Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whoever ends up winning Iowa the WH2020 Dem nomination battle

135

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,678
    edited February 2020
  • I suspect when I end up in hell I shall be force fed pizzas with pineapple toppings for eternity for helping Andrea Jenkyns get elected.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    rpjs said:

    Gabs3 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.

    I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:

    Who has popular policies?
    Sanders

    Who is charismatic?
    No one.

    Who can unite the party?
    Warren

    Who can divide the party?
    Buttigieg, Sanders

    Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
    There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
    Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white.

    I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm. My wife doesn't think she could - she says she might sit the general out if he's the nominee as we live in a state, New York, that won't go anything but Democrat.
    Buttigieg, if he is the nominee, will have the most progressive platform of any major party nominee in US history.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 435
    edited February 2020

    rpjs said:


    I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm.

    All votes count exactly the same, whether cast with enthusiasm or not.

    People tend to forget this. It's nice to get the "Oh, [insert name here]" chants. But, ultimately, it's more important to persuade a plurality that you're marginally better than the alternative.

    Corbyn and Sanders are, in my view, good examples of people who enthuse quite a lot of people at the cost of making a lot of people (whose votes count just as much) quietly say, "nah, not for me".

    True, but you could say the same about Trump. And Johnson, to a lesser extent.

    Although we've recognised a shift in political alignment, we don't seem to have changed our definition of the centre, and there's a danger that we therefore draw incorrect conclusions about who has the widest appeal.

    For example, on the "metropolitan elite" versus "small town America" scale, Sanders could be seen as a centrist.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    The EU really needs to have directly elected presidents.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited February 2020

    ydoethur said:


    AAAAAARGGH!

    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.

    Please Sir! Help me out with this.

    If you got to a shop with Mrs Ydoethur and she wants to buy something which you know is £100 cheaper next door, would you tell her..

    A.) it costs £100 fewer next door

    Or

    B.) it costs £100 less next door
    Easy. Neither.

    There are two reasons for this:

    A.) The correct formulation is, ‘it’s £100 cheaper next door;’

    B.) I’m not married.

    Edit - bloody sunglasses!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    I suspect when I end up in hell I shall be force fed pizzas with pineapple toppings for eternity for helping Andrea Jenkyns get elected.

    While listening to Radiohead and being advised how good a general Hannibal was.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Emily thornberry has picked up another nomination tonight to take her to 14 CLPs - with her own CLP yet to nominate. Is it too late for her now?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,678
    edited February 2020
    I'll be going on strike and will remain on strike until the Labour party has been abolished.

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/1225880818712707073
  • I suspect when I end up in hell I shall be force fed pizzas with pineapple toppings for eternity for helping Andrea Jenkyns get elected.

    "There's a special rung in hell reserved for people who waste good scotch pizza with pineapple toppings."
  • @Sunil_Prasannan

    The word cheaper could also work.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    I'll be going on strike and will remain on strike until the Labour party has been abolished.

    https://twitter.com/PA/status/1225880818712707073

    She is bonkers - desperate - or perhaps both.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,602
    Trump's implied probability of re-election has just reached 60% with Betfair.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 435

    I suspect when I end up in hell I shall be force fed pizzas with pineapple toppings for eternity for helping Andrea Jenkyns get elected.

    "There's a special rung in hell reserved for people who waste good scotch pizza with pineapple toppings."
    If hell consists of pineapple-topped-pizza that might not be much of a deterrent.

    And if we get to listen to Radiohead too, sign me up!
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited February 2020
    "Whoever ends up winning Iowa the WH2020 Dem nomination battle is now framed as between Bernie and Buttigieg"

    What an extraordinary thread heading from OGM, seemingly totally ignoring the chances of Michael Bloomberg until he suddenly remembers him as an after thought, answering his own question as regards whether his huge financial investment into his campaign will make any difference ... "I don't know" is his equivocal reply.
    Well the betting market certainly has a much more positive view of Bloomberg's prospects where he is the second favourite with the Betfair Exchange to win the Democratic nomination with odds of 5.12, compared with Sanders on 2.65. Meanwhile Biden and Buttigieg languish in 3rd an 4th places both on odds of 7.5.
  • rpjs said:

    Gabs3 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.

    I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:

    Who has popular policies?
    Sanders

    Who is charismatic?
    No one.

    Who can unite the party?
    Warren

    Who can divide the party?
    Buttigieg, Sanders

    Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
    There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
    Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white.

    I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm. My wife doesn't think she could - she says she might sit the general out if he's the nominee as we live in a state, New York, that won't go anything but Democrat.
    It was that attitude that gave us Trump.
    Otoh perhaps the middle of the road, centrist, corporate hacks gave us Trump.
  • justin124 said:

    Emily thornberry has picked up another nomination tonight to take her to 14 CLPs - with her own CLP yet to nominate. Is it too late for her now?

    Probably
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.

    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.

    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!

    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.

    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.

    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!

    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    So just because Alfred couldn’t cook, we should have no four star restaurants?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492
    Andy_JS said:

    Trump's implied probability of re-election has just reached 60% with Betfair.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441

    Do we think that is mostly the impeachment thing falling flat, or the Iowa caucus mess up/result?

    personally I think its a good time to top up on 'Any democrat' candidate to win
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    rpjs said:

    Gabs3 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.

    I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:

    Who has popular policies?
    Sanders

    Who is charismatic?
    No one.

    Who can unite the party?
    Warren

    Who can divide the party?
    Buttigieg, Sanders

    Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
    There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
    Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white.

    I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm. My wife doesn't think she could - she says she might sit the general out if he's the nominee as we live in a state, New York, that won't go anything but Democrat.
    It was that attitude that gave us Trump.
    Trump has sort of grown on me.

    When you see him you just got to think, he’s not serious he’s just taking the piss. And then he ain’t scary or can’t wind you up anymore. He don't really believe in anything, or care about anything. Unlike every other politician on earth he doesn’t really expect you to take him seriously. He’s a sort of nihilist disruptor. Like the Joker from a batman film.

    He has this fawning fan base, but he doesn’t really care about a single one of them. Like a true nihilist comic book villain he could order any of his fans to just Leap into the nearest active volcano. “Don Says” and off they go like lemmings to fry on the lava.

    That’s Trump.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,126
    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
  • BigRich said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Trump's implied probability of re-election has just reached 60% with Betfair.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441

    Do we think that is mostly the impeachment thing falling flat, or the Iowa caucus mess up/result?

    personally I think its a good time to top up on 'Any democrat' candidate to win
    You may well have a point. Currently the best odds on a Democratic Party POTUS win are those on offer with the Betfair Exchange at 2.48 or 2.40 net of their commission.
  • "Whoever ends up winning Iowa the WH2020 Dem nomination battle is now framed as between Bernie and Buttigieg"

    What an extraordinary thread heading from OGM, seemingly totally ignoring the chances of Michael Bloomberg until he suddenly remembers him as an after thought, answering his own question as regards whether his huge financial investment into his campaign will make any difference ... "I don't know" is his equivocal reply.
    Well the betting market certainly has a much more positive view of Bloomberg's prospects where he is the second favourite with the Betfair Exchange to win the Democratic nomination with odds of 5.12, compared with Sanders on 2.65. Meanwhile Biden and Buttigieg languish in 3rd an 4th places both on odds of 7.5.

    Wait till New Hampshire
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,126
    egg said:

    rpjs said:

    Gabs3 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.

    I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:

    Who has popular policies?
    Sanders

    Who is charismatic?
    No one.

    Who can unite the party?
    Warren

    Who can divide the party?
    Buttigieg, Sanders

    Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
    There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
    Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white.

    I'd vote for him over Trump, but with no enthusiasm. My wife doesn't think she could - she says she might sit the general out if he's the nominee as we live in a state, New York, that won't go anything but Democrat.
    It was that attitude that gave us Trump.
    Trump has sort of grown on me.... He’s a sort of nihilist disruptor. Like the Joker from a Batman film....
    Problem is, he's the Jared Leto Joker... :(

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230
    rpjs said:

    Gabs3 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.

    I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:

    Who has popular policies?
    Sanders

    Who is charismatic?
    No one.

    Who can unite the party?
    Warren

    Who can divide the party?
    Buttigieg, Sanders

    Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
    There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
    Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white...
    Which is odd, as he’s considerably less wealthy than Sanders or Warren.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,126
    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Thank you.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230
    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?
    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    The less we hear of this debate, the better.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    edited February 2020
    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Wikipedia also says Richard III didn’t kill his nephews, that Josef Selmayr was wrongly convicted of war crimes and that it is likely the Ninth Legion was lost in Britain.

    Yes, I will cite it myself (on here anyway) because it’s convenient, but only when I have checked its sources and found them trustworthy.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230
    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!
    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    There are no ironclad rules of language.

    And there’s nothing wrong with the influence of random blokes a few centuries back. Look how well we did with Shakespeare.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!
    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    There are no ironclad rules of language.

    And there’s nothing wrong with the influence of random blokes a few centuries back. Look how well we did with Shakespeare.
    Shakespeare was rubbish. Couldn’t even spell his own name :smile:
  • Andy_JS said:

    Trump's implied probability of re-election has just reached 60% with Betfair.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128151441

    Free money tbh.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!
    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    There are no ironclad rules of language.

    And there’s nothing wrong with the influence of random blokes a few centuries back. Look how well we did with Shakespeare.
    Shakespeare was rubbish. Couldn’t even spell his own name :smile:
    Creative experimentation.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 435
    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
  • ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!
    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    There are no ironclad rules of language.

    And there’s nothing wrong with the influence of random blokes a few centuries back. Look how well we did with Shakespeare.
    Shakespeare was rubbish. Couldn’t even spell his own name :smile:
    Indeed, you don't spell Edward de Vere as 'Shakespeare'.
  • Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!
    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    There are no ironclad rules of language.
    Unless you're French.

    As Dr Johnson wisely observed trying to fix a language is like trying to bind the sea in chains.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,468
    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?
    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    The less we hear of this debate, the better.
    Fewer posts on the subject?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,623
    kicorse said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
    A preposition is always the wrong word to end a sentence with.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Nigelb said:

    rpjs said:

    Gabs3 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.

    I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:

    Who has popular policies?
    Sanders

    Who is charismatic?
    No one.

    Who can unite the party?
    Warren

    Who can divide the party?
    Buttigieg, Sanders

    Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
    There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
    Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white...
    Which is odd, as he’s considerably less wealthy than Sanders or Warren.
    Compared to most people in the US, and indeed most people in Indiana, he is rich.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!
    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    There are no ironclad rules of language.

    And there’s nothing wrong with the influence of random blokes a few centuries back. Look how well we did with Shakespeare.
    Quite.

    Shakespeare used language, he didn't write whiny books saying how he thought other people should use language.


  • Unless you're French.

    As Dr Johnson wisely observed trying to fix a language is like trying to bind the sea in chains.

    The French ruined their language with all those silly symbols.

    But you'll be all delighted to know that sometime in the next few weeks I'll be publishing a based on the thread on the Oxford comma and what it means for betting (on politics).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!
    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    There are no ironclad rules of language.

    And there’s nothing wrong with the influence of random blokes a few centuries back. Look how well we did with Shakespeare.
    Quite.

    Shakespeare used language, he didn't write whiny books saying how he thought other people should use language.
    As @ydoethur points out, he left it to later generations to tidy up his mess.
  • Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
    A preposition is always the wrong word to end a sentence with.
    F*ck off.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    Alistair said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.
    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.
    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!
    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    Mate, there is no textual analysis of the English language that supports an ironclad usage of fewer over less.

    It is an entirely made up notion by a random bloke who wrote a style guide in the late 1700s. If Alfred the Great can use less then I can as well.
    There are no ironclad rules of language.

    And there’s nothing wrong with the influence of random blokes a few centuries back. Look how well we did with Shakespeare.
    Shakespeare was rubbish. Couldn’t even spell his own name :smile:
    Indeed, you don't spell Edward de Vere as 'Shakespeare'.
    Loved To The Manor Born 👍🏻
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,720

    I suspect when I end up in hell I shall be force fed pizzas with pineapple toppings for eternity for helping Andrea Jenkyns get elected.

    Whilst reading threads on Brexit ref 253 and Sindy ref 436...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230
    edited February 2020
    rpjs said:

    Nigelb said:

    rpjs said:

    Gabs3 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.

    I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:

    Who has popular policies?
    Sanders

    Who is charismatic?
    No one.

    Who can unite the party?
    Warren

    Who can divide the party?
    Buttigieg, Sanders

    Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
    There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
    Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white...
    Which is odd, as he’s considerably less wealthy than Sanders or Warren.
    Compared to most people in the US, and indeed most people in Indiana, he is rich.
    “...rich and white...” as a jibe sounds a bit pathetic when you consider it applies to all of the Democratic contenders.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230
    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
    A preposition is always the wrong word to end a sentence with.
    There are few rules I could give fewer fucks about.

  • I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.
  • Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
    A preposition is always the wrong word to end a sentence with.
    There are few rules I could give fewer fucks about.

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
    A preposition is always the wrong word to end a sentence with.
    F*ck off.
    I think you missed Sandpit's ironic sentence ending with a preposition!

  • But you'll be all delighted to know that sometime in the next few weeks I'll be publishing a based on the thread on the Oxford comma and what it means for betting (on politics).

    Your sentence doesn't make any sense :lol:
  • FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    Nigelb said:

    rpjs said:

    Nigelb said:

    rpjs said:

    Gabs3 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best two candidates for the Democrats are Biden and Warren in my opinion.

    I use 3 positive metrics and 1 negative when weighing primary candidates:

    Who has popular policies?
    Sanders

    Who is charismatic?
    No one.

    Who can unite the party?
    Warren

    Who can divide the party?
    Buttigieg, Sanders

    Last time in 2016 Trump had 2 out of 3 positives and the 1 negative but Hillary scored nothing on all.
    There is nothing divisive about Buttigieg.
    Yes there is. Progressives like me see him as yet another middle of the road, centrist, corporate hack. Mayo Pete: rich and white...
    Which is odd, as he’s considerably less wealthy than Sanders or Warren.
    Compared to most people in the US, and indeed most people in Indiana, he is rich.
    “...rich and white...” as a jibe sounds a bit pathetic when you consider it applies to all of the Democratic contenders.
    True, but some of the others aren't signing up to the corporatist agenda.
  • I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    You can understand why David Cameron considered Cummings a psychopath.
  • I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    You can understand why David Cameron considered Cummings a psychopath.
    Yep, although sociopath might be more apt.

    Cameron had his own version with Steve Hilton too. Great thinkers and good at ideas.

    Terrible in Government, and with people.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,720

    FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.

    source: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/has-george-osborne-hit-peak-job/

  • FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.

    He's getting a peerage and a job next week?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
    A preposition is always the wrong word to end a sentence with.
    There are few rules I could give fewer fucks about.

    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
    A preposition is always the wrong word to end a sentence with.
    F*ck off.
    I think you missed Sandpit's ironic sentence ending with a preposition!
    No, just riffing.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,152
    edited February 2020
    I am going to do a rare thing, and admit I was wrong.

    I thought Bloomberg had left it far too late in a crowded field and had a vanishingly small chance of the nomination, but I now see it. He reasoned Biden was grossly overrated and would fade fast, leaving a choice between flawed candidates. He'd be the knight in shining armour come Super Tuesday. He needed a bit of a run up with blanket ads, but could afford it.

    It might well still not work, but it was much smarter than going early and getting lost in the crowded field. I think he's timed his run far better than I'd thought - it's all a bit Dame Kelly Holmes.
  • FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.

    He's getting a peerage and a job next week?
    No, cost cutting measures in place by the owner and new investors.

    It was already losing money when he took over in 2017 and the future doesn't look well for the dead trees press. With an economic slowdown coming advertisers cut their spend which doesn't help.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    justin124 said:

    Emily thornberry has picked up another nomination tonight to take her to 14 CLPs - with her own CLP yet to nominate. Is it too late for her now?

    Probably
    Thornbury is at 13 CLPs out of 351 (numbers from Wikipedia) so looks like she will not get through to final round, unless there is a mini wave of sympathy votes
  • I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    You can understand why David Cameron considered Cummings a psychopath.
    Yep, although sociopath might be more apt.

    Cameron had his own version with Steve Hilton too. Great thinkers and good at ideas.

    Terrible in Government, and with people.
    Four years being chief adviser of Michael Gove turned Gove into the country's most unpopular politician, I reckon he'll do the same for Boris Johnson in half the time.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    DC is very much Johnson's Reinhard Heydrich.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,912

    I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    You can understand why David Cameron considered Cummings a psychopath.
    Yep, although sociopath might be more apt.

    Cameron had his own version with Steve Hilton too. Great thinkers and good at ideas.

    Terrible in Government, and with people.
    Hilton seems to mainly crop up on Fox News now spouting absolute nonsense.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,230

    I am going to do a rare thing, and admit I was wrong.

    I thought Bloomberg had left it far too late in a crowded field and had a vanishingly small chance of the nomination, but I now see it. He reasoned Biden was grossly overrated and would fade fast, leaving a choice between flawed candidates. He'd be the knight in shining armour come Super Tuesday. He needed a bit of a run up with blanket ads, but could afford it.

    It might well still not work, but it was much smarter than going early and getting lost in the crowded field. I think he's timed his run far better than I'd thought - it's all a bit Dame Kelly Holmes.

    That’s a fair comment, and I’ll also own to underestimating the possible electoral leverage half a billion dollars buys.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited February 2020
    BigRich said:

    justin124 said:

    Emily thornberry has picked up another nomination tonight to take her to 14 CLPs - with her own CLP yet to nominate. Is it too late for her now?

    Probably
    Thornbury is at 13 CLPs out of 351 (numbers from Wikipedia) so looks like she will not get through to final round, unless there is a mini wave of sympathy votes
    She now has 14 with her own CLP to nominate.
    Edit - She now has 15.
  • justin124 said:

    I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    DC is very much Johnson's Reinhard Heydrich.
    Um. Maybe a tad strong?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,678
    edited February 2020
    Well we all know what happened to Cromwell.

    https://twitter.com/ftukpolitics/status/1225902747792351233
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Are there any Exit Polls due from Ireland?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    You can understand why David Cameron considered Cummings a psychopath.
    Yep, although sociopath might be more apt.

    Cameron had his own version with Steve Hilton too. Great thinkers and good at ideas.

    Terrible in Government, and with people.
    Four years being chief adviser of Michael Gove turned Gove into the country's most unpopular politician, I reckon he'll do the same for Boris Johnson in half the time.
    And his flagship policy of removing schools from the hands of unelected bureaucrats saw schools being removed from the control of local education authorities and instead centrally controlled from Whitehall.

    i.e. A total failure.
  • glw said:

    I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    You can understand why David Cameron considered Cummings a psychopath.
    Yep, although sociopath might be more apt.

    Cameron had his own version with Steve Hilton too. Great thinkers and good at ideas.

    Terrible in Government, and with people.
    Hilton seems to mainly crop up on Fox News now spouting absolute nonsense.
    Yeah, it's kind of worrying isn't it? He used to write such thoughtful books and ideas.

    Politics really worries me sometimes. You find a hero who helps sharpen and define what you really think, and inspires you.

    And then, they turn into a nutter, and you lose respect for them, and you're not sure what happened.
  • FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.

    He's getting a peerage and a job next week?
    No, cost cutting measures in place by the owner and new investors.

    It was already losing money when he took over in 2017 and the future doesn't look well for the dead trees press. With an economic slowdown coming advertisers cut their spend which doesn't help.
    Surely it still needs an editor?
  • FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.

    He's getting a peerage and a job next week?
    No, cost cutting measures in place by the owner and new investors.

    It was already losing money when he took over in 2017 and the future doesn't look well for the dead trees press. With an economic slowdown coming advertisers cut their spend which doesn't help.
    Surely it still needs an editor?
    An editor willing to make these cuts really isn't an editor.

    I think the Standard is about to focus on sports and celebrities.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 435

    I am going to do a rare thing, and admit I was wrong.

    I thought Bloomberg had left it far too late in a crowded field and had a vanishingly small chance of the nomination, but I now see it. He reasoned Biden was grossly overrated and would fade fast, leaving a choice between flawed candidates. He'd be the knight in shining armour come Super Tuesday. He needed a bit of a run up with blanket ads, but could afford it.

    It might well still not work, but it was much smarter than going early and getting lost in the crowded field. I think he's timed his run far better than I'd thought - it's all a bit Dame Kelly Holmes.

    It's definitely possible. If all we care about is that Trump loses, which is pretty much how I feel, it's what we should hope for. But yet....
  • glwglw Posts: 9,912

    Yeah, it's kind of worrying isn't it? He used to write such thoughtful books and ideas.

    Politics really worries me sometimes. You find a hero who helps sharpen and define what you really think, and inspires you.

    And then, they turn into a nutter, and you lose respect for them, and you're not sure what happened.

    I don't think people change that much when it comes to politics, but at a point in time the shine comes off, or they reveal a side of themselves that was always hidden. Of course it does go in the opposite direction as well, sometimes you find more depth, more thoughtfulness, more compassion, and the like in a person than you gave them credit for. Michael Portillo is perhaps an example of that.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,660
    edited February 2020
    Nigelb said:

    I am going to do a rare thing, and admit I was wrong.

    I thought Bloomberg had left it far too late in a crowded field and had a vanishingly small chance of the nomination, but I now see it. He reasoned Biden was grossly overrated and would fade fast, leaving a choice between flawed candidates. He'd be the knight in shining armour come Super Tuesday. He needed a bit of a run up with blanket ads, but could afford it.

    It might well still not work, but it was much smarter than going early and getting lost in the crowded field. I think he's timed his run far better than I'd thought - it's all a bit Dame Kelly Holmes.

    That’s a fair comment, and I’ll also own to underestimating the possible electoral leverage half a billion dollars buys.

    Just wait for Zuckerberg 2024. All the money in the world and an unlimited, unregulated advertising budget!

    2017: Zuckerberg said he no longer considers himself an atheist and that religion is “very important”. I mean get your bets in now.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,559
    Sandpit said:

    kicorse said:

    Alistair said:

    viewcode said:

    Alistair said:

    The Wikipedia article on the topic is surprisingly good.

    Which topic?

    Less vs fewer and the completely artificial rule about using one or the other

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_versus_less
    Yeah, but being erroneously pedantic is fun. You could say the same about ending a sentence with a preposition, but it's not an argument that anyone will listen to.
    A preposition is always the wrong word to end a sentence with.
    It is 'errant pedantry up with which I will not put'. Churchill.

  • I see Cummings is winning hearts and minds again - this is really nasty bullying:

    https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1225866655701622784?s=19

    They'll all be stressed up to the eyeballs all weekend now.

    You can understand why David Cameron considered Cummings a psychopath.
    Dave was against AV!

    Allowing people into the UK parliament who did not finish first in their constituency was described by David Cameron as creating a "Parliament full of second-choices who no one really wanted but didn't really object to either."
    - David Cameron: "Why keeping first past the post is vital for democracy." Daily Telegraph. 30 Apr 2011
  • glw said:

    Yeah, it's kind of worrying isn't it? He used to write such thoughtful books and ideas.

    Politics really worries me sometimes. You find a hero who helps sharpen and define what you really think, and inspires you.

    And then, they turn into a nutter, and you lose respect for them, and you're not sure what happened.

    I don't think people change that much when it comes to politics, but at a point in time the shine comes off, or they reveal a side of themselves that was always hidden. Of course it does go in the opposite direction as well, sometimes you find more depth, more thoughtfulness, more compassion, and the like in a person than you gave them credit for. Michael Portillo is perhaps an example of that.
    That's perhaps true, although on politics Portillo can revert a bit when he's on programmes like This Week.
  • FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.

    He's getting a peerage and a job next week?
    No, cost cutting measures in place by the owner and new investors.

    It was already losing money when he took over in 2017 and the future doesn't look well for the dead trees press. With an economic slowdown coming advertisers cut their spend which doesn't help.
    Surely it still needs an editor?
    An editor willing to make these cuts really isn't an editor.

    I think the Standard is about to focus on sports and celebrities.
    Oh joy.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    edited February 2020



    Unless you're French.

    As Dr Johnson wisely observed trying to fix a language is like trying to bind the sea in chains.

    The French ruined their language with all those silly symbols.

    But you'll be all delighted to know that sometime in the next few weeks I'll be publishing a based on the thread on the Oxford comma and what it means for betting (on politics).
    I look forward to TSE's delicious mix of pizza toppings, Christmas films, and betting recommendations.
  • Well we all know what happened to Cromwell.

    https://twitter.com/ftukpolitics/status/1225902747792351233

    Cromwell invented the term "Commonwealth".
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Just Noticed that Ireland is voting tomorrow - a Saturday! Assumed that Polling Day would be a Friday.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    edited February 2020
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    egg said:

    speedy2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Remainers made a massive, massive error in early 2019 by not coalescing around a soft Brexit alternative in the indicative votes. They gambled recklessly on stopping it altogether, and lost.

    As I remainer myself, I was absolutely livid at the time and still am. The high road of compromise was there, and they were as bad as the hard Brexiteers in eschewing it.

    They screwed up plus Johnson played a political blinder from start to finish. And is more popular than people make out. Certainly more popular than he ought to be. He's like "Cats" in this respect.

    And you might be pissed off but spare a thought for LABOUR Remainers like me. Double whammy. Brexit PLUS Tory landslide government. Jesus.

    But so long as Trump loses ...
    Do you really think Trump can lose against this guy?
    https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1225611968234610689
    And Buttigieg is quite proud of that quote.
    He rivals the vacuum of empty space.
    I don’t see Pete beating Trump. I don’t see his vague centrist waffle picking up the key state switchers needed.

    I don’t see Trump’s nasty aggressive politics of lies and disruption remaining popular for ever, but it’s currently wildly popular all over the world, and Trump is safe for another four years.
    Trump got less votes than Clinton. By definition he was less popular than one of the worst campaigning candidates of all time.

    He got less votes than Romney in Wisconsin.

    Trump won on the most ridiculously razor thin of margins.
    AAAAAARGGH!

    Write out one hundred times:

    He got FEWER votes than Clinton.
    I will never understand why anyone, let alone a teacher of all people, would care about a rule which is hardly even a rule and doesn't even matter in such a context. It's time to let it go Doctor, the language will not be contrained any further, fight a battle that can be won!
  • Well we all know what happened to Cromwell.

    https://twitter.com/ftukpolitics/status/1225902747792351233

    Cromwell invented the term "Commonwealth".
    Nah, that was the Romans with Res publica.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,623
    geoffw said:

    FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.

    source: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/has-george-osborne-hit-peak-job/
    Lol, so he printed a photo of his boss, on the front page, that said boss asked to be changed - and instead of saying 'yes, Sir' went off on a rant to his boss about the independence and integrity of his own role within the organisation.

    Okay then, one P45 in the post.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,912

    Are they saying the advice from the NCSC is wrong?

    The US government is now floating the idea of aquiring a controlling interest in Nokia and Ericsson, so it should be abundantly clear to even our dimmest MPs that we should not trust any supplier. The only way out of this mess is open standards and systems and a much greater diversity of suppliers. Simply banning Huawei is going to leave us even more dependent on companies that do not deserve our trust either.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153
    Even if he goes no further, well done to Mayor Pete for making such impact.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,623
    glw said:

    Yeah, it's kind of worrying isn't it? He used to write such thoughtful books and ideas.

    Politics really worries me sometimes. You find a hero who helps sharpen and define what you really think, and inspires you.

    And then, they turn into a nutter, and you lose respect for them, and you're not sure what happened.

    I don't think people change that much when it comes to politics, but at a point in time the shine comes off, or they reveal a side of themselves that was always hidden. Of course it does go in the opposite direction as well, sometimes you find more depth, more thoughtfulness, more compassion, and the like in a person than you gave them credit for. Michael Portillo is perhaps an example of that.
    Ed Balls is another.
  • kle4 said:

    Even if he goes no further, well done to Mayor Pete for making such impact.
    Klobucher supporters know what to do now.
  • How on earth is Steyer on 4%?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    geoffw said:

    FWIW - I'm not expecting George Osborne to be editor of the Standard for much longer, he may have already edited his last edition.

    source: https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/has-george-osborne-hit-peak-job/

    Spectator piggybacking TSEs scoop
  • Andrea Leadsom warns against 'male dominated' workplaces as Boris Johnson prepares to cull women from Cabinet

    Business Secretary says equality should be 'the absolute norm' in all workplaces

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/07/andrea-leadsom-warns-against-male-dominated-workplaces-boris/
  • Well we all know what happened to Cromwell.

    https://twitter.com/ftukpolitics/status/1225902747792351233

    Cromwell invented the term "Commonwealth".
    Nah, that was the Romans with Res publica.
    Nah, the Romans spelt it differently :)
  • kle4 said:

    Even if he goes no further, well done to Mayor Pete for making such impact.
    Non Socialist-might-actually-win democrat total is ≈ 46 on that poll????
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    glw said:

    Yeah, it's kind of worrying isn't it? He used to write such thoughtful books and ideas.

    Politics really worries me sometimes. You find a hero who helps sharpen and define what you really think, and inspires you.

    And then, they turn into a nutter, and you lose respect for them, and you're not sure what happened.

    I don't think people change that much when it comes to politics, but at a point in time the shine comes off, or they reveal a side of themselves that was always hidden. Of course it does go in the opposite direction as well, sometimes you find more depth, more thoughtfulness, more compassion, and the like in a person than you gave them credit for. Michael Portillo is perhaps an example of that.
    That's perhaps true, although on politics Portillo can revert a bit when he's on programmes like This Week.
    He’s on QT in a fortnight #MakeThursdayNightsGreatAgain
This discussion has been closed.