politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In spite of Trump’s impeachment problems punters give the Repu

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In spite of Trump’s impeachment problems punters give the Republicans a 54% chance of retaining the White House

What is absolutely certain the top political betting event of 2020 will be November’s US presidential election. Currently the incumbent. Mr Trump, is going through his impeachment trial at the US Senate while presidential hopefuls are going into the final phases of their campaign in the first state to vote on the Democratic nomination – Iowa with its caucuses on February 3rd.

Read the full story here

bigjohnowls

1st like Sanders

HYUFD

As the Republicans control the Senate, no surprise that Trump will likely avoid conviction.

Despite his relatively low approval ratings the fact that you have to go back to 1980 to find an incumbent president who was defeated after only 1 term of his party in the White House (when the 69 year old Reagan beat Carter, perhaps disputing OGH's point) suggests the odd still favour Trump given the relatively weak Democratic field

Philip_Thompson

FPT

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

You're talking nonsense.

I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.

If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?

I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.

By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.

Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.

That's moronic. In theory you are free to jump off Beachy Head. But we here on PB need proof.

We have said that we want to exercise our sovereignty, you keep claiming we were always sovereign because we could leave, which is not the same thing.

If you want to swap sovereignty with jumping off Beachy Head then fine. If we say we want to jump off Beachy Head and you keep chipping in with "you always could jump off Beachy Head" then that's not an answer or a reason not to do so. If we decide we want to jump off Beachy Head the only way to do so is to jump. Being able to jump in theory is not jumping in practice.

If you want to argue that's a bad idea go ahead. Don't keep chipping in with "well you can" as an argument against doing so.

bigjohnowls

HYUFD said:

As the Republicans control the Senate, no surprise that Trump will likely avoid conviction.

Despite his relatively low approval ratings the fact that you have to go back to 1980 to find an incumbent president who was defeated after only 1 term of his party in the White House (when the 69 year old Reagan beat Carter, perhaps disputing OGH's point) suggests the odd still favour Trump given the relatively weak Democratic field

I think you are rnght

edmundintokyo

Agree with Mike on both counts. I guess punters are spooked by last time when Trump won despite a polling deficit, but as we saw with Corbyn history doesn't really repeat like that.

kinabalu

Trump can be laid at 1.86 atm. It's a great bet IMO. Unfortunately I'm well short of him at an average 2.25. Opposite of smug city. But I'm not worried. Just laying him for a bit more right now. The American people will not do something so ludicrous again. I have faith in them.

Philip_Thompson

edmundintokyo said:

Agree with Mike on both counts. I guess punters are spooked by last time when Trump won despite a polling deficit, but as we saw with Corbyn history doesn't really repeat like that.

First term Presidents normally win a second election though, especially when its the first term for their party. Exceptionally rare for a Party in America to lose the White House then regain it at the first time of asking. As far as I'm aware Carter was the only time that happened since the 19th Century (Grover Cleveland)

kinabalu

FPT -

Sandpit said:

The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.

This is human nature. If you are highly invested in the argument that something (e.g. Brexit) is wrong, you will wish to be proved correct. The same applies with committed supporters of Tory and Labour. Me, for example. I will not be best pleased if the country - and particularly the less affluent - do stonkingly well under this Tory administration unless it can be seen that this has occurred due to them following Labour type policies (e.g. big government spending on the North). Exactly the same in reverse would have applied to true blue Tories if Corbyn and Labour had got into power. They would have been rooting for the radical left policies to fail abjectly. Of course most on both sides will deny this. They will say that they want all to go well even if their opponents are in charge. It's a white lie. This too is human nature.

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

Trump can be laid at 1.86 atm. It's a great bet IMO. Unfortunately I'm well short of him at an average 2.25. Opposite of smug city. But I'm not worried. Just laying him for a bit more right now. The American people will not do something so ludicrous again. I have faith in them.

I don't. I'm afraid of the result. Especially with the Democrats looking like they'll be self-indulgent. Their priority should be to be pick someone the midwest and "flyover states" can back, someone fresh like the former governor of Arkansas was at the time, they're not doing so.

edmundintokyo

HYUFD said:

given the relatively weak Democratic field

I think the Dem field is pretty strong. Biden is popular and reassuring, Bernie is too far left but has quite good ratings, Buttigeig is talented and won't break through unless he turns out to be good enough, KLOBUCHAR would beat Trump to death with a stapler. I think they'd be unwise to run Warren, and I don't think they will, but she also has talent.

Biden and Bernie are too old, but so is Trump.

Philip_Thompson

edmundintokyo said:

HYUFD said:

given the relatively weak Democratic field

I think the Dem field is pretty strong. Biden is popular and reassuring, Bernie is too far left but has quite good ratings, Buttigeig is talented and won't break through unless he turns out to be good enough, KLOBUCHAR would beat Trump to death with a stapler. I think they'd be unwise to run Warren, and I don't think they will, but she also has talent.

Biden and Bernie are too old, but so is Trump.

Biden is popular and reassuring to whom?

Any evidence he's popular and reassuring in the midwest?

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

You're talking nonsense.

I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.

If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?

I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.

By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.

Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.

That's moronic. In theory you are free to jump off Beachy Head. But we here on PB need proof.

We have said that we want to exercise our sovereignty, you keep claiming we were always sovereign because we could leave, which is not the same thing.

If you want to swap sovereignty with jumping off Beachy Head then fine. If we say we want to jump off Beachy Head and you keep chipping in with "you always could jump off Beachy Head" then that's not an answer or a reason not to do so. If we decide we want to jump off Beachy Head the only way to do so is to jump. Being able to jump in theory is not jumping in practice.

If you want to argue that's a bad idea go ahead. Don't keep chipping in with "well you can" as an argument against doing so.

Let me make it easier for you. The waiter has just put the plate down in front of you and he is wearing asbestos gloves which are beginning to smoke. He says be careful the plate is very hot. What do you do?

isam

kinabalu said:

FPT -

Sandpit said:

The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.

This is human nature. If you are highly invested in the argument that something (e.g. Brexit) is wrong, you will wish to be proved correct. The same applies with committed supporters of Tory and Labour. Me, for example. I will not be best pleased if the country - and particularly the less affluent - do stonkingly well under this Tory administration unless it can be seen that this has occurred due to them following Labour type policies (e.g. big government spending on the North). Exactly the same in reverse would have applied to true blue Tories if Corbyn and Labour had got into power. They would have been rooting for the radical left policies to fail abjectly. Of course most on both sides will deny this. They will say that they want all to go well even if their opponents are in charge. It's a white lie. This too is human nature.

Blimey. At least someone admits it

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

You're talking nonsense.

I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.

If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?

I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.

By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.

Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.

That's moronic. In theory you are free to jump off Beachy Head. But we here on PB need proof.

We have said that we want to exercise our sovereignty, you keep claiming we were always sovereign because we could leave, which is not the same thing.

If you want to swap sovereignty with jumping off Beachy Head then fine. If we say we want to jump off Beachy Head and you keep chipping in with "you always could jump off Beachy Head" then that's not an answer or a reason not to do so. If we decide we want to jump off Beachy Head the only way to do so is to jump. Being able to jump in theory is not jumping in practice.

If you want to argue that's a bad idea go ahead. Don't keep chipping in with "well you can" as an argument against doing so.

Let me make it easier for you. The waiter has just put the plate down in front of you and he is wearing asbestos gloves which are beginning to smoke. He says be careful the plate is very hot. What do you do?

Leave.

Pulpstar

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

TOPPING

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

You're talking nonsense.

I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.

If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?

I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.

By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.

Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.

That's moronic. In theory you are free to jump off Beachy Head. But we here on PB need proof.

We have said that we want to exercise our sovereignty, you keep claiming we were always sovereign because we could leave, which is not the same thing.

If you want to swap sovereignty with jumping off Beachy Head then fine. If we say we want to jump off Beachy Head and you keep chipping in with "you always could jump off Beachy Head" then that's not an answer or a reason not to do so. If we decide we want to jump off Beachy Head the only way to do so is to jump. Being able to jump in theory is not jumping in practice.

If you want to argue that's a bad idea go ahead. Don't keep chipping in with "well you can" as an argument against doing so.

Let me make it easier for you. The waiter has just put the plate down in front of you and he is wearing asbestos gloves which are beginning to smoke. He says be careful the plate is very hot. What do you do?

Leave.

About as logical as your views on everything else.

edmundintokyo

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Agree with Mike on both counts. I guess punters are spooked by last time when Trump won despite a polling deficit, but as we saw with Corbyn history doesn't really repeat like that.

First term Presidents normally win a second election though, especially when its the first term for their party. Exceptionally rare for a Party in America to lose the White House then regain it at the first time of asking. As far as I'm aware Carter was the only time that happened since the 19th Century (Grover Cleveland)

What's the sample size on that, ie how many presidents won the White House, from the other party, then ran again?

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

You're talking nonsense.

I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.

If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?

I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.

By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.

Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.

That's moronic. In theory you are free to jump off Beachy Head. But we here on PB need proof.

We have said that we want to exercise our sovereignty, you keep claiming we were always sovereign because we could leave, which is not the same thing.

If you want to swap sovereignty with jumping off Beachy Head then fine. If we say we want to jump off Beachy Head and you keep chipping in with "you always could jump off Beachy Head" then that's not an answer or a reason not to do so. If we decide we want to jump off Beachy Head the only way to do so is to jump. Being able to jump in theory is not jumping in practice.

If you want to argue that's a bad idea go ahead. Don't keep chipping in with "well you can" as an argument against doing so.

Let me make it easier for you. The waiter has just put the plate down in front of you and he is wearing asbestos gloves which are beginning to smoke. He says be careful the plate is very hot. What do you do?

Leave.

About as logical as your views on everything else.

You want to stick around in a restaurant using asbestos to handle your food? Why, because leaving is too much trouble? Seriously, that's your logic?

Theuniondivvie

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Agree with Mike on both counts. I guess punters are spooked by last time when Trump won despite a polling deficit, but as we saw with Corbyn history doesn't really repeat like that.

First term Presidents normally win a second election though, especially when its the first term for their party. Exceptionally rare for a Party in America to lose the White House then regain it at the first time of asking. As far as I'm aware Carter was the only time that happened since the 19th Century (Grover Cleveland)

Not sure if I've understood you correctly but Carter won after 2 terms of Reps in the White House.

Pulpstar

Who gets the casting vote in the event of an electoral college tie ?

https://www.270towin.com/maps/V3mEO looks plausible to me.

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

Philip_Thompson said:

You're talking nonsense.

I want to exercise sovereignty, not to be nominally sovereign. We had constitutional sovereignty in the past, like we have a constitutional monarchy - in theory its there but its not really exercised.

If we weren't sovereign how on earth did we manage to leave?

I said it was there in theory didn't I? What part aren't you grasping? We want it there in practice not just theory.

By leaving we become sovereign in practice and not theory. The only way to exercise sovereignty was to leave, we do so, thus we are sovereign. We always could have left, now we will.

Prior to choosing to leave, besides the fact we could in theory choose to leave, how were we sovereign? If the only way to be sovereign is that you can leave if you want to then the only way to exercise sovereignty is to leave.

That's moronic. In theory you are free to jump off Beachy Head. But we here on PB need proof.

We have said that we want to exercise our sovereignty, you keep claiming we were always sovereign because we could leave, which is not the same thing.

If you want to swap sovereignty with jumping off Beachy Head then fine. If we say we want to jump off Beachy Head and you keep chipping in with "you always could jump off Beachy Head" then that's not an answer or a reason not to do so. If we decide we want to jump off Beachy Head the only way to do so is to jump. Being able to jump in theory is not jumping in practice.

If you want to argue that's a bad idea go ahead. Don't keep chipping in with "well you can" as an argument against doing so.

"Your Union Jack hang-glider, Mr. Bond...."

Philip_Thompson

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Agree with Mike on both counts. I guess punters are spooked by last time when Trump won despite a polling deficit, but as we saw with Corbyn history doesn't really repeat like that.

First term Presidents normally win a second election though, especially when its the first term for their party. Exceptionally rare for a Party in America to lose the White House then regain it at the first time of asking. As far as I'm aware Carter was the only time that happened since the 19th Century (Grover Cleveland)

What's the sample size on that, ie how many presidents won the White House, from the other party, then ran again?

Since the start of the last century, counting Vice Presidents replacing the President because they've died in office then retaining the White House for their party, the result is 11 successes, 1 failure out of a sample size of 12.

McKinley was assassinated, vice-President Teddy Roosevelt became President and won again for his party.
Woodrow Wilson
Harding died in office, vice-President Coolidge became President and won again for his party.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower
JFK was assinated, vice-President LBJ became President and won again for his party.
Richard Nixon

Jimmy Carter is odd one out losing to Reagan.

Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
Barack Obama.

OldKingCole

Pulpstar said:

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

We keep on missing this don't we. The US election isn't like the elections in most countries; it's more like ours. In the US (and the UK) a party can win the popular vote but because in doing so it piles up enormous majorities in a few seats it loses overall, as the other side wins more seats, but with small majorities. It normally happens that the party which 'wins' has a bigger popular vote, but t'aint necessarily so.

Sandpit

To quote Bill Clinton's advisor from 1992: "The economy, stupid"

GarethoftheVale2

Pulpstar said:

Who gets the casting vote in the event of an electoral college tie ?

https://www.270towin.com/maps/V3mEO looks plausible to me.

In a tie, each state congressional delegation votes as block so the Republicans would win currently. A tie would be a nightmare as there would be huge pressure on the electors to go rogue.

TheGreenMachine

kinabalu said:

Trump can be laid at 1.86 atm. It's a great bet IMO. Unfortunately I'm well short of him at an average 2.25. Opposite of smug city. But I'm not worried. Just laying him for a bit more right now. The American people will not do something so ludicrous again. I have faith in them.

You must be the only person to have faith in America.

Theuniondivvie

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Agree with Mike on both counts. I guess punters are spooked by last time when Trump won despite a polling deficit, but as we saw with Corbyn history doesn't really repeat like that.

First term Presidents normally win a second election though, especially when its the first term for their party. Exceptionally rare for a Party in America to lose the White House then regain it at the first time of asking. As far as I'm aware Carter was the only time that happened since the 19th Century (Grover Cleveland)

What's the sample size on that, ie how many presidents won the White House, from the other party, then ran again?

Since the start of the last century, counting Vice Presidents replacing the President because they've died in office then retaining the White House for their party, the result is 11 successes, 1 failure out of a sample size of 12.

McKinley was assassinated, vice-President Teddy Roosevelt became President and won again for his party.
Woodrow Wilson
Harding died in office, vice-President Coolidge became President and won again for his party.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower
JFK was assinated, vice-President LBJ became President and won again for his party.
Richard Nixon

Jimmy Carter is odd one out losing to Reagan.

Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
Barack Obama.

Ah, sorry, I get it now.

TheGreenMachine

Pulpstar said:

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

Who do rednecks vote?

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Agree with Mike on both counts. I guess punters are spooked by last time when Trump won despite a polling deficit, but as we saw with Corbyn history doesn't really repeat like that.

First term Presidents normally win a second election though, especially when its the first term for their party. Exceptionally rare for a Party in America to lose the White House then regain it at the first time of asking. As far as I'm aware Carter was the only time that happened since the 19th Century (Grover Cleveland)

What's the sample size on that, ie how many presidents won the White House, from the other party, then ran again?

Since the start of the last century, counting Vice Presidents replacing the President because they've died in office then retaining the White House for their party, the result is 11 successes, 1 failure out of a sample size of 12.

McKinley was assassinated, vice-President Teddy Roosevelt became President and won again for his party.
Woodrow Wilson
Harding died in office, vice-President Coolidge became President and won again for his party.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower
JFK was assinated, vice-President LBJ became President and won again for his party.
Richard Nixon

Jimmy Carter is odd one out losing to Reagan.

Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W Bush
Barack Obama.

I wonder if Carter would have won again too, if only he had been able to welcome home the Iranian hostages in the White House?

Philip_Thompson

Theuniondivvie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Agree with Mike on both counts. I guess punters are spooked by last time when Trump won despite a polling deficit, but as we saw with Corbyn history doesn't really repeat like that.

First term Presidents normally win a second election though, especially when its the first term for their party. Exceptionally rare for a Party in America to lose the White House then regain it at the first time of asking. As far as I'm aware Carter was the only time that happened since the 19th Century (Grover Cleveland)

Not sure if I've understood you correctly but Carter won after 2 terms of Reps in the White House.

Precisely. Carter was the one who failed to get a second term, not the one who failed to get a first. He is the only one first-term-for-their-party President since the start of the 20th century not to get a second term for his party.

kinabalu

TheGreenMachine said:

You must be the only person to have faith in America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP4iY1TtS3s

They did shoot him - but still.

Philip_Thompson

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

We keep on missing this don't we. The US election isn't like the elections in most countries; it's more like ours. In the US (and the UK) a party can win the popular vote but because in doing so it piles up enormous majorities in a few seats it loses overall, as the other side wins more seats, but with small majorities. It normally happens that the party which 'wins' has a bigger popular vote, but t'aint necessarily so.

The Democrats need to stop pandering to Californians and ask themselves what best suits the midwest.

Once in office they and will look after Californians. But fail to get the midwest and they fail to do anything in office.

Quincel

This might be foolish, but I'm not sure I see Florida as safe for Trump. He only won it by 1.2% last time, and unlike many of the Rust Belt states it has a large (and growing) minority population. I don't think it's an easy Dem win, but I could see it about as easily as, say, Michigan.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/06/20/floridas-under-70-population-now-majority-minority/

Philip_Thompson

Pulpstar said:

Who gets the casting vote in the event of an electoral college tie ?

https://www.270towin.com/maps/V3mEO looks plausible to me.

In the event of a tie and no faithless electors switching sides (they would die if they did that I suspect in America) then the House of Representatives gets to choose the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President.

But each state gets 1 vote each so the Republicans would get both as they have by far the most states in both.

Quincel

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Who gets the casting vote in the event of an electoral college tie ?

https://www.270towin.com/maps/V3mEO looks plausible to me.

In the event of a tie and no faithless electors switching sides (they would die if they did that I suspect in America) then the House of Representatives gets to choose the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President.

But each state gets 1 vote each so the Republicans would get both as they have by far the most states in both.

Anyone know what happens in states with an even number of Reps who disagree? I'm picturing a sensational Tulsi Gabbard split from the other Hawaiian rep.

Pulpstar

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

edmundintokyo

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

We keep on missing this don't we. The US election isn't like the elections in most countries; it's more like ours. In the US (and the UK) a party can win the popular vote but because in doing so it piles up enormous majorities in a few seats it loses overall, as the other side wins more seats, but with small majorities. It normally happens that the party which 'wins' has a bigger popular vote, but t'aint necessarily so.

I dunno though, from memory the specific predictions of "swing state X is leaning Y this time" don't have a great record, especially this far out, so I'm not sure you can do much better than
* Generally if you get more votes you win more states, but if the lead is only a few points it may go wrong
* There are some particularly swing-statey regions that are more important than other regions, in this case the mid-west

Of course the specific states matter, but if you can't predict them then they don't really help you make a better prediction.

HYUFD

Quincel said:

This might be foolish, but I'm not sure I see Florida as safe for Trump. He only won it by 1.2% last time, and unlike many of the Rust Belt states it has a large (and growing) minority population. I don't think it's an easy Dem win, but I could see it about as easily as, say, Michigan.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/06/20/floridas-under-70-population-now-majority-minority/

Yes, after Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Florida was the state with the narrowest Trump margin over Hillary in 2016

Sandpit

kinabalu said:

FPT -

Sandpit said:

The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.

This is human nature. If you are highly invested in the argument that something (e.g. Brexit) is wrong, you will wish to be proved correct. The same applies with committed supporters of Tory and Labour. Me, for example. I will not be best pleased if the country - and particularly the less affluent - do stonkingly well under this Tory administration unless it can be seen that this has occurred due to them following Labour type policies (e.g. big government spending on the North). Exactly the same in reverse would have applied to true blue Tories if Corbyn and Labour had got into power. They would have been rooting for the radical left policies to fail abjectly. Of course most on both sides will deny this. They will say that they want all to go well even if their opponents are in charge. It's a white lie. This too is human nature.

I will politely disagree, whilst thanking you for your honesty.

I think most people want to see their fellow countrymen do better in life, even if they'd prefer to do better than most themselves.

I think that only a hyperpartisan minority - small group, but very well represented in media circles and among the commentariat - would be upset if people in general do well in the next few years, purely because we did so outside the EU or under a Conservative government.

What I think will actually happen in the North, is a combination of infrastructure projects, relocation of a lot of government jobs, and large incentives for companies to expend or relocate to the regions. These will definitely be Conservative incentives - reductions in business red tape and taxation.

OldKingCole

Philip_Thompson said:

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

We keep on missing this don't we. The US election isn't like the elections in most countries; it's more like ours. In the US (and the UK) a party can win the popular vote but because in doing so it piles up enormous majorities in a few seats it loses overall, as the other side wins more seats, but with small majorities. It normally happens that the party which 'wins' has a bigger popular vote, but t'aint necessarily so.

The Democrats need to stop pandering to Californians and ask themselves what best suits the midwest.

Once in office they and will look after Californians. But fail to get the midwest and they fail to do anything in office.

Quite right. But the views of 'the average metropolitan' Californian and New Yorker are a long way from the those of 'rugged praire dweller' of the Mid West.

Pulpstar

@Quincel Has "Mike getting it done" woken you in the night in a cold sweat yet ?

SirNorfolkPassmore

Quincel said:

This might be foolish, but I'm not sure I see Florida as safe for Trump. He only won it by 1.2% last time, and unlike many of the Rust Belt states it has a large (and growing) minority population. I don't think it's an easy Dem win, but I could see it about as easily as, say, Michigan.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/06/20/floridas-under-70-population-now-majority-minority/

Aren't the midterm results in 2018 instructive on this?

In Michigan, Democrats held the Senate seat 52-46, won the House elections in terms of votes (although it translated to seven seats apiece) 52-45, and gained the governorship 53-44 (albeit not against an incumbent). That doesn't make it a given for 2020 because you'd expect Democrats to do well in midterms, but are results consistent with a tight race.

In Florida, Republicans gained the Senate seat by the tiniest margin (essentially 50-50), won the House elections 52-48, and held the governorship (without an incumbent) 50-49. If the Democrats weren't winning much in the midterms (albeit coming close), is it likely this year? Probably not, unless the VP candidate has special appeal there or Trump is losing the election fairly easily anyway.

rottenborough

bigjohnowls said:

1st like Sanders

You better be wrong or that 54% chance of a Trump win will be approaching 100.

Richard_Nabavi

A good starting point for looking at the US election is Larry Sabato's map:

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

He's generally fairly conservative in the sense that if he says a state 'leans' towards one of the two parties, that generally means it's unlikely not to be won by that party.

On that basis - and admittedly starting from a map from a map which hasn't been updated since November - the two parties each have 248 electoral votes which are reasonably secure, and the election will be decided by the four tossups:

Arizona (11 EVs)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
Nebraska NE2 (1)

This race is too close to call.

TheGreenMachine

@kinabalu

He was a great and momentous human.

Quincel

Pulpstar said:

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

I wonder if Iowa has become a bit less important each cycle as the media focus on candidates is so large for so long, such that the publicity isn't so dependent on a good showing. I think 538 are over-fitting to the past on this, but I may be wrong.

I also think it is why they give Bloomberg effectively 0% chance, because he has no chance of winning any early state, but I'm not sure that's the right way to treat a rare campaign which (financially at least) can make it to Super Tuesday anyway. I wouldn't give Bloomberg more than 1-5%, but I'd give him that.

rottenborough

Pulpstar said:

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

I am still confident that Buttigieg will take Iowa. I'm on at 7 and 5.

TheGreenMachine

Pulpstar said:

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

Come On Biden!

Quincel

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Quincel said:

This might be foolish, but I'm not sure I see Florida as safe for Trump. He only won it by 1.2% last time, and unlike many of the Rust Belt states it has a large (and growing) minority population. I don't think it's an easy Dem win, but I could see it about as easily as, say, Michigan.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/06/20/floridas-under-70-population-now-majority-minority/

Aren't the midterm results in 2018 instructive on this?

In Michigan, Democrats held the Senate seat 52-46, won the House elections in terms of votes (although it translated to seven seats apiece) 52-45, and gained the governorship 53-44 (albeit not against an incumbent). That doesn't make it a given for 2020 because you'd expect Democrats to do well in midterms, but are results consistent with a tight race.

In Florida, Republicans gained the Senate seat by the tiniest margin (essentially 50-50), won the House elections 52-48, and held the governorship (without an incumbent) 50-49. If the Democrats weren't winning much in the midterms (albeit coming close), is it likely this year? Probably not, unless the VP candidate has special appeal there or Trump is losing the election fairly easily anyway.

I think the midterms are instructive, but they have their own candidates too and there are polls showing Scott and DeSantis as more popular in the state than Trump. For example the latest poll in the state has 51% of voters wanting Trump gone vs 49% who want him re-elected, but DeSantis has approval ratings of +20 (48 vs 28).

https://business.fau.edu/departments/economics/business-economics-polling/bepi-polls/bepi-polls-2020/biden-widening-lead-in-florida-where-trunp-has-fallen-behind.php

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1220038665403084803

Philip_Thompson

Quincel said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Pulpstar said:

Who gets the casting vote in the event of an electoral college tie ?

https://www.270towin.com/maps/V3mEO looks plausible to me.

In the event of a tie and no faithless electors switching sides (they would die if they did that I suspect in America) then the House of Representatives gets to choose the President and the Senate chooses the Vice President.

But each state gets 1 vote each so the Republicans would get both as they have by far the most states in both.

Anyone know what happens in states with an even number of Reps who disagree? I'm picturing a sensational Tulsi Gabbard split from the other Hawaiian rep.

That's for them to sort out I believe. The constitution says every state gets 1 vote chosen by that states representatives and senators and they must vote for one of the top 3 candidates via electoral college votes.

How they sort that between them (especially when each state has an even number of Senators (2)) and many of them will be split between parties is not specified.

kinabalu

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't. I'm afraid of the result. Especially with the Democrats looking like they'll be self-indulgent. Their priority should be to be pick someone the midwest and "flyover states" can back, someone fresh like the former governor of Arkansas was at the time, they're not doing so.

OK that is relevant but it's detail. I think it's going to dawn on people (or enough of them) that the guy is utterly unfit for office and that to give him 4 more years would be absurd and dangerous. Sometimes these things do dawn on people quite suddenly and quite a long time after they should. I would liken it to somebody who is gas-lighted or otherwise psychologically abused by their partner for a prolonged period. They try and adjust, put up with it, make allowances, they try to make things work - right up until the point of realization that, no, this is ridiculous and wrong, it's time to leave. Leave right now. IMO the American people are in exactly that position and will have their epiphany this November. Trump is not only going to lose he is going to lose BIG. Trust me.

Sandpit

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

We keep on missing this don't we. The US election isn't like the elections in most countries; it's more like ours. In the US (and the UK) a party can win the popular vote but because in doing so it piles up enormous majorities in a few seats it loses overall, as the other side wins more seats, but with small majorities. It normally happens that the party which 'wins' has a bigger popular vote, but t'aint necessarily so.

The Democrats need to stop pandering to Californians and ask themselves what best suits the midwest.

Once in office they and will look after Californians. But fail to get the midwest and they fail to do anything in office.

Quite right. But the views of 'the average metropolitan' Californian and New Yorker are a long way from the those of 'rugged praire dweller' of the Mid West.

Indeed, but no matter who the candidate is, or what they say and do, NY and CA are not going to vote Republican in November.

The question is, who is going to be the first candidate to realise that they need to be ignoring the safe states completely, and talking only to those in the marginals?

If the Dems again spend the campaign talking about trans rights and white privilege, then Trump gets a landslide.

OldKingCole

Richard_Nabavi said:

A good starting point for looking at the US election is Larry Sabato's map:

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

He's generally fairly conservative in the sense that if he says a state 'leans' towards one of the two parties, that generally means it's unlikely not to be won by that party.

On that basis - and admittedly starting from a map from a map which hasn't been updated since November - the two parties each have 248 electoral votes which are reasonably secure, and the election will be decided by the four tossups:

Arizona (11 EVs)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
Nebraska NE2 (1)

This race is too close to call.

Do we also take into account the turnout? US elections. Overall, it hasn't been above 60% since 1968 and in 1996 the overall was only 49%.
I haven't looked at the figures for individual states, but does seem as though motivation and GOTV is important.

Endillion

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

I wonder if Iowa has become a bit less important each cycle as the media focus on candidates is so large for so long, such that the publicity isn't so dependent on a good showing. I think 538 are over-fitting to the past on this, but I may be wrong.

I also think it is why they give Bloomberg effectively 0% chance, because he has no chance of winning any early state, but I'm not sure that's the right way to treat a rare campaign which (financially at least) can make it to Super Tuesday anyway. I wouldn't give Bloomberg more than 1-5%, but I'd give him that.

Interesting. I'd been wondering if it doesn't get more and more important each time, for a similar reason: that increased media focus requires them to be seen as winners, fast. Or else.

Pulpstar

For @Philip_Thompson & @TOPPING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuwUXGyWlHQ

Anabobazina

My thinking gives FL to Trumpton, but the fact that more AA are in the franchise this time (felons with spent convictions being now able to vote) might have some impact. Probably not enough, however.

Theuniondivvie

TheGreenMachine said:

@kinabalu

He was a great and momentous human.

Who would have been on the side of Trump.

Apparently.

'Kellyanne Conway suggests Martin Luther King Jr. would have opposed Trump’s impeachment'

https://tinyurl.com/wxx2uht

MarqueeMark

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't. I'm afraid of the result. Especially with the Democrats looking like they'll be self-indulgent. Their priority should be to be pick someone the midwest and "flyover states" can back, someone fresh like the former governor of Arkansas was at the time, they're not doing so.

OK that is relevant but it's detail. I think it's going to dawn on people (or enough of them) that the guy is utterly unfit for office and that to give him 4 more years would be absurd and dangerous. Sometimes these things do dawn on people quite suddenly and quite a long time after they should. I would liken it to somebody who is gas-lighted or otherwise psychologically abused by their partner for a prolonged period. They try and adjust, put up with it, make allowances, they try to make things work - right up until the point of realization that, no, this is ridiculous and wrong, it's time to leave. Leave right now. IMO the American people are in exactly that position and will have their epiphany this November. Trump is not only going to lose he is going to lose BIG. Trust me.

You might be right. The independents still look at Trump and go "Eeeeuuuuwwwwwww".

But I can't imagine them any less nauseous at the prospect of President Sanders.

edmundintokyo

Sandpit said:

If the Dems again spend the campaign talking about trans rights and white privilege, then Trump gets a landslide.

I'm trying to think of any time I've ever heard a presidential candidate say anything about trans rights. I don't think they generally go there - not only does it risk annoying social conservatives, it also hits a fault line within feminism that risks losing some of their core support.

Philip_Thompson

I see a formal complaint has been made against John Bercow for bullying. Under the circumstances it would surely be inappropriate to award Bercow a peerage until this matter is resolved?

If he's cleared then offer him one, if he's not then he should not get one.

Bercow and his supporters in the Commons blocked investigations while he was in the Commons chair. It would be inappropriate to award someone power to block investigations into themselves, then further reward them because there's been no investigation afterwards.

Quincel

Endillion said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

I wonder if Iowa has become a bit less important each cycle as the media focus on candidates is so large for so long, such that the publicity isn't so dependent on a good showing. I think 538 are over-fitting to the past on this, but I may be wrong.

I also think it is why they give Bloomberg effectively 0% chance, because he has no chance of winning any early state, but I'm not sure that's the right way to treat a rare campaign which (financially at least) can make it to Super Tuesday anyway. I wouldn't give Bloomberg more than 1-5%, but I'd give him that.

Interesting. I'd been wondering if it doesn't get more and more important each time, for a similar reason: that increased media focus requires them to be seen as winners, fast. Or else.

Hmm, I hadn't considered that but I do see your logic. I'm not sure now, but Bloomberg and Sanders/Warren gives us a nice piece of data as a guide. If Bloomberg sinks rapidly during February as the media ignores him that backs you up, and at least one of Warren/Sanders will dissapoint in Iowa/NH so we can see if their candidacy is dented or trashed by it.

rottenborough

Richard_Nabavi said:

A good starting point for looking at the US election is Larry Sabato's map:

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

He's generally fairly conservative in the sense that if he says a state 'leans' towards one of the two parties, that generally means it's unlikely not to be won by that party.

On that basis - and admittedly starting from a map from a map which hasn't been updated since November - the two parties each have 248 electoral votes which are reasonably secure, and the election will be decided by the four tossups:

Arizona (11 EVs)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
Nebraska NE2 (1)

This race is too close to call.

Penn is going to be super critical, which is a good reason to nominate Biden.

Theuniondivvie

Sandpit said:

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

We keep on missing this don't we. The US election isn't like the elections in most countries; it's more like ours. In the US (and the UK) a party can win the popular vote but because in doing so it piles up enormous majorities in a few seats it loses overall, as the other side wins more seats, but with small majorities. It normally happens that the party which 'wins' has a bigger popular vote, but t'aint necessarily so.

The Democrats need to stop pandering to Californians and ask themselves what best suits the midwest.

Once in office they and will look after Californians. But fail to get the midwest and they fail to do anything in office.

Quite right. But the views of 'the average metropolitan' Californian and New Yorker are a long way from the those of 'rugged praire dweller' of the Mid West.

Indeed, but no matter who the candidate is, or what they say and do, NY and CA are not going to vote Republican in November.

The question is, who is going to be the first candidate to realise that they need to be ignoring the safe states completely, and talking only to those in the marginals?

If the Dems again spend the campaign talking about trans rights and white privilege, then Trump gets a landslide.

I have the perhaps incorrect impression that it's more their opponents talking about Dems talking about trans rights and white privilege rather than them going on and on about it. Whichever, it didn't seem to do them much harm in the mid terms.

Anabobazina

Richard_Nabavi said:

A good starting point for looking at the US election is Larry Sabato's map:

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

He's generally fairly conservative in the sense that if he says a state 'leans' towards one of the two parties, that generally means it's unlikely not to be won by that party.

On that basis - and admittedly starting from a map from a map which hasn't been updated since November - the two parties each have 248 electoral votes which are reasonably secure, and the election will be decided by the four tossups:

Arizona (11 EVs)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
Nebraska NE2 (1)

This race is too close to call.

Thanks Richard, that feels about right to me.

Shows the importance of PA. Oddly, there’s a dearth of state polling here.

The latest polling in Wisconsin suggests Biden would stand a good chance there. Usual caveats about midterm polls apply!

Nigelb

isam said:

kinabalu said:

FPT -

Sandpit said:

The sight of the ultra-remainers wanking themselves silly over every job loss, and desperately looking for the most negative spin possible on any news story or government statistic for the next few years, is going to be most unedifying.

This is human nature. If you are highly invested in the argument that something (e.g. Brexit) is wrong, you will wish to be proved correct. The same applies with committed supporters of Tory and Labour. Me, for example. I will not be best pleased if the country - and particularly the less affluent - do stonkingly well under this Tory administration unless it can be seen that this has occurred due to them following Labour type policies (e.g. big government spending on the North). Exactly the same in reverse would have applied to true blue Tories if Corbyn and Labour had got into power. They would have been rooting for the radical left policies to fail abjectly. Of course most on both sides will deny this. They will say that they want all to go well even if their opponents are in charge. It's a white lie. This too is human nature.

Blimey. At least someone admits it

Of course. Why the surprise ?

That really doesn't much change the arguments.
What is going to be most interesting to watch is what happens to our car industry over the next five years.
If it continues to thrive, then there will be some justification for leavers' optimism.

I genuinely don't know how it will turn out (not least as our chancellor refuses to tell us what industry should be preparing for), but it's going to be a time of fairly dramatic change for the industry, and this is perhaps the biggest sector potentially most vulnerable.

edmundintokyo

Anabobazina said:

My thinking gives FL to Trumpton, but the fact that more AA are in the franchise this time (felons with spent convictions being now able to vote) might have some impact. Probably not enough, however.

That's probably not going to be a big factor: Felons are disproportionately black, but they're also disproportionately low-education-white, which is a extremely Trumpy demographic. And neither group of ex-felons votes in great numbers, IIUC.

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/lsebrexitvote/status/1220300636404768770?s=20

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't. I'm afraid of the result. Especially with the Democrats looking like they'll be self-indulgent. Their priority should be to be pick someone the midwest and "flyover states" can back, someone fresh like the former governor of Arkansas was at the time, they're not doing so.

OK that is relevant but it's detail. I think it's going to dawn on people (or enough of them) that the guy is utterly unfit for office and that to give him 4 more years would be absurd and dangerous. Sometimes these things do dawn on people quite suddenly and quite a long time after they should. I would liken it to somebody who is gas-lighted or otherwise psychologically abused by their partner for a prolonged period. They try and adjust, put up with it, make allowances, they try to make things work - right up until the point of realization that, no, this is ridiculous and wrong, it's time to leave. Leave right now. IMO the American people are in exactly that position and will have their epiphany this November. Trump is not only going to lose he is going to lose BIG. Trust me.

I don't trust you and I don't trust Americans.

No offense but this is the same sort of naivety that led to assumptions that people will realise that Brexit is a terrible idea and would cancel it if we went back to the polls.

Just because you are convinced of your own wisdom does not mean others will inevitably agree.

Anabobazina

The odd thing about Trumpton is that he doesn’t pass the “have a beer” test.

He’s an avowed teetotaller.

HYUFD

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/lsebrexitvote/status/1220300636404768770?s=20

Hence even Starmer is moving towards alignment with the single market and customs union and the EEA and EFTA rather than returning to the full EU

Anabobazina

MarqueeMark said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't. I'm afraid of the result. Especially with the Democrats looking like they'll be self-indulgent. Their priority should be to be pick someone the midwest and "flyover states" can back, someone fresh like the former governor of Arkansas was at the time, they're not doing so.

OK that is relevant but it's detail. I think it's going to dawn on people (or enough of them) that the guy is utterly unfit for office and that to give him 4 more years would be absurd and dangerous. Sometimes these things do dawn on people quite suddenly and quite a long time after they should. I would liken it to somebody who is gas-lighted or otherwise psychologically abused by their partner for a prolonged period. They try and adjust, put up with it, make allowances, they try to make things work - right up until the point of realization that, no, this is ridiculous and wrong, it's time to leave. Leave right now. IMO the American people are in exactly that position and will have their epiphany this November. Trump is not only going to lose he is going to lose BIG. Trust me.

You might be right. The independents still look at Trump and go "Eeeeuuuuwwwwwww".

But I can't imagine them any less nauseous at the prospect of President Sanders.

Agreed. I think Biden probably beats Trumpton and Sanders loses to him.

Philip_Thompson

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A good starting point for looking at the US election is Larry Sabato's map:

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

He's generally fairly conservative in the sense that if he says a state 'leans' towards one of the two parties, that generally means it's unlikely not to be won by that party.

On that basis - and admittedly starting from a map from a map which hasn't been updated since November - the two parties each have 248 electoral votes which are reasonably secure, and the election will be decided by the four tossups:

Arizona (11 EVs)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
Nebraska NE2 (1)

This race is too close to call.

Penn is going to be super critical, which is a good reason to nominate Biden.

I feel one of the younger candidates like Buttigieg would be better in Penn than Biden but there's a lack of evidence either way.

Its worth noting that Obama won Penn by quite a healthy margin and Clinton lost it with a swing I believe much bigger than the national average. Biden strikes me more as a older Hillary Clinton than a younger Bill Clinton or Barack Obama type figure.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

I wonder if Iowa has become a bit less important each cycle as the media focus on candidates is so large for so long, such that the publicity isn't so dependent on a good showing. I think 538 are over-fitting to the past on this, but I may be wrong.

I also think it is why they give Bloomberg effectively 0% chance, because he has no chance of winning any early state, but I'm not sure that's the right way to treat a rare campaign which (financially at least) can make it to Super Tuesday anyway. I wouldn't give Bloomberg more than 1-5%, but I'd give him that.

I think that slightly overestimates how closely most people attend to elections in the long run up. There are still LOTS of people with no opinion whatsoever on Buttigieg, Klobucher, Yang and other smaller candidates. And many that do don't have a strongly fixed opinion.

I think Iowa matters most if someone other than Biden or Sanders win. They are both very well established - an eight year VP and someone who took it to the wire in 2016 - and opinions on them are more fixed. If Sanders wins then that's good for his campaign, but does it shift a lot of opinions or cause huge numbers to say "I'd not really thought about Bernie before, but maybe I should take a look".

Warren is reasonably well known but, if she wins, it could cause Sanders supporters to think about whether he's the right horse this time. If others win - and Buttigieg seems competitive - it's a cue to the many people with no view to consider him.

I agree Bloomberg has a small chance rather than no chance. But he will struggle to get into the news cycle with the early states and that's an issue. Giuliani's 2008 Presidential campaign springs to mind - he'd actually led national polls but by the time it came to the big states he'd gambled on, the narrative had simply moved on due to him being nowhere early on. Admittedly, his campaign was on the slide well before Iowa, but he struggled to look relevant after the early voting states.

Theuniondivvie

Anabobazina said:

The odd thing about Trumpton is that he doesn’t pass the “have a beer” test.

He’s an avowed teetotaller.

He sure passes the fecking 'makes you have a beer (& wine & whisky)' test.

rottenborough

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A good starting point for looking at the US election is Larry Sabato's map:

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

He's generally fairly conservative in the sense that if he says a state 'leans' towards one of the two parties, that generally means it's unlikely not to be won by that party.

On that basis - and admittedly starting from a map from a map which hasn't been updated since November - the two parties each have 248 electoral votes which are reasonably secure, and the election will be decided by the four tossups:

Arizona (11 EVs)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
Nebraska NE2 (1)

This race is too close to call.

Penn is going to be super critical, which is a good reason to nominate Biden.

I feel one of the younger candidates like Buttigieg would be better in Penn than Biden but there's a lack of evidence either way.

Its worth noting that Obama won Penn by quite a healthy margin and Clinton lost it with a swing I believe much bigger than the national average. Biden strikes me more as a older Hillary Clinton than a younger Bill Clinton or Barack Obama type figure.

That may be true, and I am keen on Buttigieg having a good run, but Biden has deep links to Penn.

TheGreenMachine

Theuniondivvie said:

TheGreenMachine said:

@kinabalu

He was a great and momentous human.

Who would have been on the side of Trump.

Apparently.

'Kellyanne Conway suggests Martin Luther King Jr. would have opposed Trump’s impeachment'

https://tinyurl.com/wxx2uht

That's because Trump isn't racist, lol.

Theuniondivvie

https://twitter.com/weehalfpintt/status/1220046173563580416?s=20

Anabobazina

Theuniondivvie said:

Anabobazina said:

The odd thing about Trumpton is that he doesn’t pass the “have a beer” test.

He’s an avowed teetotaller.

He sure passes the fecking 'makes you have a beer (& wine & whisky)' test.

Heroin stocks are up since 2016 I’m told!

Awb682

More good news!!

Alphabet_Soup

OldKingCole said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OldKingCole said:

Pulpstar said:

Have to look at this state by state. Florida looks to be a lock for Trump, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania look to me to be the key states.

We keep on missing this don't we. The US election isn't like the elections in most countries; it's more like ours. In the US (and the UK) a party can win the popular vote but because in doing so it piles up enormous majorities in a few seats it loses overall, as the other side wins more seats, but with small majorities. It normally happens that the party which 'wins' has a bigger popular vote, but t'aint necessarily so.

The Democrats need to stop pandering to Californians and ask themselves what best suits the midwest.

Once in office they and will look after Californians. But fail to get the midwest and they fail to do anything in office.

Quite right. But the views of 'the average metropolitan' Californian and New Yorker are a long way from the those of 'rugged praire dweller' of the Mid West.

After their Milwaukee convention the Dems will be saying "We've been to Wisconsin. It looks just like everywhere else."

Sandpit

edmundintokyo said:

Sandpit said:

If the Dems again spend the campaign talking about trans rights and white privilege, then Trump gets a landslide.

I'm trying to think of any time I've ever heard a presidential candidate say anything about trans rights. I don't think they generally go there - not only does it risk annoying social conservatives, it also hits a fault line within feminism that risks losing some of their core support.

Hillary did mention it a couple of times, but it's a bigger problem for the woke Dem commentariat from NY and CA, who love using trans rights (and abortion) as a 'Wedge' issue with Republicans. As you say, there's currently an almighty row going on between the trans rights activists and the feminist movement, and other minor rows involving competitive sports.

Meanwhile, Conservative commentators have started quoting Martin Luther King that people should be treated according to the content of their character, rather than because of the colour of their skin.

Endillion

Quincel said:

Endillion said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

I wonder if Iowa has become a bit less important each cycle as the media focus on candidates is so large for so long, such that the publicity isn't so dependent on a good showing. I think 538 are over-fitting to the past on this, but I may be wrong.

I also think it is why they give Bloomberg effectively 0% chance, because he has no chance of winning any early state, but I'm not sure that's the right way to treat a rare campaign which (financially at least) can make it to Super Tuesday anyway. I wouldn't give Bloomberg more than 1-5%, but I'd give him that.

Interesting. I'd been wondering if it doesn't get more and more important each time, for a similar reason: that increased media focus requires them to be seen as winners, fast. Or else.

Hmm, I hadn't considered that but I do see your logic. I'm not sure now, but Bloomberg and Sanders/Warren gives us a nice piece of data as a guide. If Bloomberg sinks rapidly during February as the media ignores him that backs you up, and at least one of Warren/Sanders will dissapoint in Iowa/NH so we can see if their candidacy is dented or trashed by it.

The latter, yes. Bloomberg could conceivably attract intensive media focus regardless of how he's actually performing. And I think he's not even on the ballot in Iowa/NH?

Endillion

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A good starting point for looking at the US election is Larry Sabato's map:

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

He's generally fairly conservative in the sense that if he says a state 'leans' towards one of the two parties, that generally means it's unlikely not to be won by that party.

On that basis - and admittedly starting from a map from a map which hasn't been updated since November - the two parties each have 248 electoral votes which are reasonably secure, and the election will be decided by the four tossups:

Arizona (11 EVs)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
Nebraska NE2 (1)

This race is too close to call.

Penn is going to be super critical, which is a good reason to nominate Biden.

I feel one of the younger candidates like Buttigieg would be better in Penn than Biden but there's a lack of evidence either way.

Its worth noting that Obama won Penn by quite a healthy margin and Clinton lost it with a swing I believe much bigger than the national average. Biden strikes me more as a older Hillary Clinton than a younger Bill Clinton or Barack Obama type figure.

That may be true, and I am keen on Buttigieg having a good run, but Biden has deep links to Penn.

I first read Penn as Putin (somehow), and briefly wondered how much Trump was paying you to post here!

edmundintokyo

Sandpit said:

As you say, there's currently an almighty row going on between the trans rights activists and the feminist movement, and other minor rows involving competitive sports.

More precisely, *within* the feminist movement.

logical_song

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/lsebrexitvote/status/1220300636404768770?s=20

Hence even Starmer is moving towards alignment with the single market and customs union and the EEA and EFTA rather than returning to the full EU

Mitigating the problems caused by leaving the EU by aligning with SM and CU will delay the date of rejoining.

kinabalu

Sandpit said:

I will politely disagree, whilst thanking you for your honesty.

I think most people want to see their fellow countrymen do better in life, even if they'd prefer to do better than most themselves.

I think that only a hyperpartisan minority - small group, but very well represented in media circles and among the commentariat - would be upset if people in general do well in the next few years, purely because we did so outside the EU or under a Conservative government.

I think we're agreeing not disagreeing. I was talking about people who are passionately committed to a cause - e.g. Remain, Right Wing Politics, Left Wing Politics. I was talking about most of them - i.e. the majority of a minority - not most people.

Another example. People who are virulently against Scottish independence. Do you think most of them would be rooting for Scotland to do gangbusters in the event of it leaving the UK? I don't.

logical_song

Forget the Bongs, here comes the Banner.
https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/brexit-day-stunt---we-still-love-the-eu?fbclid=IwAR2GXElnKEyrlgGf-BR_qurxCkaN_txD9YMAp5Omx6XA8H-pBYeeocMhQQQ

OldKingCole

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/lsebrexitvote/status/1220300636404768770?s=20

Hence even Starmer is moving towards alignment with the single market and customs union and the EEA and EFTA rather than returning to the full EU

Mitigating the problems caused by leaving the EU by aligning with SM and CU will delay the date of rejoining.

Messrs Kinabalu & Sandpit you are here provided an example of the situation. I want to rejoin; I think we're mad to leave but if the short term problems are ameliorated by SM/CU/EFTA etc I'm happy to accept that situation even thoughts a consequence I may not live to see the happy day when we Rejoin.
I'll leave instructions for my son to drink a glass of champagne at the place where my ashes were scattered!

Philip_Thompson

kinabalu said:

Sandpit said:

I will politely disagree, whilst thanking you for your honesty.

I think most people want to see their fellow countrymen do better in life, even if they'd prefer to do better than most themselves.

I think that only a hyperpartisan minority - small group, but very well represented in media circles and among the commentariat - would be upset if people in general do well in the next few years, purely because we did so outside the EU or under a Conservative government.

I think we're agreeing not disagreeing. I was talking about people who are passionately committed to a cause - e.g. Remain, Right Wing Politics, Left Wing Politics. I was talking about most of them - i.e. the majority of a minority - not most people.

Another example. People who are virulently against Scottish independence. Do you think most of them would be rooting for Scotland to do gangbusters in the event of it leaving the UK? I don't.

If they're Scots? Yes I do.

CarlottaVance

Boris Trump's poodle?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-pushback-from-allies-u-s-set-for-broader-huawei-effort-11579775403?mod=hp_lead_pos2

kinabalu

Philip_Thompson said:

I don't trust you and I don't trust Americans.

No offense but this is the same sort of naivety that led to assumptions that people will realise that Brexit is a terrible idea and would cancel it if we went back to the polls.

Just because you are convinced of your own wisdom does not mean others will inevitably agree.

I have a great recent record. Inter alia -

We leave with a Deal.
No Deal never happening.
Ref2 never happening.
Trump in 2016.
Con landslide 2019.
Corbyn exit Q2 2020.

But of course you are right not to blindly accept the judgement of others on betting matters. I never would.

Gabs3

Philip_Thompson said:

rottenborough said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A good starting point for looking at the US election is Larry Sabato's map:

http://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2020-president/

He's generally fairly conservative in the sense that if he says a state 'leans' towards one of the two parties, that generally means it's unlikely not to be won by that party.

On that basis - and admittedly starting from a map from a map which hasn't been updated since November - the two parties each have 248 electoral votes which are reasonably secure, and the election will be decided by the four tossups:

Arizona (11 EVs)
Wisconsin (10)
Pennsylvania (20)
Nebraska NE2 (1)

This race is too close to call.

Penn is going to be super critical, which is a good reason to nominate Biden.

I feel one of the younger candidates like Buttigieg would be better in Penn than Biden but there's a lack of evidence either way.

Its worth noting that Obama won Penn by quite a healthy margin and Clinton lost it with a swing I believe much bigger than the national average. Biden strikes me more as a older Hillary Clinton than a younger Bill Clinton or Barack Obama type figure.

Biden is from Scranton. He has a lot more genuine working class pedigree than Clinton.

OldKingCole

CarlottaVance said:

Boris Trump's poodle?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-pushback-from-allies-u-s-set-for-broader-huawei-effort-11579775403?mod=hp_lead_pos2

The Guardian (I know) has a "Long Read" about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which is VERY critical of Boris' 'efforts'.
To be fair to him, our GovernmentS have, since the mid 80's, being trying hard to play both ends against the middle on this, in part it seems, to avoid upsetting the Yanks.

Gabs3

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/lsebrexitvote/status/1220300636404768770?s=20

Hence even Starmer is moving towards alignment with the single market and customs union and the EEA and EFTA rather than returning to the full EU

Mitigating the problems caused by leaving the EU by aligning with SM and CU will delay the date of rejoining.

Aligning with SM and CU makes the step into the EU seem smaller fry. Especially as we already will have to join the Euro and Schengen. Having to drop trade deals elsewhere will be a bridge too far.

Nigelb

Endillion said:

Quincel said:

Endillion said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

In terms of Dem nomination, Iowa looks to be REALLY important for the models. Sanders' chance at 20% (538) is the same as for his overall nomination chances - if he wins Iowa it is game on.
Biden between 6-4 and Even money true chance also.
I think Iowa could effectively eliminate one or both of Warren/Buttigieg too if they don't win it or come a very close second.

I wonder if Iowa has become a bit less important each cycle as the media focus on candidates is so large for so long, such that the publicity isn't so dependent on a good showing. I think 538 are over-fitting to the past on this, but I may be wrong.

I also think it is why they give Bloomberg effectively 0% chance, because he has no chance of winning any early state, but I'm not sure that's the right way to treat a rare campaign which (financially at least) can make it to Super Tuesday anyway. I wouldn't give Bloomberg more than 1-5%, but I'd give him that.

Interesting. I'd been wondering if it doesn't get more and more important each time, for a similar reason: that increased media focus requires them to be seen as winners, fast. Or else.

Hmm, I hadn't considered that but I do see your logic. I'm not sure now, but Bloomberg and Sanders/Warren gives us a nice piece of data as a guide. If Bloomberg sinks rapidly during February as the media ignores him that backs you up, and at least one of Warren/Sanders will dissapoint in Iowa/NH so we can see if their candidacy is dented or trashed by it.

The latter, yes. Bloomberg could conceivably attract intensive media focus regardless of how he's actually performing. And I think he's not even on the ballot in Iowa/NH?

The media are going to struggle to ignore him when he's buying ads to the tune of $100m+ a month...

Gabs3

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Quincel said:

This might be foolish, but I'm not sure I see Florida as safe for Trump. He only won it by 1.2% last time, and unlike many of the Rust Belt states it has a large (and growing) minority population. I don't think it's an easy Dem win, but I could see it about as easily as, say, Michigan.

https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2019/06/20/floridas-under-70-population-now-majority-minority/

Aren't the midterm results in 2018 instructive on this?

In Michigan, Democrats held the Senate seat 52-46, won the House elections in terms of votes (although it translated to seven seats apiece) 52-45, and gained the governorship 53-44 (albeit not against an incumbent). That doesn't make it a given for 2020 because you'd expect Democrats to do well in midterms, but are results consistent with a tight race.

In Florida, Republicans gained the Senate seat by the tiniest margin (essentially 50-50), won the House elections 52-48, and held the governorship (without an incumbent) 50-49. If the Democrats weren't winning much in the midterms (albeit coming close), is it likely this year? Probably not, unless the VP candidate has special appeal there or Trump is losing the election fairly easily anyway.

This is why Andrew Gillum could well be the Democratic nominee. It is also why Trump has moved his official residence to the state.

Gabs3

HYUFD said:

As the Republicans control the Senate, no surprise that Trump will likely avoid conviction.

Despite his relatively low approval ratings the fact that you have to go back to 1980 to find an incumbent president who was defeated after only 1 term of his party in the White House (when the 69 year old Reagan beat Carter, perhaps disputing OGH's point) suggests the odd still favour Trump given the relatively weak Democratic field

The danger for Trump isn't that he will be convicted but that he will be cleared by a minority. E.g. if 51+ Senators vote for conviction he still looks guilty.

FF43

Gabs3 said:

logical_song said:

HYUFD said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/lsebrexitvote/status/1220300636404768770?s=20

Hence even Starmer is moving towards alignment with the single market and customs union and the EEA and EFTA rather than returning to the full EU

Mitigating the problems caused by leaving the EU by aligning with SM and CU will delay the date of rejoining.

Aligning with SM and CU makes the step into the EU seem smaller fry. Especially as we already will have to join the Euro and Schengen. Having to drop trade deals elsewhere will be a bridge too far.

This is a fantasy discussion, but given the EU third country agreements are almost certainly better than those* the UK can get on its own, I don't see that being a blocker.

* Edit the UK may get deals better than the EU ones in some particular respects that are useful to the UK, but taken as a whole the EU set was better for the UK.

edmundintokyo

Gabs3 said:

This is why Andrew Gillum could well be the Democratic nominee. It is also why Trump has moved his official residence to the state.

The nominee is not going to be someone who isn't running, and whose only qualification is losing the state of Florida.