, most of these Labour politicians come up with something different to what they said before anyway. It is a good recipe if they want to appear to be all things to all men.

The trouble is that they do this now with all policies. They want fair taxation, yet back the Tories`tax cuts for the wealthy!!!

In general, they give encouragement to Mrs May in her stupidity, while at the same time claiming to oppose her. But the time will come when they have to state clearly what their real position is. And then the sky will fall in on them.

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

Top of the bill Walter Mondale wasn’t wonderful either, and they were up against Reagan

Would have come back sooner, only been keeping an eye on the Rugby. Good, if not comfortable, win for Wales.
England vs Saffirs is tight.

Mondale at least had a sense of humour. And he was intelligent. Without wishing to get all dewy eyed about the past, he would have been a much better president than Trump or Clinton or Dubya.

As I say, I don't think Mr Zaccaro's tax affairs were decisive - but then neither was Bristol Palin's inability to say no, even when added to her mother's penchant for inappropriate photographs. Doesn't alter the fact that unfortunately to date both female Veep candidates have been a drag on the ticket, as indeed was Clinton herself.

It would be good to see that change, be that Harris as nominee/Veep or, if she can be persuaded, Haley as nominee.

Alistair

Pulpstar said:

When did all the in bounds kicking come into fashion in rugby union ?

About a decade ago.

HYUFD

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, easy to forget that a number of early states were very close between Sanders and Clinton, and could have tipped the other way with only minor changes.

Indeed, had Sanders won Iowa which he lost by less than 1% he may have ended up nominee

YellowSubmarine

I enjoyed this short peice on the Ballot Measures up next week which tend to get Zero attention from a commentary point of view. Through a British prism the emphasis on Clean Energy, Voting Rights, Pot legalisation and Medicaid expansion all look rather left liberal but of course in the US it's more complex.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/forget-about-the-candidates-what-else-is-on-the-ballot-this-week/

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

Bloomberg has re-registered as a Democrat.

Bloomberg could run as an independent in the general election, he has near zero chance of winning the Democratic primaries as a corporate centrist billionaire

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea

Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?

Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

Top of the bill Walter Mondale wasn’t wonderful either, and they were up against Reagan

Would have come back sooner, only been keeping an eye on the Rugby. Good, if not comfortable, win for Wales.
England vs Saffirs is tight.

Mondale at least had a sense of humour. And he was intelligent. Without wishing to get all dewy eyed about the past, he would have been a much better president than Trump or Clinton or Dubya.

As I say, I don't think Mr Zaccaro's tax affairs were decisive - but then neither was Bristol Palin's inability to say no, even when added to her mother's penchant for inappropriate photographs. Doesn't alter the fact that unfortunately to date both female Veep candidates have been a drag on the ticket, as indeed was Clinton herself.

It would be good to see that change, be that Harris as nominee/Veep or, if she can be persuaded, Haley as nominee.

Mondale may not have become President having lost to President Reagan but he was Carter's Vice President which could be another reason to look at Biden for the nomination against President Trump

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea

Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?

Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.

Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran in 1988 and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008. Humphrey lost to Nixon in 1968 and ran again in 1972 but lost the nomination to McGovern who had also been a 1968 candidate

On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996

YellowSubmarine

Some good comments on Lib Dems at local level which I've observed first hand myself. It's why I remain extremely gloomy about Lib Dem national recovery. It's quite possible to see the 2010 to 15 period and 2015 result as a classic example of a local collapse where decades of local work is destroyed due to the need to take decisions then there just isn't the core vote that Lab/Con have to sustain you post disaster.

I remain haunted by a " Change of Control " seminar I attended in the mid naughties where a Lib Dem Local Government Guru presented a Masterclass on the mistakes Lib Dem Groups made when they went into power to councillor reps from Lib Dem Groups who were about to go into power.

The road map of standard mistakes presented was uncannily familar to the national Coalition errors several years later. Of course Clegg had an unusual route to the top. Top of a regional Euro list in the first PR election for the EP in '99 followed by inheriting a held seat in Westminster in '05. It was never clear to me he ever understood how the party's support was created or held at local level.

CarlottaVance

Multimillionaires in favour of the plebs trying again:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1058769734504775681?s=20

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea

Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?

Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.

Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.

On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996

Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).

I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.

HYUFD

45% of Tory members want May to step down as party leader now, 38% before the next general election with just 20% wanting her to lead the party at the next general election according to ConHome

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/our-survey-more-than-four-in-ten-conservative-members-want-may-to-step-down-immediately.html

CarlottaVance

HYUFD said:

45% of Tory members respondents in a ConHome poll want May to step down as party leader now, 38% before the next general election with just 20% wanting her to lead the party at the next general election according to ConHome

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/our-survey-more-than-four-in-ten-conservative-members-want-may-to-step-down-immediately.html

Fixed it for you.

kjh

YellowSubmarine said:

Some good comments on Lib Dems at local level which I've observed first hand myself. It's why I remain extremely gloomy about Lib Dem national recovery. It's quite possible to see the 2010 to 15 period and 2015 result as a classic example of a local collapse where decades of local work is destroyed due to the need to take decisions then there just isn't the core vote that Lab/Con have to sustain you post disaster.

I remain haunted by a " Change of Control " seminar I attended in the mid naughties where a Lib Dem Local Government Guru presented a Masterclass on the mistakes Lib Dem Groups made when they went into power to councillor reps from Lib Dem Groups who were about to go into power.

The road map of standard mistakes presented was uncannily familar to the national Coalition errors several years later. Of course Clegg had an unusual route to the top. Top of a regional Euro list in the first PR election for the EP in '99 followed by inheriting a held seat in Westminster in '05. It was never clear to me he ever understood how the party's support was created or held at local level.

+1.

I would hope the assumptions about Clegg are not true because he is not daft, but I can see the logic in the comment and it is something you saw when you had someone joining from another party or at the time of merger with the SDP. The campaigning culture was very different in the LDs and it had to be to succeed without a core base and much less money.

YellowSubmarine

CarlottaVance said:

Multimillionaires in favour of the plebs trying again:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1058769734504775681?s=20

Brexiteers aren't coping very well with having won. Shortly they'll be a deal the stage of this fiasco where Brexit can be all things to all people will end. There will be a precise Treaty text you'll have to defend. And the slow process of Brexit shifting from being antiestabliahment to being the Establishment will continue.

The People's Vote stuff has been flawed and is very much a salvage operation after a catastrophy. But at it's core it has something - establishing the new paradigm of europhillia as being antiestablishment and populist. In short " You won, get over it ".

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea

Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?

Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.

Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.

On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996

Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).

I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.

McGovern ran at the convention in 1968 but got the nomination in 1972, McCarthy won the most primaries in 1968 but Humphrey beat him at the convention. McCarthy ran in 1972 but did poorly in the primaries and in 1976 he ran as an independent but got less than 1%.

You are right on nominees running again, though Gore considered it in 2004 and Romney in 2016 neither ran again.

Perot ran twice as the Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Ferraro was OK.

Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.

Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Ferraro was OK.

Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.

Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...

Well, let's face it, last time they had a tough choice. They could vote for someone with a history of dodgy real estate deals, questionable tax affairs, owing the position in public life to public connections, linked to a huge amount of sleaze, limited to abusive slogans demonising their opponents, possessed of no original or workable ideas and with limited experience of public affairs that was persistently overstated plus a daughter who was and remains a loose cannon.

Or they could vote for Donald Trump...

Nigelb

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1058481230843383809

Mug punters always welcome ?

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea

Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?

Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.

Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.

On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996

Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).

I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.

McGovern ran at the convention in 1968 but got the nomination in 1972, McCarthy won the most primaries in 1968 but Humphrey beat him at the convention. McCarthy ran in 1972 but did poorly in the primaries and in 1976 he ran as an independent but got less than 1%.

You are right on nominees running again, though Gore considered it in 2004 and Romney in 2016 neither ran again.

Perot ran twice as the Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996

Yes, my mistake on McGovern/McCarthy. Similar names, very confusing!

I was discounting minor candidates, as I said. That includes Perot.

HYUFD

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

45% of Tory members respondents in a ConHome poll want May to step down as party leader now, 38% before the next general election with just 20% wanting her to lead the party at the next general election according to ConHome

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/our-survey-more-than-four-in-ten-conservative-members-want-may-to-step-down-immediately.html

Fixed it for you.

If you really believe that an overwhelming majority of Tory members are desperate for May to lead them again at the next general election after her 'triumph' at the 2017 general election be my guest!

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

I should imagine a brief spur of polling will quickly convince her to give up the idea

Who was the last defeated candidate to run again? Nixon in 1968? Or was there another one who didn't make it through the primaries?

Edit - if we're talking about candidates who failed to be nominated a first time then H. Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan and Bob Dole have to added to that list, I suppose.

Al Gore also ran in 1988 and got the nomination in 2000 and Joe Biden also ran that year and again in 2008 and John Edwards in 2004 and 2008.

On the GOP side McCain ran in 2000 and got the nomination in 2008, Romney ran in 2008 and got the nomination in 2012 and Buchanan ran in 1992 and 1996

Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).

I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.

McGovern ran at the convention in 1968 but got the nomination in 1972, McCarthy won the most primaries in 1968 but Humphrey beat him at the convention. McCarthy ran in 1972 but did poorly in the primaries and in 1976 he ran as an independent but got less than 1%.

You are right on nominees running again, though Gore considered it in 2004 and Romney in 2016 neither ran again.

Perot ran twice as the Reform Party candidate in 1992 and 1996

Yes, my mistake on McGovern/McCarthy. Similar names, very confusing!

I was discounting minor candidates, as I said. That includes Perot.

Easy to do, McGovern and McCarthy were both anti Vietnam War liberals

NickPalmer

ydoethur said:

Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).

I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.

I was very fond of Gene McCarthy and actually was European coordinator of his 1976 campaign, but he sadly wasn't "the candidate" then but a very minor independent. In 1972 he dropped out early.

Foxy

CarlottaVance said:

Multimillionaires in favour of the plebs trying again:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1058769734504775681?s=20

Though it does seem that the plebs are wanting one too:

https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1058516367115202560?s=19

CarlottaVance

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

45% of Tory members respondents in a ConHome poll want May to step down as party leader now, 38% before the next general election with just 20% wanting her to lead the party at the next general election according to ConHome

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/our-survey-more-than-four-in-ten-conservative-members-want-may-to-step-down-immediately.html

Fixed it for you.

If you really believe that an overwhelming majority of Tory members are desperate for May to lead them again at the next general election after her 'triumph' at the 2017 general election be my guest!

No - but you shouldn’t misrepresent ConHome polls as “Tory members”

NickPalmer

Omnium said:

NickPalmer said:

I'm not convinced that this or any other leaflet will change a single mind. It's all about profile-raising and making supporters feel it's worth bothering to vote. It's also, like most human interactions, just a pleasant way to spend a morning in the sun. I now have the details of my ward in the May locals (http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ward/4591/) - time to start canvassing...

Depends on the leaflet.

A leaflet espousing the benefits of McDonnell as chancellor? If you happen to inadvertently hand me one I'll chase you down the street, nail your ears to a plank, and set you adrift in the Thames. And that's if it's a bright and lovely day, and I'm in a good mood.

Hmm, I was arguing that leaflets don't change minds. You are therefore (in disagreeing) suggesting that you are currently a big fan of John McDonnell but if I gave you a leaflet on the subject you would change your mind?

ydoethur

NickPalmer said:

ydoethur said:

Thank you. So lots of runners up in the primaries (we could also mention Eugene McCarthy who would have been Dem candidate in 68 but for a stitch-up and was the candidate in 72). But what about people who were the actual nominees running again? I can come up with Nixon, Stevenson, Dewey, then I have to go back to Grover Cleveland. Am I missing anyone obvious? I'm discounting Thedore Roosevelt as he didn't actually run in 1908 (I think it overwhelmingly likely he would have been the nominee and won if he had).

I am also discounting minor party candidates like Gary Johnson or Eugene Debs.

I was very fond of Gene McCarthy and actually was European coordinator of his 1976 campaign, but he sadly wasn't "the candidate" then but a very minor independent. In 1972 he dropped out early.

This only goes to show you should never post on PB after the second glass of white (unless you're SeanT, of course).

CarlottaVance

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Multimillionaires in favour of the plebs trying again:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1058769734504775681?s=20

Though it does seem that the plebs are wanting one too

according to an analysis released by the People’s Vote campaign

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Ferraro was OK.

Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.

Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...

Well, let's face it, last time they had a tough choice. They could vote for someone with a history of dodgy real estate deals, questionable tax affairs, owing the position in public life to public connections, linked to a huge amount of sleaze, limited to abusive slogans demonising their opponents, possessed of no original or workable ideas and with limited experience of public affairs that was persistently overstated plus a daughter who was and remains a loose cannon.

Or they could vote for Donald Trump...

Clinton was a piss poor candidate - as I said at the time - but, not even close.

HYUFD

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

HYUFD said:

45% of Tory members respondents in a ConHome poll want May to step down as party leader now, 38% before the next general election with just 20% wanting her to lead the party at the next general election according to ConHome

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/11/our-survey-more-than-four-in-ten-conservative-members-want-may-to-step-down-immediately.html

Fixed it for you.

If you really believe that an overwhelming majority of Tory members are desperate for May to lead them again at the next general election after her 'triumph' at the 2017 general election be my guest!

No - but you shouldn’t misrepresent ConHome polls as “Tory members”

No misrepresentation at all, I do ConHome polls and I am a Tory member and all its surveys ask those who take part whether they are party members, Association executive members, council candidates or just Tory voters or indeed voters for another party and they have an extensive database to work off. We also know ConHome got Cameron's victory margin in the 2005 Tory leadership election pretty much spot on.

The only people who dislike ConHome Surveys are those who dislike their results, I will continue to post them without apology

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Ferraro was OK.

Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.

Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...

Well, let's face it, last time they had a tough choice. They could vote for someone with a history of dodgy real estate deals, questionable tax affairs, owing the position in public life to public connections, linked to a huge amount of sleaze, limited to abusive slogans demonising their opponents, possessed of no original or workable ideas and with limited experience of public affairs that was persistently overstated plus a daughter who was and remains a loose cannon.

Or they could vote for Donald Trump...

Clinton was a piss poor candidate - as I said at the time - but, not even close.

I was perhaps being mischievous...

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

all its surveys ask those who take part whether they are party members,

I think I spot a tiny, insignificant flaw there...

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Ferraro was OK.

Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.

Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...

Well, let's face it, last time they had a tough choice. They could vote for someone with a history of dodgy real estate deals, questionable tax affairs, owing the position in public life to public connections, linked to a huge amount of sleaze, limited to abusive slogans demonising their opponents, possessed of no original or workable ideas and with limited experience of public affairs that was persistently overstated plus a daughter who was and remains a loose cannon.

Or they could vote for Donald Trump...

Clinton was a piss poor candidate - as I said at the time - but, not even close.

I was perhaps being mischievous...

You, mischevious ?
No way.

Foxy

CarlottaVance said:

Foxy said:

CarlottaVance said:

Multimillionaires in favour of the plebs trying again:

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1058769734504775681?s=20

Though it does seem that the plebs are wanting one too

according to an analysis released by the People’s Vote campaign

From a Yougov poll, using the methodology that forecast a hung parliament in GE 2017.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

YBarddCwsc said:

https://tinyurl.com/y9nc4b2u

The Democrats would not do this to us, would they?

Biden would be a better bet for the Democrats than Hillary 2 but I cannot see her beating Warren, Sanders and Harris in the primaries anyway, she had a hard enough time beating Sanders in 2008

I doubt Clinton would run if there was not a good chance of taking the primaries. I guess, if this article is not more than a 'what if' piece, then some private polling and sniffing about will start straight after Wednesday.

Sanders is just too old and a significant part of his team from last time have now switched to other campaigns. He is also not a Democrat. My view if they are facing Trump is that a male nominee would be better

Hickenlooper?

I hope so. My best price on him is 280

Hickenlooper/Harris? I really think there will be/ought to be a woman on the ticket.

It would be nice to think there would be, and that it would break the hoodoo of female VP candidates being unmitigated fiascos.

Admittedly the sample size of two isn't a lot to go on.

Ferraro was OK.

Personally she was fine. Shame about all that trouble over her husband's tax affairs.

Yes, it’s impossible to imagine someone with questionable tax affairs gaining the approval of the US electorate...

Well, let's face it, last time they had a tough choice. They could vote for someone with a history of dodgy real estate deals, questionable tax affairs, owing the position in public life to public connections, linked to a huge amount of sleaze, limited to abusive slogans demonising their opponents, possessed of no original or workable ideas and with limited experience of public affairs that was persistently overstated plus a daughter who was and remains a loose cannon.

Or they could vote for Donald Trump...

Clinton was a piss poor candidate - as I said at the time - but, not even close.

I was perhaps being mischievous...

You, mischevious ?
No way.

As you know, I am the soul of seriousness, and never make a bad pun as I never question those like Sunil and TSE who hold to the tragically misguided belief that The Last Jedi is a good film.

YellowSubmarine

Off topic I enjoyed S1 of French political drama " Marseille ". From a British perspective it's difficult to believe local government can possibly matter and it's a bit pantomime at first. But it builds nicely and explores classic themes of the price of power and effects holding it can have on people as well as politican's families. The cast and acting is good with some good blindsiding plot twists. I found the dubbing awful and switched to subtitles.

Check out "Marseille" on Netflix
www.netflix.com/title/80037278?source=android