Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Are we being premature writing off Bernie’s chances against Tr

SystemSystem Posts: 11,703
edited February 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Are we being premature writing off Bernie’s chances against Trump?

The latest betting on Betfair has Trump as a 59% chance of being re-elected in November. This reflects a widespread view that Sanders is going to win the nomination but that when it comes to the election itself he’ll prove to be unelectable.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited February 2020
    1st?

    I think the parallels being drawn between Sanders and Corbyn are overblown, but there is enough there to fear that the Dems are making a similar mistake, IMO.

    HOWEVER, Corbyn was never popular. Sander's polling and the fact he's facing a wildly reviled president means the situation is not as symmetric as I (at least) first thought.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,058
    As much as anything, surely, Hilary lost because of her 'strategy"! No good piling up votes in California; need to scrape home in the 'swing states' of the Rust Belt.

    I get the impression that Bernie's team realises this, and that if nominated he'll spend much of his time were he has to win, rather than where he will.

    Agree too that the choice of VP is going to be important. Amy K?

    And second, at time of writing!
  • Options
    "Latest polls have Sanders being Trump"
    God, no, one is bad enough.
  • Options

    "Latest polls have Sanders being Trump"
    God, no, one is bad enough.

    Corrected
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,429
    The sad thing about US presidential elections is that so much ideology is brought to bear yet the victor is so impotent to progress any of it after they are elected.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited February 2020
    On topic: No, I don't think we are. In fact, if anything I'd say it's the other way around: the market is over-estimating Sanders' chance of beating Trump. Current mid-point Betfair odds imply a 52.8% chance of getting the nomination, and 23.5% chance of becoming president. That means the market thinks that if he gets the nomination, he'd have around a 45% chance of winning. That looks quite a bit too high to me; I just can't see Americans voting in someone who proposes to ban their current healthcare plans and replace them with a 100% state-provided scheme.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,001
    IanB2 said:

    The sad thing about US presidential elections is that so much ideology is brought to bear yet the victor is so impotent to progress any of it after they are elected.

    I think this could be a strong selling point for Sanders.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    A bit of exposition as to how that is interesting or relevant would help.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,006
    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,020
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,460
    gold, GOLD! Always believe in your etc..

    https://goldprice.org/
  • Options
    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    How does your modelling of this compare with your modelling for last year's General Election?

    What assumptions underpin it?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,205
    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    That only adds up to 536 - where are the other two votes?
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited February 2020
    IshmaelZ said:

    A bit of exposition as to how that is interesting or relevant would help.
    The URL alone was sufficient to for me to expect it to be interesting. And it was.

    It led me to read about MMS, which is properly bonkers. People drinking bleach to "cure" cancer, AIDS, autism, etc.
  • Options
    Chances, statistically of old Presidents getting dementia or dying within 4 year term.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008jqg
  • Options
    eek said:

  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,796

    On topic: No, I don't think we are. In fact, if anything I'd say it's the other way around: the market is over-estimating Sanders' chance of beating Trump. Current mid-point Betfair odds imply a 52.8% chance of getting the nomination, and 23.5% chance of becoming president. That means the market thinks that if he gets the nomination, he'd have around a 45% chance of winning. That looks quite a bit too high to me; I just can't see Americans voting in someone who proposes to ban their current healthcare plans and replace them with a 100% state-provided scheme.

    Are you sure you are not applying your bias? I can see that you may well be right about Sanders' chances but the current polls suggest it would be very tight...

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,006
    edited February 2020

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    How does your modelling of this compare with your modelling for last year's General Election?

    What assumptions underpin it?
    No tactical voting assumptions!

    I'm relying on the RCP average polls for the swing states.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

    I'm assuming that Sanders requires a clear 5% lead in a state to be sure of winning and a zero lead means he certainly loses. Interpolated between 0 and 5.

    The upside assumes he wins in all states where he has a lead. The downside assumes he loses in all states where he doesn't have at least a 5% lead.

    It's a simple as that. So it is polling reliant. What other evidence is there apart from exclamations that "No socialist can win in the US" or "He's just too old"?

    Better to ask people what they think and go by that. There are large MOEs on these polls so it is worth looking at the range of possible outcomes which is very large, rather than focusing on the point projection.
  • Options
    What a shame. How will we cope without him?

    https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1231938070590742529
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,006
    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    That only adds up to 536 - where are the other two votes?
    Good point. I've got the electoral college votes wrong in one of the States. can anyone spot it?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,796

    What a shame. How will we cope without him?

    https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1231938070590742529

    What a twat he is!
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,020

    Chances, statistically of old Presidents getting dementia or dying within 4 year term.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008jqg

    A more interesting question would be what is the odds of someone diagnosing a President who has dementia with dementia. How far down the cycle would he need to go before people thought - hmm best remove the reason I'm close to power from power...
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,001
    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    That only adds up to 536 - where are the other two votes?
    Utah.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,001
    Barnesian said:

    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    That only adds up to 536 - where are the other two votes?
    Good point. I've got the electoral college votes wrong in one of the States. can anyone spot it?
    It's Utah, add 2 ECVs on for Trump.
  • Options

    Are you sure you are not applying your bias? I can see that you may well be right about Sanders' chances but the current polls suggest it would be very tight...

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

    No, I'm not applying my bias; in fact, I think Sanders is partly right, although simplistic. The problem is more that it opens up a potent attack line for Trump to use, framing the issue not in terms of what people might gain (universal healthcare), but what they would certainly lose (their existing plans, which are very important to them). It's made worse by the fact that those who would gain from universal healthcare will overwhelmingly vote Democrat anyway.

    It's also profoundly alien to the US worldview to ban private provision.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,001
    edited February 2020
    eek said:

    Chances, statistically of old Presidents getting dementia or dying within 4 year term.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008jqg

    A more interesting question would be what is the odds of someone diagnosing a President who has dementia with dementia. How far down the cycle would he need to go before people thought - hmm best remove the reason I'm close to power from power...
    Will this be the "stunning" claim from the Boot Edge Edge camp after he is tonked by Sanders and Biden in South Carolina regarding Biden ?
  • Options
    IshmaelZ said:

    A bit of exposition as to how that is interesting or relevant would help.
    "I am @eadric !"
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,446
    edited February 2020
    Almost as close as the Welsh Devolution referendum of '97!
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,006
    Pulpstar said:

    Barnesian said:

    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    That only adds up to 536 - where are the other two votes?
    Good point. I've got the electoral college votes wrong in one of the States. can anyone spot it?
    It's Utah, add 2 ECVs on for Trump.
    Got it. You were faster than me. Thanks. Now corrected.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,001
    https://twitter.com/jackcalifano/status/1231774990380552193

    He won't, but a rally of that size augurs well for Super Tuesday I'd have thought there ?
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    The left continues to eat itself, episode 734,267. The responses are fantastic.
    https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1231845547763544064
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,429
    Finally a question to which Utah is the answer.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    The DUP could, ironically/hilariously, be the cause of reunification.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited February 2020
    IanB2 said:

    Finally a question to which Utah is the answer.

    Where can I go to have several wives legally?

    [what nutter would want to do this is beyond me]
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    eadric said:
    It won't. Against a normal republican he would walk it against anti-Globalisation Trump he won't.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,058
    Anorak said:

    IanB2 said:

    Finally a question to which Utah is the answer.

    Where can I go to have several wives legally?

    [what nutter would want to do this is beyond me]
    A Hindu died-a happy thing to do,
    When fifty years united to a shrew.
    Released, he hopefully for entrance cries
    Before the gates of Brahma's paradise.
    "Hast been through Purgatory?" Brahma said.
    "I have been married!" and he hung his head.
    "Come in! Come in! And welcome to my son!
    Marriage and Purgatory are as one."
    In bliss extreme he entered Heaven's door,
    And knew the peace he ne'er had known before.
    He scarce had entered in the gardens fair,
    Another Hindu asked admission there.
    The self-same question Brahma asked again:
    "Has been through Purgatory?" "No; what then?"
    "Thou canst not enter!" did the god reply.
    "He that went in was there no more than I."
    "All that is true, but he has married been,
    And so on earth has suffered for all his sin."
    "Married? 'Tis well; for I've been married twice."
    "Begone! We'll have no fools in Paradise!"

    -George Birdseye

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,387
    IshmaelZ said:
    Can't help wondering how many asymptomatic carriers were at the rugby on Saturday both before and after the game. Catching a virus must have tempted some shortly after half time, if only for the interest factor. And then a flight back to Edinburgh where I am today. Ho hum.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    eek said:

    Chances, statistically of old Presidents getting dementia or dying within 4 year term.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008jqg

    A more interesting question would be what is the odds of someone diagnosing a President who has dementia with dementia. How far down the cycle would he need to go before people thought - hmm best remove the reason I'm close to power from power...
    On current, and historical evidence, pretty slim.
  • Options
    MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    People become more anti-immigration if you show them pictures of wriggling maggots and such. Coronavirus is extremely bullish for the chances of ANYONE who has mentioned building a wall and making mexico pay.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    My best guess is that Abrams will be the VP pick, and presidential nominee Sanders’ chances are a bit below evens.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,912

    The problem is more that it opens up a potent attack line for Trump to use, framing the issue not in terms of what people might gain (universal healthcare), but what they would certainly lose (their existing plans, which are very important to them). It's made worse by the fact that those who would gain from universal healthcare will overwhelmingly vote Democrat anyway.

    Most US health care policies have a large excess and a maximum payout. Many Americans I talk to are scared that they will get a long term expensive illness which will bankrupt them.

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    Monkeys said:

    People become more anti-immigration if you show them pictures of wriggling maggots and such. Coronavirus is extremely bullish for the chances of ANYONE who has mentioned building a wall and making mexico pay.

    Along with sacking the CDC ?
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,912
    Barnesian said:

    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    That only adds up to 536 - where are the other two votes?
    Good point. I've got the electoral college votes wrong in one of the States. can anyone spot it?
    Wahington DC?
  • Options
    Anorak said:

    The DUP could, ironically/hilariously, be the cause of reunification.
    Aided and abetted by the Conservative and Unionist Party which makes it doubly funny (sic).
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    eristdoof said:

    Barnesian said:

    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    That only adds up to 536 - where are the other two votes?
    Good point. I've got the electoral college votes wrong in one of the States. can anyone spot it?
    Wahington DC?
    Well that’s definitely wrong. :smile:
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,068
    eristdoof said:

    Barnesian said:

    tlg86 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    That only adds up to 536 - where are the other two votes?
    Good point. I've got the electoral college votes wrong in one of the States. can anyone spot it?
    Wahington DC?
    I've not looked, but is it Maine or Nebraska
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,583
    edited February 2020
    Am I right in thinking that I have as many pledged delegates as Michael Bloomberg.

    I know Americans like late entrances to fights but this might be an error by Bloomberg.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,387
    Incumbents usually (but not always) win. Those that don't tend to defeat themselves. Trump is capable of defeating himself but I think the market has this about right.
  • Options
    AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited February 2020
    eristdoof said:

    The problem is more that it opens up a potent attack line for Trump to use, framing the issue not in terms of what people might gain (universal healthcare), but what they would certainly lose (their existing plans, which are very important to them). It's made worse by the fact that those who would gain from universal healthcare will overwhelmingly vote Democrat anyway.

    Most US health care policies have a large excess and a maximum payout. Many Americans I talk to are scared that they will get a long term expensive illness which will bankrupt them.

    Speaking of healthcare, and what the Europeans seem to have got right: My son injured himself skiing a couple of days ago (why yes, we are *screamingly* middle class, thank you for asking). The Austrian clinic we went to had examined him, x-rayed it, looked at the results, applied treatment, and provided medication within 30 minutes of us walking in off the street. Cost was €175, to be reclaimed from the insurance.

    Fantastic.

    EDIT: changed from 20 to 30 minutes, as on reflection the form-filling and payment probably took 10 minutes in addition to the treatment.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,790
    Sanders is unlike Corbyn in two ways and like him in one way, on my assessment.

    Sanders, unlike Corbyn, has run things - principally Burlington City, where by all accounts he did a competent job. This matters. Same thing incidentally applies to Starmer vis a vis the other Labour candidates.

    We cannot overestimate the degree to which the American healthcare system sucks. People have to worry about whether they will be covered, the premium costs that can run to thousands of dollars a year, as well as very large deductables and copays. At the end of it all the treatment is patchy, at best.

    Sanders has a potentially very compelling offer to take those healthcare worries away. Trump, having promised to replace Obamacare with something wonderful and failed to deliver at any level at all, is vulnerable on this topic.

    Where I think Sanders is like Corbyn is in having a massive spending programme. On college education debts, which admittedly are another scandal, as well as other welfare and public servants. I suspect he would have more credibility if he just focused on the healthcare issue and left the other issues for another administration. I guess he's an old man in a hurry.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,001
    Mo Farah "forgets" he was administered with a performance enhancing injection prior to the London Marathon

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/mo-farah-bbc-panorama-repeatedly-denied-injection-l-carnitine-alberto-salazar-a9354711.html

    Here is his lawyers take.

    "The fact some people might hold views as to whether this is within the 'spirit' of the sport is irrelevant."
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    eadric said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Also concerning is the latest news from China, which seems to have gone unnoticed.

    Everyone is saying Oh they've got it under control, new cases are falling sharply.

    Hmm.

    Today China recorded the highest daily death toll in the history of the virus: 150

    https://twitter.com/EnkiSort33/status/1231946085716852736?s=20

    Is that under control?

    And if the rest of China outside Hubei was really so safe, would they be postponing their People's Congress in Beijing, for the first time since the Cultural Revolution?


    https://www.france24.com/en/20200224-virus-hit-china-set-to-postpone-parliament-for-first-time-in-decades
    Who knows ?
    But given it can take three weeks to progress from infection through to mortality, your logic is a bit squiffy.
  • Options
    eadric said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Also concerning is the latest news from China, which seems to have gone unnoticed.

    Everyone is saying Oh they've got it under control, new cases are falling sharply.

    Hmm.

    Today China recorded the highest daily death toll in the history of the virus: 150

    https://twitter.com/EnkiSort33/status/1231946085716852736?s=20

    Is that under control?

    And if the rest of China outside Hubei was really so safe, would they be postponing their People's Congress in Beijing, for the first time since the Cultural Revolution?


    https://www.france24.com/en/20200224-virus-hit-china-set-to-postpone-parliament-for-first-time-in-decades
    Yes. Postponing mass gatherings is precisely how they're controlling it. They're not saying its 100% safe outside Hubei, they're saying they're controlling it and practicing what they preach by not having their Congress seems like plain common sense does it not?

    Especially since they're not even a democracy anyway.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,426
    edited February 2020
    eadric said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Also concerning is the latest news from China, which seems to have gone unnoticed.

    Everyone is saying Oh they've got it under control, new cases are falling sharply.

    Hmm.

    Today China recorded the highest daily death toll in the history of the virus: 150

    https://twitter.com/EnkiSort33/status/1231946085716852736?s=20

    Is that under control?

    And if the rest of China outside Hubei was really so safe, would they be postponing their People's Congress in Beijing, for the first time since the Cultural Revolution?


    https://www.france24.com/en/20200224-virus-hit-china-set-to-postpone-parliament-for-first-time-in-decades
    A WHO official visiting China has told reuters that the downward trend numbers seems to be supported by multiple data.

    However, I'm with you. This one is bad. Hopefully we are wrong.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,001

    Am I right in thinking that I have as many pledged delegates as Michael Bloomberg.

    I know Americans like late entrances to fights but this might be an error by Bloomberg.

    This could be famous last words, but I think he's entered one state too late. Biden will win South Carolina and become Sanders' principle opponent off the back of it.

    If Sanders wins South Carolina, it's all over tbh.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,002
    edited February 2020
    ‘“Shaun Bailey has made a major manifesto pledge to reopen thirty-eight police stations closed by Sadiq Khan.

    Shaun said that tackling crime in London is the single biggest issue facing the next London Mayor. He argued that police station visibility is a central plank of making Londoners feel safe in their communities again, making engaging with the police much easier, building a stronger local police presence and improving community relations with the police.“

    https://thehaveringdaily.co.uk/2020/02/24/bailey-pledges-to-reverse-sadiq-khans-police-station-closures-and-reopen-38-stations-to-the-public/
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,503
    edited February 2020
    FF43 said:

    Sanders is unlike Corbyn in two ways and like him in one way, on my assessment.

    Sanders, unlike Corbyn, has run things - principally Burlington City, where by all accounts he did a competent job. This matters. Same thing incidentally applies to Starmer vis a vis the other Labour candidates.

    We cannot overestimate the degree to which the American healthcare system sucks. People have to worry about whether they will be covered, the premium costs that can run to thousands of dollars a year, as well as very large deductables and copays. At the end of it all the treatment is patchy, at best.

    Sanders has a potentially very compelling offer to take those healthcare worries away. Trump, having promised to replace Obamacare with something wonderful and failed to deliver at any level at all, is vulnerable on this topic.

    Where I think Sanders is like Corbyn is in having a massive spending programme. On college education debts, which admittedly are another scandal, as well as other welfare and public servants. I suspect he would have more credibility if he just focused on the healthcare issue and left the other issues for another administration. I guess he's an old man in a hurry.

    I agree with much of this, but on the other hand, Trump has been incredibly profligate on spending, so he won't be able to use that as an attack line. I think Sanders has to be most careful all about this issue of describing himself as a socialist, where by broad north european standards he's left-social democratic. So many Americans identify socialism with communism that this is his potential nemesis.

    Sanders is far more intellectually adept than Corbyn, and aware of the potential for racial or cultural stereotyping here, is in some ways a typical self-made New York Jewish intellectual.

    I also think the pundit class could be as wrong about the potential results as they were with Trump. If Trump wins, I don't think it will by an enormous distance as many people believe.
  • Options
    Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.

    I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.

    I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.
  • Options
    The most shocking thing about Bloomberg's flawed campaign strategy, he has spent $400m on ads, but appeared to spend $0 on debate prep. You would have thought with that money and resources, they would have prepped him with all sorts of zingers and had answers to the obvious issues in regards to his time in NY.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,618
    eadric said:

    We were discussing the best time to visit Venice to avoid the crowds. I think this might be it. Crazy.

    https://twitter.com/bibiguzzardi/status/1231956747595796480?s=20

    I went about a month ago and it was the same. Even the Rialto bridge was empty. It's just off season
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,912

    Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.

    I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.

    I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.

    Now who is cherry picking? If you change this to an incumbent President who loses a presidential election, you add Bush Snr and Gerald Ford to this list. If you you include pulling out during the primaries then LBJ has to be added as well.
  • Options
    BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited February 2020

    The most shocking thing about Bloomberg's flawed campaign strategy, he has spent $400m on ads, but appeared to spend $0 on debate prep. You would have thought with that money and resources, they would have prepped him with all sorts of zingers and had answers to the obvious issues in regards to his time in NY.

    That's exactly what struck me too - it's like the (fairly common!) phenomenon of Hollywood spending hundreds of millions of dollars on special effects, then hiring a cheap hack to write the story. Then they wonder how their film flopped...
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,796
    edited February 2020

    Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.

    I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.

    I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.

    And George H Bush being the only other example. :wink:

    Edit: Ok, I have now spotted the technicality, but still...
  • Options
    MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    Nigelb said:

    Monkeys said:

    People become more anti-immigration if you show them pictures of wriggling maggots and such. Coronavirus is extremely bullish for the chances of ANYONE who has mentioned building a wall and making mexico pay.

    Along with sacking the CDC ?
    Empiricism is better than Rationalism in all areas of science, especially psychology. We're not enlightened egoless beings, and when we see pictures of wriggling maggots we become anti-immigration. I think in an election we won't be thinking as much about the CDC as we will about WHY the other candidate ISN'T building a wall and making mexico pay. It resonates in a way that arguing over the existence of the CDC doesn't. As wriggling maggots, thus the wall. Even if the wall doesn't exist!

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170501094306.htm
  • Options

    The most shocking thing about Bloomberg's flawed campaign strategy, he has spent $400m on ads, but appeared to spend $0 on debate prep. You would have thought with that money and resources, they would have prepped him with all sorts of zingers and had answers to the obvious issues in regards to his time in NY.

    That's exactly what struck me too - it's like the (fairly common!) phenomenon of Hollywood spending hundreds of millions of dollars on special effects, then hiring a cheap hack to write the story. Then they wonder how their film flopped...
    Its a bit like entering the Olympic decathlon and saying what do you mean I have to throw the Javelin.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,894
    isam said:

    ‘“Shaun Bailey has made a major manifesto pledge to reopen thirty-eight police stations closed by Sadiq Khan.

    Shaun said that tackling crime in London is the single biggest issue facing the next London Mayor. He argued that police station visibility is a central plank of making Londoners feel safe in their communities again, making engaging with the police much easier, building a stronger local police presence and improving community relations with the police.“

    https://thehaveringdaily.co.uk/2020/02/24/bailey-pledges-to-reverse-sadiq-khans-police-station-closures-and-reopen-38-stations-to-the-public/

    Yes, these stations were of course closed by the previous Conservative Mayor of London whose name escapes me.

    East Ham PS was unfortunately sold to the University of East London but it still sits unoccupied and unused so could be bought back I imagine.

    It's a tempting and popular idea but not without its problems. One of the reasons some stations were closed were because their custody areas did not meet revised regulations for the monitoring of prisoners so it's not just a question of a lick of paint and away you go.

    I'm not convinced by the sums touted in the article - you can always reckon with property on spending much more than you think as many of the buildings will need refurbishment to being them up to standard.

    IF stations with proper custody areas can be re-opened it would certainly cut the amount of time officers have to spend with prisoners (to be honest, another big problem is the availability of interpreters and I notice Bailey says nothing about that) and get them back onto operational work.

    The re-opening of stations would therefore need a commitment to rebuild the Met's strength to support this but officers need to be recruited and trained so it's not a policy with an immediate impact.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,894
    eristdoof said:


    Now who is cherry picking? If you change this to an incumbent President who loses a presidential election, you add Bush Snr and Gerald Ford to this list. If you you include pulling out during the primaries then LBJ has to be added as well.

    Both 2008 and 2016 were unusual in not having an incumbent President or Vice-President on the ballot. Before that, I think you have to go back to 1928 when Hoover beat Al Smith. Hoover was commerce secretary under Coolidge.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Barnesian said:

    Tad dah Here is my model.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iGvzqbNJxTpJ6A_I6mdOrc7uirdbKSqANnFb7dEN23Y/edit?usp=sharing

    I think that there are only 8 states that matter.

    My probabilistic estimate is Trump 273, Sanders 263. Big range. Nearly a toss-up.

    How does your modelling of this compare with your modelling for last year's General Election?

    What assumptions underpin it?
    We should ask the same question about why people wrote Sanders off for democratic nominee back last autumn. I remember when he was consistently polling in second place and his odds were at something like 13. Even as recently as this month people were believing bizarre scenarios with Klobuchar or Buttigeig winning it all or Warren staging some stupendous comeback.

    Now everyone seems to have smoothly moved from "all those reasons I said Sanders can't win the primary? Actually those are the reasons he can't win the general", without confronting why they were wrong to start with.
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    The most shocking thing about Bloomberg's flawed campaign strategy, he has spent $400m on ads, but appeared to spend $0 on debate prep. You would have thought with that money and resources, they would have prepped him with all sorts of zingers and had answers to the obvious issues in regards to his time in NY.

    He's a billionaire, he's used to profiting by paying everyone else to do the work for him
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,429
    edited February 2020
    eadric said:

    MaxPB said:

    eadric said:

    We were discussing the best time to visit Venice to avoid the crowds. I think this might be it. Crazy.

    https://twitter.com/bibiguzzardi/status/1231956747595796480?s=20

    I went about a month ago and it was the same. Even the Rialto bridge was empty. It's just off season
    Really???

    I've been to Venice in all seasons (inc January, and Carnival). I know that street well, it is always heaving - whenever I have seen it

    But you have first hand evidence, fresher than mine, so fair enough.


    EDIT: the tweeter is a journalist from Venice. So maybe she knows better than both of us

    You need to get up earlier in the morning. Hungover is no way to see Venice at its best.
  • Options
    The Trump-Sanders debates have the potential to be most interesting of all. Unlike Corbyn, Sanders can do both wisecracks, paternalism and heavyweight intellectual debate. Trump respects him more than the other candidates as a result, which may change the dynamic of the debates, even if he goes after him even harder as a result.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Am I right in thinking that I have as many pledged delegates as Michael Bloomberg.

    I know Americans like late entrances to fights but this might be an error by Bloomberg.

    This could be famous last words, but I think he's entered one state too late. Biden will win South Carolina and become Sanders' principle opponent off the back of it.

    If Sanders wins South Carolina, it's all over tbh.
    Kinda my view but I do expect with Bloomberg’s ego and billions he’ll carry on all the way to the convention.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    eadric said:

    eadric said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Also concerning is the latest news from China, which seems to have gone unnoticed.

    Everyone is saying Oh they've got it under control, new cases are falling sharply.

    Hmm.

    Today China recorded the highest daily death toll in the history of the virus: 150

    https://twitter.com/EnkiSort33/status/1231946085716852736?s=20

    Is that under control?

    And if the rest of China outside Hubei was really so safe, would they be postponing their People's Congress in Beijing, for the first time since the Cultural Revolution?


    https://www.france24.com/en/20200224-virus-hit-china-set-to-postpone-parliament-for-first-time-in-decades
    Yes. Postponing mass gatherings is precisely how they're controlling it. They're not saying its 100% safe outside Hubei, they're saying they're controlling it and practicing what they preach by not having their Congress seems like plain common sense does it not?

    Especially since they're not even a democracy anyway.
    China claims that today there were only 11 cases of coronavirus outside Hubei. Yes. 11. In a population of 1.3 BILLION

    http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202002/24/WS5e2a95d9a310128217273202.html

    If the stats are reliable, more people in China were probably killed by enormous flying statues of comedian Tommy Cooper than caught the coronavirus.

    They have, apparently, conquered the disease outside Hubei. Everyone can go back to work!

    Except, no. They have postponed a hugely symbolic national gathering, sending out a completely different signal to that implied by the statistics. Which says to me their stats are lies.

    Given the average age of the Chinese leadership, you can understand their caution...

    You do though quite fairly illustrate the upside of governments (as in S Korea) being entirely open with the public. It does make it much harder to overestimate how bad things might be.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    The Sheffield health service isn't that bad, is it ?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,067
    Pulpstar said:

    Mo Farah "forgets" he was administered with a performance enhancing injection prior to the London Marathon

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/athletics/mo-farah-bbc-panorama-repeatedly-denied-injection-l-carnitine-alberto-salazar-a9354711.html

    Here is his lawyers take.

    "The fact some people might hold views as to whether this is within the 'spirit' of the sport is irrelevant."

    Another cheating toerag
  • Options
    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,067
    eadric said:
    not even a days worth of gun deaths in US
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,796

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Flood, pestilence, ...

    What comes next?
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,205

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Ten minutes?

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar

    More seriously the worry is the rain that fell on the hills earlier today.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,583
    edited February 2020
    Nigelb said:

    The Sheffield health service isn't that bad, is it ?
    Well for most of the last fifty years the Sheffield health service had three of the best doctors in history working for them.

    #IMightBeABitBiased
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Flood, pestilence, ...

    What comes next?
    Boris declares war on Scotland ?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    edited February 2020
    eadric said:

    ON topic, even in this photo, in a moment of triumph, Sanders looks incredibly old, doddery, and not-long-for-this-world.

    Could he even survive a punishing campaign? He's already had a heart attack.

    What happens if he does fall very ill or dies after being nominated? OR during the campaign?

    Then welcome, President Adams.
    (Joking apart, it does argue for a talented campaigner like her in the VP slot, rather than some no-name who ticks the right geographic boxes.)
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Ten minutes?

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar

    More seriously the worry is the rain that fell on the hills earlier today.
    I think I’ll cut short this shopping trip.
  • Options

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Flood, pestilence, ...

    What comes next?
    Brexiteers?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,797
    Monkeys said:

    Nigelb said:

    Monkeys said:

    People become more anti-immigration if you show them pictures of wriggling maggots and such. Coronavirus is extremely bullish for the chances of ANYONE who has mentioned building a wall and making mexico pay.

    Along with sacking the CDC ?
    Empiricism is better than Rationalism in all areas of science, especially psychology. We're not enlightened egoless beings, and when we see pictures of wriggling maggots we become anti-immigration. I think in an election we won't be thinking as much about the CDC as we will about WHY the other candidate ISN'T building a wall and making mexico pay. It resonates in a way that arguing over the existence of the CDC doesn't. As wriggling maggots, thus the wall. Even if the wall doesn't exist!

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170501094306.htm
    Not my reaction to wriggling maggots... but I guess we'll get to test your proposition.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,006

    Historically the first term of a party holding the White House has over a 90% success rate at holding onto the White House. Carter being the only exception in 12 cases since the start of the 20th century.

    I suspect Trump being POTUS improves the Dems chances of regaining the office, but does it improve it to 45% with Sanders as the candidate? I don't think so.

    I think the market is if anything overestimating Sanders chances.

    How about George H W Bush?

    Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his presidency since records began.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,796

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Flood, pestilence, ...

    What comes next?
    Brexiteers?
    Had more than enough of those already thanks. I think I have now built up immunity.
  • Options
    Is the killer coronavirus now disease X? World Health Organization expert warns the infection is 'rapidly' fitting category for the mysterious pathogen scientists fear will kill 80million

    By Daily Mail reporter @eadric

    :smiley:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8037835/Coronavirus-rapidly-fitting-Disease-X-category-World-Health-Organization-expert-warns.html
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,205

    tlg86 said:

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Ten minutes?

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar

    More seriously the worry is the rain that fell on the hills earlier today.
    I think I’ll cut short this shopping trip.
    You shop at Meadowhell?
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,796

    tlg86 said:

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Ten minutes?

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar

    More seriously the worry is the rain that fell on the hills earlier today.
    I think I’ll cut short this shopping trip.
    Meadowhall? I'd have thought Savile Row was more your thing.
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Ten minutes?

    https://www.netweather.tv/live-weather/radar

    More seriously the worry is the rain that fell on the hills earlier today.
    I think I’ll cut short this shopping trip.
    You shop at Meadowhell?
    There’s a Hugo Boss, Lego Store, and Disney Store here, is all I need, the last two are solely for the kids, honest.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,067
    Nigelb said:

    Anyone know what the expected rainfall for Sheffield/Meadowhall in the next few hours is?

    This is what the River Don next to Meadowhall currently looks like.



    The last time I saw it this high the whole place flooded.

    Run for your lives, flee etc.

    Flood, pestilence, ...

    What comes next?
    Boris declares war on Scotland ?
    Thought HYFUD had already set that in motion
This discussion has been closed.