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.
More to the point, the US already pulled out of the deal!
On topic. The last two GEs have been realigning party support around support for Brexit. That means Brexit will be a very dealigning event with consequences for party support that are hard to predict. Put another way, what's in it for Bishop Auckland after Brexit is actually done.
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.
That is Iowa only.
In New Hampshire Sanders is +5% on the last Yougov, Biden -6%, Warren -2% and Buttigieg -3%, so overall yes indeed it is a Sanders surge with Sanders now tied for the lead in Iowa and clearly ahead now in New Hampshire.
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.
That is Iowa only.
In New Hampshire Sanders is +5% on the last Yougov, Biden -6%, Warren -2% and Buttigieg -3%, so overall yes indeed it is a Sanders surge with Sanders now tied for the lead in Iowa and clearly ahead now in New Hampshire.
I agree Sanders is surging in New Hampshire. Effectively, Warren has collapsed and it's mostly gone to Sanders.
On topic no they won't and betting that they will at odds of 4/1 is not much short of crazily skinny. So much time, so much uncertainty, so many unknown unknowns. Madness.
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?
They’re both walking health events. One looks like dementia in action. The other is death event cardiac arrest waiting to happen.
The generation which won’t fuck off despite not having an original idea in 40 years Perhaps they’ll both die quickly instead.
On topic no they won't and betting that they will at odds of 4/1 is not much short of crazily skinny. So much time, so much uncertainty, so many unknown unknowns. Madness.
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.
That is Iowa only.
In New Hampshire Sanders is +5% on the last Yougov, Biden -6%, Warren -2% and Buttigieg -3%, so overall yes indeed it is a Sanders surge with Sanders now tied for the lead in Iowa and clearly ahead now in New Hampshire.
I agree Sanders is surging in New Hampshire. Effectively, Warren has collapsed and it's mostly gone to Sanders.
This also supports your contention that much of Warren's vote goes to Sanders.
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.
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?
Gutsy, good on you. I'm actually with Machine on which of you has value, but you clearly have 'stones'.
I'd say the person staking £10k is displaying more stones on this one
They seem supremely confident though, so while I see your point I don't agree on this occasion. The person taking an almost certainly losing bet in a public manner is risking more, in a way.
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
Now is high time for one of those awful 'VI with different Lab leaders' polls which just prove people don't know how they'd react to hypotheticals. Gets to skew the market on the leadership election too, for good measure.
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!
Obviously Iran were sticking to the deal, it was hugely favourable for them. Take a few years off developing nuclear weapons and elimination of sanctions for life. The deal was crap, only those who are blinded by Trump derangement syndrome think it's a good deal.
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
That's lovely for them, but my point is it makes the question in the OP especially difficult right now. The election was a watershed event and we haven't actually had any polling yet to see if there is any movement in the coalitions that formed post-referendum.
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.
This is true. There is a huge amouny of space in not-Tory land. There is a market old fashioned liberalism, or for social democracy, and no inherent reason why those favouring either of these positions would naturally favour the Labour Party. Which makes ut even more frustrating that the Lib Dems are crowding into the same narrow identity-politics-and-ultra-Europhilia space that Labour have occupied.
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?
Obama
A fair point. Perhaps I should have said "moderate". Because neither Obama nor Clinton were on the left of the party.
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?
How did you manage to bet something already over?
Can I introduce you to the Hillary Clinton to win most votes market in the POTUS election of 2016 ?
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?
Obama
A fair point. Perhaps I should have said "moderate". Because neither Obama nor Clinton were on the left of the party.
Obama was the left wing candidate in 2008 compared to Hillary
On the face of it, I think 4-1 is quite generous; I'd put the chances of a larger majority at closer to 40% than 20%. But tying your money up for that long isn't an attractive proposition.
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
Now is high time for one of those awful 'VI with different Lab leaders' polls which just prove people don't know how they'd react to hypotheticals. Gets to skew the market on the leadership election too, for good measure.
Those 'awful' hypothetical VI with different leaders polls proved spot on in regards to Boris last summer, so if any voting intention poll is to be done that would be it
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
Now is high time for one of those awful 'VI with different Lab leaders' polls which just prove people don't know how they'd react to hypotheticals. Gets to skew the market on the leadership election too, for good measure.
Those 'awful' hypothetical VI with different leaders polls proved spot on in regards to Boris last summer, so if any voting intention poll is to be done that would be it
I think they got lucky. Remember the hypothetical polls regarding an extension?
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
That's lovely for them, but my point is it makes the question in the OP especially difficult right now. The election was a watershed event and we haven't actually had any polling yet to see if there is any movement in the coalitions that formed post-referendum.
Until a new Labour or LD leader is elected there will not be so again other than hypothetical polls straight voting intention polls now are a waste of time and money
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
Now is high time for one of those awful 'VI with different Lab leaders' polls which just prove people don't know how they'd react to hypotheticals. Gets to skew the market on the leadership election too, for good measure.
Those 'awful' hypothetical VI with different leaders polls proved spot on in regards to Boris last summer, so if any voting intention poll is to be done that would be it
What RobD said, and we don't even know if they were right or not. We'll never know how other leaders would have performed; another problem with these polls. We have no clue of their track record since they are never tested, unlike general VI polls.
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
I think Boris would be looking at a significant upward bounce.
Boris may not be my cup of tea, but in my circles everyone is raving about his post election performance. They like the jolly post Brexit optimism, and the eye-watering spending proposals.
Don't see it myself, however out there in anecdote-land Boris is bringing home the bacon.
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
That's lovely for them, but my point is it makes the question in the OP especially difficult right now. The election was a watershed event and we haven't actually had any polling yet to see if there is any movement in the coalitions that formed post-referendum.
Until a new Labour or LD leader is elected there will not be so again other than hypothetical polls straight voting intention polls now are a waste of time and money
You've changed! You were quoting the wildest poll extrapolations at one point. Fair play.to you though they weren't that far out.
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
I think Boris would be looking at a significant upward bounce.
Boris may not be my cup of tea, but in my circles everyone is raving about his post election performance. They like the jolly post Brexit optimism, and the eye-watering spending proposals.
Don't see it myself, however out there in anecdote-land Boris is bringing home the bacon.
Newspapers are no longer filled with hot-take, misery porn/over-excited but always tedious Brexit articles. You cannot underestimate the feelgood factor this generates.
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 ?
OK, it's quite unlikely, but a lot of REALLY unlikely things have happened recently, so I'll join in. The Liberals then the LibDems always do best against a Tory government that has been in power for a long time and where the Labour leader is not too awful and not too charismatic. That's a possible and even quite likely scenario. A new party could appear and be able to take advantage of the others unpopularity but after the SDP, TIGgers and even TBP (in FPTP elections) I think that's unlikely - unless they have a pact with the Libdems. The LibDems do have an organisation on the ground and now have a number of near misses and a great many more 2nd places. Would they even need 35%? I think they'd need something close to that but it would depend how it's distributed. 100 to 1 is probably as good a guess as any, but ..... “I hate to lose more than I love to win.” -Jimmy Connors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
On the face of it, I think 4-1 is quite generous; I'd put the chances of a larger majority at closer to 40% than 20%. But tying your money up for that long isn't an attractive proposition.
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
Now is high time for one of those awful 'VI with different Lab leaders' polls which just prove people don't know how they'd react to hypotheticals. Gets to skew the market on the leadership election too, for good measure.
Those 'awful' hypothetical VI with different leaders polls proved spot on in regards to Boris last summer, so if any voting intention poll is to be done that would be it
I think they got lucky. Remember the hypothetical polls regarding an extension?
Irrelevant because Boris of course refused to ask for the extension just sent a photocopy of the Benn Act
Quite rightly, a complete waste of pollsters money with at least 4 years until the next general election and the new Labour leader not elected.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
Now is high time for one of those awful 'VI with different Lab leaders' polls which just prove people don't know how they'd react to hypotheticals. Gets to skew the market on the leadership election too, for good measure.
Those 'awful' hypothetical VI with different leaders polls proved spot on in regards to Boris last summer, so if any voting intention poll is to be done that would be it
What RobD said, and we don't even know if they were right or not. We'll never know how other leaders would have performed; another problem with these polls. We have no clue of their track record since they are never tested, unlike general VI polls.
Wrong, the hypothetical polls compared a Boris led Tories v a Corbyn led Labour and were spot on, indeed more so than the actual voting intention polls at the time in predicting the general election result
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?
Obama
A fair point. Perhaps I should have said "moderate". Because neither Obama nor Clinton were on the left of the party.
Obama was the left wing candidate in 2008 compared to Hillary
Obama supported NAFTA, while a Hilary opposed it (or wanted to change it) so I think it's more complicated than that.
On the face of it, I think 4-1 is quite generous; I'd put the chances of a larger majority at closer to 40% than 20%. But tying your money up for that long isn't an attractive proposition.
Yes the time aspect is key.
But don't agree with 40% or anything close.
Perfect storm this time.
Are you thinking it can't get any worse for Labour? I can think of plenty of ways in which it can: - Unfavourable boundary reviews. - Ian Lavery - Rebecca Long Bailey - Labour losing Remainers who'd voted Labour solely in order to Remain - Continuation of long term trends in small town England. - SDP Mk 2 - Some other sort of Black Swan
You might reasonably argue that none of these will happen and everything instead will go wrong for the Tories, and that well might be the case. But Labour have a lot of banana skins to avoid between now and 2024, and I'm therefore surprised by your confidence.
Where would you price Laura Pidcock to be the next PM?
The last MP to have lost their seat to go on to become PM was Harold Macmillan in 1957. Before that it was Churchill, then Macdonald, and offhand I cannot think of anyone else. The last one even to make it as far as LotO was Foot in 1980.
So I am going to go with about 6% chance in theory, less in practice. Call it 20-1.
Or alternatively, the triumph of adulation over experience.
Where would you price Laura Pidcock to be the next PM?
The last MP to have lost their seat to go on to become PM was Harold Macmillan in 1957. Before that it was Churchill, then Macdonald, and offhand I cannot think of anyone else. The last one even to make it as far as LotO was Foot in 1980.
So I am going to go with about 6% chance in theory, less in practice. Call it 20-1.
Or alternatively, the triumph of adulation over experience.
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?
Obama
A fair point. Perhaps I should have said "moderate". Because neither Obama nor Clinton were on the left of the party.
Obama was the left wing candidate in 2008 compared to Hillary
Obama supported NAFTA, while a Hilary opposed it (or wanted to change it) so I think it's more complicated than that.
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.
This is true. There is a huge amouny of space in not-Tory land. There is a market old fashioned liberalism, or for social democracy, and no inherent reason why those favouring either of these positions would naturally favour the Labour Party. Which makes ut even more frustrating that the Lib Dems are crowding into the same narrow identity-politics-and-ultra-Europhilia space that Labour have occupied.
I must have missed that, Mr Cookie. When did Labour take up a Europhilia position?
This was Cummings from 2 years ago....but he basically lays out how he has just run the GE campaign (again)...down to leaving all the advertising to the last minute and only spending it once they had AB tested the message and got enough data who to fire at.
This was Cummings from 2 years ago....but he basically lays out how he has just run the GE campaign (again)...down to leaving all the advertising to the last minute and only spending it once they had AB tested the message and got enough data who to fire at.
How does this work when something like 1/5th of all votes are now postal votes and will have been cast before this final splurge? Do you simply assume that those who cast their votes in this way are very unlikely to have their minds changed?
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?
Obama
A fair point. Perhaps I should have said "moderate". Because neither Obama nor Clinton were on the left of the party.
Obama was the left wing candidate in 2008 compared to Hillary
Obama supported NAFTA, while a Hilary opposed it (or wanted to change it) so I think it's more complicated than that.
Starmer finally comes clean on his own position, and sells out those who wanted to remain. He s no better than the rest of the Labour leadership.
Those who want to remain - as I did - have lost. Those who were foolish enough to try and prevent us leaving have made any other outcome untenable. It is now time to deal with the world as it is, not the world as we would have liked it to be. That is what Starmer is doing and given he would rightly be attacked for being totally delusional if he had said the opposite, it is unfair to criticise him for it.
If the Dems hadn’t so rashly gone for an unattainable impeachment, right now they would have all the evidence they needed to invoke the 25th Amendment.
Where would you price Laura Pidcock to be the next PM?
The last MP to have lost their seat to go on to become PM was Harold Macmillan in 1957. Before that it was Churchill, then Macdonald, and offhand I cannot think of anyone else. The last one even to make it as far as LotO was Foot in 1980.
So I am going to go with about 6% chance in theory, less in practice. Call it 20-1.
Or alternatively, the triumph of adulation over experience.
If the Dems hadn’t so rashly gone for an unattainable impeachment, right now they would have all the evidence they needed to invoke the 25th Amendment.
The 25th could have been invoked for so many of Trump's actions over the last three years, it has not and even as we wander around in a Mad Max- like dystopia, there will be people in what is left of Alabama contesting that irradiating the world was the act of a great American patriot.
If the Dems hadn’t so rashly gone for an unattainable impeachment, right now they would have all the evidence they needed to invoke the 25th Amendment.
The 25th could have been invoked for so many of Trump's actions over the last three years, it has not and even as we wander around in a Mad Max- like dystopia, there will be people in what is left of Alabama contesting that irradiating the world was an act of a great American patriot.
And yes impeachment is very silly.
The 25th doesn't work. It is clearly flawed as it relies on Trump's handpicked Cabinet.
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?
Obama
A fair point. Perhaps I should have said "moderate". Because neither Obama nor Clinton were on the left of the party.
Obama was the left wing candidate in 2008 compared to Hillary
Obama supported NAFTA, while a Hilary opposed it (or wanted to change it) so I think it's more complicated than that.
Starmer finally comes clean on his own position, and sells out those who wanted to remain. He s no better than the rest of the Labour leadership.
Those who want to remain - as I did - have lost. Those who were foolish enough to try and prevent us leaving have made any other outcome untenable. It is now time to deal with the world as it is, not the world as we would have liked it to be. That is what Starmer is doing and given he would rightly be attacked for being totally delusional if he had said the opposite, it is unfair to criticise him for it.
Not at all. Starmer is an unprincipled opportunist. How else would anybody describe him?
Starmer finally comes clean on his own position, and sells out those who wanted to remain. He s no better than the rest of the Labour leadership.
Those who want to remain - as I did - have lost. Those who were foolish enough to try and prevent us leaving have made any other outcome untenable. It is now time to deal with the world as it is, not the world as we would have liked it to be. That is what Starmer is doing and given he would rightly be attacked for being totally delusional if he had said the opposite, it is unfair to criticise him for it.
Not at all. Starmer is an unprincipled opportunist. How else would anybody describe him?
If the Dems hadn’t so rashly gone for an unattainable impeachment, right now they would have all the evidence they needed to invoke the 25th Amendment.
The 25th could have been invoked for so many of Trump's actions over the last three years, it has not and even as we wander around in a Mad Max- like dystopia, there will be people in what is left of Alabama contesting that irradiating the world was an act of a great American patriot.
And yes impeachment is very silly.
The 25th doesn't work. It is clearly flawed as it relies on Trump's handpicked Cabinet.
As far as I can see most of the checks and balances that are meant to restrain the executive in the US are effectively useless.
Starmer finally comes clean on his own position, and sells out those who wanted to remain. He s no better than the rest of the Labour leadership.
Those who want to remain - as I did - have lost. Those who were foolish enough to try and prevent us leaving have made any other outcome untenable. It is now time to deal with the world as it is, not the world as we would have liked it to be. That is what Starmer is doing and given he would rightly be attacked for being totally delusional if he had said the opposite, it is unfair to criticise him for it.
Not at all. Starmer is an unprincipled opportunist. How else would anybody describe him?
What he says (in the linked article) that Boris Johnson getting an 80 seat majority on the basis of "Get Brexit Done" means that Brexit is going to be done.
Not sure how that is betraying anything. Unless people think passing their glass of port over the finger bowl every time The Loyal Toast is drunk is more sensible, or something.
Starmer finally comes clean on his own position, and sells out those who wanted to remain. He s no better than the rest of the Labour leadership.
Those who want to remain - as I did - have lost. Those who were foolish enough to try and prevent us leaving have made any other outcome untenable. It is now time to deal with the world as it is, not the world as we would have liked it to be. That is what Starmer is doing and given he would rightly be attacked for being totally delusional if he had said the opposite, it is unfair to criticise him for it.
Not at all. Starmer is an unprincipled opportunist. How else would anybody describe him?
If the Dems hadn’t so rashly gone for an unattainable impeachment, right now they would have all the evidence they needed to invoke the 25th Amendment.
The 25th could have been invoked for so many of Trump's actions over the last three years, it has not and even as we wander around in a Mad Max- like dystopia, there will be people in what is left of Alabama contesting that irradiating the world was an act of a great American patriot.
And yes impeachment is very silly.
The 25th doesn't work. It is clearly flawed as it relies on Trump's handpicked Cabinet.
As far as I can see most of the checks and balances that are meant to restrain the executive in the US are effectively useless.
Seems to rely on men or women of honour and duty being in these positions. Hmmm...
If the Dems hadn’t so rashly gone for an unattainable impeachment, right now they would have all the evidence they needed to invoke the 25th Amendment.
The 25th could have been invoked for so many of Trump's actions over the last three years, it has not and even as we wander around in a Mad Max- like dystopia, there will be people in what is left of Alabama contesting that irradiating the world was an act of a great American patriot.
And yes impeachment is very silly.
The 25th doesn't work. It is clearly flawed as it relies on Trump's handpicked Cabinet.
Not necessarily. Under the terms of the amendment it is at least arguable Congress could appoint a medical panel to judge it.
But boasting about planning a war crime live on Twitter after blowing somebody up to show he could is all the evidence we need that he has truly gone insane.
Is this the same Paul Mason whose head was firmly lodged in Corbyn's anal cavity since 2014? Perhaps that is why he was so unaware of the chaos surrounding Corbyn.
Starmer finally comes clean on his own position, and sells out those who wanted to remain. He s no better than the rest of the Labour leadership.
Those who want to remain - as I did - have lost. Those who were foolish enough to try and prevent us leaving have made any other outcome untenable. It is now time to deal with the world as it is, not the world as we would have liked it to be. That is what Starmer is doing and given he would rightly be attacked for being totally delusional if he had said the opposite, it is unfair to criticise him for it.
Not at all. Starmer is an unprincipled opportunist. How else would anybody describe him?
Former Head of the CPS?
He was appointed - by whom? Friends and relations? - to occupy an important administrative post. OK, so far perhaps. How did he do there? Has there ever been a proper appraisal of his achievements? If I remember correctly, the latest incumbent has been showered with honours, despite reports that she was singularly useless.
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?
Obama
A fair point. Perhaps I should have said "moderate". Because neither Obama nor Clinton were on the left of the party.
Obama was the left wing candidate in 2008 compared to Hillary
Obama supported NAFTA, while a Hilary opposed it (or wanted to change it) so I think it's more complicated than that.
Trump also opposed NAFTA
I don't think that affects my point.
It does, support for NAFTA is not a left/right issue, but a populist v globalist one, to some extent like Brexit
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.
This is true. There is a huge amouny of space in not-Tory land. There is a market old fashioned liberalism, or for social democracy, and no inherent reason why those favouring either of these positions would naturally favour the Labour Party. Which makes ut even more frustrating that the Lib Dems are crowding into the same narrow identity-politics-and-ultra-Europhilia space that Labour have occupied.
I must have missed that, Mr Cookie. When did Labour take up a Europhilia position?
Fair point, Clippo: on reflection I am thinking of some in the Laboir Party here, typified by Emily Thornberry. I accept that post-election many Labour MPs are now taking the view that it is time to move on. Though the dice are still in the air here!
If the Dems hadn’t so rashly gone for an unattainable impeachment, right now they would have all the evidence they needed to invoke the 25th Amendment.
Firstly the one in no way blocks the other, secondly it wouldn't be the Dems who needed evidence, it would be Pence and Trump's cabinet, and they haven't just learned anything about Trump they didn't already know.
Starmer finally comes clean on his own position, and sells out those who wanted to remain. He s no better than the rest of the Labour leadership.
Alternatively, he's seen that his previous position is no longer viable.
Although, having punted it so vociferously for years, it inevitably leads to questions on his judgement.....
It reads to me like an admission that his side has lost and discusses what to do next?
What else can Labour do - pretend there is no Brexit? Launch a court case to demand... what? At this point the only thing that will stop Brexit is an unusually argumentative meteorite, or a coup. Even WWIII probably won't.
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.
This is true. There is a huge amouny of space in not-Tory land. There is a market old fashioned liberalism, or for social democracy, and no inherent reason why those favouring either of these positions would naturally favour the Labour Party. Which makes ut even more frustrating that the Lib Dems are crowding into the same narrow identity-politics-and-ultra-Europhilia space that Labour have occupied.
I must have missed that, Mr Cookie. When did Labour take up a Europhilia position?
Fair point, Clippo: on reflection I am thinking of some in the Laboir Party here, typified by Emily Thornberry. I accept that post-election many Labour MPs are now taking the view that it is time to move on. Though the dice are still in the air here!
...and it could still fall with the face that states Ian Lavery uppermost.
Ah. And who are the Lexit deadbeats - McCluskey? Must admit, I thought I had a handle on left-wing sub-factions, but I'm feeling a little out of my depth here.
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?
Obama
A fair point. Perhaps I should have said "moderate". Because neither Obama nor Clinton were on the left of the party.
Obama was the left wing candidate in 2008 compared to Hillary
Obama supported NAFTA, while a Hilary opposed it (or wanted to change it) so I think it's more complicated than that.
Trump also opposed NAFTA
I don't think that affects my point.
It does, support for NAFTA is not a left/right issue, but a populist v globalist one, to some extent like Brexit
I think you'd find support for NAFTA correlates pretty strongly with other centrist views. But feel free to argue the point of you like.
Comments
In New Hampshire Sanders is +5% on the last Yougov, Biden -6%, Warren -2% and Buttigieg -3%, so overall yes indeed it is a Sanders surge with Sanders now tied for the lead in Iowa and clearly ahead now in New Hampshire.
The generation which won’t fuck off despite not having an original idea in 40 years Perhaps they’ll both die quickly instead.
Happy to agree they both show guts.
The pollsters also had quite a good general election in terms of accuracy and are in no means to spoil it
Do you have twitter or Facebook?
Which makes ut even more frustrating that the Lib Dems are crowding into the same narrow identity-politics-and-ultra-Europhilia space that Labour have occupied.
For the header - bigger Con majority next time.
Boris may not be my cup of tea, but in my circles everyone is raving about his post election performance. They like the jolly post Brexit optimism, and the eye-watering spending proposals.
Don't see it myself, however out there in anecdote-land Boris is bringing home the bacon.
Where would you price Laura Pidcock to be the next PM?
The Liberals then the LibDems always do best against a Tory government that has been in power for a long time and where the Labour leader is not too awful and not too charismatic. That's a possible and even quite likely scenario.
A new party could appear and be able to take advantage of the others unpopularity but after the SDP, TIGgers and even TBP (in FPTP elections) I think that's unlikely - unless they have a pact with the Libdems.
The LibDems do have an organisation on the ground and now have a number of near misses and a great many more 2nd places. Would they even need 35%? I think they'd need something close to that but it would depend how it's distributed.
100 to 1 is probably as good a guess as any, but .....
“I hate to lose more than I love to win.” -Jimmy Connors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion
But don't agree with 40% or anything close.
Perfect storm this time.
https://eutoday.net/news/politics/2020/brexit-election-blew-away-the-argument-for-a-second-referendum-says-keir-starmer?fbclid=IwAR1yVtfuWfm7RhubPIMU7JCahNCVO0ry2f-LmsE5BS-TAAbeopwWr0GqBo8
- Unfavourable boundary reviews.
- Ian Lavery
- Rebecca Long Bailey
- Labour losing Remainers who'd voted Labour solely in order to Remain
- Continuation of long term trends in small town England.
- SDP Mk 2
- Some other sort of Black Swan
You might reasonably argue that none of these will happen and everything instead will go wrong for the Tories, and that well might be the case. But Labour have a lot of banana skins to avoid between now and 2024, and I'm therefore surprised by your confidence.
So I am going to go with about 6% chance in theory, less in practice. Call it 20-1.
Or alternatively, the triumph of adulation over experience.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDbRxH9Kiy4
Someone wants to play with his nukes.
Tillotson called Trump a moron, predominantly because POTUS was sketchy on the consequences of their use.
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1213764043636461568
And yes impeachment is very silly.
Who sent her child to private school, despite insisting everyone else use the state system.
describe him?
Not sure how that is betraying anything. Unless people think passing their glass of port over the finger bowl every time The Loyal Toast is drunk is more sensible, or something.
But boasting about planning a war crime live on Twitter after blowing somebody up to show he could is all the evidence we need that he has truly gone insane.
What else can Labour do - pretend there is no Brexit? Launch a court case to demand... what? At this point the only thing that will stop Brexit is an unusually argumentative meteorite, or a coup. Even WWIII probably won't.