Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg’s high budget WH2020 campaign will continue against
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg’s high budget WH2020 campaign will continue against Trump even if he fails to win the nomination
In a move that steps up to even greater levels the amount being spent on the WH20202 campaign multi-billionaire and contender Mike Bloomberg has announced that his entire campaign organisation will be put at the disposal of whoever the nominee is should it fail to be him.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
On the other hand, he deals in the world of facts and reality, while Donald Trump just spouts any old nonsense, so it wouldn't necessarily be a fair fight. (The famous debating with a pigeon comes to mind.)
he's got the right to do so.
She said a “citizens’ assembly”, similar to the Irish model that proposed new abortion laws, could allow ordinary people to work out how a better system could be funded.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/10/jess-phillips-people-would-pay-more-tax-for-decent-social-care
This stupid idea of a citizens' assembly again. We elect MPs to represent us, listen to experts and form policy. This is again a very complex issue. We should instead be learning from the experience of having for example Prof Webb doing pensions i.e. an genuine expert in the role in which they are extremely well versed.
How to fund a social care policy is incredibly complex, requiring understanding of some many factors.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/10/xr-extinction-rebellion-listed-extremist-ideology-police-prevent-scheme-guidance
Quite right...they should add ethical vegan lot on there as well. Killing all the bees for their almond milk.
In any event, if the question is "should the monarchy be scaled back?" that isn't really appropriate for a referendum at all - it's a discussion with the Palace based partly on budgetary matters.
If the question is the more radical "should we call it a day (presumably after the Queen is gone)?" then it's only worth a referendum if it is plausible that public opinion is stable and close to or over 50% "yes". Personally, I'd be a "yes" but am under no illusion that more than about 30% are with me so wouldn't suggest wasting political capital (and public money) on the issue. If Lewis' end-game is abolition, then he should be honest about it... and seek to convince people like me who are broadly sympathetic that it wouldn't be a massive waste of time and effort pursuing it.
I don't know why they are even bothering with the Deputy election. Rayner will take this by a landslide.
And the institutions that built America will survive four years of Bernie. They may not survive another four years Trump.
Also, if that was his game he'd not go through the Democratic primary process at all. It just isn't credible to run as an independent off the back of LOSING the nomination contest as he's immediately a bad loser. Whereas he could conceivably step in as a third party candidate if he stayed out of the nomination process, the Democrats chose a weak candidate who looked destined to lose, and he was stepping in "for the good of the nation".
I think he appreciates that, and his objective is exactly as it appears - either win outright or win enough delegates to have a shout in a brokered convention. Either way, he'll be Democratic candidate or not a candidate at all.
You can't keep a good man down.
"The attempts at humour came from the script. Jeremy Vine read the script from the autocue. He read it in the tone in which it was written. If it told him to roll his eyes he did. It did not require any particular skill or experience to do that."
This has potentially important consequences both for the Beeb and for the presenters it employs.
A referendum is useful on something politically neutral but a moral judgement, or when the government is wholeheartedly in favour of a constitutional change and wishes to get affirmation from the people. But not when most of the government don’t want the proposed change.
And I never thought I’d be able to say that
Mark Chapman presenting Match of the Day on Sunday is on a fraction of the pay Gary Lineker gets for MOTD on a Saturday. Their jobs are even more similar than Ahmed and Vine. Can Chapman now claim millions?
What about two footballers in the same team playing the same number of games? They are doing the same job, working the same hours etc. But it would be completely ludicrous to pay every player the same.
Polls in 2016 had Trump winning by around 5% on average, but actually Cruz took it by 3% and Rubio was overperformed by a good 6 or 7%. The Democrat one was better (in essentially a simpler two-horse race), although Sanders was quite a lot closer to Clinton than the polling suggested. In 2012, Santorum won the Republican caucus despite ALL polls in the immediate run up having him in 3rd (even in 4th in a couple).
The point here is that the BBC probably could have justified the difference in pay. It isn't at all impossible to have pay scales whereby you save your "A list" based on proven audience appeal (e.g. record in building audience for radio shows etc) for BBC One, and pay accordingly. But the BBC hadn't done that - they were retrospectively saying "we didn't have a proper pay scale... but if we had, it'd be exactly as it was". That wasn't credible.
The BBC certainly have a big problem with this, though. Presenter salaries have been based on negotiation, agents etc, rather than on a system that applies across the organisation. So it's very patchy - people are paid radically different amounts for similar roles. From what I've heard from those who should know, it's also not exclusively an issue with presenters - the BBC has been poor on ensuring consistency and defensibility in pay levels in all roles.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568334/Those-promise-free-lunch-eat-breakfast-Bloomberg-brands-Trump-Sanders-demagogues-calls-White-House.html
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1215689824193196035
Citizens` Assemblies is a mechanism which could in principle be used in an attempt to supplement or bypass democracy. For example, Extinction Rebellion advocates strongly for CAs because it recognises that democracy (whether direct or representative) will never tackle the planet`s environmental woes - which are human-caused and turkeys don`t vote for Christmas blah blah.
ER`s CAs would not be made up of random electorate (that could be counter-productive to their aims), rather they would be made up of scientists, naturalists and environmental campaigners.
Their view - and mine - is that business as usual is not even slightly able to produce the change that is needed. Something drastic has to be done to ameliorate the shocking loss of biodiversity and wild habitat, and ER is at least coming up with something which would have a real effect if global cooperation were achieved alongside.
I know ER is hated by many (I disagree with some of their antics) but they are not looking for popularity.
His 635 votes was indeed derisory compared with any of the other MPs who stood for new parties or as independents. Frank Field got over 7,000. Hell, even the disgraced and unpleasant John Browne picked up over 3,000 in Winchester in 1992. I struggle to understand how low Williamson's stock must have been in his constituency to get not even close to 2% - it's pathetic.
I assume the decision on this at the moment, is based on whether the programme is conceived in-house or pitched to them by a production company in the first place.
But yes, it does sound like their £500k a year ‘head of people’ hasn’t got anything like a formal pay structure in place.
That’s the whole thing about our electoral system. If you show a willingness to vote for a party in power, and even more so if that willingness to vote actually will result in changing the election results, then parties will actually pay attention to you.
But you’re still wrong.
Does anybody know what does GTTO stand for?
That sort of language is preaching to the choir, and Labour badly need to move away from it. They need those people who deserted them for the Conservatives, and quite a few more too, to switch blue to red. That requires the language of "offering an alternative" and "rebuilding trust".
Even if you're a convinced socialist and believe these things need to be done by finding new ways to make a radical agenda feel relevant and appealing, rather than by watering it down, the language currently being used is almost designed to repel voters.
I accept it's tougher to deal with this when you're looking at "stars" and a slightly amorphous sense of charisma and public appeal, rather than seniority, or defined responsibilities. But there are things you can do, either by having grades or saying "this is an important programme and will pay £x per episode... but we WILL interview for it and be willing to defend the choice".
Are you going to apologize for the fake news you put out on Wednesday that Mike was going to run as an Indy to spike Bernie if Bernie got the Dem Nom?
Apologize to ME, I mean, because (i) you know how much it means to me that Trump loses, and (ii) you wrote it with such authority and gravitas that I ended up half believing it - against my better judgement - and thus had not one but TWO nights of poor sleep.
If you are big enough to say sorry, I am big enough to not only forgive but forget.
Forgive me if I don't sign up for that.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/were-royal-disrupters-prince-harry-110900975.html
Prince Harry meanwhile is looking to style his new life on Obama's post White House career, with philanthropic causes, speeches, book deals and making documentaries in the mix
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/oprah-denies-helping-prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-build-new-role-they-dont-need-my-advice-on-breaking-free/ar-BBYP3p7?li=AA59G2
Public service institutions do not usually have to deal with questions such as this (slight caveat to RBS when nationalized). But yes, like you say, there are things the BBC can do to meet the challenge and hopefully they are now doing them. If so they should be less likely to find themselves at the wrong end of actions such as this one.
Bloomberg has called Sanders 'a demagogue' and technically Sanders is not a Democrat but a socialist independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Note this statement was also made by Bloomberg's campaign manager, not Bloomberg himself with the aim of making Bloomberg seem like a loyal Democrat ahead of the primaries
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3568334/Those-promise-free-lunch-eat-breakfast-Bloomberg-brands-Trump-Sanders-demagogues-calls-White-House.html
Angela Rayner - Being salt of the earth is like being funny or hard. If you say "I am X", your are not X.
It means no meaningfull media campaigning as the trial will drown it, the Senators have to choose between being at the trial and try to use it as a platform on CNN or campaigning locally.
https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/stormont-deal-live-updates-parties-17534587
I wonder whether Ahmed's own lawyer genuinely believed that, had the sexes or jobs been swapped, then the nasty sexist BBC would have swapped the pay disparity around too? My guess, though this is only a guess, is that the legal team knew that sex was unlikely to have been the primary motivation for the gap in pay, but realised the BBC would be unable to effectively rebut the claim so it was worth a shot. (And for almost a million quid, it was!)
Diehard Tories are enjoying their ‘we are the masters now’ moment, which entails way too much certainty to do any such thing.
It may persist for some time.
Jess Phillips got a fair write-up in the Standard this evening. Clearly, her anti-Corbyn comments have been well received and while Osborne (or whoever) wanted her to go a lot further on for instance Labour's relationship with the Unions, that can't claim until (or if) she wins.
That's the thing - leadership candidates can't be seen to be too strong a break from the past - it's something they can work on once elected.
On the day U.S. forces killed Soleimani, they launched another secret operation targeting a senior Iranian official in Yemen
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/on-the-day-us-forces-killed-soleimani-they-launched-another-secret-operation-targeting-a-senior-iranian-official-in-yemen/2020/01/10/60f86dbc-3245-11ea-898f-eb846b7e9feb_story.html
The unsuccessful operation may indicate that the Trump administration’s killing of Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani last week was part of a broader operation than previously explained, raising questions about whether the mission was designed to cripple the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or solely to prevent an imminent attack on Americans as originally stated.
U.S. military operations in Yemen, where a civil war has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, are shrouded in secrecy. U.S. officials said the operation against Shahlai remains highly classified, and many declined to offer details other than to say it was not successful...
Labour Leader Elections : Current Standings.
Starmer - 66% chance of being next Labour leader - 15% chance of being next PM - ratio 4.3:1
Long Bailey - 16% Labour leader - 4.1% PM - ratio 4.0:1
Nandy - 12% Labour leader - 2.8% PM - ratio 4.3:1
(PM numbers are very approximate for Long Bailey and Nandy because there's a sizable gap between the back- and lay-prices.)
The first thing that surprised me is that Long Bailey's ratio isn't higher than Starmer's/Nandy's, given the widespread perception that she would be unelectable.
The other thing is the implication that whoever wins will have a 25% chance, at best, of being next PM. The implied probability of Labour forming a government after the next general election is probably a bit higher, because there's a non-negligible chance of Johnson being replaced by Tory before the election, or of Labour having another leadership contest first. On the other hand, the latter also gives a path for a loser of this contest to be next PM. It's also possible that the next Labour leader could narrowly lose the next election, stay on, and be next PM anyway.
Let's say that the implied chance of Labour forming a government after the next election is 30%, or maybe a little more. That seems low to me. Despite Labour's dire position, they probably only need the Tories to lose about 60 seats for that to happen.
Although the Betfair exchange has a Next General Election market, no serious bets have been placed, and also there isn't a "government after election" market.
If they're like this when they lose the argument one dreads to think how torrid things would get if they were ever to win it.