Mr. Machine, the cars matter more, and Mercedes haven't been beatable for a while, over a season.
I agree the lower numbers can be pretty random. Got a little each way (something like 131) on Albon to win, coming to a 26 if he's top 3.
If Ferrari screw up or Red Bull do very well, that's a Bottas vs Albon duel. And whilst Bottas should be favourite, that shouldn't be so much so that Albon's 26.
23% is a good number, but it's only equal first with Biden and Buttigieg.
He then has three specific issues to overcome:
1. He has the weakest organisation in Iowa. He has nine field offices, Biden has 17 and Buttigieg has 27. Against that, he has lots of enthusiastic young (unpaid) volunteers.
2. He's not the obvious second choice of (most) third tier candidates. If Klobuchar isn't reaching the 15% threshold in that church hall in Ankeny, then her supporters are more likely to gravitate to Biden than to Sanders.
3. His support is quite geographically concentrated around the big urban conurbations of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Sioux City. This matters because if he's getting 12% in Ottumwa and 30% in Cedar Rapids, then that 12% isn't going to result in any delegates. It means he'll do less well than a candidate who gets 20% in Cedar Rapids and 20% in Ottumwa.
What works in Sanders favour, though, are two things. Firstly, Warren is stuttering hard. He should be the biggest benficiary of that. Secondly, the "moderate" lane is currently very crowded. If Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg all get delegates, then it potentially allows him to slip through the middle and grab a win.
My guess, though, is that he shouldn't be favourite. I think Biden has the better organisation, and is a more natural second choice for those voters who's candidates are eliminated. Biden is also camped in Iowa right now with his "No Malarkey" tour. Finally, Iowa tends to go establishment. When was the last time a non-establishment candidate won the state?
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
You say that, but given the events of the last 5 years I'd lock that sucker in on day one for safety...
If the tradition of the next election result being what the previous election should have been continues, then it will be a Conservative majority of around 40.
Which is what you would expect if Labour do a bit better under a new Leader.
The Tory lead in vote share in 2019 matched almost exactly the 1987 GB margin of 11.8%. The latter year saw a majority of 102 which fell to 21 in 1992 . Moreover, had Kinnock avoided campaign misteps he probably could have managed a 2017 type result - a minority Tory Government dependent on Ulster Unionist support. Some of the discussion of Labour's 2019 performance was OTT. It was a poor result certainly - but a 33% GB vote share was still well above the 28.3% of 1983 - the 29.7% of 2010 - the 31.2% of 2015 - and the 31.7% of 1987 . The post 2014 collapse in Scotland will also have knocked circa 2% off Labour's GB share - so Labour's England & Wales overall result in 2019 was substantially better in terms of vote share and seats in the rest of GB compared with the 1980s..
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
Yep ... that's really going to go down a wow isn't it ... with 50 current MPs effectively being required to vote like Turkeys for Christmas ... little wonder that the likes of Cameron and May completely ducked the issue! And even now with a decent majority there's no mention of it in the Queen's Speech - just what the hell's going on?
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
Yep ... that's really going to go down a wow isn't it ... with 50 current MPs effectively being required to vote like Turkeys for Christmas ... little wonder that the likes of Cameron and May completely ducked the issue! And even now with a decent majority there's no mention of it in the Queen's Speech - just what the hell's going on?
If they change to 650 they won't be required to vote like turkeys...
and it doesn't have to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech for it to be done. Relax!
Evening assorted weirdos....there is no way the Tories are going to increase their majority at the next GE. 80 is already a large majority, they can't keep defying gravity of being the governing party and not taking any hit for doing so and more importantly Labour aren't going to be led by a total moron with more baggage than an Indian family going back to visit the relatives in the homeland.
I had an interesting discussion with a brother last night. I was aware that in 2017 he and his wife had voted Tory for the first time - very anti-Corbyn.He revealed that he did not vote Labour last month - without specifying how he did vote - felt unable to support Corbyn due to security fears. To my surprise, he then informed me that he has now joined the Labour Party! He has done so in order to vote in the Leadership election - and also said he basically still thought of himself as 'Labour'. How would the party respond to this were it to be made aware of his recent voting behaviour? Having voted Green myself here in Norwich North at the election, perhaps I would be barred from membership myself were I inclined to apply!
Voting for another party in the past excludes you from applying for Labour membership?
Depends on how recent it is. Voting for another party is certainly incompatible with continued membership - as evidenced by what happened to Alastair Campbell last year - and doubtless will happen to Gisela Stuart imminently.
No, labour will get around 240 seats next time and Lib Dems might improve by a handful, although Tories most seats at 5-6 is best bet of the decade.
The best bet of the decade, I would wager, will be something at rather better odds than 5-6.
I just backed 'Completed Match - No' in the India vs Sri Lanka t20 cricket at 1.06 when the cut off time for there to be a match had passed 3 mins before... that's got to be close to the bet of the decade hasnt it? Free money!!
It's probably not even the best 1-16 of the year let alone decade.
What??? Something that has already won isn’t the best 1/16 shot you can back?!?!
How could it possibly be bettered?
Especially given you got paid out in minutes (or hours at most) not in four or five years time.
A slightly odds on bet, for something that is not certain, that pays out in four and a half years time will not make you rich. And, indeed, I don't know any professional gambler who'd be piling on that.
I had an interesting discussion with a brother last night. I was aware that in 2017 he and his wife had voted Tory for the first time - very anti-Corbyn.He revealed that he did not vote Labour last month - without specifying how he did vote - felt unable to support Corbyn due to security fears. To my surprise, he then informed me that he has now joined the Labour Party! He has done so in order to vote in the Leadership election - and also said he basically still thought of himself as 'Labour'. How would the party respond to this were it to be made aware of his recent voting behaviour? Having voted Green myself here in Norwich North at the election, perhaps I would be barred from membership myself were I inclined to apply!
You ought to report him, anonymously of course. It’s what any responsible citizen would do.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
God I hope so. If we can maintain the 650 number then - even with the new boundaries - they can still get a good-ish exit poll. With 600 and new boundaries - more difficult.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
23% is a good number, but it's only equal first with Biden and Buttigieg.
He then has three specific issues to overcome:
1. He has the weakest organisation in Iowa. He has nine field offices, Biden has 17 and Buttigieg has 27. Against that, he has lots of enthusiastic young (unpaid) volunteers.
2. He's not the obvious second choice of (most) third tier candidates. If Klobuchar isn't reaching the 15% threshold in that church hall in Ankeny, then her supporters are more likely to gravitate to Biden than to Sanders.
3. His support is quite geographically concentrated around the big urban conurbations of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Sioux City. This matters because if he's getting 12% in Ottumwa and 30% in Cedar Rapids, then that 12% isn't going to result in any delegates. It means he'll do less well than a candidate who gets 20% in Cedar Rapids and 20% in Ottumwa.
What works in Sanders favour, though, are two things. Firstly, Warren is stuttering hard. He should be the biggest benficiary of that. Secondly, the "moderate" lane is currently very crowded. If Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg all get delegates, then it potentially allows him to slip through the middle and grab a win.
My guess, though, is that he shouldn't be favourite. I think Biden has the better organisation, and is a more natural second choice for those voters who's candidates are eliminated. Biden is also camped in Iowa right now with his "No Malarkey" tour. Finally, Iowa tends to go establishment. When was the last time a non-establishment candidate won the state?
So the Sanders surge is real then, tied for the lead in Iowa and with a clear lead in New Hampshire
Compared to the last YouGov poll, which was in November, the moves are:
Sanders +1% Biden +1% Buttigieg +2%
That's a truly enormous surge.
Still, its got me worried. I am so red on Bernie. I mean. Surely not? Surely the Dem base isn't that stupid?
Bernie could win Iowa and New Hampshire.
But I don't think that makes him nailed on for the nomination. For him to win requires that a great number of moderates stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, and maybe longer, which results in lots of centrist votes going wasted because they fall short of the 15% threshold.
That's not a completely implausible scenario. If California, say, were to be:
Sanders 35% Biden 20% Bloomberg 20% Buttigieg 15%
Then Sanders could easily end up with more than half the delegates. It's not *likely*. But it's certainly possible.
But if, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Booker drop out, then I don't see how Sanders wins. Those candidates votes go mostly to Biden, while only a third of Warren's vote goes to Sanders.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not sure. maybe I'm being a bit dim but it seems to me that saying that the LDs have an even chance of winning an election in the next 500 years is not the same as saying they have a 100-1 chance in the actual next one. The actual next one handicaps them by them having no seats, no likely looking decent leader, no interesting profile, a failed election strategy and an outstanding able election machine against them in the Tories, and a not quite useless one in Labour. The even money suggestion over the next 500 years must include the possibility of them approaching a future election in a better place than they are now as a result of future actions which will take time. Their chances in 2024 or whenever look like approximately zero to me and I would not throw £10 on them, which would be better spent using a pin on Grand National day.
No, labour will get around 240 seats next time and Lib Dems might improve by a handful, although Tories most seats at 5-6 is best bet of the decade.
The best bet of the decade, I would wager, will be something at rather better odds than 5-6.
I just backed 'Completed Match - No' in the India vs Sri Lanka t20 cricket at 1.06 when the cut off time for there to be a match had passed 3 mins before... that's got to be close to the bet of the decade hasnt it? Free money!!
It's probably not even the best 1-16 of the year let alone decade.
What??? Something that has already won isn’t the best 1/16 shot you can back?!?!
How could it possibly be bettered?
Especially given you got paid out in minutes (or hours at most) not in four or five years time.
A slightly odds on bet, for something that is not certain, that pays out in four and a half years time will not make you rich. And, indeed, I don't know any professional gambler who'd be piling on that.
It actually drifted to 1.1! I think there are a lot of people who dont know the rules or havent looked at the exact cut off time making those markets on the exchange.
Must say I wobbled for a minute until I saw the money get hoovered by the big boys
Mr. Machine, the cars matter more, and Mercedes haven't been beatable for a while, over a season.
I agree the lower numbers can be pretty random. Got a little each way (something like 131) on Albon to win, coming to a 26 if he's top 3.
If Ferrari screw up or Red Bull do very well, that's a Bottas vs Albon duel. And whilst Bottas should be favourite, that shouldn't be so much so that Albon's 26.
So the Sanders surge is real then, tied for the lead in Iowa and with a clear lead in New Hampshire
Compared to the last YouGov poll, which was in November, the moves are:
Sanders +1% Biden +1% Buttigieg +2%
That's a truly enormous surge.
Still, its got me worried. I am so red on Bernie. I mean. Surely not? Surely the Dem base isn't that stupid?
Bernie could win Iowa and New Hampshire.
But I don't think that makes him nailed on for the nomination. For him to win requires that a great number of moderates stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, and maybe longer, which results in lots of centrist votes going wasted because they fall short of the 15% threshold.
That's not a completely implausible scenario. If California, say, were to be:
Sanders 35% Biden 20% Bloomberg 20% Buttigieg 15%
Then Sanders could easily end up with more than half the delegates. It's not *likely*. But it's certainly possible.
But if, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Booker drop out, then I don't see how Sanders wins. Those candidates votes go mostly to Biden, while only a third of Warren's vote goes to Sanders.
Can't see Buttigieg dropping out so soon. He has money.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
Unless the FTPA is repealed, or of course there is an intervention under the act like the last two times, the election will be 2nd May 2024. October 2024 I suggest is less likely because it would (I think) require amendment or repeal of the FTPA whereas a date before 2nd May 2024 would not.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
Unless the FTPA is repealed, or of course there is an intervention under the act like the last two times, the election will be 2nd May 2024. October 2024 I suggest is less likely because it would (I think) require amendment or repeal of the FTPA whereas a date before 2nd May 2024 would not.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not sure. maybe I'm being a bit dim but it seems to me that saying that the LDs have an even chance of winning an election in the next 500 years is not the same as saying they have a 100-1 chance in the actual next one. The actual next one handicaps them by them having no seats, no likely looking decent leader, no interesting profile, a failed election strategy and an outstanding able election machine against them in the Tories, and a not quite useless one in Labour. The even money suggestion over the next 500 years must include the possibility of them approaching a future election in a better place than they are now as a result of future actions which will take time. Their chances in 2024 or whenever look like approximately zero to me and I would not throw £10 on them, which would be better spent using a pin on Grand National day.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
Unless the FTPA is repealed, or of course there is an intervention under the act like the last two times, the election will be 2nd May 2024. October 2024 I suggest is less likely because it would (I think) require amendment or repeal of the FTPA whereas a date before 2nd May 2024 would not.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
Unless the FTPA is repealed, or of course there is an intervention under the act like the last two times, the election will be 2nd May 2024. October 2024 I suggest is less likely because it would (I think) require amendment or repeal of the FTPA whereas a date before 2nd May 2024 would not.
The FTPA will be repealed.
That is the declared intention - though the election could well still occur on 2nd May 2024. Time passes so quickly - it has just dawned on me that such a date implies that we are as close to Polling Day as to Corbyn becoming Labour leader.That still feels fairly recent!
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not sure. maybe I'm being a bit dim but it seems to me that saying that the LDs have an even chance of winning an election in the next 500 years is not the same as saying they have a 100-1 chance in the actual next one. The actual next one handicaps them by them having no seats, no likely looking decent leader, no interesting profile, a failed election strategy and an outstanding able election machine against them in the Tories, and a not quite useless one in Labour. The even money suggestion over the next 500 years must include the possibility of them approaching a future election in a better place than they are now as a result of future actions which will take time. Their chances in 2024 or whenever look like approximately zero to me and I would not throw £10 on them, which would be better spent using a pin on Grand National day.
There's four and a half years until the next election. I'd say there's a 5% chance that it would be won by someone who isn't Labour or Conservative, and there's probably a 10-20% chance that that winner would be the LDs.
I'm not saying it's the same as "in the next 500 years", I'm saying that we actually have very few datapoints, and stable equilibriums can break down very quickly indeed.
Look at Scotland. In 2010, no seats changed hands. In 2015, almost all of them did. Look at the Eurozone countries post their crisis: you saw the rise and collapse of traditional players across the board.
I think we tend to underprice edge cases, especially ones where there are four and half years to go, because we suffer from recency bias.
So the Sanders surge is real then, tied for the lead in Iowa and with a clear lead in New Hampshire
Compared to the last YouGov poll, which was in November, the moves are:
Sanders +1% Biden +1% Buttigieg +2%
That's a truly enormous surge.
Still, its got me worried. I am so red on Bernie. I mean. Surely not? Surely the Dem base isn't that stupid?
Bernie could win Iowa and New Hampshire.
But I don't think that makes him nailed on for the nomination. For him to win requires that a great number of moderates stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, and maybe longer, which results in lots of centrist votes going wasted because they fall short of the 15% threshold.
That's not a completely implausible scenario. If California, say, were to be:
Sanders 35% Biden 20% Bloomberg 20% Buttigieg 15%
Then Sanders could easily end up with more than half the delegates. It's not *likely*. But it's certainly possible.
But if, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Booker drop out, then I don't see how Sanders wins. Those candidates votes go mostly to Biden, while only a third of Warren's vote goes to Sanders.
If Sanders wins Iowa he will also win the next 2 contests. Biden will have won only 1 before Super Tuesday.
And look at the Super Tuesday states to see who would be favoured:
Biden: Alabama, Arkansas, N.Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia Sanders: California, Utah, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas and Vermont.
The scoreboard on Super Tuesday would be Biden 5, Sanders 9 for a total of Biden 6, Sanders 12.
At that point it will be all about denying Sanders a majority of delegates, but they won't be able to stop him coming first.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
Unless the FTPA is repealed, or of course there is an intervention under the act like the last two times, the election will be 2nd May 2024. October 2024 I suggest is less likely because it would (I think) require amendment or repeal of the FTPA whereas a date before 2nd May 2024 would not.
The FTPA will be repealed.
That is the declared intention - though the election could well still occur on 2nd May 2024.
I think May/June 2023 is too early (being only three and a half years away), so I suspect even if it's repealed it will happen in May 2024.
So the Sanders surge is real then, tied for the lead in Iowa and with a clear lead in New Hampshire
Compared to the last YouGov poll, which was in November, the moves are:
Sanders +1% Biden +1% Buttigieg +2%
That's a truly enormous surge.
Still, its got me worried. I am so red on Bernie. I mean. Surely not? Surely the Dem base isn't that stupid?
Bernie could win Iowa and New Hampshire.
But I don't think that makes him nailed on for the nomination. For him to win requires that a great number of moderates stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, and maybe longer, which results in lots of centrist votes going wasted because they fall short of the 15% threshold.
That's not a completely implausible scenario. If California, say, were to be:
Sanders 35% Biden 20% Bloomberg 20% Buttigieg 15%
Then Sanders could easily end up with more than half the delegates. It's not *likely*. But it's certainly possible.
But if, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Booker drop out, then I don't see how Sanders wins. Those candidates votes go mostly to Biden, while only a third of Warren's vote goes to Sanders.
Either Bernie or Biden on course to win the nomination when they have a major health event.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
Unless the FTPA is repealed, or of course there is an intervention under the act like the last two times, the election will be 2nd May 2024. October 2024 I suggest is less likely because it would (I think) require amendment or repeal of the FTPA whereas a date before 2nd May 2024 would not.
The FTPA will be repealed.
That is the declared intention - though the election could well still occur on 2nd May 2024.
I think May/June 2023 is too early (being only three and a half years away), so I suspect even if it's repealed it will happen in May 2024.
October 2023 might also be a possibility - now that the extended run of Spring elections has been broken!
So the Sanders surge is real then, tied for the lead in Iowa and with a clear lead in New Hampshire
Compared to the last YouGov poll, which was in November, the moves are:
Sanders +1% Biden +1% Buttigieg +2%
That's a truly enormous surge.
Still, its got me worried. I am so red on Bernie. I mean. Surely not? Surely the Dem base isn't that stupid?
Bernie could win Iowa and New Hampshire.
But I don't think that makes him nailed on for the nomination. For him to win requires that a great number of moderates stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, and maybe longer, which results in lots of centrist votes going wasted because they fall short of the 15% threshold.
That's not a completely implausible scenario. If California, say, were to be:
Sanders 35% Biden 20% Bloomberg 20% Buttigieg 15%
Then Sanders could easily end up with more than half the delegates. It's not *likely*. But it's certainly possible.
But if, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Booker drop out, then I don't see how Sanders wins. Those candidates votes go mostly to Biden, while only a third of Warren's vote goes to Sanders.
If Sanders wins Iowa he will also win the next 2 contests. Biden will have won only 1 before Super Tuesday.
And look at the Super Tuesday states to see who would be favoured:
Biden: Alabama, Arkansas, N.Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia Sanders: California, Utah, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas and Vermont.
The scoreboard on Super Tuesday would be Biden 5, Sanders 9 for a total of Biden 6, Sanders 12.
At that point it will be all about denying Sanders a majority of delegates, but they won't be able to stop him coming first.
I don't agree.
I think it's important to remember it's not who wins the state, but what the margin of victory is. Delegates are awarded proportionally.
I also suspect if you "forced choice" Biden vs Sanders in California, Utah, Colorado, etc. you'd find it a very close run thing.
The ultimate issue for Sanders is that 60% of Democratic Primary voters want a moderate, and only 40% want a left winger. He needs an awful lot of people to "hold their nose". I would also point out that - as a man who had a heart attack in October - there's probably at least a 10% chance that he has another health issue on the campaign trail. You have to include that in your betting.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
Unless the FTPA is repealed, or of course there is an intervention under the act like the last two times, the election will be 2nd May 2024. October 2024 I suggest is less likely because it would (I think) require amendment or repeal of the FTPA whereas a date before 2nd May 2024 would not.
The FTPA will be repealed.
That is the declared intention - though the election could well still occur on 2nd May 2024.
I think May/June 2023 is too early (being only three and a half years away), so I suspect even if it's repealed it will happen in May 2024.
October 2023 might also be a possibility - now that the extended run of Spring elections has been broken!
Why would they dissolve after only three and a half years?
So the Sanders surge is real then, tied for the lead in Iowa and with a clear lead in New Hampshire
Compared to the last YouGov poll, which was in November, the moves are:
Sanders +1% Biden +1% Buttigieg +2%
That's a truly enormous surge.
Still, its got me worried. I am so red on Bernie. I mean. Surely not? Surely the Dem base isn't that stupid?
Bernie could win Iowa and New Hampshire.
But I don't think that makes him nailed on for the nomination. For him to win requires that a great number of moderates stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, and maybe longer, which results in lots of centrist votes going wasted because they fall short of the 15% threshold.
That's not a completely implausible scenario. If California, say, were to be:
Sanders 35% Biden 20% Bloomberg 20% Buttigieg 15%
Then Sanders could easily end up with more than half the delegates. It's not *likely*. But it's certainly possible.
But if, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Booker drop out, then I don't see how Sanders wins. Those candidates votes go mostly to Biden, while only a third of Warren's vote goes to Sanders.
Either Bernie or Biden on course to win the nomination when they have a major health event.
Who you gonna call?
Right now almost anyone can get the nomination at this point because Iowa is notoriously volatile.
Will the Boundary Changes come into force, even by 2024? They are already almost NINE YEARS overdue, thanks to Cameron being totally hoodwinked by Clegg during the so-called coalition years and failing to have the necessary determination to introduce them post the 2015 election ... a massive fail by Cameron. Yet here we are a further four and a half years down the road and there is still no mention whatsoever of these being introduced even with the Tories having an 80 seat overall majority ... what a complete and utter shambles!
How many days has Parliament been sitting since the election? Rumors are that they are going to push ahead but with 650 rather than 600, so that will require another redrawing of the boundaries.
I don't know why they don't just stick with the 600, since all the legislation and preparations are in place and ready to go... Are backbenchers really going to kick up a fuss at this stage?
Given that there's not going to be an election for five years they have the time.
I imagine that October 2024 is the latest likely date for the next election - with May the same year also being pretty likely.
Unless the FTPA is repealed, or of course there is an intervention under the act like the last two times, the election will be 2nd May 2024. October 2024 I suggest is less likely because it would (I think) require amendment or repeal of the FTPA whereas a date before 2nd May 2024 would not.
The FTPA will be repealed.
That is the declared intention - though the election could well still occur on 2nd May 2024.
I think May/June 2023 is too early (being only three and a half years away), so I suspect even if it's repealed it will happen in May 2024.
October 2023 might also be a possibility - now that the extended run of Spring elections has been broken!
Why would they dissolve after only three and a half years?
October 2023 would be almost four years - not very different to the May 2005 election having followed the June 2001 election.If the polling potents looked promising in late summer 2023 , it might prove tempting.
I think it's important to remember it's not who wins the state, but what the margin of victory is. Delegates are awarded proportionally.
I also suspect if you "forced choice" Biden vs Sanders in California, Utah, Colorado, etc. you'd find it a very close run thing.
The ultimate issue for Sanders is that 60% of Democratic Primary voters want a moderate, and only 40% want a left winger. He needs an awful lot of people to "hold their nose". I would also point out that - as a man who had a heart attack in October - there's probably at least a 10% chance that he has another health issue on the campaign trail. You have to include that in your betting.
Presidential primaries are about momentum.
If you stake your hopes on winning the 4th contest while losing the first 3 in a row, people will think you are a loser and vote for the winner.
Mr.Electability losing the first 3 contests in a row ? Perception is everything.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not worth while taking your £10.
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
With all due respect, how do I know you're good for paying out £5,000?
The fact is I won't be paying out.
I'm serious: I have a reputation for paying out on my bets. I would only enter into this bet if I thought you would pay out in the unlikely event that I won. Otherwise, I'm just giving you £50.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not worth while taking your £10.
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
With all due respect, how do I know you're good for paying out £5,000?
The fact is I won't be paying out.
I'm serious: I have a reputation for paying out on my bets. I would only enter into this bet if I thought you would pay out in the unlikely event that I won. Otherwise, I'm just giving you £50.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Anyone who thinks liberals will win are living in a fairytale.
There's no point in them existing tbh, at least labour do win occasionally.
True, but that's not the point. If you are going to bet you have to make sure you have the money to cover it and set it aside for that purpose. If you don't have the money, don't bet. @rcs1000 is correct: it is a serious thing.
I think it's important to remember it's not who wins the state, but what the margin of victory is. Delegates are awarded proportionally.
I also suspect if you "forced choice" Biden vs Sanders in California, Utah, Colorado, etc. you'd find it a very close run thing.
The ultimate issue for Sanders is that 60% of Democratic Primary voters want a moderate, and only 40% want a left winger. He needs an awful lot of people to "hold their nose". I would also point out that - as a man who had a heart attack in October - there's probably at least a 10% chance that he has another health issue on the campaign trail. You have to include that in your betting.
Presidential primaries are about momentum.
If you stake your hopes on winning the 4th contest while losing the first 3 in a row, people will think you are a loser and vote for the winner.
Mr.Electability losing the first 3 contests in a row ? Perception is everything.
I tend to agree with that, but with one big proviso.
The winner of the nomination needs to get at least 40%, and probably more like 45%, of Democratic Primary voters.
I struggle to see how Bernie gets there. It's possible, sure, especially if the centrists end up killing each other. But I think it's more likely that Buttigieg and Klobuchar and Yang and Steyer and Booker all pull out and back Biden if he's the establishment candidate*. Only really Warren and Gabbard could back Sanders. And I'm not sure Gabbard backing him is good for him!
* Of course, if Buttigieg wins Iowa, then he might be the establishment candidate.
Anyone who thinks liberals will win are living in a fairytale.
There's no point in them existing tbh, at least labour do win occasionally.
True, but that's not the point. If you are going to bet you have to make sure you have the money to cover it and set it aside for that purpose. If you don't have the money, don't bet. @rcs1000 is correct: it is a serious thing.
I own four properties, I'll have money don't worry.
You can have £100 on if you want, I'm just letting you know that you won't win.
It's the equivalent of 11 world class players playing against four Irish league players.
Betting is about probabilities.
I know there's a 98% chance I won't win. But unless I know you are capable of paying out in the event that 2% or 1.5% or even 0.1% chance comes in, then this conversation is not worth having.
Do you have £10,000 in liquid assets you could pay me in the even that you lost? Because saying "you won't win" is bullshit.
Anyone who thinks liberals will win are living in a fairytale.
There's no point in them existing tbh, at least labour do win occasionally.
True, but that's not the point. If you are going to bet you have to make sure you have the money to cover it and set it aside for that purpose. If you don't have the money, don't bet. @rcs1000 is correct: it is a serious thing.
Indeed but anyone who thinks that outcome are simply delusional.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not worth while taking your £10.
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
With all due respect, how do I know you're good for paying out £5,000?
The fact is I won't be paying out.
I'm serious: I have a reputation for paying out on my bets. I would only enter into this bet if I thought you would pay out in the unlikely event that I won. Otherwise, I'm just giving you £50.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Well lets see first at what level would the LD need to be to get most seats.
At present they would need a lead of 14% over all others under UNS to become the largest party something like 40% over 26%, realistically from the 2005-10 elections a lead of 5% would probably do, lets say 35 vs 30.
How likely is that the LD can get 35% in the next election up 24% from this one ? What are the odds for the circumstances that they will need to achieve that ?
You can have £100 on if you want, I'm just letting you know that you won't win.
It's the equivalent of 11 world class players playing against four Irish league players.
Betting is about probabilities.
I know there's a 98% chance I won't win. But unless I know you are capable of paying out in the event that 2% or 1.5% or even 0.1% chance comes in, then this conversation is not worth having.
Do you have £10,000 in liquid assets you could pay me in the even that you lost? Because saying "you won't win" is bullshit.
Anyone who thinks liberals will win are living in a fairytale.
There's no point in them existing tbh, at least labour do win occasionally.
True, but that's not the point. If you are going to bet you have to make sure you have the money to cover it and set it aside for that purpose. If you don't have the money, don't bet. @rcs1000 is correct: it is a serious thing.
I own four properties, I'll have money don't worry.
I wasn't inquiring as to your holdings and it isn't me you have to reassure. You are voluntarily entering into a contract as an adult which in the worst case will lay you open to a loss of £10,000 plus the stake of £100 if you cover @rcs1000's bet of £100 at 100/1 . Don't make the bet if you can't cover it.
Anyone who thinks liberals will win are living in a fairytale.
There's no point in them existing tbh, at least labour do win occasionally.
True, but that's not the point. If you are going to bet you have to make sure you have the money to cover it and set it aside for that purpose. If you don't have the money, don't bet. @rcs1000 is correct: it is a serious thing.
I own four properties, I'll have money don't worry.
I wasn't inquiring as to your holdings and it isn't me you have to reassure. You are voluntarily entering into a contract as an adult which in the worst case will lay you open to a loss of £50,000 or (if you cover @rcs1000's bet of £100 at 1000/1) will lay you open to a loss of £100,000 plus the stake of £100. Don't make the bet if you can't cover it.
I think Warren is value in Iowa and therefore the nomination. She isn't very far behind, people can over index on/overread 'momentum', Iowa polling has big swings, and she has a hell of an operation there.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not worth while taking your £10.
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
With all due respect, how do I know you're good for paying out £5,000?
The fact is I won't be paying out.
I'm serious: I have a reputation for paying out on my bets. I would only enter into this bet if I thought you would pay out in the unlikely event that I won. Otherwise, I'm just giving you £50.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Well lets see first at what level would the LD need to be to get most seats.
At present they would need a lead of 14% over all others under UNS to become the largest party something like 40% over 26%, realistically from the 2005-10 elections a lead of 5% would probably do, lets say 35 vs 30.
How likely is that the LD can get 35% in the next election up 24% from this one ? What are the odds for the circumstances that they will need to achieve that ?
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not worth while taking your £10.
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
With all due respect, how do I know you're good for paying out £5,000?
The fact is I won't be paying out.
I'm serious: I have a reputation for paying out on my bets. I would only enter into this bet if I thought you would pay out in the unlikely event that I won. Otherwise, I'm just giving you £50.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Well lets see first at what level would the LD need to be to get most seats.
At present they would need a lead of 14% over all others under UNS to become the largest party something like 40% over 26%, realistically from the 2005-10 elections a lead of 5% would probably do, lets say 35 vs 30.
How likely is that the LD can get 35% in the next election up 24% from this one ? What are the odds for the circumstances that they will need to achieve that ?
They're long odds. It's not a very likely scenario.
But here's the thing, what are the odds of another 2008 type economic issue in the next five years? I'd say no worse than 5-1. It might be triggered by the Eurozone. It might be triggered by our own economic imbalances. It might be triggered by war in Asia. There are many things that might trigger it.
In that event, what are the chances that someone who isn't the Conservatives or Labour win the next election?
As I said down below, I think long-term markets tend to underestimate edge scenarios. For the record I think it's probably 4 or 5x more likely that a political party that doesn't even exist yet wins the next UK General Election than the LibDems do. But 100-1, that's a solid bet. And if the LDs end up at 20+% in the polls at any point in this parliament, I'll get to lay half of it of at 25-1.
You can have £100 on if you want, I'm just letting you know that you won't win.
It's the equivalent of 11 world class players playing against four Irish league players.
Betting is about probabilities.
I know there's a 98% chance I won't win. But unless I know you are capable of paying out in the event that 2% or 1.5% or even 0.1% chance comes in, then this conversation is not worth having.
Do you have £10,000 in liquid assets you could pay me in the even that you lost? Because saying "you won't win" is bullshit.
Yes I have it but your delusional.
Why don't you just agree to send it to a trusted third party broker ahead of time?
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not worth while taking your £10.
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
With all due respect, how do I know you're good for paying out £5,000?
The fact is I won't be paying out.
I'm serious: I have a reputation for paying out on my bets. I would only enter into this bet if I thought you would pay out in the unlikely event that I won. Otherwise, I'm just giving you £50.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Well lets see first at what level would the LD need to be to get most seats.
At present they would need a lead of 14% over all others under UNS to become the largest party something like 40% over 26%, realistically from the 2005-10 elections a lead of 5% would probably do, lets say 35 vs 30.
How likely is that the LD can get 35% in the next election up 24% from this one ? What are the odds for the circumstances that they will need to achieve that ?
I think it's important to remember it's not who wins the state, but what the margin of victory is. Delegates are awarded proportionally.
I also suspect if you "forced choice" Biden vs Sanders in California, Utah, Colorado, etc. you'd find it a very close run thing.
The ultimate issue for Sanders is that 60% of Democratic Primary voters want a moderate, and only 40% want a left winger. He needs an awful lot of people to "hold their nose". I would also point out that - as a man who had a heart attack in October - there's probably at least a 10% chance that he has another health issue on the campaign trail. You have to include that in your betting.
Presidential primaries are about momentum.
If you stake your hopes on winning the 4th contest while losing the first 3 in a row, people will think you are a loser and vote for the winner.
Mr.Electability losing the first 3 contests in a row ? Perception is everything.
I tend to agree with that, but with one big proviso.
The winner of the nomination needs to get at least 40%, and probably more like 45%, of Democratic Primary voters.
I struggle to see how Bernie gets there. It's possible, sure, especially if the centrists end up killing each other. But I think it's more likely that Buttigieg and Klobuchar and Yang and Steyer and Booker all pull out and back Biden if he's the establishment candidate*. Only really Warren and Gabbard could back Sanders. And I'm not sure Gabbard backing him is good for him!
* Of course, if Buttigieg wins Iowa, then he might be the establishment candidate.
Well that reminds me of Jeb Bush in 2016 saying "if you add my numbers with yours, yours, and yours we will almost win".
At that point it's politics that whoever is first and comes that close to a majority gets the nomination to avoid an ugly split that will doom the party, that's how Obama and Hillary got it in 2008 and 2016.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not worth while taking your £10.
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
With all due respect, how do I know you're good for paying out £5,000?
The fact is I won't be paying out.
I'm serious: I have a reputation for paying out on my bets. I would only enter into this bet if I thought you would pay out in the unlikely event that I won. Otherwise, I'm just giving you £50.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Well lets see first at what level would the LD need to be to get most seats.
At present they would need a lead of 14% over all others under UNS to become the largest party something like 40% over 26%, realistically from the 2005-10 elections a lead of 5% would probably do, lets say 35 vs 30.
How likely is that the LD can get 35% in the next election up 24% from this one ? What are the odds for the circumstances that they will need to achieve that ?
They're long odds. It's not a very likely scenario.
But here's the thing, what are the odds of another 2008 type economic issue in the next five years? I'd say no worse than 5-1. It might be triggered by the Eurozone. It might be triggered by our own economic imbalances. It might be triggered by war in Asia. There are many things that might trigger it.
In that event, what are the chances that someone who isn't the Conservatives or Labour win the next election?
As I said down below, I think long-term markets tend to underestimate edge scenarios. For the record I think it's probably 4 or 5x more likely that a political party that doesn't even exist yet wins the next UK General Election than the LibDems do. But 100-1, that's a solid bet. And if the LDs end up at 20+% in the polls at any point in this parliament, I'll get to lay half of it of at 25-1.
Lib Dems 33-1 most seats is a joke, should be 5,000-1.
What odds would you give me?
What odds would you like?
Well, if you had 100-1, you would be saying (more or less) that it was a once every five hundred year event. I'd chuck £10 on that.
Not worth while taking your £10.
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
With all due respect, how do I know you're good for paying out £5,000?
The fact is I won't be paying out.
I'm serious: I have a reputation for paying out on my bets. I would only enter into this bet if I thought you would pay out in the unlikely event that I won. Otherwise, I'm just giving you £50.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Well lets see first at what level would the LD need to be to get most seats.
At present they would need a lead of 14% over all others under UNS to become the largest party something like 40% over 26%, realistically from the 2005-10 elections a lead of 5% would probably do, lets say 35 vs 30.
How likely is that the LD can get 35% in the next election up 24% from this one ? What are the odds for the circumstances that they will need to achieve that ?
Impossible.
That word does not mean what you think it does.
UUP have more chance of winning in our Easter election if it goes ahead.
It took me 60 odd minutes to realise it was an awfully boring match.
Just dreadful. The FA Cup is on its deathbed though perhaps Everton have already died.
They need to remove cups or at least remove the premier league teams.
The magic of the cup used to be that the minnows got to compete one-on-one with the leviathons. The draw offered the chance that maybe for once in their career, they could be on the pitch with the stars of the game. Once in a while, they got to beat them.
But now they only get to play the reserves - teams making 11 changes is a farce. They should only be able to make 4 changes from ther previous league team.
I'm interested to see how the European nations will react to Iran backing out of the nuclear deal completely. Will they predictably blame the US or see the deal for what it was, a sham and finally cripple the Iranian economy again with sanctions on their oil.
They're long odds. It's not a very likely scenario.
But here's the thing, what are the odds of another 2008 type economic issue in the next five years? I'd say no worse than 5-1. It might be triggered by the Eurozone. It might be triggered by our own economic imbalances. It might be triggered by war in Asia. There are many things that might trigger it.
In that event, what are the chances that someone who isn't the Conservatives or Labour win the next election?
As I said down below, I think long-term markets tend to underestimate edge scenarios. For the record I think it's probably 4 or 5x more likely that a political party that doesn't even exist yet wins the next UK General Election than the LibDems do. But 100-1, that's a solid bet. And if the LDs end up at 20+% in the polls at any point in this parliament, I'll get to lay half of it of at 25-1.
You need to think of the mechanism that would lead the LD to 35% of the vote, something like:
A. Selecting a PM material leader. B. Labour screwing up even more. C. An almighty catastrophe that both Labour and the Conservatives are implicated but not the LD. D. No other fringe party taking the protest vote.
I don't think the LD even have point A at the moment.
I'm interested to see how the European nations will react to Iran backing out of the nuclear deal completely. Will they predictably blame the US or see the deal for what it was, a sham and finally cripple the Iranian economy again with sanctions on their oil.
What nonsense. The Iran nuclear deal completely restrained Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions. The independent inspectors were reporting full compliance. It is predictable the US will be blamed because it is the US that breached the deal. You can't blame one side for leaving a deal the other side has already left!
They're long odds. It's not a very likely scenario.
But here's the thing, what are the odds of another 2008 type economic issue in the next five years? I'd say no worse than 5-1. It might be triggered by the Eurozone. It might be triggered by our own economic imbalances. It might be triggered by war in Asia. There are many things that might trigger it.
In that event, what are the chances that someone who isn't the Conservatives or Labour win the next election?
As I said down below, I think long-term markets tend to underestimate edge scenarios. For the record I think it's probably 4 or 5x more likely that a political party that doesn't even exist yet wins the next UK General Election than the LibDems do. But 100-1, that's a solid bet. And if the LDs end up at 20+% in the polls at any point in this parliament, I'll get to lay half of it of at 25-1.
You need to think of the mechanism that would lead the LD to 35% of the vote, something like:
A. Selecting a PM material leader. B. Labour screwing up even more. C. An almighty catastrophe that both Labour and the Conservatives are implicated but not the LD. D. No other fringe party taking the protest vote.
I don't think the LD even have point A at the moment.
If the LibDems get to 20% in the polls at any point this parliament, I suspect I'll be able to lay it off at 25-1.
I'm interested to see how the European nations will react to Iran backing out of the nuclear deal completely. Will they predictably blame the US or see the deal for what it was, a sham and finally cripple the Iranian economy again with sanctions on their oil.
That pipeline the UAE ran to their East coast, to bypass the Straight of Hormuz, is looking like a very good investment right now.
Anyone who thinks liberals will win are living in a fairytale.
There's no point in them existing tbh, at least labour do win occasionally.
The belief that the LibDems are SpareLabour - OK for a protest vote against the OneTrueLove (Labour) - Is deeply ingrained in the Labour party. They would do well to understand that the LibDems & the Greens are *not* The CoOp party.
I'm interested to see how the European nations will react to Iran backing out of the nuclear deal completely. Will they predictably blame the US or see the deal for what it was, a sham and finally cripple the Iranian economy again with sanctions on their oil.
Once they start murdering Iranian officials, the deal is surely off.
Imagine if Guy Verhofstadt murdered Steve Barclay and then asked for the UK what it still thought about the backstop.
Comments
I agree the lower numbers can be pretty random. Got a little each way (something like 131) on Albon to win, coming to a 26 if he's top 3.
If Ferrari screw up or Red Bull do very well, that's a Bottas vs Albon duel. And whilst Bottas should be favourite, that shouldn't be so much so that Albon's 26.
In a hypothetical matchup, I’d back Hamilton over Senna over the course of a season. Better control of his emotions, apart from anything else.
23% is a good number, but it's only equal first with Biden and Buttigieg.
He then has three specific issues to overcome:
1. He has the weakest organisation in Iowa. He has nine field offices, Biden has 17 and Buttigieg has 27. Against that, he has lots of enthusiastic young (unpaid) volunteers.
2. He's not the obvious second choice of (most) third tier candidates. If Klobuchar isn't reaching the 15% threshold in that church hall in Ankeny, then her supporters are more likely to gravitate to Biden than to Sanders.
3. His support is quite geographically concentrated around the big urban conurbations of Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and Sioux City. This matters because if he's getting 12% in Ottumwa and 30% in Cedar Rapids, then that 12% isn't going to result in any delegates. It means he'll do less well than a candidate who gets 20% in Cedar Rapids and 20% in Ottumwa.
What works in Sanders favour, though, are two things. Firstly, Warren is stuttering hard. He should be the biggest benficiary of that. Secondly, the "moderate" lane is currently very crowded. If Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg all get delegates, then it potentially allows him to slip through the middle and grab a win.
My guess, though, is that he shouldn't be favourite. I think Biden has the better organisation, and is a more natural second choice for those voters who's candidates are eliminated. Biden is also camped in Iowa right now with his "No Malarkey" tour. Finally, Iowa tends to go establishment. When was the last time a non-establishment candidate won the state?
Sanders +1%
Biden +1%
Buttigieg +2%
That's a truly enormous surge.
Some of the discussion of Labour's 2019 performance was OTT. It was a poor result certainly - but a 33% GB vote share was still well above the 28.3% of 1983 - the 29.7% of 2010 - the 31.2% of 2015 - and the 31.7% of 1987 . The post 2014 collapse in Scotland will also have knocked circa 2% off Labour's GB share - so Labour's England & Wales overall result in 2019 was substantially better in terms of vote share and seats in the rest of GB compared with the 1980s..
and it doesn't have to be mentioned in the Queen's Speech for it to be done. Relax!
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/putin-blames-poland-world-war-ii/604426/
... Only hours after the assassination of General Qassem Soleiman, Russia quietly cut off oil supplies to Belarus as economic talks collapsed, a move that went almost entirely unremarked...
A slightly odds on bet, for something that is not certain, that pays out in four and a half years time will not make you rich. And, indeed, I don't know any professional gambler who'd be piling on that.
https://twitter.com/pgreenfielduk/status/1213792841408958464?s=20
But I don't think that makes him nailed on for the nomination. For him to win requires that a great number of moderates stay in the race until at least Super Tuesday, and maybe longer, which results in lots of centrist votes going wasted because they fall short of the 15% threshold.
That's not a completely implausible scenario. If California, say, were to be:
Sanders 35%
Biden 20%
Bloomberg 20%
Buttigieg 15%
Then Sanders could easily end up with more than half the delegates. It's not *likely*. But it's certainly possible.
But if, after Iowa and New Hampshire, Klobuchar and Buttigieg and Booker drop out, then I don't see how Sanders wins. Those candidates votes go mostly to Biden, while only a third of Warren's vote goes to Sanders.
Must say I wobbled for a minute until I saw the money get hoovered by the big boys
My Dem nominee portfolio is what will be sending me to the poor house.
Anyhoo.
https://twitter.com/talkSPORT/status/1213881713425813510
Oh Lord give me strength...
If you want to put £50 + on them I'll take it off you.
Time passes so quickly - it has just dawned on me that such a date implies that we are as close to Polling Day as to Corbyn becoming Labour leader.That still feels fairly recent!
I'm not saying it's the same as "in the next 500 years", I'm saying that we actually have very few datapoints, and stable equilibriums can break down very quickly indeed.
Look at Scotland. In 2010, no seats changed hands. In 2015, almost all of them did. Look at the Eurozone countries post their crisis: you saw the rise and collapse of traditional players across the board.
I think we tend to underprice edge cases, especially ones where there are four and half years to go, because we suffer from recency bias.
Biden will have won only 1 before Super Tuesday.
And look at the Super Tuesday states to see who would be favoured:
Biden: Alabama, Arkansas, N.Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia
Sanders: California, Utah, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Texas and Vermont.
The scoreboard on Super Tuesday would be Biden 5, Sanders 9 for a total of Biden 6, Sanders 12.
At that point it will be all about denying Sanders a majority of delegates, but they won't be able to stop him coming first.
Who you gonna call?
The last 30 minutes, on the other hand...
Well done Liverpool Reserves for again proving the great man Shankly right.
Powers must be monitoring this website.
They're robbing People as usual, if one is 4-7 the other should be 5-4 or 11-8
I think it's important to remember it's not who wins the state, but what the margin of victory is. Delegates are awarded proportionally.
I also suspect if you "forced choice" Biden vs Sanders in California, Utah, Colorado, etc. you'd find it a very close run thing.
The ultimate issue for Sanders is that 60% of Democratic Primary voters want a moderate, and only 40% want a left winger. He needs an awful lot of people to "hold their nose". I would also point out that - as a man who had a heart attack in October - there's probably at least a 10% chance that he has another health issue on the campaign trail. You have to include that in your betting.
I'll wait until Feb 1st before placing bets.
You can the "IF" word but the whole world runs on ifs and buts.
Example : if England didn't invade Ireland, we wouldn't of had a war etc.
If you stake your hopes on winning the 4th contest while losing the first 3 in a row, people will think you are a loser and vote for the winner.
Mr.Electability losing the first 3 contests in a row ?
Perception is everything.
I'm betting there is more than a 1% change the LDs get most seats next time around. If you're saying that in that 1% chance, you won't pay out, then you're not someone I want to bet with.
Anyone who thinks liberals will win are living in a fairytale.
There's no point in them existing tbh, at least labour do win occasionally.
You can have £100 on if you want, I'm just letting you know that you won't win.
It's the equivalent of 11 world class players playing against four Irish league players.
The winner of the nomination needs to get at least 40%, and probably more like 45%, of Democratic Primary voters.
I struggle to see how Bernie gets there. It's possible, sure, especially if the centrists end up killing each other. But I think it's more likely that Buttigieg and Klobuchar and Yang and Steyer and Booker all pull out and back Biden if he's the establishment candidate*. Only really Warren and Gabbard could back Sanders. And I'm not sure Gabbard backing him is good for him!
* Of course, if Buttigieg wins Iowa, then he might be the establishment candidate.
I know there's a 98% chance I won't win. But unless I know you are capable of paying out in the event that 2% or 1.5% or even 0.1% chance comes in, then this conversation is not worth having.
Do you have £10,000 in liquid assets you could pay me in the even that you lost? Because saying "you won't win" is bullshit.
At present they would need a lead of 14% over all others under UNS to become the largest party something like 40% over 26%, realistically from the 2005-10 elections a lead of 5% would probably do, lets say 35 vs 30.
How likely is that the LD can get 35% in the next election up 24% from this one ?
What are the odds for the circumstances that they will need to achieve that ?
But here's the thing, what are the odds of another 2008 type economic issue in the next five years? I'd say no worse than 5-1. It might be triggered by the Eurozone. It might be triggered by our own economic imbalances. It might be triggered by war in Asia. There are many things that might trigger it.
In that event, what are the chances that someone who isn't the Conservatives or Labour win the next election?
As I said down below, I think long-term markets tend to underestimate edge scenarios. For the record I think it's probably 4 or 5x more likely that a political party that doesn't even exist yet wins the next UK General Election than the LibDems do. But 100-1, that's a solid bet. And if the LDs end up at 20+% in the polls at any point in this parliament, I'll get to lay half of it of at 25-1.
At that point it's politics that whoever is first and comes that close to a majority gets the nomination to avoid an ugly split that will doom the party, that's how Obama and Hillary got it in 2008 and 2016.
Based on how the Byronic Man feels about losing though.
Aka the worst party in the world at present.
Thx
But now they only get to play the reserves - teams making 11 changes is a farce. They should only be able to make 4 changes from ther previous league team.
I think there is a serious danger Russia tries to annex parts of the Baltics in 2020.
A. Selecting a PM material leader.
B. Labour screwing up even more.
C. An almighty catastrophe that both Labour and the Conservatives are implicated but not the LD.
D. No other fringe party taking the protest vote.
I don't think the LD even have point A at the moment.
Imagine if Guy Verhofstadt murdered Steve Barclay and then asked for the UK what it still thought about the backstop.