Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Mandate

1235

Comments

  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?

    No. But he has come in from 2.5 to 2 to win WH2020 in the last 2 weeks or so. That is a serious market move.
    Absolutely, I wouldn't put anyone off.
  • Options

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    So, this begs the question: who?

    The safety first is to give Biden a go. Might work. But I fear his age and stuttering will not work out. And I write as someone who has bet heavily on him. Perhaps on the stage against Trump he will rise to the occasion and deliver one of his 'that's a load of malarkey' zingers.

    This leaves: Buttigieg or OGH's bet on Amy Klobucher.

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,032

    Foxy said:

    Aaron Bell featuring heavily on #lastleg now, looking quite youthful.

    He's just a boy
    Giving it all away?
  • Options
    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Klobuchar...
    Bless you.
    Ok, I confess I am cannot for the life of me see how Klobuchar is the answer to Trump. Crazy.
  • Options
    I remain hugely entertained by sheep cowards Labour MPs moaning away on Twitter at Corbyn still being LOTO yet they are the people who refuse to remove him
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 26,733
    Growing crops for biofuel is horriffic. Good riddance to it. Worst form of fuel ever.
  • Options
    A prediction: if Buttigieg falls this time, he will be fighting Joe Kennedy to be the nominee in 2024.
  • Options

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    So, this begs the question: who?

    The safety first is to give Biden a go. Might work. But I fear his age and stuttering will not work out. And I write as someone who has bet heavily on him. Perhaps on the stage against Trump he will rise to the occasion and deliver one of his 'that's a load of malarkey' zingers.

    This leaves: Buttigieg or OGH's bet on Amy Klobucher.

    Biden is likely to win his side and gender to be male is buying money and so is trump to win his side.
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,478
    kinabalu said:

    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.

    I think HRC would beat him in a rematch.
    I think it was Fitzgerald who said "In American lives, there are no second acts".

    Trump would be able to paint Hillary as a stone cold loser from the get go, and he'd be right.

    I actually think Buttigieg has the best chance of breaking through. Of all the candidates, he's the biggest contrast to Trump. Intelligent, articulate, thoughtful. He might still lose, but at least he'd lose brilliantly.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223

    Indeed I do reflect on that. No offence intended but as a Northerner I find the idea that we Northerners are all just social conservatives to be somewhat condescending. I hope that the Tories can help improve the lot of people up here via Conservative principles and if they do then I hope the seats up here stay blue. Win, win both for the party and for people up here.

    My point is merely that they aren't liberal conservatives as per the way you describe yourself - libertarian, neocon, whatever, that. They aren't that.

    On this, I am sure, we agree.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308
    kinabalu said:

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?

    No. But he has come in from 2.5 to 2 to win WH2020 in the last 2 weeks or so. That is a serious market move.
    2s is about right.

    He's the incumbent President, and is popular with the Republican base. But his unfavorable numbers are worst in class. He wins if the Democrats elect someone less popular than him (Warren), and it's a real fight if it's one of the others.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223
    kyf_100 said:

    I think it was Fitzgerald who said "In American lives, there are no second acts".

    Trump would be able to paint Hillary as a stone cold loser from the get go, and he'd be right.

    I actually think Buttigieg has the best chance of breaking through. Of all the candidates, he's the biggest contrast to Trump. Intelligent, articulate, thoughtful. He might still lose, but at least he'd lose brilliantly.

    I disagree - even if he did say that, great writer that he was.

    I see no reason why she would not beat him. She did last time in the PV. He fluked it rather.

    Buttigieg would be interesting, yes.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Indeed I do reflect on that. No offence intended but as a Northerner I find the idea that we Northerners are all just social conservatives to be somewhat condescending. I hope that the Tories can help improve the lot of people up here via Conservative principles and if they do then I hope the seats up here stay blue. Win, win both for the party and for people up here.

    My point is merely that they aren't liberal conservatives as per the way you describe yourself - libertarian, neocon, whatever, that. They aren't that.

    On this, I am sure, we agree.
    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    https://youtu.be/iMewtlmkV6c
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    Growing crops for biofuel is horriffic. Good riddance to it. Worst form of fuel ever.
    Worse than how energy was generated in the Matrix?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Would you be less scared if I told you it was with Rasmussen who've had him on 49% approval for months now?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223
    TOPPING said:

    LOL. Still being a passive aggressive twat I see.

    How about I drop the passive in your case?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308
    Successful Presidential candidates are blank slates onto which voters project their hopes and fears.

    Which is why Buttigieg is such a good candidate.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,085
    kinabalu said:

    TOPPING said:

    LOL. Still being a passive aggressive twat I see.

    How about I drop the passive in your case?
    Go for it.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
    But that's why he's the best candidate. Just as why Obama was the best candidate in '08.

    Many people voted Trump because they didn't want Hillary. Who votes Trump to avoid Mayor Pete?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743

    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
    Lack of experience now seems an asset to prospective leaders, in an anti politics age. I cite Donald Trump as my first witness...
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it was Fitzgerald who said "In American lives, there are no second acts".

    Trump would be able to paint Hillary as a stone cold loser from the get go, and he'd be right.

    I actually think Buttigieg has the best chance of breaking through. Of all the candidates, he's the biggest contrast to Trump. Intelligent, articulate, thoughtful. He might still lose, but at least he'd lose brilliantly.

    I disagree - even if he did say that, great writer that he was.

    I see no reason why she would not beat him. She did last time in the PV. He fluked it rather.

    Buttigieg would be interesting, yes.
    Buttigieg massive USP is that he would, simply by being on the debate stage, present the electorate with the chance to pass the torch to a new generation.

    Might work. For what it is worth I think it has more chance against Trump than Liz McGovern.
  • Options
    BudGBudG Posts: 711
    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5
  • Options
    kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,478
    kinabalu said:

    kyf_100 said:

    I think it was Fitzgerald who said "In American lives, there are no second acts".

    Trump would be able to paint Hillary as a stone cold loser from the get go, and he'd be right.

    I actually think Buttigieg has the best chance of breaking through. Of all the candidates, he's the biggest contrast to Trump. Intelligent, articulate, thoughtful. He might still lose, but at least he'd lose brilliantly.

    I disagree - even if he did say that, great writer that he was.

    I see no reason why she would not beat him. She did last time in the PV. He fluked it rather.

    Buttigieg would be interesting, yes.
    I think psychologically speaking there is an expectation for failed politicians to fall on their swords.

    I think it's what did for May (eventually) and it was also a factor in Corbyn's defeat this time round. The public just don't like losers.

    I'm not saying Hillary *couldn't* win, I'm just saying she'd be starting from much further back this time around and Trump would have his attack lines all pre-prepared.

    Perhaps the main problem is one of contrition. To seek election a second time after being rejected once by the voters isn't necessarily arrogant, but to seek it without acknowledging your failures and attempting to correct them is.

    How, exactly, has Hillary changed since 2016?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223
    TOPPING said:

    Go for it.

    Great post :smile:
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I don't understand why people ( not just on here) think Trump is nailed on for re-election).

    He won by fractional margins in the rust belt with vote shares barely higher than Romney. The Dems saw their vote share plummet as African American turnout was significantly down and the absolute worst possible campaign stop strategy was enacted by the bunch of absolute clowns that was the Clinton campaign staff.

    Trump doesn't even have to lose any of his voters for the Dems to sweep him in the mid West if just a third of their voters 'come back'.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
    But that's why he's the best candidate. Just as why Obama was the best candidate in '08.

    Many people voted Trump because they didn't want Hillary. Who votes Trump to avoid Mayor Pete?
    Trump's base. But how big is it? It was enough last time, but stuff has happened.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Successful Presidential candidates are blank slates onto which voters project their hopes and fears.

    Which is why Buttigieg is such a good candidate.

    He has a touch of RFK about him, without the heart on the sleeve emotional connect.

  • Options
    TheGreenMachineTheGreenMachine Posts: 1,072
    edited December 2019
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
    But that's why he's the best candidate. Just as why Obama was the best candidate in '08.

    Many people voted Trump because they didn't want Hillary. Who votes Trump to avoid Mayor Pete?
    You could say the same about other countries.

    Example : Boris Johnson.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
    But that's why he's the best candidate. Just as why Obama was the best candidate in '08.

    Many people voted Trump because they didn't want Hillary. Who votes Trump to avoid Mayor Pete?
    2016:
    Hillary 48%
    Trump 46%
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
    But that's why he's the best candidate. Just as why Obama was the best candidate in '08.

    Many people voted Trump because they didn't want Hillary. Who votes Trump to avoid Mayor Pete?
    Trump's base. But how big is it? It was enough last time, but stuff has happened.
    HRC got 8% fewer votes, in absolute terms and despite a larger electorate, than Obama.

    It wasn't that Trump motivated Republicans especially, it was that Hillary depressed the a Democrat for.

    The Democratic nominee doesn't need to shoot the lights out, they just need to get most of the "stay at home" Dems back.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
    But that's why he's the best candidate. Just as why Obama was the best candidate in '08.

    Many people voted Trump because they didn't want Hillary. Who votes Trump to avoid Mayor Pete?
    Trump's base. But how big is it? It was enough last time, but stuff has happened.
    Hilary was hugely popular and the Clinton name is hugely​ famous in America, I'm not sure Pete would be as popular.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223
    rcs1000 said:

    2s is about right.

    He's the incumbent President, and is popular with the Republican base. But his unfavorable numbers are worst in class. He wins if the Democrats elect someone less popular than him (Warren), and it's a real fight if it's one of the others.

    Well I hope to god the Dems find The One because however down I feel about what happened on Dec 12th it will be as nothing compared to how I'd take Trump winning another term.

    And this time I would not have the big betting profit to mitigate as I did with the Cons near landslide - which for me was the clear and obvious outcome from the get go.

    With Trump it's the opposite. I've laid him for a lot at higher than 2.
  • Options
    The last three presidents I think had more than one term, all races are different but maybe in the modern era, presidents are Getting a second chance and not just in the USA.
  • Options
    Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    Buttigieg's problems are that he is gay, which is a challenge among African American men, and he is short. He is also too close to corporate money and he handled racial politics badly in South Bend.
  • Options
    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    I think I read/heard a rumour that RBL had some doubts about running.

  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 46,743
    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,247
    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Good, Rayner has potential.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    FWIW, Ms Briskin, who has always criticized Raynor in the past ("what is it with labour and speech impediments?") was sounding a lot more positive about her the last time she was on telly.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    That 50% approval thing for Trump is scary. Really looks like the Democrats are screwing this up :(

    Trump looks nailed on atm, would you agree?
    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.
    Pete wouldn't stand a chance against trump and your spot on about Warren, it'll be long time before they get a female president.

    Perhaps in a decade or so.
    Why wouldn't Pete stand a chance against Trump? He's held his own pretty well against the other Democrats, and he polls extremely well among independents. People who know Pete, like Pete.
    I don't dislike Pete but he's young and not as experienced as others.
    But that's why he's the best candidate. Just as why Obama was the best candidate in '08.

    Many people voted Trump because they didn't want Hillary. Who votes Trump to avoid Mayor Pete?
    Trump's base. But how big is it? It was enough last time, but stuff has happened.
    HRC got 8% fewer votes, in absolute terms and despite a larger electorate, than Obama.

    It wasn't that Trump motivated Republicans especially, it was that Hillary depressed the a Democrat for.

    The Democratic nominee doesn't need to shoot the lights out, they just need to get most of the "stay at home" Dems back.
    Which seems to me means Biden. Despite my growing reservations. But maybe roll the dice on Buttigieg. Warren is very good. But she can't win. These are the choices I think.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223
    edited December 2019

    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.

    That was a 100% serious post. Great song. I do perform it (badly) myself a la David Brent. And it is IMO spot on about some of what's happening right now. Which it is not PC to say.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    "Most MPs" may well be right.
  • Options
    MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    edited December 2019

    The last three presidents I think had more than one term, all races are different but maybe in the modern era, presidents are Getting a second chance and not just in the USA.

    Almost all Presidents that win from opposition win if they run for a second term, I know in the 20th and 21st C that's exclusively Carter. Everyone else was unstoppable.
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,539
    kyf_100 said:

    kinabalu said:

    My view has been all along that only Biden can beat Trump, but his campaign has revealed, sadly, issues with age and focus.

    So, I think, given the field, Dems may as well roll the dice and give Buttigieg a chance against Trump. Have they anything left to lose? Because Warren or Sanders have no chance.

    I think HRC would beat him in a rematch.
    I think it was Fitzgerald who said "In American lives, there are no second acts".

    Trump would be able to paint Hillary as a stone cold loser from the get go, and he'd be right.

    I actually think Buttigieg has the best chance of breaking through. Of all the candidates, he's the biggest contrast to Trump. Intelligent, articulate, thoughtful. He might still lose, but at least he'd lose brilliantly.
    Surely a golden rule of modern politics in the US, UK (and maybe elsewhere?) is that if you are going to win you have to win at your first attempt.

    Corbyn was a classic example though nobody realised it at the time - in his first attempt in 2017 he was fresh, had novelty value, policies grabbed people's attention and were less subject to challenge.

    By the second attempt, you're old hat, your weaknesses are focussed on more than your strengths, people remember you as a loser, they are bored with you, there's less excitement.

    The above applies pretty much to everyone across the board.
  • Options
    JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    edited December 2019
    kinabalu said:

    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.

    That was a 100% serious post. Great song. I do perform it (badly) myself a la David Brent. And it is IMO spot on about some of what's happening right now. Which it is not PC to say.
    Okay, thanks for translating. I think the WWC voting Boris is the least of their sins - but heh at least we can agree it's a great song.
  • Options
    MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    Jess Phillips is good at telling people to f**k off, which the Labour party need, but would the soft-left in the PLP like that?
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 40,223
    MikeL said:

    Surely a golden rule of modern politics in the US, UK (and maybe elsewhere?) is that if you are going to win you have to win at your first attempt.

    Corbyn was a classic example though nobody realised it at the time - in his first attempt in 2017 he was fresh, had novelty value, policies grabbed people's attention and were less subject to challenge.

    By the second attempt, you're old hat, your weaknesses are focussed on more than your strengths, people remember you as a loser, they are bored with you, there's less excitement.

    The above applies pretty much to everyone across the board.

    Nixon? Or is that not 'modern'?
  • Options
    BudGBudG Posts: 711
    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,438



    Buttigieg massive USP is that he would, simply by being on the debate stage, present the electorate with the chance to pass the torch to a new generation.

    Might work. For what it is worth I think it has more chance against Trump than Liz McGovern.

    Possibly. But I think he seems too slight and undefined to stand up to the Trump cyclone. At present, the polls suggest the Sanders is edging Warrne out as the "real" progressive, but much as I like him I'm not sure he can beat the same sort of "Do you want to elect a commie?" stuff that worked against Corbyn. Which does, reluctantly, leave Biden, who I think does have the stamina and resilience.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
  • Options
    MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    kinabalu said:

    MikeL said:

    Surely a golden rule of modern politics in the US, UK (and maybe elsewhere?) is that if you are going to win you have to win at your first attempt.

    Corbyn was a classic example though nobody realised it at the time - in his first attempt in 2017 he was fresh, had novelty value, policies grabbed people's attention and were less subject to challenge.

    By the second attempt, you're old hat, your weaknesses are focussed on more than your strengths, people remember you as a loser, they are bored with you, there's less excitement.

    The above applies pretty much to everyone across the board.

    Nixon? Or is that not 'modern'?
    You could argue Hubert Humphrey was also old hat, lots of exploitable weaknesses, boring and unexciting because he'd been VP with LBJ. Paradoxically Nixon was pretty new.
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,539
    edited December 2019
    I posted a few days ago that RLB is going to be regarded like Swinson - she looks too young and she talks too robotically.

    Whilst most Lab members are with Corbyn on policy, following the GE result they are going to put a premium on looking like a winner and Starmer will beat RLB hands down on looking / sounding / feeling like a PM in leadership debates. And that will be enough for him to beat RLB even if most members prefer RLB on policy.

    So I suspect Corbynites now realise that if they back RLB they end up with a more moderate leader - ie Starmer or Nandy.

    If they don't want to risk that they have to now pivot to Rayner even if she isn't their first choice on policy (on basis they prefer Rayner to Starmer or Nandy).

    Their problem is the only Corbynite who looks Prime Ministerial is McDonnell and he is too old / doesn't want it.
  • Options
    JBriskinindyref2JBriskinindyref2 Posts: 1,775
    edited December 2019
    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
  • Options
    MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    MikeL said:

    I posted a few days ago that RLB is going to be regarded like Swinson - she looks too young and she talks too robotically.

    Whilst most Lab members are with Corbyn on policy, following the GE result they are going to put a premium on looking like a winner and Starmer will beat RLB hands down on looking / sounding / feeling like a PM in leadership debates. And that will be enough for him to beat RLB even if most members prefer RLB on policy.

    So I suspect Corbynites now realise that if they back RLB they end up with a more moderate leader - ie Starmer or Nandy.

    If they don't want to risk that they have to now pivot to Rayner even if she isn't their first choice on policy (on basis they prefer Rayner to Starmer or Nandy)

    Starmer always looks like he's about to cry! Imagine him at Questions vs Boris. He possibly would cry.
  • Options



    Buttigieg massive USP is that he would, simply by being on the debate stage, present the electorate with the chance to pass the torch to a new generation.

    Might work. For what it is worth I think it has more chance against Trump than Liz McGovern.

    Possibly. But I think he seems too slight and undefined to stand up to the Trump cyclone. At present, the polls suggest the Sanders is edging Warrne out as the "real" progressive, but much as I like him I'm not sure he can beat the same sort of "Do you want to elect a commie?" stuff that worked against Corbyn. Which does, reluctantly, leave Biden, who I think does have the stamina and resilience.
    Agree on Biden. Glad I am not a Dem having to make this choice.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited December 2019
    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts
  • Options
    Monkeys said:

    MikeL said:

    I posted a few days ago that RLB is going to be regarded like Swinson - she looks too young and she talks too robotically.

    Whilst most Lab members are with Corbyn on policy, following the GE result they are going to put a premium on looking like a winner and Starmer will beat RLB hands down on looking / sounding / feeling like a PM in leadership debates. And that will be enough for him to beat RLB even if most members prefer RLB on policy.

    So I suspect Corbynites now realise that if they back RLB they end up with a more moderate leader - ie Starmer or Nandy.

    If they don't want to risk that they have to now pivot to Rayner even if she isn't their first choice on policy (on basis they prefer Rayner to Starmer or Nandy)

    Starmer always looks like he's about to cry! Imagine him at Questions vs Boris. He possibly would cry.
    Don't forget Phillips. She would be box office against Bozza.
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,539
    kinabalu said:

    MikeL said:

    Surely a golden rule of modern politics in the US, UK (and maybe elsewhere?) is that if you are going to win you have to win at your first attempt.

    Corbyn was a classic example though nobody realised it at the time - in his first attempt in 2017 he was fresh, had novelty value, policies grabbed people's attention and were less subject to challenge.

    By the second attempt, you're old hat, your weaknesses are focussed on more than your strengths, people remember you as a loser, they are bored with you, there's less excitement.

    The above applies pretty much to everyone across the board.

    Nixon? Or is that not 'modern'?
    Yes - I would regard Nixon as pre the modern era.
  • Options
    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    Interesting. Glad I am well green on Rayner.

    But I reckon none of the candidates will be PM.
  • Options
    BudGBudG Posts: 711
    MikeL said:

    I posted a few days ago that RLB is going to be regarded like Swinson - she looks too young and she talks too robotically.

    Whilst most Lab members are with Corbyn on policy, following the GE result they are going to put a premium on looking like a winner and Starmer will beat RLB hands down on looking / sounding / feeling like a PM in leadership debates. And that will be enough for him to beat RLB even if most members prefer RLB on policy.

    So I suspect Corbynites now realise that if they back RLB they end up with a more moderate leader - ie Starmer or Nandy.

    If they don't want to risk that they have to now pivot to Rayner even if she isn't their first choice on policy (on basis they prefer Rayner to Starmer or Nandy).

    Their problem is the only Corbynite who looks Prime Ministerial is McDonnell and he is too old / doesn't want it.

    McDonnell has far too much baggage anyway. If he were leader he would be an easy target for the media and it would just be a re-run of all the anti Corbyn Press of the last 3 years.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,476
    BudG said:

    MikeL said:

    I posted a few days ago that RLB is going to be regarded like Swinson - she looks too young and she talks too robotically.

    Whilst most Lab members are with Corbyn on policy, following the GE result they are going to put a premium on looking like a winner and Starmer will beat RLB hands down on looking / sounding / feeling like a PM in leadership debates. And that will be enough for him to beat RLB even if most members prefer RLB on policy.

    So I suspect Corbynites now realise that if they back RLB they end up with a more moderate leader - ie Starmer or Nandy.

    If they don't want to risk that they have to now pivot to Rayner even if she isn't their first choice on policy (on basis they prefer Rayner to Starmer or Nandy).

    Their problem is the only Corbynite who looks Prime Ministerial is McDonnell and he is too old / doesn't want it.

    McDonnell has far too much baggage anyway. If he were leader he would be an easy target for the media and it would just be a re-run of all the anti Corbyn Press of the last 3 years.
    You make your own press. Corbyn's dismal failure with the Press is because he was a dismal failure.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498

    A prediction: if Buttigieg falls this time, he will be fighting Joe Kennedy to be the nominee in 2024.

    And Joe Kennedy would win, as RFK's grandson and likely to be the next Massachusetts Senator next year
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 51,032

    Growing crops for biofuel is horriffic. Good riddance to it. Worst form of fuel ever.
    Brazil has chopped down a big chunk of the Pantanal to plant sugar cane for bio fuel production. Sad.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    isam said:

    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts

  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    A prediction: if Buttigieg falls this time, he will be fighting Joe Kennedy to be the nominee in 2024.

    And Joe Kennedy would win, as RFK's grandson and likely to be the next Massachusetts Senator next year
    Yep.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 119,498
    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    Rayner is David Davis to Long Bailey's IDS
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    Rayner is David Davis to Long Bailey's IDS
    Coulda woulda shoulda are the last words of Esther McVey iirc
  • Options
    BudGBudG Posts: 711
    isam said:

    isam said:

    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts

    LOL.. max stake 25 pence!! :)
  • Options
    PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    isam said:

    isam said:

    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts

    25p maximum stake on a 50/1 shot ? How can Corals defend that.
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
  • Options
    If Rayner runs for leader, she wins. While she's further to the left than I would like, there are plenty of Corbynsceptics like myself who have respect for her. My two big fears though are:
    -Momentum and UNITE would undoubtedly try to assert their influence on her
    -I'm not sure she can convince the country she's Prime Minister
    We'd rebuild the red wall probably under her leadership, but I don't think she has what it takes to win a plurality in the Commons, let alone a majority.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,118
    I have backed Rayner, and was almost about to go in again earlier at 80/1, but didn’t dammit!

    RLB worth laying at 5/2 though Surely?
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,360
    Anecdata: Night out with old school friends (I am, what, 44 now): one friend, who I had always thought fairly particularly mainstream, insisting Corbyn would have won but for tbe media portraying him as an extremist: it later transpired his is father, an ex-surgeon, who now lives in France, had life-saving surgery by the French health service and he is convinced would have been dead if had been left to the NHS. This seems to be a not inconsiderable factor in his Corbynism. Meanwhile, another friend who two and a half years ago was wearing a JC4PM t-shirt seemed quite glad he'd lost.
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
    I've been called a lot of names but cretin is a new one on me. Well done white knight.
  • Options
    Cookie said:

    Anecdata: Night out with old school friends (I am, what, 44 now): one friend, who I had always thought fairly particularly mainstream, insisting Corbyn would have won but for tbe media portraying him as an extremist: it later transpired his is father, an ex-surgeon, who now lives in France, had life-saving surgery by the French health service and he is convinced would have been dead if had been left to the NHS. This seems to be a not inconsiderable factor in his Corbynism. Meanwhile, another friend who two and a half years ago was wearing a JC4PM t-shirt seemed quite glad he'd lost.

    Failure is an orphan.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
    A fun thing to try is to live among the WWC - and judge them purely by their actual actions. Strangely they seem to be almost.... human.

    I shouldn't worry though. As a WWC acquaintance of mine put it to an Islingtonite (who had held forth on how much he hated this country and its people for a full 5 minutes - without discerning his audience) - "It's all right. We hate you just as much"
  • Options
    PaulM said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    BudG said:

    Foxy said:

    BudG said:

    Anyone heard if Angela Rayner has said anything about changing her mind and running for Labour leader? Her price has been crashing over the past couple of hours - was nearly 100/1 this morning, last matched at 14.5

    It's this sort of talk, I think. Rayner is a much better leadership candidate than the rather drippy RLB.

    https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1208158055768166401?s=19
    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.
    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts

    25p maximum stake on a 50/1 shot ? How can Corals defend that.
    Perhaps they should change the odds if they are that worried.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422

    Growing crops for biofuel is horriffic. Good riddance to it. Worst form of fuel ever.
    Brazil has chopped down a big chunk of the Pantanal to plant sugar cane for bio fuel production. Sad.
    One of the things that the West Wing got right was the explantation of how crappy the Ethanol thing is, and how it is utterly unlikely to change.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 12,360

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
    I've been called a lot of names but cretin is a new one on me. Well done white knight.
    Do you know what cretin means? It was, I think - and I can't be bothered to look up the details - a term coined by well-meaning 19th century Frenchmen - literallly 'Christian' - to remind ius that the educationally sub-normal were people too.

    Interestingly also, did you know there is a specific and meadurable hierarchy of the educationally sub-normal. I think it is imbecile, idiot, moron, with imbecile being the most, er, imbecilic. Moron is definitely the least stupid. Again, i can't be bothered to look up the details, largely because I am drunk.
  • Options
    MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    Cookie said:

    Anecdata: Night out with old school friends (I am, what, 44 now): one friend, who I had always thought fairly particularly mainstream, insisting Corbyn would have won but for tbe media portraying him as an extremist: it later transpired his is father, an ex-surgeon, who now lives in France, had life-saving surgery by the French health service and he is convinced would have been dead if had been left to the NHS. This seems to be a not inconsiderable factor in his Corbynism. Meanwhile, another friend who two and a half years ago was wearing a JC4PM t-shirt seemed quite glad he'd lost.

    Similar story: I went to a very middle-class Scottish university, of my university friends:

    A History graduate turned Librarian, a number of physicists, a GP, and a biologist-turned-Sociologist now at Oxbridge.

    Universally, they believe that the MSM (!) lost it for Corbyn, that recession is a price worth paying for renationalising, that last Thursday's win is a win for ethnonationalism, and they're all very equivocal over antisemitism in the Labour party - they're anti-racists "but." Very hard to keep my mouth shut.

    The surprising thing is that if you're imagining conspiracies from the "Mainstream Media," that stop you from rightfully controlling the easily-controlled masses because they're brainwashed by the wrong people, that seems to me to be the definition of populism, but they were railing against populism too.

    If and when the Corbynista Cockroach Strategy plays out, I don't know what sort of world we'll be in, but this is the mindset that things go rotten under. I'm sure of it.
  • Options


    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    Mystifying..
  • Options

    If Rayner runs for leader, she wins. While she's further to the left than I would like, there are plenty of Corbynsceptics like myself who have respect for her. My two big fears though are:
    -Momentum and UNITE would undoubtedly try to assert their influence on her
    -I'm not sure she can convince the country she's Prime Minister
    We'd rebuild the red wall probably under her leadership, but I don't think she has what it takes to win a plurality in the Commons, let alone a majority.

    Rayner gives every impression of being her own woman. That’s why the far left don’t trust her. That she may now be seen as a preferable option to Long Bailey shows what impact Starmer has had. He does seem to be getting a lot of support from across the party. I agree that if Rayner enters the contest she’ll be hot favourite. Starmer going early may end up hurting him and Long Bailey.

  • Options
    Monkeys said:

    Cookie said:

    Anecdata: Night out with old school friends (I am, what, 44 now): one friend, who I had always thought fairly particularly mainstream, insisting Corbyn would have won but for tbe media portraying him as an extremist: it later transpired his is father, an ex-surgeon, who now lives in France, had life-saving surgery by the French health service and he is convinced would have been dead if had been left to the NHS. This seems to be a not inconsiderable factor in his Corbynism. Meanwhile, another friend who two and a half years ago was wearing a JC4PM t-shirt seemed quite glad he'd lost.

    Similar story: I went to a very middle-class Scottish university, of my university friends:

    A History graduate turned Librarian, a number of physicists, a GP, and a biologist-turned-Sociologist now at Oxbridge.

    Universally, they believe that the MSM (!) lost it for Corbyn, that recession is a price worth paying for renationalising, that last Thursday's win is a win for ethnonationalism, and they're all very equivocal over antisemitism in the Labour party - they're anti-racists "but." Very hard to keep my mouth shut.

    The surprising thing is that if you're imagining conspiracies from the "Mainstream Media," that stop you from rightfully controlling the easily-controlled masses because they're brainwashed by the wrong people, that seems to me to be the definition of populism, but they were railing against populism too.

    If and when the Corbynista Cockroach Strategy plays out, I don't know what sort of world we'll be in, but this is the mindset that things go rotten under. I'm sure of it.
    Quite incredible.
  • Options
    Cookie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
    I've been called a lot of names but cretin is a new one on me. Well done white knight.
    Do you know what cretin means? It was, I think - and I can't be bothered to look up the details - a term coined by well-meaning 19th century Frenchmen - literallly 'Christian' - to remind ius that the educationally sub-normal were people too.

    Interestingly also, did you know there is a specific and meadurable hierarchy of the educationally sub-normal. I think it is imbecile, idiot, moron, with imbecile being the most, er, imbecilic. Moron is definitely the least stupid. Again, i can't be bothered to look up the details, largely because I am drunk.
    Cretin - 1. A very stupid person (from my Collins)

    2. does go on about French etymology but doesn't mention anything along the lines you have described. Which doesn't of course make you wrong.
  • Options


    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    Mystifying..
    Whoever thought the Yestapo were pacifists?
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,438
    isam said:

    BudG said:



    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.

    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts
    Yes, this is free money on a massive scale. I put £20 on her with Ladrokes at the regular 50-1 boosted to 60-1 (I don't understand boosts, are they like special offers?), so stand to win £1200. I can lay that off on Betfair for £300, but for now I'm leaving the lay as I don't especially want to tie up £300 and I think her price will fall further - but if you don't mind that, you can't lose. I assume that Ladbrokes are asleep at the whhel and it'll be corrected by morning.
  • Options

    Cookie said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    You, sir, sound like a cretin
    I've been called a lot of names but cretin is a new one on me. Well done white knight.
    Do you know what cretin means? It was, I think - and I can't be bothered to look up the details - a term coined by well-meaning 19th century Frenchmen - literallly 'Christian' - to remind ius that the educationally sub-normal were people too.

    Interestingly also, did you know there is a specific and meadurable hierarchy of the educationally sub-normal. I think it is imbecile, idiot, moron, with imbecile being the most, er, imbecilic. Moron is definitely the least stupid. Again, i can't be bothered to look up the details, largely because I am drunk.
    Cretin - 1. A very stupid person (from my Collins)

    2. does go on about French etymology but doesn't mention anything along the lines you have described. Which doesn't of course make you wrong.
    My bad - 2. does mention learning difficulties.
  • Options

    isam said:

    BudG said:



    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.

    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts
    Yes, this is free money on a massive scale. I put £20 on her with Ladrokes at the regular 50-1 boosted to 60-1 (I don't understand boosts, are they like special offers?), so stand to win £1200. I can lay that off on Betfair for £300, but for now I'm leaving the lay as I don't especially want to tie up £300 and I think her price will fall further - but if you don't mind that, you can't lose. I assume that Ladbrokes are asleep at the whhel and it'll be corrected by morning.
    It's called an Arb.
  • Options

    Cookie said:

    Anecdata: Night out with old school friends (I am, what, 44 now): one friend, who I had always thought fairly particularly mainstream, insisting Corbyn would have won but for tbe media portraying him as an extremist: it later transpired his is father, an ex-surgeon, who now lives in France, had life-saving surgery by the French health service and he is convinced would have been dead if had been left to the NHS. This seems to be a not inconsiderable factor in his Corbynism. Meanwhile, another friend who two and a half years ago was wearing a JC4PM t-shirt seemed quite glad he'd lost.

    Failure is an orphan.
    "The greatest teacher failure is!"
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,156

    isam said:

    BudG said:



    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.

    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts
    Yes, this is free money on a massive scale. I put £20 on her with Ladrokes at the regular 50-1 boosted to 60-1 (I don't understand boosts, are they like special offers?), so stand to win £1200. I can lay that off on Betfair for £300, but for now I'm leaving the lay as I don't especially want to tie up £300 and I think her price will fall further - but if you don't mind that, you can't lose. I assume that Ladbrokes are asleep at the whhel and it'll be corrected by morning.
    I'm on her too at 60s for £20. Laid off a bit on Betfair.
  • Options

    If Rayner runs for leader, she wins. While she's further to the left than I would like, there are plenty of Corbynsceptics like myself who have respect for her. My two big fears though are:
    -Momentum and UNITE would undoubtedly try to assert their influence on her
    -I'm not sure she can convince the country she's Prime Minister
    We'd rebuild the red wall probably under her leadership, but I don't think she has what it takes to win a plurality in the Commons, let alone a majority.

    Rayner gives every impression of being her own woman. That’s why the far left don’t trust her. That she may now be seen as a preferable option to Long Bailey shows what impact Starmer has had. He does seem to be getting a lot of support from across the party. I agree that if Rayner enters the contest she’ll be hot favourite. Starmer going early may end up hurting him and Long Bailey.

    RLB would be Momentum and McCluskey's puppet. If they have now switched their support to Rayner, it shows they really weren't confident that RLB would win. Better a half a loaf bread, than none, I suppose.
    I'm still hoping that Nandy can get on the ballot and win, but Rayner being the left candidate instead of RLB would be a big relief. A fairly left wing leader of the respectable left is much preferable than a Momentum puppet.
  • Options
    Barnesian said:

    isam said:

    BudG said:



    Yes, would agree with that. I would rather give my vote to Angela Rayner than RLB. Rayner is a softer Left than RLB and probably stands a better chance of bringing the Party more together. If she runs, she goes to hot favourite, if the opinions on Labour forums are anything to go by.

    50/1 lads and coral, 16/1 on Betfair. Huge if you’ve got the accounts
    Yes, this is free money on a massive scale. I put £20 on her with Ladrokes at the regular 50-1 boosted to 60-1 (I don't understand boosts, are they like special offers?), so stand to win £1200. I can lay that off on Betfair for £300, but for now I'm leaving the lay as I don't especially want to tie up £300 and I think her price will fall further - but if you don't mind that, you can't lose. I assume that Ladbrokes are asleep at the whhel and it'll be corrected by morning.
    I'm on her too at 60s for £20. Laid off a bit on Betfair.
    Without the arb it's not exactly free money - it's just a good value bet on the labour leadership for someone with a speech impediment (so the form's good)
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,269

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    Most of your assumptions are absurd. And you clearly have not read all my threads as I have a far more 50:50 view of EU membership than you seem to assume. At any event, remain is no longer an option.

    Whether Brexit will bring what Brexiteers desired and voted for is another matter. We shall see.

    Goodnight.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    Most of your assumptions are absurd. And you clearly have not read all my threads as I have a far more 50:50 view of EU membership than you seem to assume. At any event, remain is no longer an option.

    Whether Brexit will bring what Brexiteers desired and voted for is another matter. We shall see.

    Goodnight.
    Cretin
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 55,308

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    Most of your assumptions are absurd. And you clearly have not read all my threads as I have a far more 50:50 view of EU membership than you seem to assume. At any event, remain is no longer an option.

    Whether Brexit will bring what Brexiteers desired and voted for is another matter. We shall see.

    Goodnight.
    Cretin
    If you want to avoid the ban hammer, don't call other posters cretins.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 46,422
    rcs1000 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kinabalu said:

    Reflections on the WWC eh?

    Dr Briskin prescribes some Lennon-

    What a song. And call me David Brent but I learnt guitar specifically to play that.

    And really spot on regarding their embrace of "Boris" and Brexit.

    Not PC to say so, of course, but screw that.
    Can't really translate that given your tendency to be sarcastic. However the WWC class are indeed awful. Cyclefree and Meeks are not the best messengers though.
    I do not think the WWC class is awful. And have never said so. I have criticised Mr Meeks for his attitudes to people living outside London.

    So kindly do not misrepresent me. Thank you.
    You're a remainac as your threads have always shown. It comes with the territory to think that leavers/WWC are idiotic xenophobes.

    I hate the WWC for other reasons (They've got rather a high tendency to punch me near Pubs e.g.)

    However I shall take you at your word - you don't think the WWC are awful. Put's you in a tiny proportion of Remainiacs though.
    Most of your assumptions are absurd. And you clearly have not read all my threads as I have a far more 50:50 view of EU membership than you seem to assume. At any event, remain is no longer an option.

    Whether Brexit will bring what Brexiteers desired and voted for is another matter. We shall see.

    Goodnight.
    Cretin
    If you want to avoid the ban hammer, don't call other posters cretins.
    Is there a list of *allowed* insults?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,774
    edited December 2019

    Funny how people who are so convinced in the virtue of the European Single Market being the One True Path that it is impossible to successfully diverge from are so convinced in their method being right and reasonable but can never name a SINGLE developed non-EU nation that has done worse than us over the past 27 years since the EU came to be.

    The EFTA countries.

    image
This discussion has been closed.