Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2020 Democrat contest is likely to go all the way to the c

SystemSystem Posts: 12,172
edited April 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2020 Democrat contest is likely to go all the way to the convention

Once upon a time, American party conventions to nominate their presidential candidates were raucous, sometimes violent, often unpredictable and certainly lengthy. The Democrat convention of 1924 set the unhappy record of taking 103 ballots to select a candidate, in a convention that lasted more than a fortnight. The drudgery, sweat and fatigue would prove fruitless: John Davis would go on to lose every state outside the South and be outpolled almost 2:1 by Calvin Coolidge.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,217
    In short this is bad news for Sanders, and probably good news for Biden/AN Other that emerges top ex Biden. If Sanders is leading, and, particularly Warren is doing OK (Perhaps 4th) then it may still well be Sanders though. But the GOP structure would suit him better
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    Pulpstar said:

    In short this is bad news for Sanders, and probably good news for Biden/AN Other that emerges top ex Biden. If Sanders is leading, and, particularly Warren is doing OK (Perhaps 4th) then it may still well be Sanders though. But the GOP structure would suit him better

    I thought a long and packed contest suited Sanders better TBH, build up enough of a lead (although likely not winning a majority) and there could be a moral case made that he should be the candidate that will be hard to resist pushing him just over the line...

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Third! Like the Tories in the Euros (if they're lucky...)
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,464
    fouth like the LibDems.....i
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    edited April 2019
    https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/may-2019/modern-extremism-this-time-its-personal/

    ___________________________________________
    Like secret policemen building a case for a show trial, today’s activists scour social media for anything that may be twisted to use against their enemies. If the evidence isn’t there, they make it up.
    ___________________________________________

    I'll admit to being slightly confused at this point...

    Nick, many of the CUK types and others have been doing this for years with Labour. Why is this suddenly an unacceptable tactic when it is happening to CUK?

    You can't go from cheerleading that type of stuff to attack your enemies and act as if people are doing something wrong when they do it back to you.

    I'm a strong believer in treating people how they treat you, I like to think others can see the logic in that position as well. There can be exceptions like if a cat or a small child attacked me I wouldn't strike them back. It would be very disrespectful to take that attitude with CUK.

    Edit: Probably the most ironic part is I only found this article because it was shared by a racist troll group that 'scour social media for anything that may be twisted to use against their enemies' I think these people actually believe it, they can't be that blind surely...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Interesting stuff. I hope whoever wins beats Trump but going down to the wire for real would be fun. But even with so many holding senior office are there really still more than a handful of strong contenders even with the ability of primaries to give almost all candidates a brief moment as favourites?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    Third! Like the Tories in the Euros (if they're lucky...)

    Unlucky not to still get third rather than lucky to get it I'd say even now, but It is far from guaranteed to be sure.

    The locals loss of 500 or so looks rough but not unexpected for a government at such a point in the cycle, but locals and euros being so bad will be tough for them to handle.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2019
    Anyone think Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has a chance of getting the nomination?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    edited April 2019
    Foxy said:

    JackJack said:

    Drutt said:

    Today HM The Queen invited Jeremy, the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, to a dinner. It will be part of a state visit in which the guest and host nations would commemorate the sacrifice of their soldiers, sailors and airmen in the D-Day landings, key to the defeat of the Axis powers in WW2. The guest nation is our number one trade and intel partner and our number one military ally.

    Jeremy declined this. He said he wasn't going if so-and-so was going, so there. He did it when Tess invited him round and Chukka was there, and he'll do it again. He does have, y'know, other friends. You wouldn't know them; they're from a different school.

    Jeremy wants to be PM and represent HMG on the world stage, and apparently this High School Musical sort of behaviour is fine by him, and not the behaviour of a cast-iron, wall-to-wall, ocean-going thundertwat.

    Donald Trump is morally problematic so Corbyn will not meet with him. This makes clear Corbyn does not feel Hamas, Hezbollah or the IRA are morally problematic.
    Or his status is different. When he met with Hamas, Hezbollah and Irish Republicans (I recall it being SF not IRA) all those years ago he was an obscure back bencher. Now he is LOTO, which is quite a different thing.
    So his morals are changeable now he has a prospect of power? Truly, he is so different from those establishment politicians of the past. So consistent in his principals and willing to speak to anyone.

    The simplest explanation would support your contention, in that the likely situation is he had no negative electoral consequences to meeting or wanting to meet anyone back then, and positive electoral consequences to virtue signalling that he does not like Trump.

    Certainly that makes more sense than the idea he sincerely believes it ok to meet those others but not Trump.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163
    Some interesting stats on the candidates' fundraising and spending levels, with some presumably playing the long game by not spending much early on.

    But man the numbers spent on these primary campaigns let alone the vastness of the amounts for the presidential campaigns is insane. I know it's a big, rich country and the rules allow huge spending, but my God.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48032231
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited April 2019
    There's a lot to agree with in this and I take the point about online fundraising etc, but the other angle to it is that with several big states bunched around Super Tuesday, you'll need an ungodly amount of money to still be in the race in any meaningful way in March.

    If you look at how 2008 shaped out, of the 8 candidates who made it to Iowa,
    #1 and #2 (Biden and Dodd) dropped after Iowa
    #3 (Richardson) after NH
    #4 (Kucinich) after SC
    #5 (Edwards) after FL

    ...so the only one out of the top two still in the race in Month 2 was #6 Gravel, who was never really in the race in the first place.

    I think the lower-tier candidates are all going to blow their budgets on the early races, so if they underperform and they have a hard time raising more, they just won't be able to afford to keep going into March.

    Accordingly I think it most likely winnows down to 3 serious candidates by Super Tuesday. Whether that makes a split big enough to deny #1 their 50%+1 is a little bit random, but even if it does there has to be a strong incentive for a the #3 candidate to stitch something up with one of the others before the convention.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    AndyJS said:

    Anyone think Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has a chance of getting the nomination?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

    Definitely.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708

    even if it does there has to be a strong incentive for a the #3 candidate to stitch something up with one of the others before the convention.

    Oh shit some unlucky winner is going to have to make Bernie Sanders their VP.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237

    There's a lot to agree with in this and I take the point about online fundraising etc, but the other angle to it is that with several big states bunched around Super Tuesday, you'll need an ungodly amount of money to still be in the race in any meaningful way in March.

    If you look at how 2008 shaped out, of the 8 candidates who made it to Iowa,
    #1 and #2 (Biden and Dodd) dropped after Iowa
    #3 (Richardson) after NH
    #4 (Kucinich) after SC
    #5 (Edwards) after FL

    ...so the only one out of the top two still in the race in Month 2 was #6 Gravel, who was never really in the race in the first place.

    I think the lower-tier candidates are all going to blow their budgets on the early races, so if they underperform and they have a hard time raising more, they just won't be able to afford to keep going into March.

    Accordingly I think it most likely winnows down to 3 serious candidates by Super Tuesday. Whether that makes a split big enough to deny #1 their 50%+1 is a little bit random, but even if it does there has to be a strong incentive for a the #3 candidate to stitch something up with one of the others before the convention.

    2008: Iowa was a third, a third, a third. So, Biden and Richardson and Dodd and Kuchnich didn't get a delgate. And then NH was 40:40:20. And then Edwards effectively disappeared.

    Now, if Iowa and NH only gives delegates to three candidates, and Nevada to only two, then - sure - your comparison is fair.

    But it's quite possible that Iowa and NH generate five candidates with delegates, and without that much overlap either.

    Finally, why would Beto or Harris drop out before their home states?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617
    Who will Obama support?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237

    Who will Obama support?

    I reckon he's planning on endorsing Trump.

    Merely to f*ck with him.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    kle4 said:

    Some interesting stats on the candidates' fundraising and spending levels, with some presumably playing the long game by not spending much early on.

    But man the numbers spent on these primary campaigns let alone the vastness of the amounts for the presidential campaigns is insane. I know it's a big, rich country and the rules allow huge spending, but my God.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48032231

    I'm not sure those numbers are correct (or at least, they only run through March 31), so they may simply be out of date.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    AndyJS said:

    Anyone think Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has a chance of getting the nomination?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

    Vladimir Putin.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,813
    Good morning, everyone.

    Be interesting to see which of them Trump insults most often as they compete to oppose him.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617
    rcs1000 said:

    Who will Obama support?

    I reckon he's planning on endorsing Trump.

    Merely to f*ck with him.
    I was thinking maybe Hillary......
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617
    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Michelle Obama would marmalize this field.....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,237
    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Donald Trump may will win.

    But the major reason the economy is so strong is that the government has enacted major fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle.

    For this reason, I really hope he wins. Because it's not really very fair to leave someone else with a massive fiscal deficit and a debt-to-gdp at a quarter century high at the end of a decade long economic expansion.
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 382

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Michelle Obama would marmalize this field.....
    Agree but the question is would the Obama's dare go up against Trump. The Obama's are nowhere near as popular in the USA as the media here would have us believe. Obama beat two wet lettuce candidates but Trump is a much different opponent. I think would have to go dirty against Obama but would do what it took to win.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    AndyJS said:

    Anyone think Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has a chance of getting the nomination?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

    Less than zero percent.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,675
    Trump is weak.
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    rcs1000 said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Donald Trump may will win.

    But the major reason the economy is so strong is that the government has enacted major fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle.

    For this reason, I really hope he wins. Because it's not really very fair to leave someone else with a massive fiscal deficit and a debt-to-gdp at a quarter century high at the end of a decade long economic expansion.
    The biggest problem they have is they spend too much, really Trump will need to win back the House as well to complete the job he has started. There would be far fewer Bush loyalists to hinder this time around.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    macisback said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Michelle Obama would marmalize this field.....
    Agree but the question is would the Obama's dare go up against Trump. The Obama's are nowhere near as popular in the USA as the media here would have us believe. Obama beat two wet lettuce candidates but Trump is a much different opponent. I think would have to go dirty against Obama but would do what it took to win.
    If the African American vote had turned out at Obama rates Trump would have lost the election.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617
    edited April 2019
    macisback said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Michelle Obama would marmalize this field.....
    Agree but the question is would the Obama's dare go up against Trump. The Obama's are nowhere near as popular in the USA as the media here would have us believe. Obama beat two wet lettuce candidates but Trump is a much different opponent. I think would have to go dirty against Obama but would do what it took to win.
    Ask independents "Do you want to keep the Trump White House? Or would you prefer a return to the Obama White House?" I'd be astonished if they didn't break better than 3-1 for Michelle Obama.

    And then there's the black vote that didn't come out for Hillary in 2016....

    Michelle Obama with Barack in the wings to stop her doing something stupid would be everything that Hillary with Bill in the shadows was not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,813
    F1: Gasly's starting from the pit lane.

    https://twitter.com/F1/status/1122028855936425985
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    macisback said:

    rcs1000 said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Donald Trump may will win.

    But the major reason the economy is so strong is that the government has enacted major fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle.

    For this reason, I really hope he wins. Because it's not really very fair to leave someone else with a massive fiscal deficit and a debt-to-gdp at a quarter century high at the end of a decade long economic expansion.
    The biggest problem they have is they spend too much, really Trump will need to win back the House as well to complete the job he has started. There would be far fewer Bush loyalists to hinder this time around.
    No President since Truman has seen his party win back the House after losing it in the midterms, even if they were re elected
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    HYUFD said:

    macisback said:

    rcs1000 said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Donald Trump may will win.

    But the major reason the economy is so strong is that the government has enacted major fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle.

    For this reason, I really hope he wins. Because it's not really very fair to leave someone else with a massive fiscal deficit and a debt-to-gdp at a quarter century high at the end of a decade long economic expansion.
    The biggest problem they have is they spend too much, really Trump will need to win back the House as well to complete the job he has started. There would be far fewer Bush loyalists to hinder this time around.
    No President since Truman has seen his party win back the House after losing it in the midterms, even if they were re elected
    Macisback and TheJezziah appear to be arguing from the heart rather than the head.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    Apologies, Clinton Sanders race in 2016
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,628

    F1: Gasly's starting from the pit lane.

    ttps://twitter.com/F1/status/1122028855936425985

    Rookie mistake that one. Can’t imagine Dr Marko is too happy with his performance so far this season.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    Jonathan said:

    Trump is weak.

    Trump's current Gallup approval rating of 45% is actually slightly higher than the 44% Obama had in the April of his third year, the 42% Reagan had in the April of his third year and the 40% Carter had in his third year.


    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

    2/3 Of those presidents were re elected

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772

    Who will Obama support?

    Obama has said he will not endorse or campaign for anyone in particular, according to Politico. Obviously there is warmth towards Biden, but not an outride endorsement.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    Telegraph reporting that Barwell has said the 5G leaker will be sacked "regardless of rank".

    Check your next Cabinet minister to resign bets?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,813
    Mr. Sandpit, pressure starting to tell, perhaps.

    Does practice start at 10am?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,628
    edited April 2019
    On topic
    If, as looks increasingly likely, we end up with a brokered convention, who do we think the “Super Delegates” will favour?

    Whoever that is, is the value in the race.

    Otherwise, lay this week’s favourites
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    Telegraph reporting that Barwell has said the 5G leaker will be sacked "regardless of rank".

    Check your next Cabinet minister to resign bets?

    It will be one of private pike's spads
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    HYUFD said:

    macisback said:

    rcs1000 said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Donald Trump may will win.

    But the major reason the economy is so strong is that the government has enacted major fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle.

    For this reason, I really hope he wins. Because it's not really very fair to leave someone else with a massive fiscal deficit and a debt-to-gdp at a quarter century high at the end of a decade long economic expansion.
    The biggest problem they have is they spend too much, really Trump will need to win back the House as well to complete the job he has started. There would be far fewer Bush loyalists to hinder this time around.
    No President since Truman has seen his party win back the House after losing it in the midterms, even if they were re elected
    Remember the House boundaries must be redrawn by 2020, with the Democrats in charge of the process.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    edited April 2019
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New Hampshire even with PR they are likely to have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially as the field narrows as weaker candidates drop out.

    Of course winning Iowa alone even by a big blowout margin is not enough if you then lose New Hampshire but if you win Iowa and New Hampshire then you are the de facto nominee in all but name. No candidate Democrat or Republican has failed to win their party's nomination after winning both those states
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,628

    Mr. Sandpit, pressure starting to tell, perhaps.

    Does practice start at 10am?

    P3 at 11, and Q session at 2, U.K. time.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,813
    Mr. Sandpit, cheers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    Fenman said:

    HYUFD said:

    macisback said:

    rcs1000 said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Donald Trump may will win.

    But the major reason the economy is so strong is that the government has enacted major fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle.

    For this reason, I really hope he wins. Because it's not really very fair to leave someone else with a massive fiscal deficit and a debt-to-gdp at a quarter century high at the end of a decade long economic expansion.
    The biggest problem they have is they spend too much, really Trump will need to win back the House as well to complete the job he has started. There would be far fewer Bush loyalists to hinder this time around.
    No President since Truman has seen his party win back the House after losing it in the midterms, even if they were re elected
    Remember the House boundaries must be redrawn by 2020, with the Democrats in charge of the process.
    Which just makes another Democrat majority even more likely
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Mr Smithson/Mr Eagles,

    How do I go about offering a thread header? I assume you have my e-mail address. Don't worry about rejecting it and causing me psychological pain. I'll still sleep at nights.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    Sandpit said:

    On topic
    If, as looks increasingly likely, we end up with a brokered convention, who do we think the “Super Delegates” will favour?

    Whoever that is, is the value in the race.

    Otherwise, lay this week’s favourites

    As the article states super delegates do not have a vote now in the first round, though they will likely favour Biden if they do come into play
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,534
    Good article - not totally convinced for the reasons Edmund puts forward, but the structure seems to promise more suspense this time!

    On paper, Biden should be a massive favourite - leading in the polls before he even announced, and presumably due a bounce from that. He has two problems (neither of which is the touchy-feely stuff, which looks trivial compared with Trump):

    1. The progressive left think he doesn't offer a real alternative
    2. He feels like old news in a time when "dramatic change" is in demand everywhere.

    He could and probably will help with 1 by offering a radical proposal on something, probably health. 2 is harder to tackle, because he is literally old and very familiar, and unlike Sanders his appeal is essentially the Democrat mixture as before.

    Note that PB favourite Buttigieg is still performing significantly worse against Trump than others - and it's doubtful if that is still lack of name recognition. I think he lacks a major issue - he's everyone's acceptable alternative, but not a compelling draw. Looks a strong VP candidate to me.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,291
    Fenman said:

    HYUFD said:

    macisback said:

    rcs1000 said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Donald Trump may will win.

    But the major reason the economy is so strong is that the government has enacted major fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle.

    For this reason, I really hope he wins. Because it's not really very fair to leave someone else with a massive fiscal deficit and a debt-to-gdp at a quarter century high at the end of a decade long economic expansion.
    The biggest problem they have is they spend too much, really Trump will need to win back the House as well to complete the job he has started. There would be far fewer Bush loyalists to hinder this time around.
    No President since Truman has seen his party win back the House after losing it in the midterms, even if they were re elected
    Remember the House boundaries must be redrawn by 2020, with the Democrats in charge of the process.
    But the boundaries are decided at State level....have the Ds captured enough legislatures to make serious revisions?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New Hampshire even with PR they are likely to have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially as the field narrows as weaker candidates drop out.

    Of course winning Iowa alone even by a big blowout margin is not enough if you then lose New Hampshire but if you win Iowa and New Hampshire then you are the de facto nominee in all but name. No candidate Democrat or Republican has failed to win their party's nomination after winning both those states
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483

    Telegraph reporting that Barwell has said the 5G leaker will be sacked "regardless of rank".

    Check your next Cabinet minister to resign bets?

    Is there a clue in the telegraph headline?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    edited April 2019

    Good article - not totally convinced for the reasons Edmund puts forward, but the structure seems to promise more suspense this time!

    On paper, Biden should be a massive favourite - leading in the polls before he even announced, and presumably due a bounce from that. He has two problems (neither of which is the touchy-feely stuff, which looks trivial compared with Trump):

    1. The progressive left think he doesn't offer a real alternative
    2. He feels like old news in a time when "dramatic change" is in demand everywhere.

    He could and probably will help with 1 by offering a radical proposal on something, probably health. 2 is harder to tackle, because he is literally old and very familiar, and unlike Sanders his appeal is essentially the Democrat mixture as before.

    Note that PB favourite Buttigieg is still performing significantly worse against Trump than others - and it's doubtful if that is still lack of name recognition. I think he lacks a major issue - he's everyone's acceptable alternative, but not a compelling draw. Looks a strong VP candidate to me.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/

    Biden also trails Sanders in New Hampshire and is only level in Iowa.

    Agree on Buttigieg, his message is too close to Hillary's in 2016 when Democrats want a more progressive, liberal candidate. Buttigieg or O'Rourke are both strong VP candidates though
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238

    Good article - not totally convinced for the reasons Edmund puts forward, but the structure seems to promise more suspense this time!

    On paper, Biden should be a massive favourite - leading in the polls before he even announced, and presumably due a bounce from that. He has two problems (neither of which is the touchy-feely stuff, which looks trivial compared with Trump):

    1. The progressive left think he doesn't offer a real alternative
    2. He feels like old news in a time when "dramatic change" is in demand everywhere.

    He could and probably will help with 1 by offering a radical proposal on something, probably health. 2 is harder to tackle, because he is literally old and very familiar, and unlike Sanders his appeal is essentially the Democrat mixture as before.

    Note that PB favourite Buttigieg is still performing significantly worse against Trump than others - and it's doubtful if that is still lack of name recognition. I think he lacks a major issue - he's everyone's acceptable alternative, but not a compelling draw. Looks a strong VP candidate to me.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/

    It’s quite likely Buttigieg’s name recognition is still well under 60% nationally (anyone have recent figures ?), and 538 showed pretty convincingly how that tends to skew polls and chances of winning at the beginning of the primary process.
    I don’t think you can really make that kind of judgment until the debates begin.

    VP choice will be a big deal if there is a contested convention.
  • CD13 said:

    Mr Smithson/Mr Eagles,

    How do I go about offering a thread header? I assume you have my e-mail address. Don't worry about rejecting it and causing me psychological pain. I'll still sleep at nights.

    Send an email to OGH with your thread header/idea, his email is Mike at politicalbetting dotcom.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    edited April 2019
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New Hampshire even with PR they are likely to have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially as the field narrows as weaker candidates drop out.

    Of course winning Iowa alone even by a big blowout margin is not enough if you then lose New Hampshire but if you win Iowa and New Hampshire then you are the de facto nominee in all but name. No candidate Democrat or Republican has failed to win their party's nomination after winning both those states
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

    It does if Sanders then proceeds to win California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois etc on the back of that momentum as he very likely would.

    After Gore beat Bill Bradley in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2000 he won every state thereafter. After Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004 he won every state thereafter bar North and South Carolina, which John Edwards won, Oklahoma which Wesley Clark won and Howard Dean's home state of Vermont
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Trump is weak.

    Trump's current Gallup approval rating of 45% is actually slightly higher than the 44% Obama had in the April of his third year, the 42% Reagan had in the April of his third year and the 40% Carter had in his third year.


    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

    2/3 Of those presidents were re elected


    Yougov and ABC have 39%.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New Hampshire even with PR they are likely to have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially as the field narrows as weaker candidates drop out.

    Of course winning Iowa alone even by a big blowout margin is not enough if you then lose New Hampshire but if you win Iowa and New Hampshire then you are the de facto nominee in all but name. No candidate Democrat or Republican has failed to win their party's nomination after winning both those states
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

    It does if Sanders then proceeds to win California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois etc on the back of that momentum as he very likely would.

    After Gore won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2000 he won every state thereafter. After Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004 he won every state thereafter bar South Carolina, which John Edwards won, Oklahoma which Wesley Clarke won and Howard Dean's home state of Vermont
    And this year it’s different.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,606
    edited April 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Trump is weak.

    Trump's current Gallup approval rating of 45% is actually slightly higher than the 44% Obama had in the April of his third year, the 42% Reagan had in the April of his third year and the 40% Carter had in his third year.


    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

    2/3 Of those presidents were re elected

    Trump's weighted average is currently 41%.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    That is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama, GWB, Clinton, HWB, Ford, Nixon, LBJ and JFK. He equals Reagan and is 1% ahead of Carter. Not great is it? I can't see him doing a Reagan and let others run the presidency for him while he smiles benevolently.

    EDIT: And that is in spite of the economy doing well.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New Hampshire even with PR they are likely to have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially as the field narrows as weaker candidates drop out.

    Of course winning Iowa alone even by a big blowout margin is not enough if you then lose New Hampshire but if you win Iowa and New Hampshire then you are the de facto nominee in all but name. No candidate Democrat or Republican has failed to win their party's nomination after winning both those states
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

    It does if Sanders then proceeds to win California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois etc on the back of that momentum as he very likely would.

    After Gore won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2000 he won every state thereafter. After Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004 he won every state thereafter bar South Carolina, which John Edwards won, Oklahoma which Wesley Clarke won and Howard Dean's home state of Vermont
    And this year it’s different.

    No it is not if you win Iowa and New Hampshire and all the big states thereafter you will likely have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially once weaker candidates drop out and you pick up their potential delegates too
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    edited April 2019
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Trump is weak.

    Trump's current Gallup approval rating of 45% is actually slightly higher than the 44% Obama had in the April of his third year, the 42% Reagan had in the April of his third year and the 40% Carter had in his third year.


    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

    2/3 Of those presidents were re elected

    Trump's weighted average is currently 41%.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    That is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama, GWB, Clinton, HWB, Ford, Nixon, LBJ and JFK. He equals Reagan and is 1% ahead of Carter. Not great is it? I can't see him doing a Reagan and let others run the presidency for him while he smiles benevolently.
    It is only 3% less than Obama had at this stage and Reagan was easily re elected.

    If Trump is Carter that favours Sanders then who like Reagan lost the proceeding nomination battle in 1976 to Ford as Sanders lost to Hillary
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,870
    I hope David is wrong about this. Such divisions, use of treasure, public squabbling etc would hand the election to the Donald on a plate. My guess is that this field will be winnowed down fairly quickly as most of the candidates fail to get traction and funds but I would concede that a 2/3 person fight could go a long way.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,606
    nichomar said:

    Telegraph reporting that Barwell has said the 5G leaker will be sacked "regardless of rank".

    Check your next Cabinet minister to resign bets?

    Is there a clue in the telegraph headline?
    What? You think it might be the PM!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New Hampshire even with PR they are likely to have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially as the field narrows as weaker candidates drop out.

    Of course winning Iowa alone even by a big blowout margin is not enough if you then lose New Hampshire but if you win Iowa and New Hampshire then you are the de facto nominee in all but name. No candidate Democrat or Republican has failed to win their party's nomination after winning both those states
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

    It does if Sanders then proceeds to win California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois etc on the back of that momentum as he very likely would.

    After Gore won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2000 he won every state thereafter. After Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004 he won every state thereafter bar South Carolina, which John Edwards won, Oklahoma which Wesley Clarke won and Howard Dean's home state of Vermont
    And this year it’s different.

    No it is not if you win Iowa and New Hampshire and all the big states thereafter you will likely have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially once weaker candidates drop out and you pick up their potential delegates too
    But Biden is crushing Sanders in most of the big states that have been polled recently.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    Barnesian said:

    nichomar said:

    Telegraph reporting that Barwell has said the 5G leaker will be sacked "regardless of rank".

    Check your next Cabinet minister to resign bets?

    Is there a clue in the telegraph headline?
    What? You think it might be the PM!
    No when I first glanced at it I thought it implied Hunt was the mole, must take more time scanning the front pages.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,617
    HYUFD said:

    Good article - not totally convinced for the reasons Edmund puts forward, but the structure seems to promise more suspense this time!

    On paper, Biden should be a massive favourite - leading in the polls before he even announced, and presumably due a bounce from that. He has two problems (neither of which is the touchy-feely stuff, which looks trivial compared with Trump):

    1. The progressive left think he doesn't offer a real alternative
    2. He feels like old news in a time when "dramatic change" is in demand everywhere.

    He could and probably will help with 1 by offering a radical proposal on something, probably health. 2 is harder to tackle, because he is literally old and very familiar, and unlike Sanders his appeal is essentially the Democrat mixture as before.

    Note that PB favourite Buttigieg is still performing significantly worse against Trump than others - and it's doubtful if that is still lack of name recognition. I think he lacks a major issue - he's everyone's acceptable alternative, but not a compelling draw. Looks a strong VP candidate to me.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/

    Biden also trails Sanders in New Hampshire and is only level in Iowa.

    Agree on Buttigieg, his message is too close to Hillary's in 2016 when Democrats want a more progressive, liberal candidate. Buttigieg or O'Rourke are both strong VP candidates though
    Biden could pick Michelle Obama as his Veep. That would have a nice circularity about it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,772
    HYUFD said:

    Good article - not totally convinced for the reasons Edmund puts forward, but the structure seems to promise more suspense this time!

    On paper, Biden should be a massive favourite - leading in the polls before he even announced, and presumably due a bounce from that. He has two problems (neither of which is the touchy-feely stuff, which looks trivial compared with Trump):

    1. The progressive left think he doesn't offer a real alternative
    2. He feels like old news in a time when "dramatic change" is in demand everywhere.

    He could and probably will help with 1 by offering a radical proposal on something, probably health. 2 is harder to tackle, because he is literally old and very familiar, and unlike Sanders his appeal is essentially the Democrat mixture as before.

    Note that PB favourite Buttigieg is still performing significantly worse against Trump than others - and it's doubtful if that is still lack of name recognition. I think he lacks a major issue - he's everyone's acceptable alternative, but not a compelling draw. Looks a strong VP candidate to me.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/

    Biden also trails Sanders in New Hampshire and is only level in Iowa.

    Agree on Buttigieg, his message is too close to Hillary's in 2016 when Democrats want a more progressive, liberal candidate. Buttigieg or O'Rourke are both strong VP candidates though
    Biden-Buttigieg? Stabilise the office of POTUS after the Trump firestorm and then the generational torch is ready to be handed on.

    Although lack of a woman on ticket will be a problem this campaign season for Dems.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    My first is in Chuka but not in Heidi, my second is in Chuka but not in Anna...

    https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/1122055667307765760?s=21
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New ates
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

    It does if Sanders then proceeds to win California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois etc on the back of that momentum as he very likely would.

    After Gore won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2000 he won every state thereafter. After Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004 he won every state thereafter bar South Carolina, which John Edwards won, Oklahoma which Wesley Clarke won and Howard Dean's home state of Vermont
    And this year it’s different.

    No it is not if you win Iowa and New Hampshire and all the big states thereafter you will likely have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially once weaker candidates drop out and you pick up their potential delegates too
    But Biden is crushing Sanders in most of the big states that have been polled recently.
    Not all, e.g. Sanders leads the latest California poll.

    Plus if Sanders won Iowa and New Hampshire momentum would see him sweep the big states
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,606
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jonathan said:

    Trump is weak.

    Trump's current Gallup approval rating of 45% is actually slightly higher than the 44% Obama had in the April of his third year, the 42% Reagan had in the April of his third year and the 40% Carter had in his third year.


    https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

    2/3 Of those presidents were re elected

    Trump's weighted average is currently 41%.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

    That is worse at this stage of his presidency than Obama, GWB, Clinton, HWB, Ford, Nixon, LBJ and JFK. He equals Reagan and is 1% ahead of Carter. Not great is it? I can't see him doing a Reagan and let others run the presidency for him while he smiles benevolently.
    It is only 3% less than Obama had at this stage and Reagan was easily re elected.

    If Trump is Carter that favours Sanders then who like Reagan lost the proceeding nomination battle in 1976 to Ford as Sanders lost to Hillary
    Reagan's popularity rose from 40% to 60% as he became the grand old man who everyone loved. Can;t see Trump managing that.

    You last para is too convoluted, reading entrails.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156

    HYUFD said:

    Good article - not totally convinced for the reasons Edmund puts forward, but the structure seems to promise more suspense this time!

    On paper, Biden should be a massive favourite - leading in the polls before he even announced, and presumably due a bounce from that. He has two problems (neither of which is the touchy-feely stuff, which looks trivial compared with Trump):

    1. The progressive left think he doesn't offer a real alternative
    2. He feels like old news in a time when "dramatic change" is in demand everywhere.

    He could and probably will help with 1 by offering a radical proposal on something, probably health. 2 is harder to tackle, because he is literally old and very familiar, and unlike Sanders his appeal is essentially the Democrat mixture as before.

    Note that PB favourite Buttigieg is still performing significantly worse against Trump than others - and it's doubtful if that is still lack of name recognition. I think he lacks a major issue - he's everyone's acceptable alternative, but not a compelling draw. Looks a strong VP candidate to me.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/

    Biden also trails Sanders in New Hampshire and is only level in Iowa.

    Agree on Buttigieg, his message is too close to Hillary's in 2016 when Democrats want a more progressive, liberal candidate. Buttigieg or O'Rourke are both strong VP candidates though
    Biden-Buttigieg? Stabilise the office of POTUS after the Trump firestorm and then the generational torch is ready to be handed on.

    Although lack of a woman on ticket will be a problem this campaign season for Dems.
    Having a woman top of the ticket hardly helped them beat Trump last time
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    HYUFD said:

    Good article - not totally convinced for the reasons Edmund puts forward, but the structure seems to promise more suspense this time!

    On paper, Biden should be a massive favourite - leading in the polls before he even announced, and presumably due a bounce from that. He has two problems (neither of which is the touchy-feely stuff, which looks trivial compared with Trump):

    1. The progressive left think he doesn't offer a real alternative
    2. He feels like old news in a time when "dramatic change" is in demand everywhere.

    He could and probably will help with 1 by offering a radical proposal on something, probably health. 2 is harder to tackle, because he is literally old and very familiar, and unlike Sanders his appeal is essentially the Democrat mixture as before.

    Note that PB favourite Buttigieg is still performing significantly worse against Trump than others - and it's doubtful if that is still lack of name recognition. I think he lacks a major issue - he's everyone's acceptable alternative, but not a compelling draw. Looks a strong VP candidate to me.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/national_general_election/

    Biden also trails Sanders in New Hampshire and is only level in Iowa.

    Agree on Buttigieg, his message is too close to Hillary's in 2016 when Democrats want a more progressive, liberal candidate. Buttigieg or O'Rourke are both strong VP candidates though
    Biden-Buttigieg? Stabilise the office of POTUS after the Trump firestorm and then the generational torch is ready to be handed on.

    Although lack of a woman on ticket will be a problem this campaign season for Dems.
    Biden will want a completely invisible VP so it won't be Mayor Pete.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,683
    edited April 2019
    Since I've been following politics, since circa 1990, every Presidential cycle has seen a brokered convention predicted every time for at least one party, but it is has never happened, however this time I won't be surprised if it happens.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,870
    Really is time for Ruth to get back to work. The party has nothing like the same profile and bite without her.

    Leonard's figures are incredible. He is a vacuum with no profile at all.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Since I've been following politics, since circa 1990, every Presidential cycle has seen a brokered convention predicted every time for at least one party, but it is has never happened, however this time I won't be surprised if it happens.

    What did you make of the minutes silence for Tommy Smith last night? Was there talk of it not being observed?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,624
    Now if we can get the French government to express similar concerns perhaps the Conservatives will have a rethink on the merits of the backstop:

    ' It is a dastardly trap, designed to lock freedom-loving Britain into the European Union’s protectionist customs union: that is the argument against the so-called backstop, cited by hardline Brexit advocates as the main reason why they have thrice voted down Theresa May’s deal with the European Union.

    But as the dust settles after months of chaos in Westminster, suspicions are growing on the other side of the Channel that the backstop could in fact be the very opposite: a brilliant deception device constructed by crack UK negotiators, which would allow a more reckless British prime minister to undermine the EU’s green and social standards while still keeping access to the European single market.
    '

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/26/irish-backstop-could-undermine-eu-standards-report-says
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,870
    isam said:

    Since I've been following politics, since circa 1990, every Presidential cycle has seen a brokered convention predicted every time for at least one party, but it is has never happened, however this time I won't be surprised if it happens.

    What did you make of the minutes silence for Tommy Smith last night? Was there talk of it not being observed?
    I thought the convention these days was for a minute's applause for a life well lived. It also prevents idiots from being disrespectful.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936

    Now if we can get the French government to express similar concerns perhaps the Conservatives will have a rethink on the merits of the backstop:

    ' It is a dastardly trap, designed to lock freedom-loving Britain into the European Union’s protectionist customs union: that is the argument against the so-called backstop, cited by hardline Brexit advocates as the main reason why they have thrice voted down Theresa May’s deal with the European Union.

    But as the dust settles after months of chaos in Westminster, suspicions are growing on the other side of the Channel that the backstop could in fact be the very opposite: a brilliant deception device constructed by crack UK negotiators, which would allow a more reckless British prime minister to undermine the EU’s green and social standards while still keeping access to the European single market.
    '

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/26/irish-backstop-could-undermine-eu-standards-report-says

    You had me until "study by German Greens" :p
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238

    ICYMI - The ERG and Leavers in general may well have destroyed the Union, big hand clap for them.

    And the Tory party into the bargain.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238

    Since I've been following politics, since circa 1990, every Presidential cycle has seen a brokered convention predicted every time for at least one party, but it is has never happened, however this time I won't be surprised if it happens.

    We’re at that point of the process where all outcomes are still possible.



    Apart from Tulsi Gabbard.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,005
    Timing is everything.

    'I think Yes have serious problems, Brexit is more of a threat to them than the opposite.'
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,005
    Nigelb said:

    ICYMI - The ERG and Leavers in general may well have destroyed the Union, big hand clap for them.

    And the Tory party into the bargain.
    What a bargain!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New ates
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

    It does if Sanders then proceeds to win California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois etc on the back of that momentum as he very likely would.

    After Gore won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2000 he won every state thereafter. After Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire in 2004 he won every state thereafter bar South Carolina, which John Edwards won, Oklahoma which Wesley Clarke won and Howard Dean's home state of Vermont
    And this year it’s different.

    No it is not if you win Iowa and New Hampshire and all the big states thereafter you will likely have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially once weaker candidates drop out and you pick up their potential delegates too
    But Biden is crushing Sanders in most of the big states that have been polled recently.
    Not all, e.g. Sanders leads the latest California poll.

    Plus if Sanders won Iowa and New Hampshire momentum would see him sweep the big states
    With about 20% of the vote.

    You’re really not getting this.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    Not really the SNP are forecast to get 51 MPs, 5 less than they got in 2015 even before the Leave vote. No still leads the indyref2 poll
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,381
    JohnO said:

    Fenman said:

    HYUFD said:

    macisback said:

    rcs1000 said:

    macisback said:

    Trump has been a pleasant surprise how well he has grown into the job. Maybe he had to be the coarse bully to beat Bush and Clinton and the massive machine behind them. Now he sounds very different to the 2016 campaign and the Economic performance of the USA is strong. I expect Trump to win handily whoever he comes up against without having to play dirty this time. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mrs Obama come into the running late, none of the current front runners look winners to me.

    Donald Trump may will win.

    But the major reason the economy is so strong is that the government has enacted major fiscal stimulus late in the economic cycle.

    For this reason, I really hope he wins. Because it's not really very fair to leave someone else with a massive fiscal deficit and a debt-to-gdp at a quarter century high at the end of a decade long economic expansion.
    The biggest problem they have is they spend too much, really Trump will need to win back the House as well to complete the job he has started. There would be far fewer Bush loyalists to hinder this time around.
    No President since Truman has seen his party win back the House after losing it in the midterms, even if they were re elected
    Remember the House boundaries must be redrawn by 2020, with the Democrats in charge of the process.
    But the boundaries are decided at State level....have the Ds captured enough legislatures to make serious revisions?
    No. The Republicans still hold most legislatures.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238

    Nigelb said:

    ICYMI - The ERG and Leavers in general may well have destroyed the Union, big hand clap for them.

    And the Tory party into the bargain.
    What a bargain!
    Given what might replace it, be careful what you wish for.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,163

    Now if we can get the French government to express similar concerns perhaps the Conservatives will have a rethink on the merits of the backstop:

    ' It is a dastardly trap, designed to lock freedom-loving Britain into the European Union’s protectionist customs union: that is the argument against the so-called backstop, cited by hardline Brexit advocates as the main reason why they have thrice voted down Theresa May’s deal with the European Union.

    But as the dust settles after months of chaos in Westminster, suspicions are growing on the other side of the Channel that the backstop could in fact be the very opposite: a brilliant deception device constructed by crack UK negotiators, which would allow a more reckless British prime minister to undermine the EU’s green and social standards while still keeping access to the European single market.
    '

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/26/irish-backstop-could-undermine-eu-standards-report-says

    If only, but whatever the merits or not of the backstop (since it doesn't seem a necessity to me) the positions taken on it from EU and opponents here has become religious.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New ates
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

    It does if Sanders then proceeds to win California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois etc on the back of that momentum as he very likely would.

    After Gore w Clarke won and Howard Dean's home state of Vermont
    And this year it’s different.

    No it is not if you win Iowa and New Hampshire and all the big states thereafter you will likely have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially once weaker candidates drop out and you pick up their potential delegates too
    But Biden is crushing Sanders in most of the big states that have been polled recently.
    Not all, e.g. Sanders leads the latest California poll.

    Plus if Sanders won Iowa and New Hampshire momentum would see him sweep the big states
    With about 20% of the vote.

    You’re really not getting this.
    No you clearly are not getting this.

    No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire and ever failed to win their party's nomination.

    If you win both states you all win ALL the big states. End of conversation
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,156
    edited April 2019
    Nigelb said:

    ICYMI - The ERG and Leavers in general may well have destroyed the Union, big hand clap for them.

    And the Tory party into the bargain.
    Only if they fail to deliver Brexit and the Brexit Party overtake them
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Nigelb said:

    ICYMI - The ERG and Leavers in general may well have destroyed the Union, big hand clap for them.

    And the Tory party into the bargain.
    If the Union goes, bang goes Cameron's last "Well at least I...". One could almost feel sorry for the guy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    It all depends on Iowa and New Hampshire, if Sanders or Biden win both momentum alone should see him wrap up the nomination quickly and win the big states like California, New York and Texas and Pennsylvania as Gore and Kerry did in 2000 and 2004. If however Iowa votes for one candidate and New Hampshire for another then we are in for a long race as in the Clinton Sanders race in 2008, the Obama Clinton race in 2008 or the 1992 and 1988 Democratic primaries and the race could go to the convention aided by the PR nature of the primaries

    As David’s admirably clear article points out, the proportional awarding of delegates makes that unlikely - and even a blowout victory in a small state like Iowa really isn’t going to have the effect you imagine.
    I’d be very surprised if there aren’t at least four candidates in genuine contention by Super Tuesday, plus a handful of no hopers who won’t give up.

    PR only has a real difference if the states, especially the big states, are won by different candidates.

    If one candidate wins all the big states having won Iowa and New ates
    And no candidate has competed under the current rules.
    Perfectly possible that Sanders wins Iowa with 25% and New Hampshire with 30% (the latter more likely than the former).
    Does that make him the de facto nominee ? Almost certainly not.

    It does if Sanders then proceeds to win California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois etc on the back of that momentum as he very likely would.

    After Gore w Clarke won and Howard Dean's home state of Vermont
    And this year it’s different.

    No it is not if you win Iowa and New Hampshire and all the big states thereafter you will likely have won a majority of delegates by the convention, especially once weaker candidates drop out and you pick up their potential delegates too
    But Biden is crushing Sanders in most of the big states that have been polled recently.
    Not all, e.g. Sanders leads the latest California poll.

    Plus if Sanders won Iowa and New Hampshire momentum would see him sweep the big states
    With about 20% of the vote.

    You’re really not getting this.
    No you clearly are not getting this.

    No candidate has won Iowa and New Hampshire and ever failed to win their party's nomination.

    If you win both states you all win ALL the big states. End of conversation
    I’ll agree to that last sentence.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,005
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ICYMI - The ERG and Leavers in general may well have destroyed the Union, big hand clap for them.

    And the Tory party into the bargain.
    What a bargain!
    Given what might replace it, be careful what you wish for.

    As ever it doesn't really matter what I wish for, the juggernaut of English nationalism has set off of its own volition. I'd rather that wasn't the case but on balance I'd prefer not to be chained behind it. As has been suggested by people brighter than me, it may turn out that only England has the necessary heft to break the Union.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,237
    Yes, fascinating race for the Dem Nom. I like Kamala Harris but I'm getting a little concerned about the lack of buzz around her. It's all Mayor Pete, and Run Joe Run! and Bernie the Burn, and of course the man who is quite simply 'Beto' (even to his wife).

    Meanwhile my pick has thus far failed to break through. She is referred to in a way that is po-faced and respectful rather than with excitement and affection. The worst sign of all is that she is still called 'Harris' by all and sundry despite being blessed with the very catchy first name of Kamala.

    This even runs to on here, I'm disappointed to see. Harris this, Harris that, Harris the other. It's not good enough. So a heartfelt plea from me this morning. Can we move up a gear please on KH? On KAMALA. Let's get this baby rolling!
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,624
    kle4 said:

    Now if we can get the French government to express similar concerns perhaps the Conservatives will have a rethink on the merits of the backstop:

    ' It is a dastardly trap, designed to lock freedom-loving Britain into the European Union’s protectionist customs union: that is the argument against the so-called backstop, cited by hardline Brexit advocates as the main reason why they have thrice voted down Theresa May’s deal with the European Union.

    But as the dust settles after months of chaos in Westminster, suspicions are growing on the other side of the Channel that the backstop could in fact be the very opposite: a brilliant deception device constructed by crack UK negotiators, which would allow a more reckless British prime minister to undermine the EU’s green and social standards while still keeping access to the European single market.
    '

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/26/irish-backstop-could-undermine-eu-standards-report-says

    If only, but whatever the merits or not of the backstop (since it doesn't seem a necessity to me) the positions taken on it from EU and opponents here has become religious.
    Considering that all the things the ERG expected to happen ** have not subsequently happened since they had their tantrum you might hope that they would consider whether their whole strategy was built on proper foundations.

    ** The EU wouldn't move on the backstop, they couldn't bring down May and crash-out Brexit didn't happen in March.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ICYMI - The ERG and Leavers in general may well have destroyed the Union, big hand clap for them.

    And the Tory party into the bargain.
    What a bargain!
    Given what might replace it, be careful what you wish for.

    As ever it doesn't really matter what I wish for, the juggernaut of English nationalism has set off of its own volition. I'd rather that wasn't the case but on balance I'd prefer not to be chained behind it. As has been suggested by people brighter than me, it may turn out that only England has the necessary heft to break the Union.
    Fair enough - but spare a thought for us unfortunates south of the border.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,238
    kinabalu said:

    Yes, fascinating race for the Dem Nom. I like Kamala Harris but I'm getting a little concerned about the lack of buzz around her. It's all Mayor Pete, and Run Joe Run! and Bernie the Burn, and of course the man who is quite simply 'Beto' (even to his wife).

    Meanwhile my pick has thus far failed to break through. She is referred to in a way that is po-faced and respectful rather than with excitement and affection. The worst sign of all is that she is still called 'Harris' by all and sundry despite being blessed with the very catchy first name of Kamala.

    This even runs to on here, I'm disappointed to see. Harris this, Harris that, Harris the other. It's not good enough. So a heartfelt plea from me this morning. Can we move up a gear please on KH? On KAMALA. Let's get this baby rolling!

    O’Rourke has gone pretty dark, too - he simply isn’t doing TV at the moment, in favour of ‘meeting the people’. Whether there’s some smart plan underlying this, or it’s just a misguided attempt to replicate his Texas campaign in a national scale, is a open question.

    Don’t know about Kamala (there, I said it for you). She has the base (money and support) and the political skills to be a contender, but she needs to break out of the pack by the summer.
This discussion has been closed.