Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sherrod Brown, victor in Ohio last November, looks increasingl
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sherrod Brown, victor in Ohio last November, looks increasingly like a good bet for WH2016
I’ve had quite a few long shot bets on the next White House Race but the one I am becoming increasingly confident about is Sherrod Brown Who last November held his Ohio senate seat by a margin of 6%. What makes this striking is that at WH2016 Trump took the state with a margin of 8 points. If anyone can win the rust belt back for the Democrats then it’s Brown.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Bugger, second like DONALD I hope.
With the first primary still a year away, it is a marathon not a sprint.
I had a look at the average of the Republican primary polls on 27 January 2015 - the same period in the election cycle four years ago.
https://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
Jeb Bush 14%
Ben Carson 9%
Mike Huckabee 9%
Scott Walker 9%
Rand Paul 8%
Ted Cruz 5%
Chris Christie 5%
Marco Rubio 4%
John Kasich 2%
Donald J Trump ZERO!
It may well be that the final Democrat Presidential candidate will be someone we couldn't possibly imagine today!
Trump didn't announce he was rumnning until June 2015 for example.
Interesting suggestion. I've got enough in the 2020 market already, I feel, to really want to back anyone else. If that weren't the case, I'd be giving this a closer look.
Dr. Foxy, that may also be a function of the number of candidates (which is also expected to be large for the Democrats, of course).
As a matter of interest, has anyone announced for the Republican primaries?
But is that necessarily the case, in practical rather than legal terms? Given that the rest of the EU were willing, if the UK concluded from experience of "No Deal" that the Withdrawal Agreement would be preferable, would it be impossible to agree it with the EU?
No other Republican candidates have announced they are running - and the RNC has already endorsed Trump as the party candidate. I expect there will be other minor candidates but no one serious unless he decides not to run for a second term. Kasich, Flake and Sasse have been rumoured - but there is an easier life as a commentator or presenter on cable news (which is what Kasich and Flake are rumoured to be focusing on).
https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2018/11/think-sherrod-brown-should-run-for-president-you-might-like-this-2020-poll.html
:-)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
He clearly still has his fans
The "cult of Donald in the rustbelt" that the press is trying to imply is bollocks
Time to feel the Bern!
What an ugly post. I was never banned in the first place. What on earth are you talking about?
Well I'm not on the right of politics - i joined Labour at 17 and a generally on the left but quit as I can't support the dangerous moral sewer Labour has become.
I'd note that it's not just true of the right of politics. Abbott stood for the leadership in 2010. Personally I might even support an Abbott led Labour, even though I disagree with her on a lot, as she's not as dishonest, incompetent, nor as morally abhorrent in her actions and attitudes to human rights, democracy, and anti-Semitism as Corbyn. She was certainly a much more qualified candidate with far less baggage than he was in 2015.
Did the McCluskey and other union barons (with the exception of ASLEF) and far left prince princelings and commentators get behind her? Of course they didn't.
If we rejected our membership on the current dreadful deal, how likely are we to re-enter on what would be a punitive deal?
There are thick white bigots living in Vermont. Just that as a percentage they are less than in, say, Alabama.
And all sorts of posters will provide all sorts of anti-Europe endings, but we'll see who laughs last. And I'm certain it will be the Remainers/Rejoiners.
Trump also won voters with no more than a high school education or only some college, Romney lost voters with only a high school education or only some college. Trump's appeal to bluecollar voters over Romney's was real
It also depended which poll you looked at, Marquette had Hillary only up 2% in Wisconsin at one stage, Trafalgar Group had Trump ahead in Pennsylvania and Michigan in its final polls
We can't to back to 2016, let alone 1971. Our new membership will be different to the one we've left behind. I'm hoping we'll finally start playing a full positive role and reaping the full benefits. I think once we've got the euroskeptics out of the Conservative Party everything will be plain sailing.
Trump's coalition was less educated than Romney's but Trump was able to win a clear Electoral College victory unlike Romney despite getting a 1% lower national popular voteshare than Romney as less educated blue collar voters are concentrated in rustbelt swing states and the Midwest whereas more educated voters are based mainly in safe Democratic states on the coasts or relatively safe Republican states like Texas and Utah
But this does not go against my point. I said that it is mainly people on the right for whom she has become a figure of fun. Not simply somebody not deemed very competent - a relentlessly pilloried figure of fun. That is surely true.
I also note that she is not that for you - so hats off.
What happens in practice, with massive queues of EU lorries in Calais and Dublin, is of course anyone’s guess.
I can imagine that it won't be so long until supporting Brexit will seem as reactionary as homophobia.
That very same snobbery, that disagreeing on a matter of judgement (wanting to be in the EU or not) is equivalent to disagreeing on a matter of morality (particularly on a rapidly shifting Zeitgeist), is one thing that will help maintain the entrenched polarisation.
People don't like being talked down to or treated as inferior or morally wrong for having a view that isn't in line with Establishment thinking, or what the Islington set believe to be common sense.
The way that things have proceeded so far will also lend credence to whatever people want to believe. Remainers could easily say "Look, we told you it'd be awful" [assuming things go poorly. Leavers could easily say "MPs failed to respect the referendum result, no wonder things are bad".
Persuading people and hectoring them are not the same thing.
Let us ignore the elephant in the room of Hillary shedding 10 percentage points of the Dem vote.
Adopt the 2nd referendum - pile up votes from the enlightened in already safe seats and lose them in heartland marginals.
More possession, less shots on target, only goal is an own one.
The legal wording would have to be rewritten etc and I don't know how easy it would be to do it. Now you may say that who cares about the legal wording if the political will is there. But these things do matter because all sorts of legal rights and obligations under contracts etc will flow from how any agreement is worded.
Politically, if it all starts going pear-shaped and especially if it looks as if there are effects beyond Britain and Europe then I expect there would be a lot of pressure, not least from non-EU actors and bodies, on both parties to grow up and agree something. But who can say? Rather than people taking a deep breath and thinking again, we could find ourselves in an analogous position to the parties in August 1914 - heading who knows where but so convinced of their own rectitude that they are unable / unwilling to retreat / stop / think again.
On Diane Abbott, I have mixed feelings. She made one of the best Parliamentary speeches during the Blair premiership against his proposals for 42-day detention without trial. She deserved then - and now - praise for that.
I have no doubt that she gets a lot of sexist and racist abuse precisely because she is a prominent black woman. Whoever does this should be ashamed of themselves. There are plenty of ways of pulling apart her arguments without indulging in ad hominem abuse.
At the same time, she can say some incredibly stupid and offensive things herself (her comments about West Indian mothers and blue eyed nurses, for instance) and her uselessness over police numbers was quite something. And just like anyone else she ought to be criticised for such stupidity/ bigotry / innumeracy etc. The fact that she is a black woman does not - and should not - give her a free pass from criticism, especially when she is in a high profile role, as she is.
She can also be irritating and some people that I know who know her well (one who has known her since school days) say that she can be incredibly rude and unpleasant, especially to people more junior than her. That too needs calling out.
I think though that if you go into public life you should develop a thick skin and selective deafness and learn to ignore the abuse rather than endlessly complain about it. Too much of politics has degenerated into name calling and people wailing about hurt feelings and insults to their identity rather than arguments about policies, ideas etc. If the abuse becomes dangerous or veers into being a crime, report it. If not then ignoring it is probably a better option. But the focus on "ooh, I'm offended, say sorry, it's not fair, wah, wah, wah" is pathetic, is not a change for the better and rather creates the impression that politicians are channelling their inner 6-year olds.
Mrs T had it right on this: "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
Though she was channelling Socrates: "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
Yes Hillary lost votes compared to Obama and Trump actually did worse with college graduates and postgraduates than Romney but in electoral college terms he made the gains where it mattered, blue collar, non college graduates in the Midwest and rustbelt
He knows that while Leave only got 52% in the popular vote, Leave won 64% of Westminster constituencies
Hillary lost the states by moving backwards.
Blaming the establishment or a particular London borough is weak stuff in any context. You can't point to the establishment and provide a list of their preferences. Even if you could, and we both know you can't, you've still got to then explain why the establishment preference is wrong. Whenever I hear that line being used I assume that the person using it doesn't have a very good argument.
It's the middle of April and Chris Grayling has done it again. Queues across the ports. THe army can't fly enough insulin in and the tabloids are leading on families claiming their loved ones have died due to Brexit. Power cuts across the north. Supermarket shelves running empty. Petrol prices sky-rocketing, airplane capacity slashed and pricey, 50 Tory MPs urge a rethink, wrong to leave hits 70% in polls.
A bit like the US shutdown - fine to hold out in principle but there comes a point where the accumulating pain is just too great.
So what happens? I reckon that a majority would be found to ask for a temporary transition deal 'we pay £X bn for associate membership to end of June' and a withdrawal agreement (more likely than a serious rejoin) is negotiated by then. The EU get what they want with extra pain and humiliation for the Uk - I reckon they might go for it.
He got FEWER votes....
If we crash out with No Deal and the Irish agree with the EU not to put up a border - doesn't that mean we can force them to have open borders at the French, Dutch, Belgian and Danish ports as well under WTO rules?
And also, doesn't it mean Poland will have to open the border with Russia and Ukraine?
I think that's what the posters who said there wouldn't be any WTO legal action were rather overlooking...
The only court that can really tell the EU or its member states what to do is the ECJ, everything else is a serving suggestion, a message on a bus and little else...
Sir, do you order pineapple on pizza while watching The Last Jedi?