Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Warren and Klobuchar get key newspaper endorsements Iowa and N
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Warren and Klobuchar get key newspaper endorsements Iowa and New Hampshire
The weekend has seen the leading papers in first two states to decide give their backing to Senators Warren and Klobuchar. In Iowa its the Des Moines Register that is going for Warren while in New Hampshire the Union Leader goes for Sen. Amy Klobuchar.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Amy Klobuchar is still a distant long shot on Betfair.
However, from the vantage of spectator sport this election is dull. Trump will win a second term. Pretty-much everyone in the US knows it.
Yes of course I hope it's "Someone who isn't Trump' when the counting's done!
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/480027-bolton-lawyer-slams-corrupted-white-house-review-process-after-book
A lawyer for former national security adviser John Bolton accused White House officials of leaking details of Bolton's forthcoming book following a report that the manuscript contained the allegation that President Trump directly tied security aid for Ukraine to the country investigating his political rivals.
Attorney Charles Cooper said in a statement to The Associated Press and other news outlets that he submitted Bolton's manuscript to the National Security Council's Records Management Division to review its contents for classified information on Dec. 30, a standard practice for former government officials writing books.
Cooper said he was given assurances at the time that the manuscript would not be seen by those outside staffers involved in the review process.
“It is clear, regrettably, from The New York Times article published today that the prepublication review process has been corrupted and that information has been disclosed by persons other than those involved in reviewing the manuscript," Cooper said in a statement....
Republican Senators will, in all likelihood, decide that it would be completely wrong to call Bolton as a witness...
KLOBUCHAR SURGE
https://twitter.com/EmersonPolling/status/1221613796487098369
The Republicans are apparently offering a trade off by which Bolton can give evidence if Biden senior and junior do too. I don't think the Democratic establishment will want that. Sanders might though.
1. His unfavourable numbers are off the charts
2. He won by only the narrowest of margins in 2016
3. Florida is allowing ex-Felons to vote, which adds a large number of Black voters to the electoral roll
4. The US economic growth of the last four years has largely left the rustbelt behind, indeed, the evidence is that a number of states he won there are back in recession
If the Democrats chose a charismatic centrist of non-pensionable age, I have little doubt that he would win lose. However, they seem keen to elect either a pensioner who is clearly not as sharp as he was, or a pensioner who is so far left, he isn't even a member of the Democratic Party.
I'm green on everyone except Yang, Clinton and Bloomberg.
Also hints that people are already noticing that the "levelling up" rhetoric is proving empty.
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1221690391977758720
Sanders - 30% and 19%
Biden - 25% and 21%
Klobuchar - 13% and 6%
Warren - 11% and 13%
Buittigieg - 10% and 18%
There are some pretty wide spreads there. In one Sanders is a single percentage point ahead of Buttigieg. In another, he's twenty points clear.
In one Klobuchar is within spitting distance of becoming the moderate's choice. In another, she'll be lucky if she gets a single delegate.
This appears to be shaping up to being a two horse race between Biden and Sanders, but with two caveats:
1. Biden doesn't have a great ground operation in Iowa. This means there is the risk that his supporters get "pinched" by other candidates at caucuses.
2. Biden's supporters are less likely to be politically motivated, and therefore less likely to turn up.
This makes Sanders the favourite for Iowa. But he's still probably no more than a 40% chance. Second and third choices matter here, and the "left" track of the Democratic nomination is still polling (at most) at 40%.
F1: just seen there's a Ladbrokes market on a winner without the big six (drivers). Sainz at 3.5 and Norris at 4 look the most tempting. McLaren ended up significantly ahead of the rest of the midfield by the end of last season, although it's always possible for a lot of churn from one year to the next.
Probably not going to bet, but worth thinking about.
In my defence, I typed that at 38,000 feet crossing the Atlantic, after very few hours of sleep.
(Also, I would not underestimate the capacity of Bolton to deal significant damage to Trump. For example:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2020/01/26/dick-cheneys-apprentice-strikes/ )
Trump is an absolute racing certainty. He will increase his EC share.
It's all over before it has begun.
And I'm not feeling the love for Microsoft right now - my mouse cursor has disappeared
Virginia, which has been booming, is pretty much the only state I could see flipping from Democrat to Republican. What else could go?
Minnesota was also a narrow Hillary win but has voted Democrat at every presidential election since 1972
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1221703152988229633
Nevada is -12 for Trump, Colorado is -18!
New Mexico and Minnesota are -10
Virginia is -5
If we take -5 to be "par", and he wins all states he -5 or better in, then he'd flip Virginia, hold Florida and Ohio easily, but lose Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan.
Which would be enough to take the Presidency, but by a slightly diminished EC margin.
This shouldn't be that surprising: the rust belt continues to economically struggle, and Trump's trade war hasn't helped.
https://newrepublic.com/article/156317/joe-bidens-confounding-candidacy
Which would certainly lead to a very exciting election night!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
No sign of a Warren improvement yet.
Which would be the last decisive state to declare on the night ?
At least Amy has timed her surge right!
But I doubt he has either the self-awareness or humour to see the glaring contradiction.
Nothing substantial is going to happen until the June deadline, when our refusal to agree an extension to the standstill makes the EU side understand that the result of failure of the talks will be no deal at all.
https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1216777124104851456
The Wallonians are currently holding up the agreement with Mercosur. This is not just a theoretical risk.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/muslim-world-saudi-iraq-iran-egypt-lebanon/605431/
What happened to us? The question haunts us in the Arab and Muslim world. We repeat it like a mantra. You will hear it from Iran to Syria, from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, and in my own country, Lebanon. For us, the past is a different country, one not mired in the horrors of sectarian killings. It is a more vibrant place, without the crushing intolerance of religious zealots and seemingly endless, amorphous wars.
Though the past had coups and wars too, they were contained in time and space, and the future still held much promise. What happened to us? The question may not occur to those too young to remember a different world, whose parents did not tell them of a youth spent reciting poetry in Peshawar, debating Marxism in the bars of Beirut, or riding bicycles on the banks of the Tigris in Baghdad. The question may surprise those in the West who assume that the extremism and bloodletting of today have always been the norm...
...A destructive competition for leadership of the Muslim world soon began, in which Iran and Saudi Arabia wielded, exploited, and distorted religion in the pursuit of raw power. That is the constant from 1979 onward, the torrent that flattens everything in its path. Nothing has changed the Arab and Muslim world as deeply and fundamentally as the events of 1979.
Other pivotal moments undid alliances, started or ended wars, or saw the birth of new political movements. But the radical legacy of 1979 did all this and more: It began a process that transformed societies and altered cultural and religious references. The dynamics unleashed in 1979 changed who we are and hijacked our collective memory, reengineering vibrant, pluralistic countries from Egypt to Pakistan, as both Iran and Saudi Arabia worked to rally the masses to their sides with money, propaganda, and proselytizing.
I suspect that Sanders can count on pretty much all the Gabbard vote coming across to him (although whether that's 1% or 5% is the question). But how much of the remaining Warren vote goes to Sanders? My guess is that a lot of the remaining Warren voters could be tempted by another woman...
Now, I know it's my book talking, but I could see Klobuchar win Iowa. She's got a good organisation. She's local, and her volunteers can drive into state to help out.
And if she wins Iowa, or even if she simply beats out Biden and Buttigieg, then she's catapulted into the top tier. Her odds on the nomination remain very generous. Buy her.
Shame he didn't do the same for Archer.
The first place position this time is getting fewer than half the percentage the second place got in 2016.
Wallonia caved in to back CETA in the end
https://twitter.com/CSBarnard24/status/1221716272771141632
If nothing else, it's a good hedge.
He is also correct about UK politicians not understanding Irish ones nor Ireland generally. It's been one of my biggest complaints since I've been on PB, to the point of tedium.
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/timeseries/ukpop/pop
Everyone assumes that it will be alright on the night. But it might well not be.
I can see the final EU-UK agreement being very basic in Dec 2020, followed by a more comprehensive agreement next year - with tariffs applied in the meantime.
Oil and OPEC's actions in the 70s cause the Middle East to be awash with oil money that led to and funded the radical issues of 1979 onwards. By having so much money associated with a single export that the state could control it led to corruption and opportunities for it.
For me I am very keen on seeing us end our use of oil and always have been but not just for "environmental" reasons but also to end our relationship with the Middle East and the financing of petrochemical countries.
Once we leave oil in the ground and consider it worthless because we've moved on to alternative technologies, then the Middle East may face a reckoning of reality once more.
Fishing and environmental/workers rights etc will be a bigger issue for the Tories. There's no way we can agree to remain aligned with whatever workers rights the EU comes up with into the future without a say, that's absurd.
Perhaps we can ask the Chinese to hack into it for us.
If the EU can treat us as equal partners with mutual recognition then great. If they don't want to, so be it.
Or perhaps they want our information, in which case they'll treat us as equals and share it so long as we share ours? Both parties need to act like equal partners on the world stage and grown ups.
I'm fine, thanks; the full reinstatement will take a little while.
As Middle Eastern countries took back control of their oil, they realised they had been screwed over by BP, Exxon and Shell for decades. I think this contributed to a sense of grievence in the Middle East.
It is the exploitation of oil money that has (as the saying goes) thrown petrol on the fire of that pre-existing conflict. The Saudis and Iranians and others have been able to finance their religious conflict with billions of petrodollars.
Unless of course you think he'd also have proposed another referendum had Remain won in 2016, but I doubt you're that deluded.
What are we going to be cut off from, that we desire - and why won't they desire it from us? Why would they cut themselves off from something both parties desire to be agreed.