Starmer seems to have accepted Brexit in his video, even though he's obviously (As all Labour will be) opposed to the current Tory implementation of it all. Not much sign of rejoin there anyway.
Labour got its highest voteshare in London, 48.1% and its lowest voteshare in England and Wales in the South East where it got just 22.1%. The LDs got their highest voteshare, 18.2% in the South East and South West by contrast and their lowest voteshare in the Northeast at 6.8% and Wales at 6%.
Love the bit where he stood with the guild of chandlers to oppose the light bulb factory being built.
What a pile of crud.
Leftwing mood music and tone, and Miliband-like poliicies that pragmatize and moderate the Corbyn-era ones. That's the plan, and not popular for the tory core, but it may go down well with a lot of members and some lab/tory switchers, particularly if Brexit proves to be a total balls-up.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
Re South Carolina, there were two polls out in December (on the 9th and the 12th). One has Biden on just 27%, seven points clear of Sanders. The other has him on 39%, twenty six points clear of Sanders (who is marooned int the low teens only a few points ahead of Buttigieg).
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
It'd be extremely odd to be looking at a third party candidacy in that he'd then be doing so on the basis "I couldn't get the Democratic nomination... so vote for me as a quasi-independent". If that was the plan, he needn't get involved now - he could wait until later in the Democratic race and say "oh dear, I'm dreadfully disappointed about all this... how about a third party?"
I suspect he's more looking at a brokered convention and/or Biden stumbling in terms of health or politics. You could see him getting 15%-20% everywhere and hoovering up "Not Bernie" delegates.
I think it's a narrow path, but he's old enough to think there are no further chances, and rich enough that dropping hundreds of millions won't affect his standard of living.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
It'd be extremely odd to be looking at a third party candidacy in that he'd then be doing so on the basis "I couldn't get the Democratic nomination... so vote for me as a quasi-independent".
I suspect he's more looking at a brokered convention and/or Biden stumbling in terms of health or politics. You could see him getting 15%-20% everywhere and hoovering up "Not Bernie" delegates.
I think it's a narrow path, but he's old enough to think there are no further chances, and rich enough that dropping hundreds of millions won't affect his standard of living.
It's a very narrow path.
The other thing is (and this is REALLY important): it's a lot, lot better to be on 25% than 15%. Indeed, you'll probably get 4x the delegates if you are on 25% vs 15%.
Why?
Because if you're on 25%, you'll have precincts where you get 20% and precincts where you get 30%. This means you'll get delegates from every precinct.
If you're on 15%, your spread will be 10 to 20%. That means you'll only get delegates from half the precincts.
I don't see how Bloomberg gets comfortably into the 20s by Super Tuesday, especially as we'll have had four "winners" in February.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Starmer seems to have accepted Brexit in his video, even though he's obviously (As all Labour will be) opposed to the current Tory implementation of it all. Not much sign of rejoin there anyway.
A rejoin policy would be suicidal. Sadly, I can see some Lib Dems advocating for it, but more fool them.
Even if you appreciate there may well come a point when the pensioners who were priapic for it are long gone, when it comes back into play, that time isn't for this generation of politicians.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
It'd be extremely odd to be looking at a third party candidacy in that he'd then be doing so on the basis "I couldn't get the Democratic nomination... so vote for me as a quasi-independent".
I suspect he's more looking at a brokered convention and/or Biden stumbling in terms of health or politics. You could see him getting 15%-20% everywhere and hoovering up "Not Bernie" delegates.
I think it's a narrow path, but he's old enough to think there are no further chances, and rich enough that dropping hundreds of millions won't affect his standard of living.
It's a very narrow path.
The other thing is (and this is REALLY important): it's a lot, lot better to be on 25% than 15%. Indeed, you'll probably get 4x the delegates if you are on 25% vs 15%.
Why?
Because if you're on 25%, you'll have precincts where you get 20% and precincts where you get 30%. This means you'll get delegates from every precinct.
If you're on 15%, your spread will be 10 to 20%. That means you'll only get delegates from half the precincts.
I don't see how Bloomberg gets comfortably into the 20s by Super Tuesday, especially as we'll have had four "winners" in February.
No, I don't see it either. But Bloomberg is an old man in a hurry with enough money to last for 100 luxurious lifetimes (rather than the 10-20 years he's realistically got on this planet).
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
In which case, you should be even more optimistic on Buttigieg as Sanders, as he leads in both the most recent New Hampshire and Iowa polls.
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
We were told it was the Brexiteers who harked back to the past.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
Labour's safest seat had a drop od nearly 5% in their share. Granted, that sill mean they are on around 81% but it could be a marginal soon! Good to see the unionists did their bit in Fife. LD 4 in Scotland still in their top five marginals though, yeesh.
5% drop from 17-19 10% drop from 19-21 20% drop from 21-23
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
As I said that was before the nomination was decided by primary delegates, only in 1976 did most states hold primaries and primaries thus determine the nominee so 1972 does not really count
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
Someone noted here the other day that there was not much difference between Corbyn's and Raab's (the Foreign Secretary's) reactions. So far as the special relationship goes, that was probably always a fiction based on a misunderstanding of American foreign policy.
This Suleimani assassination business (or "taking out" as we must now learn to call it). Is there something else going on? Specifically is President Trump losing his grip on power?
It seems that all the old Bush-era neocons are all over the news. Are Jared Kushner and Ivanka now sidelined? Are the hawks taking back control of foreign policy after the dismissal of John Bolton?
On the contrary, all the reports indicate that Trump picked this as one of the more extreme options out of a menu of responses offered to him.
Though the target, in a moral sense, was not exactly undeserving, it’s a little bit concerning when a president with the instincts of a mobster learns that he apparently can kill with impunity.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
As I said that was before the nomination was decided by primary delegates, only in 1976 did most states hold primaries and primaries thus determine the nominee so 1972 does not really count
To remind you, what you said was, "no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire".
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
And as though MBS would have any problems with offing an opponent....
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
As I said that was before the nomination was decided by primary delegates, only in 1976 did most states hold primaries and primaries thus determine the nominee so 1972 does not really count
To remind you, what you said was, "no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire".
That was untrue.
OK but you cannot really include years when not all states held primaries or caucuses, so only 1976 on really counts
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
As I said that was before the nomination was decided by primary delegates, only in 1976 did most states hold primaries and primaries thus determine the nominee so 1972 does not really count
To remind you, what you said was, "no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire".
That was untrue.
OK but you cannot really include years when not all states held primaries or caucuses, so only 1976 on really counts
A valid point, but you really should have included that caveat in the initial statement.
Though Sir Keir also has a Masters degree from Oxford unlike Jess, indeed Starmer is the only announced candidate so far with an Oxbridge degree
“I don’t want confident public school bluffers.”
None of the declared Labour candidates went to public school
Keir Starmer went to Reigate Grammar, which converted to fee paying status in 1976 when he was 14.
I'm not sure whether his family paid fees or whether there was an allowance for those already there, but he attended a public school.
Starmer went to Reigate Grammar after passing his 11 plus when it was still a state grammar school, even if it converted to independent status when he was there to avoid going comprehensive it is not a traditional public school.
Indeed traditionally a public school is one of 7 schools given independence from jurisdiction by the Public Schools Act 1868, Charterhouse, Eton College, Harrow School, Rugby School, Shrewsbury School, Westminster School, and Winchester College (albeit the term expanded in the 1930s to 30 private schools).
One of the interesting that video shows is that although Starmer looks young, he's been around an awfully long time. In fact he's closer to some of the New Labour generation of politicians than the current Corbynite crop in age, but his accommodation with power has been quite different from theirs - he might look and seem a bit like Blair, but he hasn't accommodated large business interests, but national-institutional interests instead, as a knighted, besuited DPP suddenly appearing towards the end of that video.
But his big problem is that while Buttigieg has 27 offices and over 100 paid staffers, he has only 9 offices, and they're concentrated in Iowa's major urban areas.
Sanders also has fewer staffers and offices than Biden, Warren and Klobuchar.
That puts him at a disadvantage in cold and dusty church halls in rural parts of Iowa. And Iowa has a lot of rural parts. I can see Sanders sweeping all before him around the University of Iowa and similar places. But out in the boondocks, where the voters are older and less left wing, he's likely to struggle hard.
And if you drop below 15% in a precinct, you get null delegates.
My rough guessimate would be that Biden is probably favourite for Iowa right now, given his "No Malarky" tour in the state, and an impressive build up of presence there. I'd give him a 35% chance.
Buttigieg is probably a 30% chance, given his organisation in the state, and that he pretty much looks like a perfect candidate for Iowa. (Being white and Christian and centrist).
Sanders is probably a 25% chance, because he's got a tonne of committed supporters and he's been rising in the polls. I also suspect the ratcheting up on tensions in the Middle East favours him.
(As an aside, I suspect Buttigieg will come out at the debate broadly in favour of Trump's killing of that Iranian dude. Which is probably smart politics.)
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
And the most boring. Sir Keir will save the NHS millions as he personally cures the nation's insomnia...
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
2-1
I'd be interested in a bet at those odds, i.e. You win £200 if he runs as a 3rd party, I win £100 if he doesn't, bet void if Sanders or Warren is not the Dem nominee.
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
Sir Keir will save the NHS millions as he personally cures the nation's insomnia...
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
2-1
I'd be interested in a bet at those odds, i.e. You win £200 if he runs as a 3rd party, I win £100 if he doesn't, bet void if Sanders or Warren is not the Dem nominee.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
2-1
I'd be interested in a bet at those odds, i.e. You win £200 if he runs as a 3rd party, I win £100 if he doesn't, bet void if Sanders or Warren is not the Dem nominee.
I'm fine with any value up to £200/£100.
For £50 agreed
Deal. Can you just clarify if that's me or you risking £50? So is it £50/£25 or £100/£50?
But his big problem is that while Buttigieg has 27 offices and over 100 paid staffers, he has only 9 offices, and they're concentrated in Iowa's major urban areas.
Sanders also has fewer staffers and offices than Biden, Warren and Klobuchar.
That puts him at a disadvantage in cold and dusty church halls in rural parts of Iowa. And Iowa has a lot of rural parts. I can see Sanders sweeping all before him around the University of Iowa and similar places. But out in the boondocks, where the voters are older and less left wing, he's likely to struggle hard.
And if you drop below 15% in a precinct, you get null delegates.
My rough guessimate would be that Biden is probably favourite for Iowa right now, given his "No Malarky" tour in the state, and an impressive build up of presence there. I'd give him a 35% chance.
Buttigieg is probably a 30% chance, given his organisation in the state, and that he pretty much looks like a perfect candidate for Iowa. (Being white and Christian and centrist).
Sanders is probably a 25% chance, because he's got a tonne of committed supporters and he's been rising in the polls. I also suspect the ratcheting up on tensions in the Middle East favours him.
(As an aside, I suspect Buttigieg will come out at the debate broadly in favour of Trump's killing of that Iranian dude. Which is probably smart politics.)
I’ve been to rural Iowa (Shenandoah).
Man, it is rural
The US has a beautiful landscape, but it is difficult for economic policy. Pretty much everywhere in the UK is within two hours of a reasonable sized city and can survive on its overflow with the right infrastructure and policies. But parts of the US just have zero hope.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
As I said that was before the nomination was decided by primary delegates, only in 1976 did most states hold primaries and primaries thus determine the nominee so 1972 does not really count
To remind you, what you said was, "no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire".
That was untrue.
OK but you cannot really include years when not all states held primaries or caucuses, so only 1976 on really counts
Firstly, you should have caveated and simply didn't. Secondly, how many seriously contested nominations have there been where anyone won both?
Realistically, your examples of winning both against real opposition are Ford and Carter in 1976, Carter in 1980, and Kerry in 2004.
Every other contest has either not been seriously contested (i.e. no other candidate has won a single contest anywhere), or have seen NH and IA split. In one case, the winning nominee won neither state (Clinton in 1992).
It's just daft to make a "rule" based on only one data point for well over 30 years.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
2-1
I'd be interested in a bet at those odds, i.e. You win £200 if he runs as a 3rd party, I win £100 if he doesn't, bet void if Sanders or Warren is not the Dem nominee.
I'm fine with any value up to £200/£100.
For £50 agreed
Deal. Can you just clarify if that's me or you risking £50? So is it £50/£25 or £100/£50?
But his big problem is that while Buttigieg has 27 offices and over 100 paid staffers, he has only 9 offices, and they're concentrated in Iowa's major urban areas.
Sanders also has fewer staffers and offices than Biden, Warren and Klobuchar.
That puts him at a disadvantage in cold and dusty church halls in rural parts of Iowa. And Iowa has a lot of rural parts. I can see Sanders sweeping all before him around the University of Iowa and similar places. But out in the boondocks, where the voters are older and less left wing, he's likely to struggle hard.
And if you drop below 15% in a precinct, you get null delegates.
My rough guessimate would be that Biden is probably favourite for Iowa right now, given his "No Malarky" tour in the state, and an impressive build up of presence there. I'd give him a 35% chance.
Buttigieg is probably a 30% chance, given his organisation in the state, and that he pretty much looks like a perfect candidate for Iowa. (Being white and Christian and centrist).
Sanders is probably a 25% chance, because he's got a tonne of committed supporters and he's been rising in the polls. I also suspect the ratcheting up on tensions in the Middle East favours him.
(As an aside, I suspect Buttigieg will come out at the debate broadly in favour of Trump's killing of that Iranian dude. Which is probably smart politics.)
I’ve been to rural Iowa (Shenandoah).
Man, it is rural
I visited Des Moines a few months ago. That was pretty rural...
(If you were going to go off lawn signs in Des Moines, you would reckon it was a straight Buttigieg vs Gabbard fight.)
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
This is tame coming from justin124. Remember what he said about May and her diabetes?
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshalso collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
As I said that was before the nomination was decided by primary delegates, only in 1976 did most states hold primaries and primaries thus determine the nominee so 1972 does not really count
To remind you, what you said was, "no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire".
That was untrue.
OK but you cannot really include years when not all states held primaries or caucuses, so only 1976 on really counts
Firstly, you should have caveated and simply didn't. Secondly, how many seriously contested nominations have there been where anyone won both?
Realistically, your examples of winning both against real opposition are Ford and Carter in 1976, Carter in 1980, and Kerry in 2004.
Every other contest has either not been seriously contested (i.e. no other candidate has won a single contest anywhere), or have seen NH and IA split. In one case, the winning nominee won neither state (Clinton in 1992).
It's just daft to make a "rule" based on only one data point for well over 30 years.
And Gore in 2000 and every incumbent president over that timeframe.
So that is 5 data points and 10 including incumbent presidents other than Ford and Carter
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
As I said that was before the nomination was decided by primary delegates, only in 1976 did most states hold primaries and primaries thus determine the nominee so 1972 does not really count
To remind you, what you said was, "no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire".
That was untrue.
OK but you cannot really include years when not all states held primaries or caucuses, so only 1976 on really counts
Firstly, you should have caveated and simply didn't. Secondly, how many seriously contested nominations have there been where anyone won both?
Realistically, your examples of winning both against real opposition are Ford and Carter in 1976, Carter in 1980, and Kerry in 2004.
Every other contest has either not been seriously contested (i.e. no other candidate has won a single contest anywhere), or have seen NH and IA split. In one case, the winning nominee won neither state (Clinton in 1992).
It's just daft to make a "rule" based on only one data point for well over 30 years.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
2-1
I'd be interested in a bet at those odds, i.e. You win £200 if he runs as a 3rd party, I win £100 if he doesn't, bet void if Sanders or Warren is not the Dem nominee.
I'm fine with any value up to £200/£100.
For £50 agreed
Deal. Can you just clarify if that's me or you risking £50? So is it £50/£25 or £100/£50?
The former
Sorry to persist, but is the former the 'me' in 'me or you' or the '£50/25' in '£50/25 or £100/50''?
If it's easier just spell out the terms like in my "you win x if y, I lose z if y' post. I just want our bet to be 100% clear.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren.. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire he is nominee, no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire and if he does so the Warren vote will also collapse in his favour
Untrue. Ed Muskie, 1972.
Though that was the last time when many states did not hold primaries at all eg New York and Texas and the nomination was still decided at the convention
But you accept your assertion was, as so often, untrue?
As I said that was before the nomination was decided by primary delegates, only in 1976 did most states hold primaries and primaries thus determine the nominee so 1972 does not really count
To remind you, what you said was, "no candidate, Democrat or Republican, has failed to win the nomination after winning both Iowa and New Hampshire".
That was untrue.
OK but you cannot really include years when not all states held primaries or caucuses, so only 1976 on really counts
Firstly, you should have caveated and simply didn't. Secondly, how many seriously contested nominations have there been where anyone won both?
Realistically, your examples of winning both against real opposition are Ford and Carter in 1976, Carter in 1980, and Kerry in 2004.
Every other contest has either not been seriously contested (i.e. no other candidate has won a single contest anywhere), or have seen NH and IA split. In one case, the winning nominee won neither state (Clinton in 1992).
It's just daft to make a "rule" based on only one data point for well over 30 years.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
2-1
I'd be interested in a bet at those odds, i.e. You win £200 if he runs as a 3rd party, I win £100 if he doesn't, bet void if Sanders or Warren is not the Dem nominee.
I'm fine with any value up to £200/£100.
For £50 agreed
Deal. Can you just clarify if that's me or you risking £50? So is it £50/£25 or £100/£50?
The former
Sorry to persist, but is the former the 'me' in 'me or you' or the '£50/25' in '£50/25 or £100/50''?
If it's easier just spell out the terms like in my "you win x if y, I lose z if y' post. I just want our bet to be 100% clear.
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
But his big problem is that while Buttigieg has 27 offices and over 100 paid staffers, he has only 9 offices, and they're concentrated in Iowa's major urban areas.
Sanders also has fewer staffers and offices than Biden, Warren and Klobuchar.
That puts him at a disadvantage in cold and dusty church halls in rural parts of Iowa. And Iowa has a lot of rural parts. I can see Sanders sweeping all before him around the University of Iowa and similar places. But out in the boondocks, where the voters are older and less left wing, he's likely to struggle hard.
And if you drop below 15% in a precinct, you get null delegates.
My rough guessimate would be that Biden is probably favourite for Iowa right now, given his "No Malarky" tour in the state, and an impressive build up of presence there. I'd give him a 35% chance.
Buttigieg is probably a 30% chance, given his organisation in the state, and that he pretty much looks like a perfect candidate for Iowa. (Being white and Christian and centrist).
Sanders is probably a 25% chance, because he's got a tonne of committed supporters and he's been rising in the polls. I also suspect the ratcheting up on tensions in the Middle East favours him.
(As an aside, I suspect Buttigieg will come out at the debate broadly in favour of Trump's killing of that Iranian dude. Which is probably smart politics.)
I’ve been to rural Iowa (Shenandoah).
Man, it is rural
I visited Des Moines a few months ago. That was pretty rural...
(If you were going to go off lawn signs in Des Moines, you would reckon it was a straight Buttigieg vs Gabbard fight.)
The saddest town I’ve been to was St Joe, Missouri
Probably 2/3 of buildings were boarded up and abandoned.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
This is tame coming from justin124. Remember what he said about May and her diabetes?
I know, but the DPS is more forgiving of random nutters on the internet than the USSS. I’ve a few friends who are close to the US security apparatus and they take themselves very seriously
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
It is interesting that many people don't know the integration on certain things. For example, it is not so much that the US shares nuke design data with the UK, as the warhead design is joint. Which means the UK sees pretty much everything the US has done in this field.
More of the usual nonsense about the "power" of social media. If I'm Facebook, I want this all over the media so I can use it as case studies for advertisers with real budgets.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
This is tame coming from justin124. Remember what he said about May and her diabetes?
I know, but the DPS is more forgiving of random nutters on the internet than the USSS. I’ve a few friends who are close to the US security apparatus and they take themselves very seriously
Apparently they even show up and question comedians who joke about such things.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
Are you referring to US or UK Secret Service. It is hardly an unreasonable comment in the context of a guy who has just openly admitted he has authorised this assassination - and was content to risk the deaths of others as collateral damage!
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
This is tame coming from justin124. Remember what he said about May and her diabetes?
I know, but the DPS is more forgiving of random nutters on the internet than the USSS. I’ve a few friends who are close to the US security apparatus and they take themselves very seriously
It was when Clinton was in office that the US Secret Service started actively investigating threats to the US President on the internet. I believe that some people have found themselves barred from the US for vituperating about various Presidents since...
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
As far as this slender polling evidence goes, Biden seems to be losing ground rapidly in SC (especially if the Sanders-Warren duel gets resolved in favour of one or the other).
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
If Sanders or Warren is Democratic nominee, Bloomberg will definitely run as a third party candidate yes against them and Trump
What odds will you give me on Bloomberg running as a third party candidate?
2-1
I'd be interested in a bet at those odds, i.e. You win £200 if he runs as a 3rd party, I win £100 if he doesn't, bet void if Sanders or Warren is not the Dem nominee.
I'm fine with any value up to £200/£100.
For £50 agreed
Deal. Can you just clarify if that's me or you risking £50? So is it £50/£25 or £100/£50?
The former
Sorry to persist, but is the former the 'me' in 'me or you' or the '£50/25' in '£50/25 or £100/50''?
If it's easier just spell out the terms like in my "you win x if y, I lose z if y' post. I just want our bet to be 100% clear.
The £50/£25, I am not adding anything further
No worries. You can win £50, I can win £25. Good luck.
One of the interesting that video shows is that although Starmer looks young, he's been around an awfully long time. In fact he's closer to some of the New Labour generation of politicians than the current Corbynite crop in age, but his accommodation with power has been quite different from theirs - he might look and seem a bit like Blair, but he hasn't accommodated large business interests, but national-institutional interests instead, as a knighted, besuited DPP suddenly appearing towards the end of that video.
“National institutional interests” - sounds like the establishment.
I am so red on Bernie that it hurts me to look at the numbers. Otherwise looking good.
Re Bernie, his big, big problem is that he's no-one's second choice.
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren. If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar. If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains. If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
I'd have thought that a lot of Warren's support will go to him. Do you hsave evidence to the contrary? I agree that the others much less so.
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
It's amazing how much people forget the terrible ramifications of the same arguments. Saddam Hussein was a very bad man too, yet you could oppose him without supporting war in Iraq. The likes of Luntz at the time were using the same arguments about anti-war people being on Saddam's side.
Indeed - and many see Trump as an equally 'bad guy'. By his action Trump has certainly become a legitimate assassination target - and were it to happen many in the West would celebrate.
Word of advice Justin
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
Are you referring to US or UK Secret Service. It is hardly an unreasonable comment in the context of a guy who has just openly admitted he has authorised this assassination - and was content to risk the deaths of others as collateral damage!
The US SS.
I’m not commenting on the reasonableness or not, but how it might be perceived and the implications thereof.
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
In British eyes it tends to mean we being the closest US ally, though Obama of course thought Germany and Merkel his closest ally, Wilson refused to send British troops to join the US in Vietnam unlike Australia and Australia is in Five Eyes anyway
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
In British eyes it tends to mean we being the closest US ally, though Obama of course thought Germany and Merkel his closest ally and Australia is in Five Eyes anyway
No, it doesn’t.
People who don’t understand what the Special Relationship (capitalised) may misuse the term, but those involved in government and statecraft don’t.
In your examples:
Israel - a very close relationship, and the only one that approaches the SR, although it is much more one way
Australia - Five Eyes is very close, but essentially it is independent organisations sharing intelligence freely compared to the integration and embedding that the SR involves
Saudi - merely a current alignment of interests; my enemy’s enemy etc
Germany - Obama was essentially disinterested in European affairs. German policy is to accommodate rather than oppose which was aligned with Obama’s views. But that was one presidents priorities rather than a structural relationship
I think this post has kind of galvanised things for me. I've read enough drivel by right wing ideologues on this site who want to deny man made climate change in whichever way possible.
What is it about the ideological right that makes them think in this way? I don't get it. I really don't.
Capitalism is not working. It's leading to the catastrophic destruction of our planet, our ecosystems and the natural world. Obviously socialism is not the answer too...I can see that.
But for those out there considering cruises, non necessary long haul flights, buying second homes, changing cars unnecessarily...just think again. This kind of consumerism is vandalising our planet. You have to see that. It's intuitively obvious that consumeristic capitalism cannot be good. But it is an act of gross cruelty against nature to try and persuade people that human beings are not responsible for the destruction of our beautiful planet.
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
In British eyes it tends to mean we being the closest US ally, though Obama of course thought Germany and Merkel his closest ally, Wilson refused to send British troops to join the US in Vietnam unlike Australia and Australia is in Five Eyes anyway
His brother certainly things that Bernie stands a good chance....and I can tell you that from the horses mouth, and just before Xmas
I think this post has kind of galvanised things for me. I've read enough drivel by right wing ideologues on this site who want to deny man made climate change in whichever way possible.
What is it about the ideological right that makes them think in this way? I don't get it. I really don't.
Capitalism is not working. It's leading to the catastrophic destruction of our planet, our ecosystems and the natural world. Obviously socialism is not the answer too...I can see that.
But for those out there considering cruises, non necessary long haul flights, buying second homes, changing cars unnecessarily...just think again. This kind of consumerism is vandalising our planet. You have to see that. It's intuitively obvious that consumeristic capitalism cannot be good. But it is an act of gross cruelty against nature to try and persuade people that human beings are not responsible for the destruction of our beautiful planet.
It is renewable energy replacing fossil fuels which is the key change, just toning down consumption is not enough on its own
More of the usual nonsense about the "power" of social media. If I'm Facebook, I want this all over the media so I can use it as case studies for advertisers with real budgets.
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
I've been rewatching the coverage of the election coverage. It's striking how the far left feels the need to get the word 'Thatcher' into every interview. You see Jon Lansmann for example, almost get past a point, realise he has missed an opportunity to say 'Thatcher', backtrack, and remake the point with the word 'Thatcher' included. It's like some sort of catechism.* It's as she's some sort of trump card: get the word 'Thatcher' into your response and you win the argument. She left office 29 years ago; there have been six Prime Ministers, seven Tory leaders and five Labour leaders since. It's akin to people from politics in the late 80s and early 90s discussing the legacy of Harold Macmillan. Plus, she won three elections. Lots of people voted for her.
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
In British eyes it tends to mean we being the closest US ally, though Obama of course thought Germany and Merkel his closest ally and Australia is in Five Eyes anyway
No, it doesn’t.
People who don’t understand what the Special Relationship (capitalised) may misuse the term, but those involved in government and statecraft don’t.
In your examples:
Israel - a very close relationship, and the only one that approaches the SR, although it is much more one way
Australia - Five Eyes is very close, but essentially it is independent organisations sharing intelligence freely compared to the integration and embedding that the SR involves
Saudi - merely a current alignment of interests; my enemy’s enemy etc
Germany - Obama was essentially disinterested in European affairs. German policy is to accommodate rather than oppose which was aligned with Obama’s views. But that was one presidents priorities rather than a structural relationship
Yes it does.
Netanyahu's Israel and Morrison's Australia are closer ideologically and in foreign policy terms to Trump's USA than even Boris' UK (and indeed Australia has historically been a stronger supporter of the US than the UK, joining the US in all its 20th and 21st century wars, while the UK sat out Vietnam, not to mention of course both gained independence from the UK).
Saudi is also closer to Trump's anti Iran line than the UK is.
Obama was closer to Merkel than Cameron and Brown and Bush Snr was closer to Kohl than Thatcher or even Major, only under Thatcher with Reagan or Bush W with Blair has the UK PM really been the closest ally of the US president in the last 4 decades
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
In British eyes it tends to mean we being the closest US ally, though Obama of course thought Germany and Merkel his closest ally, Wilson refused to send British troops to join the US in Vietnam unlike Australia and Australia is in Five Eyes anyway
His brother certainly things that Bernie stands a good chance....and I can tell you that from the horses mouth, and just before Xmas
Larry Sanders is right, at least in terms of the nomination, Bernie Sanders has a great chance of being the most leftwing Democratic presidential nominee since George McGovern, much as Jeremy Corbyn was the most leftwing Labour leader since Michael Foot.
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
I've been rewatching the coverage of the election coverage. It's striking how the far left feels the need to get the word 'Thatcher' into every interview. You see Jon Lansmann for example, almost get past a point, realise he has missed an opportunity to say 'Thatcher', backtrack, and remake the point with the word 'Thatcher' included. It's like some sort of catechism.* It's as she's some sort of trump card: get the word 'Thatcher' into your response and you win the argument. She left office 29 years ago; there have been six Prime Ministers, seven Tory leaders and five Labour leaders since. It's akin to people from politics in the late 80s and early 90s discussing the legacy of Harold Macmillan. Plus, she won three elections. Lots of people voted for her.
*I may be using the wrong word here.
Labour has had a succession of very poor leaders post Blair....I think you'll find the lefty message goes down rather well with a credible leader....
Keir is the candidate the Tories fear most...for obvious reasons
Biden’s support has not wavered, especially among people of color and disaffected whites — a coalition no other candidate can match. Once the nominating process gets past the white and unrepresentative states of Iowa and New Hampshire, the new America will show its power: States representing one-third of the United States population will vote on Super Tuesday, March 3. Biden is well positioned.
Just as I expected a couple of days ago, the Trump administration is expecting a much greater level of subordination if Britain isn't to be included in the ranks of the "Europeans".
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
Despite leftwing attacks on Boris, Raab actually had a cautious response to the assassination. Trump's US has more of a 'special relationship' with Israel, Saudi Arabia, even Australia than it does with us even with Boris as PM
No it doesn’t
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
In British eyes it tends to mean we being the closest US ally, though Obama of course thought Germany and Merkel his closest ally, Wilson refused to send British troops to join the US in Vietnam unlike Australia and Australia is in Five Eyes anyway
His brother certainly things that Bernie stands a good chance....and I can tell you that from the horses mouth, and just before Xmas
Larry Sanders is right, at least in terms of the nomination, Bernie Sanders has a great chance of being the most leftwing Democratic presidential nominee since George McGovern, much as Jeremy Corbyn was the most leftwing Labour leader since Michael Foot.
I'm back in Oxford...and back in Oxford you come across Larry... I was surprised he was so upbeat about Bernie's chances...that was a few weeks ago...but I'm not surprised now, and would not be at all surprised if Bernie gets Iowa now
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
I've been rewatching the coverage of the election coverage. It's striking how the far left feels the need to get the word 'Thatcher' into every interview. You see Jon Lansmann for example, almost get past a point, realise he has missed an opportunity to say 'Thatcher', backtrack, and remake the point with the word 'Thatcher' included. It's like some sort of catechism.* It's as she's some sort of trump card: get the word 'Thatcher' into your response and you win the argument. She left office 29 years ago; there have been six Prime Ministers, seven Tory leaders and five Labour leaders since. It's akin to people from politics in the late 80s and early 90s discussing the legacy of Harold Macmillan. Plus, she won three elections. Lots of people voted for her.
*I may be using the wrong word here.
Labour has had a succession of very poor leaders post Blair....I think you'll find the lefty message goes down rather well with a credible leader....
Keir is the candidate the Tories fear most...for obvious reasons
Merely saying the word 'Thatcher' isn't a message; it's an obsession. I merely point out the number of leaders to illustrate how historical Thatcher now is, and how odd it sounds when the far left keep going on about her.
The print workers??? Possibly the least deserving of all the unions in the whole of the UK.
NOTSOBA and SODIT - Starmer rolls out Thatcher, poll tax, print workers, NUM, Menwith Hill and Iraq. All good liberal left causes from the past, must be some obscure causes he left out. Does he offer anything other than nostalgia?
This my criticism of the current left. Nobody seems to have had a think about how left wing views can be made relevant for the current times. For example, they just say they want more trade unionism, without saying how it will change from the past and be relevant and beneficial for the workplace and workers of today.
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have tnd they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the sest candidate they are bound to win.
I've been rewatching the coverage of the election coverage. It's striking how the far left feels the need to get the word 'Thatcher' into every interview. You see Jon Lansmann for example, almost get past a point, realise he has missed an opportunity to say 'Thatcher', backtrack, and remake the point with the word 'Thatcher' included. It's like some sort of catechism.* It's as she's some sort of trump card: get the word 'Thatcher' into your response and you win the argument. She left office 29 years ago; there have been six Prime Ministers, seven Tory leaders and five Labour leaders since. It's akin to people from politics in the late 80s and early 90s discussing the legacy of Harold Macmillan. Plus, she won three elections. Lots of people voted for her. *I may be using the wrong word here.
Thatcher should really only be of interest to those curious about political history - those using her to seek to scare or inspire regarding the politics of here and now are fools, and it happens far more often from those who hate Thatcher. With some amount of success in the sense that there are people who weren't even alive at the time who somehow get emotional about her actions as if it affected them directly, but it's codswallop, and a good indication that whatever point is being made is simply nostalgic for a politics which no longer exists. Doesn't matter if they liked what Thatcher did or despised it, the time has passed and has minimal relevance to us now, and every current politician and campaigner would be well advised to get the f*ck over it already in my opinion.
People know it too, given how they are so keen to insist the politics of times even more recent than Thatcher is not something we should go back to in their view.
Thatcher should really only be of interest to those curious about political history - those using her to seek to scare or inspire regarding the politics of here and now are fools, and it happens far more often from those who hate Thatcher. With some amount of success in the sense that there are people who weren't even alive at the time who somehow get emotional about her actions as if it affected them directly, but it's codswallop, and a good indication that whatever point is being made is simply nostalgic for a politics which no longer exists. Doesn't matter if they liked what Thatcher did or despised it, the time has passed and has minimal relevance to us now, and every current politician and campaigner would be well advised to get the f*ck over it already in my opinion.
People know it too, given how they are so keen to insist the politics of times even more recent than Thatcher is not something we should go back to in their view.
e.g. Banging on about how Thatcher broke the unions and if only we had a return collective bargaining via resurgent trade unions. There is no real appetite for it, even among those that concerned about cost of living, getting on the property ladder, student debt.
Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major and Brown are (Ancient) history. Thatcher and Blair live on in the memory of their opponents. Perhaps because they made a difference.
Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major and Brown are (Ancient) history. Thatcher and Blair live on in the memory of their opponents. Perhaps because they made a difference.
Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major and Brown are (Ancient) history. Thatcher and Blair live on in the memory of their opponents. Perhaps because they made a difference.
Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major and Brown are (Ancient) history. Thatcher and Blair live on in the memory of their opponents. Perhaps because they made a difference.
I notice you did not even mention May
Let’s give history 12 months. Although 12 years would be better,
Comments
Not much sign of rejoin there anyway.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8749/CBP-8749.pdf
There is no longer a need for the Labour Party.
I suspect he's more looking at a brokered convention and/or Biden stumbling in terms of health or politics. You could see him getting 15%-20% everywhere and hoovering up "Not Bernie" delegates.
I think it's a narrow path, but he's old enough to think there are no further chances, and rich enough that dropping hundreds of millions won't affect his standard of living.
The other thing is (and this is REALLY important): it's a lot, lot better to be on 25% than 15%. Indeed, you'll probably get 4x the delegates if you are on 25% vs 15%.
Why?
Because if you're on 25%, you'll have precincts where you get 20% and precincts where you get 30%. This means you'll get delegates from every precinct.
If you're on 15%, your spread will be 10 to 20%. That means you'll only get delegates from half the precincts.
I don't see how Bloomberg gets comfortably into the 20s by Super Tuesday, especially as we'll have had four "winners" in February.
Even if you appreciate there may well come a point when the pensioners who were priapic for it are long gone, when it comes back into play, that time isn't for this generation of politicians.
https://twitter.com/KGPolling/status/1212187475617210368?s=20
But I would note that KG doesn't exactly have any kind of polling record.
10% drop from 19-21
20% drop from 21-23
One to watch at the next election...
Looks like all we are going to get in this leadership campaign is Boris is a liar, Thatcher was bad, AUSTERITY, save the NHS, et al. You would have thought that one of them had a brain cell that would understand that they have been saying these things for the last 10 years and they keep getting beaten.
Get your money on the stupidest candidate they are bound to win.
Though the target, in a moral sense, was not exactly undeserving, it’s a little bit concerning when a president with the instincts of a mobster learns that he apparently can kill with impunity.
I'm not sure whether his family paid fees or whether there was an allowance for those already there, but he attended a public school.
That was untrue.
Indeed traditionally a public school is one of 7 schools given independence from jurisdiction by the Public Schools Act 1868, Charterhouse, Eton College, Harrow School, Rugby School, Shrewsbury School, Westminster School, and Winchester College (albeit the term expanded in the 1930s to 30 private schools).
Man, it is rural
I'm fine with any value up to £200/£100.
The secret service tends to look dimly on people posting on the internet that the sitting President is a “legitimate assassination target”
Realistically, your examples of winning both against real opposition are Ford and Carter in 1976, Carter in 1980, and Kerry in 2004.
Every other contest has either not been seriously contested (i.e. no other candidate has won a single contest anywhere), or have seen NH and IA split. In one case, the winning nominee won neither state (Clinton in 1992).
It's just daft to make a "rule" based on only one data point for well over 30 years.
(If you were going to go off lawn signs in Des Moines, you would reckon it was a straight Buttigieg vs Gabbard fight.)
So that is 5 data points and 10 including incumbent presidents other than Ford and Carter
If it's easier just spell out the terms like in my "you win x if y, I lose z if y' post. I just want our bet to be 100% clear.
The Special Relationship means something very specific, even closer than Five Eyes (which is an unbelievably close relationship in the intelligence community).
You might want to check this Twitter thread about KG Polling:
https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/972887501332533248
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/04/cambridge-analytica-data-leak-global-election-manipulation
Probably 2/3 of buildings were boarded up and abandoned.
The best restaurant was Applebys
I’m not commenting on the reasonableness or not, but how it might be perceived and the implications thereof.
People who don’t understand what the Special Relationship (capitalised) may misuse the term, but those involved in government and statecraft don’t.
In your examples:
Israel - a very close relationship, and the only one that approaches the SR, although it is much more one way
Australia - Five Eyes is very close, but essentially it is independent organisations sharing intelligence freely compared to the integration and embedding that the SR involves
Saudi - merely a current alignment of interests; my enemy’s enemy etc
Germany - Obama was essentially disinterested in European affairs. German policy is to accommodate rather than oppose which was aligned with Obama’s views. But that was one presidents priorities rather than a structural relationship
I think this post has kind of galvanised things for me.
I've read enough drivel by right wing ideologues on this site who want to deny man made climate change in whichever way possible.
What is it about the ideological right that makes them think in this way? I don't get it. I really don't.
Capitalism is not working. It's leading to the catastrophic destruction of our planet, our ecosystems and the natural world. Obviously socialism is not the answer too...I can see that.
But for those out there considering cruises, non necessary long haul flights, buying second homes, changing cars unnecessarily...just think again. This kind of consumerism is vandalising our planet. You have to see that. It's intuitively obvious that consumeristic capitalism cannot be good. But it is an act of gross cruelty against nature to try and persuade people that human beings are not responsible for the destruction of our beautiful planet.
Plus, she won three elections. Lots of people voted for her.
*I may be using the wrong word here.
Netanyahu's Israel and Morrison's Australia are closer ideologically and in foreign policy terms to Trump's USA than even Boris' UK (and indeed Australia has historically been a stronger supporter of the US than the UK, joining the US in all its 20th and 21st century wars, while the UK sat out Vietnam, not to mention of course both gained independence from the UK).
Saudi is also closer to Trump's anti Iran line than the UK is.
Obama was closer to Merkel than Cameron and Brown and Bush Snr was closer to Kohl than Thatcher or even Major, only under Thatcher with Reagan or Bush W with Blair has the UK PM really been the closest ally of the US president in the last 4 decades
Keir is the candidate the Tories fear most...for obvious reasons
I was surprised he was so upbeat about Bernie's chances...that was a few weeks ago...but I'm not surprised now, and would not be at all surprised if Bernie gets Iowa now
People know it too, given how they are so keen to insist the politics of times even more recent than Thatcher is not something we should go back to in their view.
Oh, Labour ... all mixer and no single malt.