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..
Polling says 16% of Sanders supporters won't vote for another candidate and a whopping 31% say 'it depends'.
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.
Ah yeah - I meant me personally not any relatives or loved ones!
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
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.
Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.
I am sure Putin will be only too happy to wait for Labour to finish consulting Labour Party members on any response once Russian troops are in central London
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
No he isn't, he is Ed Miliband Labour at best, John McDonnell Labour at worst
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
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
Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
I like Romney.
Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
Maybe, but I think he's expecting at some point for Trump to be unmasked incontrovertibly as a bad 'un and then can claim to be the only Republican that saw through him.
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
Bill Clinton was a Tory by British standards.
Well he certainly had his fair share of sex scandals.
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
That's not accurate.
This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)
This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!
Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
I like Romney.
Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
Maybe, but I think he's expecting at some point for Trump to be unmasked incontrovertibly as a bad 'un and then can claim to be the only Republican that saw through him.
Then run again himself in 2024, plus Utah is about the only state where Republicans hate Trump so he can probably get away with it and stay Senator
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
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.
Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
Bill Clinton was a Tory by British standards.
Bill Clinton was like Tony Blair by British standards.
Still my second-favourite US President of my lifetime (after Reagan)
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.
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).
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
Context matters. I'd rather not have Sanders tank the US economy over the next four to eight years, thanks. Even if he was somewhere around Oliver Letwin or John Mann, which he emphatically isn't.
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
That's not accurate.
This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)
This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!
Indeed, traditionally the US Democrats were to the right of Labour but the left of the Tories, but Sanders isn't a Democrat let alone a traditional one.
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
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.
Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.
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).
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Nevada is largely irrelevant, Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina are the key early states.
You must win at least one of those to remain a viable contender for the nomination
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
That's not accurate.
This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)
This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!
Indeed, traditionally the US Democrats were to the right of Labour but the left of the Tories, but Sanders isn't a Democrat let alone a traditional one.
Look at the people in the U.K. who seem attracted to him. That’s where he sits.
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.
Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.
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.
Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.
I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
That's not accurate.
This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)
This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!
Indeed, traditionally the US Democrats were to the right of Labour but the left of the Tories, but Sanders isn't a Democrat let alone a traditional one.
Look at the people in the U.K. who seem attracted to him. That’s where he sits.
And look at who in the UK he is attracted to too. He was a fan of Jeremy Corbyn.
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?
Bloomberg 9/2 for Democratic nominee with Ladbrokes (better than Biden or Mayor Pete but not as good as Bernie) 8/1 for President - better than Biden but not as good as Bernie or Trump.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
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.
Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Nevada is largely irrelevant, Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina are the key early states.
You must win at least one of those to remain a viable contender for the nomination
Just so I'm sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that if Buttigieg wins Nevada, it is of absolutely no importance whatsoever, right?
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.
Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Nevada is largely irrelevant, Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina are the key early states.
You must win at least one of those to remain a viable contender for the nomination
Just so I'm sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that if Buttigieg wins Nevada, it is of absolutely no importance whatsoever, right?
Pretty much, it was his winning most delegates in Iowa that was important to get him at least through to Super Tuesday.
No candidate has won Nevada alone without winning one of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina and been nominee or even in the final 2 and it has few delegates compared to say California, Florida, Texas, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania etc
Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
I like Romney.
Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
Maybe, but I think he's expecting at some point for Trump to be unmasked incontrovertibly as a bad 'un and then can claim to be the only Republican that saw through him.
He's just a Mormon. Opposition to Trump is a religious thing for Mormons.
The only reason Romney ran for the Senate was to deprive the Republicans of a Senate seat for the duration of Trump's presidency since his term expires in 2024.
It's not complicated, just look at the other Mormons.
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
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.
Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.
If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible
I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
I like Romney.
Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
Maybe, but I think he's expecting at some point for Trump to be unmasked incontrovertibly as a bad 'un and then can claim to be the only Republican that saw through him.
He's just a Mormon. Opposition to Trump is a religious thing for Mormons.
The only reason Romney ran for the Senate was to deprive the Republicans of a Senate seat for the duration of Trump's presidency since his term expires in 2024.
It's not complicated, just look at the other Mormons.
Indeed, Romney got 72% against Obama in Utah in 2012, well above his national share, Trump got just 45% in 2016 in Utah against Hillary, no different to his national share.
Trump has almost made normally rock solid GOP Utah a swing state
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
Does Buttigieg have a similar (ie percieved) problem with other non-whites?
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
In the noughties his sexuality would have been a disqualifying factor.
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
All this is true. And also the habit of treating “the black vote” as a single block is a really bad one.
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
I am a vintage wine collector in Highgate village, with a personal net wealth of £30m. So fuck you, whoever you are. "Topping" my arse, you couldn't top a DDLG Scouse sub on heroin
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
Never underestimate my girl.
I will repeat what my savvy New York friend said a couple of months ago: the Dems will faff around a bit and then pick Warren.
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
Oooh! [sarcasm on] Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob. [/sarcasm off]
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.
Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.
Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.
If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible
I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
I am a vintage wine collector in Highgate village, with a personal net wealth of £30m. So fuck you, whoever you are. "Topping" my arse, you couldn't top a DDLG Scouse sub on heroin
Nah. You know fuck all about wine. Or food. But you write about them both very entertainingly.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
Oooh! [sarcasm on] Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob. [/sarcasm off]
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
There was tons of evidence from the primaries and the opinion polls at the time that Trump was popular enough with evangelicals and the alliance with Pence solidified that block.
Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.
Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions. They all get low single digits :
Buttigieg with minorities. Sanders with old people. Biden with young people.
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.
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.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
Yep this might right but we don't know, which is why these contests are the real tests of his electability.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
Never underestimate my girl.
I will repeat what my savvy New York friend said a couple of months ago: the Dems will faff around a bit and then pick Warren.
She's quite possible.
But she probably needs to start, you know, winning caucuses and primaries.
Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
Never underestimate my girl.
I will repeat what my savvy New York friend said a couple of months ago: the Dems will faff around a bit and then pick Warren.
She's quite possible.
But she probably needs to start, you know, winning caucuses and primaries.
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
Oooh! [sarcasm on] Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob. [/sarcasm off]
Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
There was tons of evidence from the primaries and the opinion polls at the time that Trump was popular enough with evangelicals and the alliance with Pence solidified that block.
Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.
Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions. They all get low single digits :
Buttigieg with minorities. Sanders with old people. Biden with young people.
Buttigieg was elected Mayor with massive vote shares of a City that was much more AA than the country as a whole. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.
Let's see how he does in Nevada. That's a much more diverse place than Iowa or NH. If he's top tier (or wins) there, then he clearly can get votes from minorities.
Just because he doesn't get minority votes now, doesn't mean he can't get them in the future.
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
Oooh! [sarcasm on] Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob. [/sarcasm off]
Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *
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.
Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.
If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible
I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
You might just be one of the lucky ones for whom it’s not serious...
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
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.
Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.
If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible
I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
That's something I've been wondering.
It transmits like the common cold, and most of it's symptoms are like the common cold. So most people and doctors would think you've got the common cold and not treat it or even count you as a victim if you died from it.
Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.
If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible
I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
Oooh! [sarcasm on] Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob. [/sarcasm off]
Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *
*Though really wine is very nice too of course.
Their non-alcoholic beer is rubbish.
Peroni non alcoholic beer is excellent (zero alcohol that is, not the 0.5% stuff).
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
Oooh! [sarcasm on] Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob. [/sarcasm off]
Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *
*Though really wine is very nice too of course.
Their non-alcoholic beer is rubbish.
Peroni non alcoholic beer is excellent (zero alcohol that is, not the 0.5% stuff).
There are some fabulous non-alcoholic IPAs out there.
Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
Oooh! [sarcasm on] Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob. [/sarcasm off]
Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *
*Though really wine is very nice too of course.
Their non-alcoholic beer is rubbish.
Peroni non alcoholic beer is excellent (zero alcohol that is, not the 0.5% stuff).
There are some fabulous non-alcoholic IPAs out there.
I think there needs to be some kind of scale production before non alcoholic beer tastes nice which sadly rules out a lot of producers. Heineken is ok but Peroni knocks it out of the park.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Just Googled Tikves Barovo. I'm sure it's very nice - but £20 a bottle? Not THAT good value. I don't think I know anyone who would pay £20 for a bottle of wine. I'm in my forties and firmly wedged in the middle classes - but that's just not how people I know soend their money. This isn't a criticism of those who do, just a reflection that expensive wine must be quite a minority pursuit. I know plenty of people who would pay over £4 frima specialist for a really good bottle of beer, or £30 or £40 plus for a bottle of whiskey, but expensive wine seldom appears on the radar.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
There was tons of evidence from the primaries and the opinion polls at the time that Trump was popular enough with evangelicals and the alliance with Pence solidified that block.
Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.
Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions. They all get low single digits :
Buttigieg with minorities. Sanders with old people. Biden with young people.
Buttigieg was elected Mayor with massive vote shares of a City that was much more AA than the country as a whole. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.
We've already established South Bend does not have an especially large AA community by US standards.
More to the point he was voted in on a turnout of just over 20% the first time round, even fewer on re-election. In his re-election he performed worst in the minority districts, doing better in traditionally Republican-voting areas. Turnout was much higher in white districts, that's why he won.
Romeny's guilty vote has absolutely blown the White House up. They've leaned so totally on "partisan impeachment" that to make it bi partisan is huuuuuge.
The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
There was tons of evidence from the primaries and the opinion polls at the time that Trump was popular enough with evangelicals and the alliance with Pence solidified that block.
Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.
Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions. They all get low single digits :
Buttigieg with minorities. Sanders with old people. Biden with young people.
Buttigieg was elected Mayor with massive vote shares of a City that was much more AA than the country as a whole. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.
Let's see how he does in Nevada. That's a much more diverse place than Iowa or NH. If he's top tier (or wins) there, then he clearly can get votes from minorities.
Just because he doesn't get minority votes now, doesn't mean he can't get them in the future.
The same was said about Biden and White voters and look at him now.
It's a weakness in the process, the Democratic Primary is PR not Winner Take All like the Republican Primary. A purely factional candidate can't win a majority under PR.
@SeanT should explore more of central and east Europe’s wines. There are some great wines that never leave the countries in which they are made, and western European consumers aren’t ready to seek them out yet.
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
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.
So what is what on that graph
Can't tell, but the way that others are collecting the data, I guess the last two are deaths and recovered. So one of the first two is likely to be confirmed infections.
For comparison, official figures stand at 24,631 infections, 494 deaths, and 1029 recovered globally, the vast bulk of which are in mainland China
I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.
And yet, they love him now.
As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
Whoosh.
My point was about hypotheticals. If you had asked an evangelical voter in 2015 whether they'd vote for a man who paid his mistress to have an abortion, they'd have said no.
You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
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.
So what is what on that graph
According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
The mortality rate is not 0.5%. As has been mentioned you must compare deaths to the number of recovered, not number of infected. The number of recovered outside China is still very low.
Besides the mortality is likely to be inflated in Wuhan because the hospitals are overwhelmed.
Comments
https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)
This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!
https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
Still my second-favourite US President of my lifetime (after Reagan)
If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.
A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
You must win at least one of those to remain a viable contender for the nomination
It's all over. Buttigieg has won Iowa.
8/1 for President - better than Biden but not as good as Bernie or Trump.
Sanders 32,638
Buttigieg 28,825
Warren 25,025
Biden 19,878
Klobuchar 17,050
Yang 7,011
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D
Is this the best value wine in the world? YES
The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.
And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
No candidate has won Nevada alone without winning one of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina and been nominee or even in the final 2 and it has few delegates compared to say California, Florida, Texas, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania etc
Opposition to Trump is a religious thing for Mormons.
The only reason Romney ran for the Senate was to deprive the Republicans of a Senate seat for the duration of Trump's presidency since his term expires in 2024.
It's not complicated, just look at the other Mormons.
Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.
White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.
A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.
The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible
I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
Trump has almost made normally rock solid GOP Utah a swing state
He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.
Now, he's gay.
But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
And also the habit of treating “the black vote” as a single block is a really bad one.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
[sarcasm on]
Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob.
[/sarcasm off]
And yet, they love him now.
Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.
Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions.
They all get low single digits :
Buttigieg with minorities.
Sanders with old people.
Biden with young people.
I have no clue about the answer. Does/can anyone have such an overview?
But she probably needs to start, you know, winning caucuses and primaries.
*Though really wine is very nice too of course.
Let's see how he does in Nevada. That's a much more diverse place than Iowa or NH. If he's top tier (or wins) there, then he clearly can get votes from minorities.
Just because he doesn't get minority votes now, doesn't mean he can't get them in the future.
Actually auto correct said self idolate which is altogether more accurate.
It transmits like the common cold, and most of it's symptoms are like the common cold.
So most people and doctors would think you've got the common cold and not treat it or even count you as a victim if you died from it.
So the stastistics are bound to be flawed.
The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
I'm sure it's very nice - but £20 a bottle? Not THAT good value.
I don't think I know anyone who would pay £20 for a bottle of wine. I'm in my forties and firmly wedged in the middle classes - but that's just not how people I know soend their money.
This isn't a criticism of those who do, just a reflection that expensive wine must be quite a minority pursuit.
I know plenty of people who would pay over £4 frima specialist for a really good bottle of beer, or £30 or £40 plus for a bottle of whiskey, but expensive wine seldom appears on the radar.
More to the point he was voted in on a turnout of just over 20% the first time round, even fewer on re-election. In his re-election he performed worst in the minority districts, doing better in traditionally Republican-voting areas. Turnout was much higher in white districts, that's why he won.
It's a weakness in the process, the Democratic Primary is PR not Winner Take All like the Republican Primary.
A purely factional candidate can't win a majority under PR.
That's why right now no one wins.
For comparison, official figures stand at 24,631 infections, 494 deaths, and 1029 recovered globally, the vast bulk of which are in mainland China
I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
My point was about hypotheticals. If you had asked an evangelical voter in 2015 whether they'd vote for a man who paid his mistress to have an abortion, they'd have said no.
Yet, they now love him.
Besides the mortality is likely to be inflated in Wuhan because the hospitals are overwhelmed.