politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Biden now looking doomed Buttigieg looks a value bet to w

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Biden now looking doomed Buttigieg looks a value bet to win New Hampshire

Biden’s career in politics has been defined by his runs for the presidency which have seen him flop at the first fence in Iowa. In 1988 his bid came to an end in the state following him being ridiculed for plagiarising a Neil Kinnock election PPB in order to make a speech about himself. Two decades later in 2008 he pulled out of the race after failing to get a delegate in the Iowa caucuses and now he’s had another failure in the first state to decide.

Read the full story here

Lennon

First - and misread that penultimate paragraph as relating to Bernie (Senator for neighbouring Vermont) rather than Warren (Senator for neighbouring Mass.)

phiw

First, like Pete.

phiw

In other news, the CNN Town Hall format looks to be more interesting tomorrow than tonight:

Wednesday, February 5:
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Businessman Andrew Yang
Businessman Tom Steyer

Thursday, February 6:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

ydoethur

phiw said:

First, like Pete.

That might be the Freudian slip of the year so far...

phiw

ydoethur said:

phiw said:

First, like Pete.

That might be the Freudian slip of the year so far...

Yeah.... won't be trying that again!

phiw

Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

IshmaelZ

ydoethur said:

phiw said:

First, like Pete.

That might be the Freudian slip of the year so far...

What is your point, Jung man?

Quincel

phiw said:

In other news, the CNN Town Hall format looks to be more interesting tomorrow than tonight:

Wednesday, February 5:
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Businessman Andrew Yang
Businessman Tom Steyer

Thursday, February 6:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

Much as I like Deval Patrick, what's he doing on the stage? Has he ever polled even 5% in a single poll in a single state? He is currently on 46 1st pref votes in Iowa.

rottenborough

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

phiw

Quincel said:

phiw said:

In other news, the CNN Town Hall format looks to be more interesting tomorrow than tonight:

Wednesday, February 5:
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Businessman Andrew Yang
Businessman Tom Steyer

Thursday, February 6:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

Much as I like Deval Patrick, what's he doing on the stage? Has he ever polled even 5% in a single poll in a single state? He is currently on 46 1st pref votes in Iowa.

I think these town hall events aren't actually part of the official debate lineup, so CNN can invite whoever they want.

speedy2

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

rpjs

phiw said:

Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

Be a bit embarrassing in his own state! Do you have write-ins in ID though?

HYUFD

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

AlastairMeeks

I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

rcs1000

The most likely New Hampshire result is a Sanders win. But it's far from certain. Sanders is polling something in the 20s, and that's probably where he'll end up. I reckon there's probably a 75% chance that he does it. (It is, after all, one of the most reliably pro-Sanders states in the country.) I think Sanders will get 29% in NH.

But Buttigieg - even before the Iowa caucuses - had begin to reverse his decline there. The big question is how much of the Biden / Bloomberg / Other Moderate goes his way in NH. My guess is that Buttigieg gets 25%.

We also shouldn't discount a decent Warren performance. I think she'll also make the 20s - I'd guess 22%.

And Biden will trail in fourth. Again.

We next come to Nevada. Now, the latest poll from A- rated Suffolk last month, has Biden 19%, Sanders 18%, Warren 11%, Buttigieg 8%. The question becomes support Biden loses and where it goes. And also, does Buttigieg have a great caucus organisation in Nevada? If he does, he might beat Biden again. Three losses out of three for Biden... would that be terminal?

Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire to have a shot at the Presidency. But if he does, and it's probably no worse than a one-in-four shot, then he really does have a chance. The Biden campaign is poorly organised and poorly funded. It could easily implode if it fails in both New Hampshire and Nevada.

rcs1000

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

If Buttigieg is clear second, and Biden is fourth, then he still has a chance. But it all depends on Biden continuing to destroy himself.

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

I don't think that @rottenborough has any influence on the eventual winner.

However, he forecast Iowa correctly, And you forecast it wrongly. Take it like a man.

Richard_Nabavi

I agree with Mike that Biden may be drifting down and out, but it doesn't follow that Mayor Pete is going to win NH. It's a very different kind of contest than Iowa was, and the polling should be more of a guide. We'll have to see what the polls show in the next couple of days, but at the moment Bernie has quite a big lead. I'd want more than Mike's 4.8 on current polling even if you factor in a bit of Buttigieg bounce.

IanB2

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

Women won’t vote for Biden, Afro-Americans won’t vote for PB, and moderates won’t vote for Sanders. What a mess the Dems are in. I am glad I am still green on Warren.

phiw

rpjs said:

phiw said:

Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

Be a bit embarrassing in his own state! Do you have write-ins in ID though?

We do have write-ins in Indiana, but from what I can tell, not for Primaries:

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Guide.FINAL.pdf

"A person may not be a write-in candidate during a primary election or for a party office, such as precinct committeeman or state convention delegate." p.4

Theuniondivvie

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

Golly, I know he's in a hole with Bernie but that reaction would seem excessive.

speedy2

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

rcs1000

Richard_Nabavi said:

I agree with Mike that Biden may be drifting down and out, but it doesn't follow that Mayor Pete is going to win NH. It's a very different kind of contest than Iowa was, and the polling should be more of a guide. We'll have to see what the polls show in the next couple of days, but at the moment Bernie has quite a big lead. I'd want more than Mike's 4.8 on current polling even if you factor in a bit of Buttigieg bounce.

There have been two February only polls in New Hampshire, both A-rated, Suffolk and Emerson.

One shows Sanders winning by a mile - 32% for Sanders, with second placed Buttigieg on 17%.

The other shows a closer battle, but again, Sanders first, Buttigieg second: 24% vs 15%.

There is a lot of moderate vote for Buttigieg to squeeze. Whether it's enough is another matter altogether.

phiw

IanB2 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

Women won’t vote for Biden, Afro-Americans won’t vote for PB, and moderates won’t vote for Sanders. What a mess the Dems are in. I am glad I am still green on Warren.

Pete just needs to make sure he gets Biden and Klobuchar's endorsements, split Warren's supporters with Bernie, then we'll really be in for a fun time.

Foxy

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1225077710956957697?s=20

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

I agree with Mike that Biden may be drifting down and out, but it doesn't follow that Mayor Pete is going to win NH. It's a very different kind of contest than Iowa was, and the polling should be more of a guide. We'll have to see what the polls show in the next couple of days, but at the moment Bernie has quite a big lead. I'd want more than Mike's 4.8 on current polling even if you factor in a bit of Buttigieg bounce.

There have been two February only polls in New Hampshire, both A-rated, Suffolk and Emerson.

One shows Sanders winning by a mile - 32% for Sanders, with second placed Buttigieg on 17%.

The other shows a closer battle, but again, Sanders first, Buttigieg second: 24% vs 15%.

There is a lot of moderate vote for Buttigieg to squeeze. Whether it's enough is another matter altogether.

There is a new Emerson poll out for New Hampshire following the Iowa caucuses

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1224916061994278913?s=20

Sandpit

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1225077274816471042?s=20

speedy2

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

First post Iowa poll has Buttigieg getting 8% of Hispanics and 4% of African Am.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/73jqd6u5mv/econTabReport.pdf

And we saw in the heavy minority Iowa precincts Sanders scooping the vote but Buttigieg getting none.

Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
His only function is to deny the nomination for others.

rottenborough

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

I don't think that @rottenborough has any influence on the eventual winner.

However, he forecast Iowa correctly, And you forecast it wrongly. Take it like a man.

Thanks!

HYUFD

Sandpit said:

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

The Foreign Office has previously advised against all but essential travel to China and against all travel to Huabei province, that might turn into advice against all travel to the whole country if that is correct

Foxy

Sandpit said:

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

I think the Chinese figures are probably fairly accurate, particularly the fatalities.

The difficulty in calculating the Case Fatality Rate is the denominator. The median time to death from first symptoms in the original report was 14 days. With the unknown number of mild infections, we do not know the diagnostic rate. The number of cases confirmed and the number of deaths doubling every 4 days, makes the denominator difficult to define.

I reckon the 2% figure is in the right ballpark.

glw

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

* And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.

speedy2

Foxy said:

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.

Presently the state of play is:

Bernie can't win the nomination.
Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
Biden can't win the nomination.
Warren can't win the nomination.
Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.

TookieTheBookie

I think this is a mistake Mike. I'll be very surprised if someone other than Sanders or Warren wins NH. They are neighboring state Senators and New Hampshire's 'Live Free or Die' motto ties nicely to Sanders

IanB2

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If only posting on PB made such a difference, we wouldn’t be stuck with such a bozo as our PM.

rottenborough

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

Well, I am awash with red on the non-Democratic senator from Vermont.

But he would lose against Trump and lose badly.

Sandpit

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

I think the Chinese figures are probably fairly accurate, particularly the fatalities.

The difficulty in calculating the Case Fatality Rate is the denominator. The median time to death from first symptoms in the original report was 14 days. With the unknown number of mild infections, we do not know the diagnostic rate. The number of cases confirmed and the number of deaths doubling every 4 days, makes the denominator difficult to define.

I reckon the 2% figure is in the right ballpark.

Let’s all hope you’re right!

speedy2

Sandpit said:

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

The official figures in China is 2%, but from cases outside of China it's 0.5%.
If the real figure in China is not 2 but 16% that makes it more weird and alarming.

rottenborough

speedy2 said:

Foxy said:

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.

Presently the state of play is:

Bernie can't win the nomination.
Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
Biden can't win the nomination.
Warren can't win the nomination.
Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.

Well, I'm glad I'm green to varying degrees on all but Bernie. Buttigieg is a big pay day, as is Klobucher.

Foxy

Sandpit said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

I think the Chinese figures are probably fairly accurate, particularly the fatalities.

The difficulty in calculating the Case Fatality Rate is the denominator. The median time to death from first symptoms in the original report was 14 days. With the unknown number of mild infections, we do not know the diagnostic rate. The number of cases confirmed and the number of deaths doubling every 4 days, makes the denominator difficult to define.

I reckon the 2% figure is in the right ballpark.

Let’s all hope you’re right!

I would rather be very pessimistic!

I think this is going to escape containment over the next months, though slowing this as far as possible is worthwhile. It is a race against time. Improving weather in the Northern hemisphere may help. It will peak at some point, but not showing much sign yet.

TookieTheBookie

phiw said:

Quincel said:

phiw said:

In other news, the CNN Town Hall format looks to be more interesting tomorrow than tonight:

Wednesday, February 5:
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Businessman Andrew Yang
Businessman Tom Steyer

Thursday, February 6:
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

Much as I like Deval Patrick, what's he doing on the stage? Has he ever polled even 5% in a single poll in a single state? He is currently on 46 1st pref votes in Iowa.

I think these town hall events aren't actually part of the official debate lineup, so CNN can invite whoever they want.

Deval Patrick is also a former MA Governor - NH is his best chance of getting any traction (I suspect he will come fifth and drop out though)

Foxy

speedy2 said:

Sandpit said:

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

The official figures in China is 2%, but from cases outside of China it's 0.5%.
If the real figure in China is not 2 but 16% that makes it more weird and alarming.

It is a fast moving scenario, but yesterday there were 2 fatalities in 146 cases outside China, so greater than 0.5%

Obviously this is a small sample size subject to random effects, but also those 146 are early in the disease process, there are not yet 144 survivors, not yet at any rate.

AlastairMeeks

speedy2 said:

Foxy said:

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.

Presently the state of play is:

Bernie can't win the nomination.
Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
Biden can't win the nomination.
Warren can't win the nomination.
Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.

At least three of those can win the nomination. Bernie Sanders looks like the single most likely to me at present, simply because his opponents are divided and look set to remain so.

Nigelb

glw said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

* And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.

Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.

rottenborough

Scenes from the Democratic Meltdown in Iowa

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-joe-biden-iowa-caucus-democratic-meltdown-947545/

Casino_Royale

rcs1000 said:

The most likely New Hampshire result is a Sanders win. But it's far from certain. Sanders is polling something in the 20s, and that's probably where he'll end up. I reckon there's probably a 75% chance that he does it. (It is, after all, one of the most reliably pro-Sanders states in the country.) I think Sanders will get 29% in NH.

But Buttigieg - even before the Iowa caucuses - had begin to reverse his decline there. The big question is how much of the Biden / Bloomberg / Other Moderate goes his way in NH. My guess is that Buttigieg gets 25%.

We also shouldn't discount a decent Warren performance. I think she'll also make the 20s - I'd guess 22%.

And Biden will trail in fourth. Again.

We next come to Nevada. Now, the latest poll from A- rated Suffolk last month, has Biden 19%, Sanders 18%, Warren 11%, Buttigieg 8%. The question becomes support Biden loses and where it goes. And also, does Buttigieg have a great caucus organisation in Nevada? If he does, he might beat Biden again. Three losses out of three for Biden... would that be terminal?

Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire to have a shot at the Presidency. But if he does, and it's probably no worse than a one-in-four shot, then he really does have a chance. The Biden campaign is poorly organised and poorly funded. It could easily implode if it fails in both New Hampshire and Nevada.

I must say, I’ve been very impressed by your analysis of the race. This seems very objective too.

My sense is that Buttigieg will run Sanders close all the way to the nomination, but that Sanders will get it, and then Trump will beat Sanders.

I don’t yet know how Bloomberg will feature in that but I’m not currently seeing how he’ll bloom (fnar fnar) out of thin air come Super Tuesday.

Foxy

speedy2 said:

Foxy said:

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.

Presently the state of play is:

Bernie can't win the nomination.
Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
Biden can't win the nomination.
Warren can't win the nomination.
Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.

I would disagree. Any of those six can win the nomination, though not all equally likely.

I reckon it is about 2/1 Bernie, 3/1 Pete, 4/1 Liz, 5/1 other, but the value and momentum is on Pete. I reckon Bernie has a low ceiling and is at it already.

BigRich

phiw said:

rpjs said:

phiw said:

Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

Be a bit embarrassing in his own state! Do you have write-ins in ID though?

We do have write-ins in Indiana, but from what I can tell, not for Primaries:

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Guide.FINAL.pdf

"A person may not be a write-in candidate during a primary election or for a party office, such as precinct committeeman or state convention delegate." p.4

From Wikipedia, it looks like Indiana, has a lot of candadits not on the ballot yet, I suspect that there dates for getting on the ballot are latter than other states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Ballot_access

ydoethur

AlastairMeeks said:

speedy2 said:

Foxy said:

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.

Presently the state of play is:

Bernie can't win the nomination.
Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
Biden can't win the nomination.
Warren can't win the nomination.
Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.

At least three of those can win the nomination. Bernie Sanders looks like the single most likely to me at present, simply because his opponents are divided and look set to remain so.

Three Dems fighting for the nomination have the look of you, I and OGH fighting over who gets first dibs on the hairbrush.

rottenborough

rcs1000 said:

The most likely New Hampshire result is a Sanders win. But it's far from certain. Sanders is polling something in the 20s, and that's probably where he'll end up. I reckon there's probably a 75% chance that he does it. (It is, after all, one of the most reliably pro-Sanders states in the country.) I think Sanders will get 29% in NH.

But Buttigieg - even before the Iowa caucuses - had begin to reverse his decline there. The big question is how much of the Biden / Bloomberg / Other Moderate goes his way in NH. My guess is that Buttigieg gets 25%.

We also shouldn't discount a decent Warren performance. I think she'll also make the 20s - I'd guess 22%.

And Biden will trail in fourth. Again.

We next come to Nevada. Now, the latest poll from A- rated Suffolk last month, has Biden 19%, Sanders 18%, Warren 11%, Buttigieg 8%. The question becomes support Biden loses and where it goes. And also, does Buttigieg have a great caucus organisation in Nevada? If he does, he might beat Biden again. Three losses out of three for Biden... would that be terminal?

Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire to have a shot at the Presidency. But if he does, and it's probably no worse than a one-in-four shot, then he really does have a chance. The Biden campaign is poorly organised and poorly funded. It could easily implode if it fails in both New Hampshire and Nevada.

Buttigieg's operation in Nevada is ready. Will it matter in 2020?

"He has twelve offices across the state -- including in rural Fallon and Pahrump -- and 55 organizers and operatives on the ground here. The former mayor has also been on air in the state since December and notched nine total trips to the Silver State, including to the Las Vegas area on Saturday."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/11/politics/buttigieg-nevada-2020-election/index.html

TheGreenMachine

Casino_Royale

Sandpit said:

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

I’m not an expert on Chinese culture (obviously) but one thing I consistently hear is the importance of “Face”.

What does that mean here?

It probably means that the Chinese Government wants to be seen by the RoW (and, very unsaid, its own citizens) as both competent and in control. There’s also probably a secondary concern there about not bringing its own culture and sanitary standards into disrepute.

So, could the real death rate and incidence of occurrence possibly be higher than declared?

Absolutely, but it’s harder and harder to camouflage as the days go by, and particularly as the rest of the world grasps its own data.

So, my guess would be they probably downplayed it at the beginning, are now tacking toward the truth and focusing on being seen to have a grip on it, hence the widely released media pics of quick new hospitals, and the like.

They may shortly adopt more ruthless containment methods as it won’t be long before they start to worry principally about China being semi-isolated and its economic growth choked off.

Endillion

I wonder if Buttigieg fares better if he:

a) wins NH, thus picking up much-needed momentum going into Nevada, SC and Super Tuesday; or
b) finishes comfortably second but waaaaaaay behind Bernie, thus finally jolting the DNC senior bods into action and making Biden and others pull out and endorse him.

Probably a). Because I don't get the impression that the DNC is anywhere near ruthless or organised enough to make b) a winning strategy.

Foxy

Casino_Royale said:

Sandpit said:

speedy2 said:

This is worrying:
https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?

I’m not an expert on Chinese culture (obviously) but one thing I consistently hear is the importance of “Face”.

What does that mean here?

It probably means that the Chinese Government wants to be seen by the RoW (and, very unsaid, its own citizens) as both competent and in control. There’s also probably a secondary concern there about not bringing its own culture and sanitary standards into disrepute.

So, could the real death rate and incidence of occurrence possibly be higher than declared?

Absolutely, but it’s harder and harder to camouflage as the days go by, and particularly as the rest of the world grasps its own data.

So, my guess would be they probably downplayed it at the beginning, are now tacking toward the truth and focusing on being seen to have a grip on it, hence the widely released media pics of quick new hospitals, and the like.

They may shortly adopt more ruthless containment methods as it won’t be long before they start to worry principally about China being semi-isolated and its economic growth choked off.

I think China has been unusually open and honest about it all, from the notification to the WHO on 31st Dec onwards. Some of their containment methods are a bit draconian, but from a containment perspective, that is probably a good thing.

logical_song

speedy2 said:

Foxy said:

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.

Presently the state of play is:

Bernie can't win the nomination.
Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
Biden can't win the nomination.
Warren can't win the nomination.
Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.

Clinton (Bill) was once one of the 7 dwarfs.

ydoethur

logical_song said:

speedy2 said:

Foxy said:

speedy2 said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months

If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.

I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.

Presently the state of play is:

Bernie can't win the nomination.
Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
Biden can't win the nomination.
Warren can't win the nomination.
Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.

Clinton (Bill) was once one of the 7 dwarfs.

I’m told he blew his entry.

Richard_Nabavi

A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

80 needed for a majority.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

[To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

ydoethur

Richard_Nabavi said:

A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

80 needed for a majority.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

[To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

That Parliament would be better hung than Dirk Diggler. It would surely have to be FF and SF in some sort of pact?

Richard_Nabavi

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

80 needed for a majority.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

[To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

That Parliament would be better hung than Dirk Diggler. It would surely have to be FF and SF in some sort of pact?

More likely FF/Green/Lab plus perhaps an Indy or two, or an FF-led minority government with tacit FG support in some way.

But yes, this is going to be messy.

Sandpit

ydoethur said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

80 needed for a majority.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

[To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

That Parliament would be better hung than Dirk Diggler. It would surely have to be FF and SF in some sort of pact?

Or some sort of unity government to shut out the Shinners.

TheScreamingEagles

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

Edit - Quite like this take

https://twitter.com/ariehkovler/status/1225123019217162240

Endillion

Nigelb said:

glw said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

* And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.

Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.

I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.

glw

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.

Pulpstar

My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

Pulpstar

Richard_Nabavi said:

A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

80 needed for a majority.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

[To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

SF probably don't have enough candidates to take advantage of the polling

phiw

BigRich said:

phiw said:

rpjs said:

phiw said:

Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

Be a bit embarrassing in his own state! Do you have write-ins in ID though?

We do have write-ins in Indiana, but from what I can tell, not for Primaries:

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Guide.FINAL.pdf

"A person may not be a write-in candidate during a primary election or for a party office, such as precinct committeeman or state convention delegate." p.4

From Wikipedia, it looks like Indiana, has a lot of candadits not on the ballot yet, I suspect that there dates for getting on the ballot are latter than other states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Ballot_access

I think you're right, maybe we'll know by next week?

https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/brochure.pdf

"Tuesday, January 28, 2020
DEADLINE, by noon, for a major political party candidate for President to file a petition of nomination with a county voter registration office for verification of petition signatures. "

"Friday, February 7, 2020
DEADLINE, by noon, Indianapolis time, for major party candidate for President or Governor to file a declaration of candidacy and petitions for placement on the primary election ballot with the election division following certification of petition signatures by county voter registration offices."

Casino_Royale

Pulpstar said:

My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?

ydoethur

glw said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.

I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.

Richard_Nabavi

Pulpstar said:

SF probably don't have enough candidates to take advantage of the polling

No they don't (they are fielding 42 candidates in all), but even allowing for that, an extra 5 on 2016 looks meagre for a vote-share increase from 13.8% last time to the 20% to 25% shown in the last three polls.

Wulfrun_Phil

Endillion said:

I wonder if Buttigieg fares better if he:

a) wins NH, thus picking up much-needed momentum going into Nevada, SC and Super Tuesday; or
b) finishes comfortably second but waaaaaaay behind Bernie, thus finally jolting the DNC senior bods into action and making Biden and others pull out and endorse him.

Probably a). Because I don't get the impression that the DNC is anywhere near ruthless or organised enough to make b) a winning strategy.

The DNC will be mindful that thus far, for all their failings, both Biden and Sanders have been consistently polling better in a presidential election v Trump than has Buttigieg.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

glw said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.

I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.

I reckon it was a bet gone wrong.

Sandpit

TheGreenMachine said:

Amazingly no fatalities reported so far. They were bloody lucky. Two planes before them went around due to gusting winds, it looks like these guys landed 2/3 of the way down the wet runway and overran.

Second accident in a month for Pagasus, and third in a year for the airline at Istanbul, commentators on the pilot forum suggesting the airline don’t deserve to have an operating licence!
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/629449-pegasus-accident-saw-just-reported-3.html

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

glw said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.

I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.

I reckon it was a bet gone wrong.

What - as in, Gonville and Caius say:
‘I bet you can’t find anyone thicker than that retard we’ve got doing a Philosphy MPhil.’

And St John’s reply:
‘Hold my beer.’

Philip_Thompson

Endillion said:

Nigelb said:

glw said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

* And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.

Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.

I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.

I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.

TheScreamingEagles

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

glw said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.

I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.

I reckon it was a bet gone wrong.

What - as in, Gonville and Caius say:
‘I bet you can’t find anyone thicker than that retard we’ve got doing a Philosphy MPhil.’

And St John’s reply:
‘Hold my beer.’

There have been stories that colleges like to play Professor Higgins to educational Eliza Doolittles with one candidate every so often.

Casino_Royale

This could be politically significant (albeit it depends on how the rest of this year plays out) - Brexit has decreased significantly in salience, and the perception of the Government’s handling of it has improved too:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1225073132333084672?s=20

logical_song

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Nigelb said:

glw said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

* And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.

Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.

I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.

I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.

But if that wasn't on offer and you had to choose?

matt

rcs1000 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

If Buttigieg is clear second, and Biden is fourth, then he still has a chance. But it all depends on Biden continuing to destroy himself.

Does Biden even properly understand what he’s doing. There are flashes of lucidity but he appears to be operating a lower level than he previously did (which I never felt was great).

Sandpit

A couple of tech blog discussions on Iowa’s Democrats, and their crap app:

https://politics.slashdot.org/story/20/02/05/1343254/how-a-bad-app-plunged-iowa-into-chaos

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/04/iowa_caucus_software/

Apparently Nevada were due to use the same app, but have now cancelled the contract with the company, who are rather weirdly called Shadow - and unsurprisingly have lots of contacts among senior Democrats.

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

ydoethur said:

glw said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.

I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.

I reckon it was a bet gone wrong.

What - as in, Gonville and Caius say:
‘I bet you can’t find anyone thicker than that retard we’ve got doing a Philosphy MPhil.’

And St John’s reply:
‘Hold my beer.’

There have been stories that colleges like to play Professor Higgins to educational Eliza Doolittles with one candidate every so often.

Eliza Doolittle at least spoke English! In what parallel universe would anyone ever hope to be Pygmalion to Burgon’s Galatea?

YBarddCwsc

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

Fianna Fáil: 53
Fine Gael: 38
Sinn Féin: 28
Labour Party: 8
Green Party: 14
Social Democrats: 3
Sol-PBP: 2
Others: 14

80 needed for a majority.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

[To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

SF probably don't have enough candidates to take advantage of the polling

True. But they have 46 candidates, so if the polling is right, you'd expect SF to be above ~ 30.

FF looks high -- I don't think they have been forgiven (at least not by former FF voters I know).

Pulpstar

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?

Hah I'm probably the wrong person to ask on that as I maxed on him way higher
I think they overstate his chance but I could be wrong.

Casino_Royale

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?

Hah I'm probably the wrong person to ask on that as I maxed on him way higher
I think they overstate his chance but I could be wrong.

Help me out here mate 😰

Casino_Royale

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Nigelb said:

glw said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

* And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.

Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.

I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.

I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.

Tough call!

I’ve had (mild) pneumonia before and it’s very very nasty.

I understand coronavirus also attacks the lungs, and I’d be worried that it might swipe off my youngest as well as my elderly folks.

Casino_Royale

I think the BBC have this wrong: I’m not sure eating garlic won’t help prevent catching coronavirus.

I’d have thought it’d help keep other people at least a metre away:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51386894

Pulpstar

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?

Hah I'm probably the wrong person to ask on that as I maxed on him way higher
I think they overstate his chance but I could be wrong.

Help me out here mate 😰

I'm a few thousand in a hole with him, I'll start sweating if he wins California.

Wulfrun_Phil

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

How long have we got to decide? When will the NEC publish the procedural rules applying? We'll need at least 3 months based on the pace of the process currently under way to make a much simpler decision. Will the location of the special conference be kept secret in order to avoid the location becoming a target, and if so will a quorum of 6 in a nuclear bunker suffice? Or can we fast track the process within a month under a process of tabling emergency resolutions to CLP meetings perhaps? Even better, can affiliation to the Stop the War Coalition be treated as a proxy for opposing all military interventions, anywhere, other than those initiated from the Kremlin (cf. Syria), in which case the decision can be taken before the potential for conflict has even emerged?

Nonetheless, we shouldn't let the petty detail get in the way of recognising the genius of Burgon's idea.

IshmaelZ

Casino_Royale said:

I think the BBC have this wrong: I’m not sure eating garlic won’t help prevent catching coronavirus.

I’d have thought it’d help keep other people at least a metre away:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51386894

I don't believe anyone believes any of those "myths" in the first place. They should fabricate something more interesting, like that having voted Leave confers immunity.

Casino_Royale

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Pulpstar said:

My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?

Hah I'm probably the wrong person to ask on that as I maxed on him way higher
I think they overstate his chance but I could be wrong.

Help me out here mate 😰

I'm a few thousand in a hole with him, I'll start sweating if he wins California.

Me too.

We die together, Mr. Bond!

NickPalmer

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

FWIW, CNN interviewed numerous people at one of the caucuses, and was unable to find anyone who didn't say they'd be willing to vote for whoever the nominee was. Twitter magnifies the extremists, and then journalists pick them out because they're a better story..

oxfordsimon

Wulfrun_Phil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

https://twitter.com/LabourList/status/1225116932321316864

How long have we got to decide? When will the NEC publish the procedural rules applying? We'll need at least 3 months based on the pace of the process currently under way to make a much simpler decision. Will the location of the special conference be kept secret in order to avoid the location becoming a target, and if so will a quorum of 6 in a nuclear bunker suffice? Or can we fast track the process within a month under a process of tabling emergency resolutions to CLP meetings perhaps? Even better, can affiliation to the Stop the War Coalition be treated as a proxy for opposing all military interventions, anywhere, other than those initiated from the Kremlin (cf. Syria), in which case the decision can be taken before the potential for conflict has even emerged?

Nonetheless, we shouldn't let the petty detail get in the way of recognising the genius of Burgon's idea.

He truly is an embarrassment. Perhaps we should start a campaign to investigate how he got a degree... Cambridge have some questions to answer. Affirmative action clearly went too far with letting him study there.

Casino_Royale

IshmaelZ said:

Casino_Royale said:

I think the BBC have this wrong: I’m not sure eating garlic won’t help prevent catching coronavirus.

I’d have thought it’d help keep other people at least a metre away:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51386894

I don't believe anyone believes any of those "myths" in the first place. They should fabricate something more interesting, like that having voted Leave confers immunity.

It was a joke.

Philip_Thompson

logical_song said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Nigelb said:

glw said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

* And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.

Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.

I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.

I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.

But if that wasn't on offer and you had to choose?

It depends upon my mood at the time. I wrote woops.....my wife caught me not working.....awky mo mo xxxxx

ydoethur

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Nonetheless, we shouldn't let the petty detail get in the way of recognising the genius of Burgon's idea.

Well yes, it is an idea of pure genius.

You wonder which of his Tory handlers came up with it.

Philip_Thompson

logical_song said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Endillion said:

Nigelb said:

glw said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1225091446442745860?s=20

Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

* And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.

Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.

I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.

I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.

But if that wasn't on offer and you had to choose?

It depends upon my mood. I wrote previously on another site my order of preference:

Mayor Pete
Anyone but Warren/Sanders
Anyone primary-challenging Trump
Asteroid Strike
Warren/Sanders
Alien Attack
Trump

I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.

Alistair

AlastairMeeks said:

I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

Focus groups and polling says that Black voters have concerns about Mayor Peter's electabilty due to being gay.

As in, they are not voting against him because he is gay but but because they are worried the rest of America won't vote for him because he is gay.

Andidate Electabilty seems to be the primary concern of African American primary voters.

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1225133017628336129