Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to New Hampshire – the first full primary

SystemSystem Posts: 11,017
edited February 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to New Hampshire – the first full primary

It should be just after midnight in the UK when we will start to get information on how this crucial election is going. One of the best place to look is the New York Times which will be keeping an up to data record of the voting throughout the night.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105
    Where Biden's career goes to die.....
  • Options
    First like Buttigieg
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105
    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?
  • Options
    Two prosecutors involved in indicting Roger Stone, the flamboyant self-described fixer to Donald Trump, have withdrawn from his criminal case after the president broke protocol and spoke out against a possible lengthy prison term for the former aide.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/11/trump-roger-stone-sentencing-reaction-criticism
  • Options
    I'm feeling so chuffed at myself for laying Biden for the nomination.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,341
    edited February 2020

    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?

    It wasn't about the Monet either...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960
    Just two hours until the first polls close...
  • Options
    I am sure this will go down well among the rank and file at the Beeb...

    Your fired, your fired, your fired....I'm off to get £12k for half hours work, c yah.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7992449/Senior-BBC-manager-apologises-accepting-12-000-appearance-fee-speak-hedge-fund-managers.html
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Just two hours until the first polls close...

    Are we really expecting anything other than a Bernie win?
  • Options

    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?

    Going once, going twice, Gauguin...
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,442
    I'f I had my caucus money back yet I would have rolled it into Bernie.... Anyone know what Betfair are likely to do about Iowa?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,413

    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?

    It wasn't about the Monet either...
    I'm shocked, always thought he was one of PB's lowes Turners. (yes I did steal that from Two Ronnies)
  • Options
    I'm going to bed, rather than Biden my time.

    If I wake up for a pee in the night curiousity may get the better of me.

    Enjoy!
  • Options

    First like Buttigieg

    did you do that deliberately?
  • Options

    I'm going to bed, rather than Biden my time.

    If I wake up for a pee in the night curiousity may get the better of me.

    Enjoy!

    There's way too much ambiguity in your post.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    I'f I had my caucus money back yet I would have rolled it into Bernie.... Anyone know what Betfair are likely to do about Iowa?

    According to @speedy2 there will never be a result, and therefore it will be voided. I think that's unlikely.

    I think that the results will be certified next week, and Betfair will then payout.
  • Options

    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?

    He's taking the Pissarro.....
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,442
    rcs1000 said:

    I'f I had my caucus money back yet I would have rolled it into Bernie.... Anyone know what Betfair are likely to do about Iowa?

    According to @speedy2 there will never be a result, and therefore it will be voided. I think that's unlikely.

    I think that the results will be certified next week, and Betfair will then payout.
    Ah cheers, I was hoping to see how far the Buttigieg/Bernie accumulator would go....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020
    Labour members have an interesting take on reality...still didn't get the memo that thinking that people who don't vote for you must be racist deplorable morons won't get you very far.

    https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1227000711495503878?s=20
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549
    FPT:
    rcs1000 said:

    Huawei is not the only Chinese telecoms equipment provider. ZTE is also a major provider. And it doesn't face the same scrutiny as Huawei, because while it may be Chinese, at least we know who owns it.

    The issue with Huawei is that control and ownership is incredibly opaque.

    I'm sure that the Chinese government can compel ZTE to assist them on security grounds, as the US and UK governments do to their companies.

    The NCSC actually advises against using ZTE in communications infrastructure, because unlike with Huawei they do not think the security issues could be mitigated.
  • Options
    Our boy's on a roll tonight. So far in tonight's CLP nominations, he's leading Long-Bailey by a ratio of 3:1. That's 3 to Burgon, 1 to Long-Bailey. If only he had got the nod to run for Leader, Starmer would be facing a real fight.

    BTW Starmer has managed 15 so far tonight.
  • Options
    eadric said:

    fpt for foxy

    One truly amazing fact: Britain has been mired in the shitshow of Brexit all year, menacing investment, spooking business, etc etc....

    Yet it turns out GDP growth in 2019 was marginally HIGHER in the UK than it was in the eurozone. 1.3% over 1.2%

    If we can do that in the face of the Brexit galacto-fuck, then maybe we can do some really impressive stuff when we have a strong, determined government with some pro-growth policies.

    There's not much chance of increased economic growth in the UK until something is done to increase productivity.

    We've effectively maxed out current resources whether that is people, land or capital.

    Some of the economic data coming from the eurozone is pretty horrible though.

    For example in December Germany had monthly falls of 3.3% in retail sales and 3.5% in industrial production.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    Just two hours until the first polls close...

    Are we really expecting anything other than a Bernie win?
    Yes.
  • Options

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
  • Options
    Possible.

    But given the total, this is Bernie's, then maybe we are in for a surprise.

  • Options

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,341

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    The point remains and is pretty much factual.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    The point remains and is pretty much factual.
    Well, errhhh, hmmm....
  • Options

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    The train station is very nice, mind.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960
    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    fpt for foxy

    One truly amazing fact: Britain has been mired in the shitshow of Brexit all year, menacing investment, spooking business, etc etc....

    Yet it turns out GDP growth in 2019 was marginally HIGHER in the UK than it was in the eurozone. 1.3% over 1.2%

    If we can do that in the face of the Brexit galacto-fuck, then maybe we can do some really impressive stuff when we have a strong, determined government with some pro-growth policies.

    There's not much chance of increased economic growth in the UK until something is done to increase productivity.

    We've effectively maxed out current resources whether that is people, land or capital.

    Some of the economic data coming from the eurozone is pretty horrible though.

    For example in December Germany had monthly falls of 3.3% in retail sales and 3.5% in industrial production.
    Germany is fucked. Their economic model is based on mid-high industry and engineering which is going to be devoured by China/Asia. What happened to the German solar panel industry will now happen to cars, etc
    While 23% of Germany's exports are vehicles, 27% is Capital Goods, the major purchasers of which are the developing economies of the Far East. Which is why Germany runs a trade surplus with China.

    And no-one ships low-value autos around the world. It's nothing to do with tariffs, it's because vehicles are usually specc'ed to order, and that doesn't work (except for things like McLarens) if you have to wait three months for your car to arrive. (Which is why Mercedes makes their C Class in the US rather than shipping it from Germany or Eastern Europe.)
  • Options
    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    eadric said:

    fpt for foxy

    One truly amazing fact: Britain has been mired in the shitshow of Brexit all year, menacing investment, spooking business, etc etc....

    Yet it turns out GDP growth in 2019 was marginally HIGHER in the UK than it was in the eurozone. 1.3% over 1.2%

    If we can do that in the face of the Brexit galacto-fuck, then maybe we can do some really impressive stuff when we have a strong, determined government with some pro-growth policies.

    There's not much chance of increased economic growth in the UK until something is done to increase productivity.

    We've effectively maxed out current resources whether that is people, land or capital.

    Some of the economic data coming from the eurozone is pretty horrible though.

    For example in December Germany had monthly falls of 3.3% in retail sales and 3.5% in industrial production.
    Germany's dependence on exports makes it very vulnerable to a slowdown in Chinese demand. The Coronavirus is not good news for the people of Munich.
  • Options
    eadric said:
    No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, they had an enquiry and everything.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105

    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?

    He's taking the Pissarro.....
    If he's bought a couple of million pound paintings, that was a hell of a good day's takings at the Poundshop.....
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960
    That's not true.

    As I mentioned in the last thread, it's entirely possible that the most delegates will go to the candidate who comes second in terms of vote share.

    The combination of the 15% hurdle at the Congressional District Level, and the fact that the Second District will probably see around 10-20% more votes cast than the first mean that's entirely possible that Sanders wins the vote share race but Buttigieg picks up more delegates.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,378
    edited February 2020

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,287

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    returning 3 Tory MPs.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
  • Options

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
    A500 is the right answer.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
    A500 is the ring road, so you can get to see all the sights :-)...
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020
    dr_spyn said:

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    returning 3 Tory MPs.
    I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).

    If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105

    eadric said:
    No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, they had an enquiry and everything.
    Will we ever get to see the Shame of Shami?
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    Yet:

    1952, 1956 Rep
    1960, 1964 Dem
    1968, 1972 Rep
    1976 Dem
    1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
    1992, 1996 Dem
    2000, 2004 Rep
    2008, 2012 Dem

    In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
  • Options
    sarissasarissa Posts: 1,772

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
    Your joke,Sir, is both good and original. Unfortunately, that part which is original is not good, and ......
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020
    I think I heard this right, NBC exit poll talking about a lot more older voters compared to 2016. I thought Bernie was supposed to be getting all the kids out?

    Also, far less "very liberal" voters and way more independents have turned out.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    Yet:

    1952, 1956 Rep
    1960, 1964 Dem
    1968, 1972 Rep
    1976 Dem
    1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
    1992, 1996 Dem
    2000, 2004 Rep
    2008, 2012 Dem

    In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
    Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":

    Obama - 2
    W Bush - 2
    Clinton - 2
    Bush - 1
    Reagan - 2
    Carter - 1
    Ford - 1
    Nixon - 1 and a bit
    LBJ - 1 and a bit
    JFK - half
    Eisenhower - 2
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105

    dr_spyn said:

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    returning 3 Tory MPs.
    I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).

    If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.
    YOU'RE shocked. Imagine living near Bolsover......
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,725

    I think I heard this right, NBC exit poll talking about a lot more older voters compared to 2016. I thought Bernie was supposed to be getting all the kids out?

    We'll see, although you'd think everyone would learn to not be surprised at lack of youthquakes, they seem awfully rare.
  • Options

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
    “The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!”

    Samuel Johnson
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020
    deleted
  • Options
    dodradedodrade Posts: 595
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    Yet:

    1952, 1956 Rep
    1960, 1964 Dem
    1968, 1972 Rep
    1976 Dem
    1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
    1992, 1996 Dem
    2000, 2004 Rep
    2008, 2012 Dem

    In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
    Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":

    Obama - 2
    W Bush - 2
    Clinton - 2
    Bush - 1
    Reagan - 2
    Carter - 1
    Ford - 1
    Nixon - 1 and a bit
    LBJ - 1 and a bit
    JFK - half
    Eisenhower - 2
    JFK would probably have got a second term. Ford came pretty close despite not having been elected President or VP beforehand.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    First term Presidents seeking re-election, defining first term as first term that party was holding the Presidency, then Carter is the only loser since the start of the 21st century.

    In reverse order going back to the start of the 20th Century:

    Obama - Won re-election
    George W Bush - Won re-election
    Bill Clinton - Won re-election
    Reagan - Won re-election
    Carter - Lost
    Nixon - Win re-election
    LBJ (succeeded JFK after his death) - Won re-election
    Dwight D. Eisenhower - Won re-election
    FDR - Won re-election
    Coolidge (succeeded Harding after his death) - Won re-election
    Wilson - Won re-election
    Teddy Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley after his death) - Won re-election

    In summary all 12 first term Presidents sought re-election. 1/12 lost (8.3%), 11/12 won though 3 of those 11 had only become President following the death of the elected President.

    George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Truman, Hoover and Taft were not first term Presidents as they succeeded prior ones from their party who had a 100% record in winning re-election
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020
    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    Yet:

    1952, 1956 Rep
    1960, 1964 Dem
    1968, 1972 Rep
    1976 Dem
    1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
    1992, 1996 Dem
    2000, 2004 Rep
    2008, 2012 Dem

    In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
    Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":

    Obama - 2
    W Bush - 2
    Clinton - 2
    Bush - 1
    Reagan - 2
    Carter - 1
    Ford - 1
    Nixon - 1 and a bit
    LBJ - 1 and a bit
    JFK - half
    Eisenhower - 2
    But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.

    Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.

    I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.

    Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.

    I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.

    After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    First term Presidents seeking re-election, defining first term as first term that party was holding the Presidency, then Carter is the only loser since the start of the 21st century.

    In reverse order going back to the start of the 20th Century:

    Obama - Won re-election
    George W Bush - Won re-election
    Bill Clinton - Won re-election
    Reagan - Won re-election
    Carter - Lost
    Nixon - Win re-election
    LBJ (succeeded JFK after his death) - Won re-election
    Dwight D. Eisenhower - Won re-election
    FDR - Won re-election
    Coolidge (succeeded Harding after his death) - Won re-election
    Wilson - Won re-election
    Teddy Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley after his death) - Won re-election

    In summary all 12 first term Presidents sought re-election. 1/12 lost (8.3%), 11/12 won though 3 of those 11 had only become President following the death of the elected President.

    George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Truman, Hoover and Taft were not first term Presidents as they succeeded prior ones from their party who had a 100% record in winning re-election
    You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,871

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
    “The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!”

    Samuel Johnson
    How typical
  • Options
    ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,886

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If accurate that's v bad for Bernie.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    Yet:

    1952, 1956 Rep
    1960, 1964 Dem
    1968, 1972 Rep
    1976 Dem
    1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
    1992, 1996 Dem
    2000, 2004 Rep
    2008, 2012 Dem

    In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
    Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":

    Obama - 2
    W Bush - 2
    Clinton - 2
    Bush - 1
    Reagan - 2
    Carter - 1
    Ford - 1
    Nixon - 1 and a bit
    LBJ - 1 and a bit
    JFK - half
    Eisenhower - 2
    But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.

    Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.

    I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.

    Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.

    I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.

    After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
    Yes, I'd agree with all of that.
  • Options

    dr_spyn said:

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    returning 3 Tory MPs.
    I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).

    If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.
    YOU'RE shocked. Imagine living near Bolsover......
    Although Bolsover had been demographically and politically trending away from Labour for over a decade.

    The real shockers were Burnley and Redcar with the Conservatives going from fourth in 2015 to first in 2019.
  • Options
    CookieCookie Posts: 11,423

    dr_spyn said:

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    returning 3 Tory MPs.
    I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).

    If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.
    YOU'RE shocked. Imagine living near Bolsover......
    Although Bolsover had been demographically and politically trending away from Labour for over a decade.

    The real shockers were Burnley and Redcar with the Conservatives going from fourth in 2015 to first in 2019.
    Interestingly, Burnley and Redcar have had exactly the same electoral history since, I think, WW2.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
    It isn't final exit poll (they are updating live)...perhaps all the yuff are only just waking up after partying too hard at the Bernie rock show last night.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.

    Why not? The Republicans held the Presidency 53-61 - so the 61 to 65 term was the first term and LBJ's re-election in 1964 was the first election after the Democrats regained the office.

    The Democrats first term from 1961 ended after LBJ's victory - it didn't end upon JFK's death.

    Ford succeeded Nixon but Nixon had already won re-election in 1972 so it was a second term not a first term.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    First term Presidents seeking re-election, defining first term as first term that party was holding the Presidency, then Carter is the only loser since the start of the 21st century.

    In reverse order going back to the start of the 20th Century:

    Obama - Won re-election
    George W Bush - Won re-election
    Bill Clinton - Won re-election
    Reagan - Won re-election
    Carter - Lost
    Nixon - Win re-election
    LBJ (succeeded JFK after his death) - Won re-election
    Dwight D. Eisenhower - Won re-election
    FDR - Won re-election
    Coolidge (succeeded Harding after his death) - Won re-election
    Wilson - Won re-election
    Teddy Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley after his death) - Won re-election

    In summary all 12 first term Presidents sought re-election. 1/12 lost (8.3%), 11/12 won though 3 of those 11 had only become President following the death of the elected President.

    George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Truman, Hoover and Taft were not first term Presidents as they succeeded prior ones from their party who had a 100% record in winning re-election
    You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.
    3 of 11 after death.

    Sounds like death is a pretty big feature in POTUS.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    rcs1000 said:

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
    It isn't final exit poll (they are updating live)...perhaps all the yuff are only just waking up after partying too hard at the Bernie rock show last night.
    That's entirely possible.

    But I wouldn't want to bet on it unless you gave me some very attractive odds.
  • Options

    I'm feeling so chuffed at myself for laying Biden for the nomination.

    You know more than anyone, things can change.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50

    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    Yet:

    1952, 1956 Rep
    1960, 1964 Dem
    1968, 1972 Rep
    1976 Dem
    1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
    1992, 1996 Dem
    2000, 2004 Rep
    2008, 2012 Dem

    In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
    Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":

    Obama - 2
    W Bush - 2
    Clinton - 2
    Bush - 1
    Reagan - 2
    Carter - 1
    Ford - 1
    Nixon - 1 and a bit
    LBJ - 1 and a bit
    JFK - half
    Eisenhower - 2
    But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.

    Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.

    I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.

    Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.

    I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.

    After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
    Yes, I'd agree with all of that.
    I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.

    Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.

    After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    rcs1000 said:

    You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.

    Why not? The Republicans held the Presidency 53-61 - so the 61 to 65 term was the first term and LBJ's re-election in 1964 was the first election after the Democrats regained the office.

    The Democrats first term from 1961 ended after LBJ's victory - it didn't end upon JFK's death.

    Ford succeeded Nixon but Nixon had already won re-election in 1972 so it was a second term not a first term.
    OK, that makes sense.
  • Options
    BalrogBalrog Posts: 207

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
    A500 is the ring road, so you can get to see all the sights :-)...
    I also hail from that area, well closer to Crewe. And I remember the A500 as straight, so a curious ring road?
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    First term Presidents seeking re-election, defining first term as first term that party was holding the Presidency, then Carter is the only loser since the start of the 21st century.

    In reverse order going back to the start of the 20th Century:

    Obama - Won re-election
    George W Bush - Won re-election
    Bill Clinton - Won re-election
    Reagan - Won re-election
    Carter - Lost
    Nixon - Win re-election
    LBJ (succeeded JFK after his death) - Won re-election
    Dwight D. Eisenhower - Won re-election
    FDR - Won re-election
    Coolidge (succeeded Harding after his death) - Won re-election
    Wilson - Won re-election
    Teddy Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley after his death) - Won re-election

    In summary all 12 first term Presidents sought re-election. 1/12 lost (8.3%), 11/12 won though 3 of those 11 had only become President following the death of the elected President.

    George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Truman, Hoover and Taft were not first term Presidents as they succeeded prior ones from their party who had a 100% record in winning re-election
    7,1,4.

    There could be a pattern.

    If trump gets in, he'll be the 5th in a row.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020
    Balrog said:

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
    A500 is the ring road, so you can get to see all the sights :-)...
    I also hail from that area, well closer to Crewe. And I remember the A500 as straight, so a curious ring road?
    Well its half a ring, "the D road" as its known.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50

    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    Yet:

    1952, 1956 Rep
    1960, 1964 Dem
    1968, 1972 Rep
    1976 Dem
    1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
    1992, 1996 Dem
    2000, 2004 Rep
    2008, 2012 Dem

    In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
    Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":

    Obama - 2
    W Bush - 2
    Clinton - 2
    Bush - 1
    Reagan - 2
    Carter - 1
    Ford - 1
    Nixon - 1 and a bit
    LBJ - 1 and a bit
    JFK - half
    Eisenhower - 2
    But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.

    Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.

    I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.

    Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.

    I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.

    After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
    Yes, I'd agree with all of that.
    I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.

    Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.

    After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.
    Carter wasn't great.
  • Options
    TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Amy K sub 30 ..
  • Options
    TGOHF666 said:

    Amy K sub 30 ..

    NBC are talking her up massively at the moment.
  • Options
    BalrogBalrog Posts: 207

    Balrog said:

    twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698

    Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.
    To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?

    I mean the place is a shit hole.
    Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....
    You have my sympathies.

    What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.

    *Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
    A500 is the ring road, so you can get to see all the sights :-)...
    I also hail from that area, well closer to Crewe. And I remember the A500 as straight, so a curious ring road?
    Well its half a ring, "the D road" as its known.
    Interesting. I never knew why it was called the D road.
  • Options

    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?

    He's taking the Pissarro.....
    Any more of these dreadful puns and I will send for a Constable.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,986
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
    No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.
    Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s but 24% ahead of him with under 35s. Biden though is 6% ahead of Buttigieg with over 65s and 7% ahead of Sanders.

    https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960

    TGOHF666 said:

    Amy K sub 30 ..

    NBC are talking her up massively at the moment.
    It would be staggering if she won.

    Exciting staggering given I'm very long her.
  • Options
    dodradedodrade Posts: 595

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPT




    Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
    a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
    b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
    c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?

    Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c

    I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%

    0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%

    Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?
    Absolutely!

    I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).

    If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
    I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.

    Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
    Yet:

    1952, 1956 Rep
    1960, 1964 Dem
    1968, 1972 Rep
    1976 Dem
    1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
    1992, 1996 Dem
    2000, 2004 Rep
    2008, 2012 Dem

    In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
    Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":

    Obama - 2
    W Bush - 2
    Clinton - 2
    Bush - 1
    Reagan - 2
    Carter - 1
    Ford - 1
    Nixon - 1 and a bit
    LBJ - 1 and a bit
    JFK - half
    Eisenhower - 2

    After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
    Ironically though he's probably America's greatest ex-President.
  • Options
    TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
    No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.
    Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s

    https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire
    Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,105

    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?

    He's taking the Pissarro.....
    Any more of these dreadful puns and I will send for a Constable.
    Dreadful? Well there's no chance of you being crowned Duchamp.....
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020
    TGOHF666 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
    No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.
    Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s

    https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire
    Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.
    I wonder what damage all the Ukraine stuff has done to him, even if it is all heresay, it did shine a spotlight on the fact his son has earned a lot of money out of his name, kinda of like that Trump family, which can't go down well with Democrats.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
    No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.
    Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s but 24% ahead of him with under 35s. Biden though is 6% ahead of Buttigieg with over 65s and 7% ahead of Sanders.

    https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire
    Well, we'll find our soon enough.
  • Options
    nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    TGOHF666 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
    No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.
    Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s

    https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire
    Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.
    I wonder what damage all the Ukraine stuff has done to him, even if it is all heresay, it did shine a spotlight on the fact his son has earned a lot of money out of his name, kinda of like that Trump family, which can't go down well with Democrats.
    He's just a very bad campaigner. I've been following the race very closely.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,594

    FPT:

    Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself o:) "

    HOW Manet?

    He's taking the Pissarro.....
    Now you are Rubens me the wrong way....
  • Options
    ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,886
    Dear god, we're not going to come out of state 2 with Bloomberg, Kloch, Buttigeg, Sanders, Warren & Biden still running are we.

    Biden surely isn't leaving before SC.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnV8Gp3q6_xICMbgtepU1S5mw9IXs6wY/view

    From Change Research:

    Among voters 65 and over, Buttigieg leads 21 to 18 over Sanders
    He has a very small lead over Sanders in the 50 to 64 age group.

    Sanders, though, has massive leads in the 18 to 34 group, and a pretty decent one in 35 to 49.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,960
    rcs1000 said:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnV8Gp3q6_xICMbgtepU1S5mw9IXs6wY/view

    From Change Research:

    Among voters 65 and over, Buttigieg leads 21 to 18 over Sanders
    He has a very small lead over Sanders in the 50 to 64 age group.

    Sanders, though, has massive leads in the 18 to 34 group, and a pretty decent one in 35 to 49.

    Biden doesn't get above 13%, even among the oldest voters.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,710
    eadric said:

    fpt for foxy

    One truly amazing fact: Britain has been mired in the shitshow of Brexit all year, menacing investment, spooking business, etc etc....

    Yet it turns out GDP growth in 2019 was marginally HIGHER in the UK than it was in the eurozone. 1.3% over 1.2%

    If we can do that in the face of the Brexit galacto-fuck, then maybe we can do some really impressive stuff when we have a strong, determined government with some pro-growth policies.

    Given the 2019 UK GDP growth was mostly due to public spending increases (with a small contribution from household spending and business and trade showing no growth across the whole year), just think what the GDP growth rate would be like with Corbyn in power!
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited February 2020
    nunu2 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.

    2020

    18-29 - 11% turn out
    65+ - 33% turn out

    2016

    18-29 - 19% turn out
    65+ - 18% turn out

    If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,
    No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.
    Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s

    https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire
    Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.
    I wonder what damage all the Ukraine stuff has done to him, even if it is all heresay, it did shine a spotlight on the fact his son has earned a lot of money out of his name, kinda of like that Trump family, which can't go down well with Democrats.
    He's just a very bad campaigner. I've been following the race very closely.
    Don't disagree with that from the more casual viewing I have done.

    Where as I get why people get excited by Bernie, like Jezza, he has 40 years worth of honing the same patter, which unchallenged he can deliver well.
This discussion has been closed.