Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democratic voters are more fired up about WH2020 than Republic
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democratic voters are more fired up about WH2020 than Republicans ones which could be bad news for Trump
By far the biggest global political betting event next year will be the White House Race and all the series of state primaries leading up to it. We have, of course, already started the TV debates for the Democratic nomination and a further round is scheduled for the end of the month.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/451901-crowd-chants-f-trump-during-fox-news-broadcast-at-french-sports-bar
Biden gaffes a lot but the voters don't seem to mind that much, and he was sucky in the debate but that's pretty common with big-shots who haven't debated for a while. Obama and (IIRC) Bush W both kind-of bombed in their first debates as president; I guess they fail to take it seriously and don't prepare and practice as much as they should.
Kamala seems to have a habit of making a big of a splash then not having anything to follow it up with; She did this big thing with Barr that got shared everywhere where she looked like she was getting him to admit to something ready for the big reveal, then the big reveal never came. Then she went after Biden for not supporting a policy that she apparently doesn't actually support herself. And she appeared to commit to taking away everybody's health insurance, which she's probably since walked back sufficiently since, but claiming she misunderstood the question sounds lame. Her wins showed she can be effective but they've been carefully prepared attacks where she gets to choose the terrain, and we haven't really seen what she's like at defence.
Candidates are going to be very reluctant indeed to drop out of the race, until all hope is extinguished - and others are still thinking about throwing their hat into the crowded ring:
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/07/tom-steyer-running-2020-democrats-1399507
The next set of two debates at the end of this month will be very interesting indeed, as they have almost as much chance of overturning the impressions of the first set, as they do for confirming them. And the debates themselves seem to be taking on an outsize importance similar to the Republican ones which resulted in the seemingly improbable nomination of Donald Trump.
Add in the bar being raised (position in the polls and donations received) for qualifying to take part in subsequent debates, and you will have candidates desperate to grab their last chance for the spotlight.
Everyone has seen the dramatic bump in Harris’s fortunes thanks to her ambush on Biden and will be considering how they might do the same. Of course it’s not an easy trick to pull off, and the debates might just descend into an ill tempered brawl, but they are in any event likely to be pretty feisty affairs.
Your comments on Harris’s policy positions are quite right - I get the impression she’s trying to establish ground somewhere between the conservatism of Biden and the radicalism of Sanders and Warren, but it’s a steep learning curve at this level.
The Democrat field is very crowded which means so are the debates. I cannot decide if this means there is value at the front of the market or if there might be a 50/1 outsider who can break through in the next eight months before the first primaries.
His redeeming feature is that he was Obama's VP. And therefore Trump hates him. Because Trump hates anything associated with the Obama era.
Biden also looks like he's hating the campaign.
And remember, this is a guy who didn't want to stand against Hillary, as he thought it might be too hard.
Oh yeah, because he announced so late, he's got a fairly rubbish organisation.
Who wants to give me odds on him dropping out before the Iowa caucuses?
FPT, Lord Ashcroft polls:
Which of these characters, then, would people rather have as Prime Minister – competent but conventional and a bit smug, or strong and amusing but unreliable and potentially dangerous? For 2017 Conservatives and those who voted Leave in the referendum, it’s Boris at a canter. But for voters as a whole, Jeremy Hunt comes out on top. Head to head against Jeremy Corbyn, Boris wins by 18 points – but Jeremy Hunt beats his Labour namesake by a 28-point margin. Forced to choose, Britain would prefer a Hunt-led Tory government to a Corbyn-led Labour one by 60 per cent to 40 per cent, but a Boris-led administration to its Corbynite alternative by just 8 points.
Remain voters account for the difference. Seeing Boris as not just willing but eager to leave the EU without a deal, they would rather have the safer-seeming Hunt than Corbyn in Downing Street, but prefer Corbyn to Johnson by a wide margin.>/i>
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/
Not too surprising, as findings go, but should make things easier for Trump's eventual opponent.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1147967073798238214
For the standard interviews I had to supply in advance some political discussion points relevant to that civil service department which were my opionions. In the interview they ripped into my opinions and I had to defend and argue my side. The group discussion was even harder. There were four candidates around a coffee table and the three interviewers observed sitting behind a desk. The panel gave us subjects to discuss, but did not take part in the discussions. I remember that after the first question there was a silence as the four strangers sat wondering what to say. After what seemed like 2 minutes (but was probably only 15 seconds) I decided "if no-one says anything then we all fail" so started with a fairly noncommitial statement aimed at getting the others to talk. As soon as I started talking the pens of the interview panel started scratching away, it was clear to me that they were timing how long the initial pause was and who broke the silence!
I passed, but in the end I decided the Civil Service was not for me.
Trump loves to be a bull in a China shop but the reality, despite the undiplomatic behaviour, is somewhat different. Would Obama have backed off from the strikes on Iran? I think he would have been too concerned about looking weak. The China trade war has been a lot of noise which in itself has brought about some onshoring but now looks to be "back on track". He is not a reliable or consistent friend but his foreign policy is in practice more measured and cautious than the rhetoric.
It's hard to see the wheat from the chaff in a crowded field but I am not yet seeing anyone in the Democratic race that can change the narrative away from Trump. Edmund's comments downthread about Harris are spot on in my opinion.
(I can almost see her house from here... maybe I should lean out the window and yell the question.)
He's 3rd in the betting and rated a 7-1 shot. How the hell is that "frontrunner" ?!
"At this stage ahead WH2016 Republican nominee race the polls had Jeb Bush with a 19 point lead. He failed."
No he did not, he was 5 pts ahead of Scott Walker.
"On the Betfair exchange Biden is currently rated as a 13% chance for the nomination – down from 31% before last month’s TV debates. Kamala Harris is at 33% with Elizabeth Warren at 19%."
What is justifying Harris' price ?
Harris is the frontrunner. Any piece on the nomination should at least comment on a 2-1 fav at this point.
Just ponder that for a moment and you will see why he's still in post.
He is of course also correct and in any case for wrongful dismissal that would become even more embarrassingly evident. The government cannot risk that and when he's calmed down Trump will probably not want to either.
Quite what the tories saw in his sub-blairism at that stage I don't know.
Unless you want Mike to actually tell you how to bet, you ought to be able to draw a conclusion about the short odds favourite from that.
The whole business doesn't make Hunt look good, though.
I picked her out as a contender at an early stage because of her having a state wide organisation in California which votes early this time and will give the winner there a huge advantage. That is still a consideration but she has disappointed and I agree her current price is absurd.
https://twitter.com/indiaknight/status/1147928161566568454
Mazel Tov.
I see no one did add reasons to why Farage would be a good replacement last night. Shame.
Maybe a Betting Savant?
😉
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/01/18/my-661-long-shot-bet-for-the-2020-white-house-race-demcratic-senator-kamala-harris-from-california/
Edit: ah, I see someone else has made the point.
(& FWIW, I have also gone short on Harris over the last couple of days - though I still think she has a pretty good chance of eventually securing the nomination.)
Mr Hunt said he was "doing his job" as "frank opinions" from ambassadors are vital.
But in a bid to smooth over the Transatlantic rift, Mr Hunt added: "It’s also important to say this was a personal view. It’s not the view of the British government. It’s not my view.
I think Hunt should have said it was the ambassador's "professional" view rather than personal view.
As in it being controlled by the lunatic in the WH. But Leavers seem to have no problem with being the US lapdog , but freak out at the thought of working closely with other European nations by being in the EU.
No questioning of what is the impact of a trade deal with US does not challenge him on the stated EU position of no renegotiation and whilst corbyn is left wing it’s a bit far fetched to call him Marxist without challenge.
However Trump could not have beaten Hillary without Cruz, Kasich and Rubio supporters coming over to him in the general election. If the Democrats want to tempt some of them over to their side they need a candidate like Biden who can do so, the likes of Warren will not even if Democratic voters will be fired up behind her to stop a Trump second term.
The leaking of the cables is in the interest only of those who are sincere about flattering him. Which is not a smart way to treat with a transactional president in possession of a massive ego.
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/#more-16028
I understand that there are very high marginal rates of tax if they do (because they have maxed out their pensions)
Are these greater than 100%?
If not then they *can* afford to, but they would rather do something else with their time.
I suspect this would get less sympathy with the general public
https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2019/07/voters-would-love-boris-round-for-dinner-but-even-his-biggest-fans-would-pick-hunt-to-babysit-their-children/
If so, the possible names that spring to mind are Truss, Leadsom, Patel, Mourdant and McVey (I can't see Rudd as having a chance in Hell).
Truss is the favourite booking wise but I think two things will weigh against her. First, Johnson's pledge to hire 20,000 extra officers (and likely more pledges) fits ill with Truss' view on public spending and low taxation. Second, I suspect Johnson thinks she does not have the mettle / profile to make a success in the role.
Of the others, keeping Mourdant at Defence seems like a no-brainer - he doesn't reward a Hunt supporter with the CoE job and, anyway, she is first female Defence Sec. I also don't see Leadsom as fitting in with BoJo's plans on the finance front although she would be good at the dispatch box and I would have an outside bet on her.
That leaves Patel and McVey. Again, Patel may struggle with the funding pledges side of things and her personality may not be suited (although Johnson may like the symbolism of both the UK's first female and Asian CoE). However, McVey has been pushing the extra funding line so Johnson's pledges would fit exactly in with her message and she has the mettle to take on the opposition.
Plus, it would put her directly opposite John McDonnell.