politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown – now being talked about as a compr

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown – now being talked about as a compromise Dem candidate at a brokered convention

In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election. (Today’s New York Times)

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

So long as a brokered convention doesn’t choose Hillary Clinton.

TheScreamingEagles

Oh was that was a primus inter pares?

TheScreamingEagles

On topic.

https://twitter.com/pipsfunfacts/status/1233025084081819658?s=21

Kevin_McCandless

Replacing someone who gets the most votes with someone who got none would be tricky. Brown would have to give the most dazzling of all dazzling speeches to even think about pulling it off.

But now that you mention him, he looks very... vice-presidential.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic.

https://twitter.com/pipsfunfacts/status/1233025084081819658?s=21

If Florida goes for Biden, given New York, Illinois and California likely go for Sanders the key to the race could be Texas next Tuesday, if Sanders wins Texas he is likely to get a majority of delegates if not and Biden wins Texas following a South Carolina win on Saturday and follows it up with a win in Ohio then a contested convention could be on the cards and Brown would have a chance or at least be a potential Biden VP pick.

isam

FPT




Yes, I had to fast forward through a bit to get to the end, then we deleted it. It almost brought on an anxiety attack. I guess that makes it a good production

edmundintokyo

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1233028846070329346?s=20

WhisperingOracle

Mr Brown looks uncannily like Peter Oborne.

Pulpstar

Moderate voters seem to be waking up to the fact they need to go for Biden in order to stop Sanders rather quicker than Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are.

No_Offence_Alan

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

I think picking someone who didn't take part in the primaries is actually a better look than picking someone who "lost " the primaries .

MikeSmithson

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

HYUFD

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

rcs1000

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

WhisperingOracle

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1233028846070329346?s=20

Extremely interesting that Sanders is still the only candidate ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania, considered a difficult state for him, even after all the Castro hullaballoo, and essentially the equivalent of Dudley - nothing like the Corbyn and Brexit situation.

It still looks extremely difficult to me to say whether he would be the better or worse candidate to beat Trump than BIden, and with both the huge grassroots followings of Trump and Sanders, but their possibly just as strong never-Trump and never-Sanders constituencies out in the country, that Biden doesn't share, it looks absolutely impossible to call and an absolutely fascinating, possibly epochally-defining election.

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

edmundintokyo

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

I agree, they should all retire, and the Dems should pick KLOBUCHAR.

But if it comes to a contested convention their age is a feature not a bug, because you have a Young Cardinals Vote For Old Popes dynamic.

Pulpstar

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

Well the voters have the choice of Buttigieg, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Warren or Steyer over those three - lets have a look at the delegate count for those five combined after Super Tuesday ?

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 44 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this year
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024

https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...

Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?

Alistair

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic.

https://twitter.com/pipsfunfacts/status/1233025084081819658?s=21

What I don't get is that Warren has some decent national numbers (as in she is hitting 3rd place in some polls) but state polling, like this one, looks absolutely horrific for her. Is there a group of states she is going to come first in that haven't been polled?

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

contrarian

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024

https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...

Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?

Goodness knows what JFK and Bobby would have made of Sanders.

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this year
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

Who cares ?

Alistair

WhisperingOracle said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1233028846070329346?s=20

Extremely interesting that Sanders is still the only candidate ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania, considered a difficult state for him, even after all the Castro hullaballoo, and essentially the equivalent of Dudley - nothing like the Corbyn and Brexit situation.

It still looks extremely difficult to me to say whether he would be the better or worse candidate to beat Trump than BIden, and with both the huge grassroots followings of Trump and Sanders, but their possibly just as strong never-Trump and never-Sanders constituencies out in the country, that Biden doesn't share, it looks absolutely impossible to call and an absolutely fascinating, possibly epochally-defining election.

Never Trumpets are, even as we speak, positioning in themselves to vote for Trump if Bernie is the candidate. Even Evan McMullin, who has demanded that people.vote for the Dem nominee will drop support if its Bernie

contrarian

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Sure.

But that doesn't make it an iron law, or anything. That just means that Presidents are usually re-elected.

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this year
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

Who cares ?

A lot will come next January, for if Trump is re elected and Kennedy becomes the new Massachusetts Senator he is the likely next President

HYUFD

contrarian said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024

https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...

Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?

Goodness knows what JFK and Bobby would have made of Sanders.

Joe Kennedy III is Bobby's grandson

rcs1000

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

brokenwheel

Predicting what is likely to happen at a contested convention is hard as there is little recent experience. Sceptical of a dark horse candidate though, especially since the last time that happened it didn't end well.

The left will see anyone but Bernie/Warren as a threat, and the slightly less left will prefer someone who has actually been challenged before entering the presidential bear pit.

Philip_Thompson

I wonder why he chose not to run?

The timing for a run was absolutely perfect for him

* No incumbent
* No strong candidate leading the field
* Only won re-election to the Senate 2 years ago so is secure in the Senate if he loses, while gains the Presidency if he wins

If the Democrats win this time there'll be no vacancy in 2024 and by the 2024 election he'd be pushing being old for a first term and it'd be the same year he'd need to run for the Senate if he wanted to remain there so couldn't contest both.

Pulpstar

Alistair said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic.

https://twitter.com/pipsfunfacts/status/1233025084081819658?s=21

What I don't get is that Warren has some decent national numbers (as in she is hitting 3rd place in some polls) but state polling, like this one, looks absolutely horrific for her. Is there a group of states she is going to come first in that haven't been polled?

Her RCP average is 12.4%, she's picked up 12.9% of the vote so far and 8% of the available delegates.
She looks strongest where Sanders looks strong.

eek

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this year
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

Who cares ?

AOC will be 35 by the time the 2024 vote occurs..

And I suspect a lot of what she is campaigning for will be popular in 4 years time..

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024

https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...

Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?

https://youtu.be/RIGL-KnATQk

eek

brokenwheel said:

Predicting what is likely to happen at a contested convention is hard as there is little recent experience. Skeptical of a dark horse candidate though, especially since the last time that happened it didn't end well.

The left will see anyone but Bernie/Warren as a threat, and the slightly less left will prefer someone who has actually been challenged before entering the presidential bear pit.

Warren it is then as it won't be Bernie.

HYUFD

eek said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this year
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

Who cares ?

AOC will be 35 by the time the 2024 vote occurs..

And I suspect a lot of what she is campaigning for will be popular in 4 years time..

AOC is too tied to Sanders, if Sanders is nominee and loses her chances likely disappear too.

She would be Long Bailey to Kennedy's Starmer

TheScreamingEagles

David Herdson makes an excellent point if it turns out the Pope has the coronavirus.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1233034673208594433?s=21

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

contrarian

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024

https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...

Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?

https://youtu.be/5XFF_5sUSac

Ich bin ein Berliner!!

contrarian

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all.

Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.

He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.

It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.

Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.

The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.

This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.

Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024

https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/

The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...

Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?

https://youtu.be/5XFF_5sUSac

Goodness its uncanny.........Ich bin ein Berliner!!

Philip_Thompson

TheScreamingEagles said:

David Herdson makes an excellent point if it turns out the Pope has the coronavirus.

https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1233034673208594433?s=21

If they all get locked in one room will it be white smoke we're waiting for?

Pulpstar

2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk

2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).

2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.

And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.

Philip_Thompson

Pulpstar said:

2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk

2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.

Come on Musk!

Quincel

Pulpstar said:

2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk

2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.

If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...

Philip_Thompson

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk

2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.

If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...

Funny thought but Johnson has renounced his US citizenship. Even if he regained it somehow now he's no longer be a "natural born" citizen.

TheScreamingEagles

Chris Curtis of YouGov offers his thoughts.

https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1233038136822976522?s=21

rcs1000

rcs1000 said:

I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).

2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.

And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.

Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.

In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.

stodge

Afternoon all

Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.

FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.

Nigelb

Looks as though the FDA is (belatedly) getting its act together on enabling more widespread testing (Gottlieb is, of course, the previous FDA chief):

https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1233021681918193664

Quincel

Philip_Thompson said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk

2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.

If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...

Funny thought but Johnson has renounced his US citizenship. Even if he regained it somehow now he's no longer be a "natural born" citizen.

Is that how it works? Honestly never realised there was a distinction in that way.

Pulpstar

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).

2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.

And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.

Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.

In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.

It's never proper Keynesianism though is it ? Govts run deficits in the good times - the time to fix the roof...

Nigelb

Pulpstar said:

2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk

2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.

I thought the States declared independence to get away from dynastic rule ?

Beibheirli_C

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

The US healthcare system and the coronavirus may sort that out.

They might have top-notch healthcare, but their domestic staff?

rcs1000

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.

FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.

Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.

Alistair

Thank you for this thread. Backed Sherrod at 410 earlier today and laid off at 240.

Merci.

Benpointer

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

Philip_Thompson

Quincel said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk

2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.

If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...

Funny thought but Johnson has renounced his US citizenship. Even if he regained it somehow now he's no longer be a "natural born" citizen.

Is that how it works? Honestly never realised there was a distinction in that way.

Natural born means since birth, it doesn't mean born on US soil. There've been a few candidates recently who weren't born on US soil but were still natural born Americans.

There's no precedence here I can think of but I'd presume if he acquired citizenship now he'd be just as ineligible as anyone who wasn't born an American by virtue of having renounced his citizenship.

rcs1000

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).

2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.

And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.

Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.

In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.

It's never proper Keynesianism though is it ? Govts run deficits in the good times - the time to fix the roof...

Well, it's more like proactive Keynesianism... we'll run the deficit to prevent the recession. The problem is, of course, that it requires ever larger deficits to keep one's head above water. Which is why, incredibly late in the economic cycle, Trump is running a massive deficit trying to keep economic growth going.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

Quincel said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk

2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.

If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...

Funny thought but Johnson has renounced his US citizenship. Even if he regained it somehow now he's no longer be a "natural born" citizen.

Is that how it works? Honestly never realised there was a distinction in that way.

Natural born means since birth, it doesn't mean born on US soil. There've been a few candidates recently who weren't born on US soil but were still natural born Americans.

There's no precedence here I can think of but I'd presume if he acquired citizenship now he'd be just as ineligible as anyone who wasn't born an American by virtue of having renounced his citizenship.

I guess after sorting out the UK, Boris will want a bigger challenge...

Philip_Thompson

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Link that is often shared whenever anyone starts relying too heavily upon precedent as an argument).

Benpointer

rcs1000 said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.

FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.

Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.

Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.

Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.

rcs1000

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Benpointer

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Link that is often shared whenever anyone starts relying too heavily upon precedent as an argument).

Ah yes, thanks (and to @rcs1000). I have seen that one - should have remembered it.

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).

2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.

And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.

Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.

In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.

I blame Gordon Brown. He ended boom and bust and saved the world don't you know?

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Link that is often shared whenever anyone starts relying too heavily upon precedent as an argument).

When you say "anyone"...

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

https://xkcd.com/1122/

Link that is often shared whenever anyone starts relying too heavily upon precedent as an argument).

When you say "anyone"...

... I have one name in mind . . .

Alphabet_Soup

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).

2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.

And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.

Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.

In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.

I blame Gordon Brown. He ended boom and bust and saved the world don't you know?

He certainly ended boom. It's a better success rate than average.

Benpointer

eadric said:

Iranian dissidents are claiming that coronavirus has killed a young female football player

https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1233038778828238854?s=20

If true, it's concerning on a number of levels. Young, fit, female does not tick many boxes.

I wasn't aware any demographic sets were immune.

Quincel

rcs1000 said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

https://xkcd.com/1122/

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

isam

eadric said:

Iranian dissidents are claiming that coronavirus has killed a young female football player

https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1233038778828238854?s=20

If true, it's concerning on a number of levels. Young, fit, female does not tick many boxes.

Iranian students were studying in Wuhan

https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-evacuates-students-iraqis-syrians-from-china-coronavirus-epicenter/30418195.html

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).

2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.

And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.

Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.

In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.

I blame Gordon Brown. He ended boom and bust and saved the world don't you know?

0% (negative real) interest rates and a bottomless pit of cheap goods from China have delayed the recession we should have had.

That bottomless pit of goods has possible disappeared - I wonder what else will disappear with it.

Nigelb

eadric said:

Benpointer said:

eadric said:

Iranian dissidents are claiming that coronavirus has killed a young female football player

https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1233038778828238854?s=20

If true, it's concerning on a number of levels. Young, fit, female does not tick many boxes.

I wasn't aware any demographic sets were immune.

Children under 10 do seem to be virtually immune (there are some alleged cases in babies etc)

Either way a fatality (if this is true) in a healthy 20-something female is very very rare. Of course it might be fake news.

This is definitely true. A pro footballl player in Italy has got the bug. This is ominous for professional sport.

https://twitter.com/GrupoPeriscopio/status/1233042352027029507?s=20

A 23 year old US soldier died in S Korea earlier this week. The risk factor still appears dramatically lower for those around that age, though, anecdotage notwithstanding.

(And the M/F risk ratio seems to be somewhere around 8/5 - but that's not at all unusual for viral disease.)

Pulpstar

Quincel said:

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?

Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?

isam

Will the First race of the festival be run on the intended day?

Benpointer

Quincel said:

rcs1000 said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

https://xkcd.com/1122/

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

Was Adlai Stevenson in 1952 the last selected candidate not to take part in the primaries?

Philip_Thompson

eadric said:

Benpointer said:

eadric said:

Iranian dissidents are claiming that coronavirus has killed a young female football player

https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1233038778828238854?s=20

If true, it's concerning on a number of levels. Young, fit, female does not tick many boxes.

I wasn't aware any demographic sets were immune.

Children under 10 do seem to be virtually immune (there are some alleged cases in babies etc)

Either way a fatality (if this is true) in a healthy 20-something female is very very rare. Of course it might be fake news.

This is definitely true. A pro footballl player in Italy has got the bug. This is ominous for professional sport.

https://twitter.com/GrupoPeriscopio/status/1233042352027029507?s=20

Got the bug and died from the bug are two very, very different propositions.

I would put anything past the Iranian regime. There are some who may view this epidemic as a good opportunity to get rid of people who are troublesome to the regime.

Nigelb

Benpointer said:

Quincel said:

rcs1000 said:

Benpointer said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

contrarian said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

MikeSmithson said:

edmundintokyo said:

Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.

Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing old

No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are now

The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.

Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012

So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.

The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60

Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)

Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.

I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.

Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.

In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.

Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.

XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?

https://xkcd.com/1122/

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

Was Adlai Stevenson in 1952 the last selected candidate not to take part in the primaries?

And what's the incentive ?
A candidate imposed over a Sanders plurality of delegates would if anything be more likely to lose than Sanders himself.

IshmaelZ

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.

FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.

Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.

Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.

Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.

Around ftse 5000 is the earliest to think about it.

Benpointer

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.

FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.

Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.

Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.

Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.

Around ftse 5000 is the earliest to think about it.

Interesting, I'm not expecting it to go that low tbh

Quincel

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?

Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?

We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

Pulpstar

eadric said:

I reckon professional sport is banjaxed

https://twitter.com/CapitalFMSport/status/1233037885194035206?s=20
https://twitter.com/soccerMeraki/status/1233035869344485376?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoalShakers/status/1233010313630539776?s=20

Sporting events are spreading the virus. They will be cancelled, en masse

So long as Retford Half marathon isn't called off next weekend !

London marathon must be seriously in doubt now - certainly the mass participation side of it. I suspect smaller races will go ahead for the moment.

Quincel

isam said:

Will the First race of the festival be run on the intended day?

We might see the return of Hamster Racing to fill the gap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamster_racing

Pulpstar

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?

Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?

We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

Not that Clinton, her rather more successful husband... Tsongas won New Hampshire and Tom Harkin Iowa.

rcs1000

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?

Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?

We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

1992, Bill Clinton didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire. (Although Iowa wasn't seriously fought as the local senator was also running for the nomination.)

IshmaelZ

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.

FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.

Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.

Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.

Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.

Around ftse 5000 is the earliest to think about it.

Interesting, I'm not expecting it to go that low tbh

You ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Quincel

rcs1000 said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?

Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?

We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

1992, Bill Clinton didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire. (Although Iowa wasn't seriously fought as the local senator was also running for the nomination.)

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

Pulpstar said:

Quincel said:

I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.

Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?

Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?

We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

Not that Clinton, her rather more successful husband... Tsongas won New Hampshire and Tom Harkin Iowa.

Ah yes, the stat is Top 2 in IA/NH isn't it? Anyway, Biden would destroy the myth that it is an iron rule as opposed to a good indicator.

Pulpstar

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

IshmaelZ said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

stodge said:

Afternoon all

Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.

FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.

Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.

Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.

Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.

Around ftse 5000 is the earliest to think about it.

Interesting, I'm not expecting it to go that low tbh

You ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Damn, my pension was almost hitting £100k too. Oh well - 26 years or so to recover xD

isam

eadric said:

Pulpstar said:

eadric said:

I reckon professional sport is banjaxed

https://twitter.com/CapitalFMSport/status/1233037885194035206?s=20
https://twitter.com/soccerMeraki/status/1233035869344485376?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoalShakers/status/1233010313630539776?s=20

Sporting events are spreading the virus. They will be cancelled, en masse

So long as Retford Half marathon isn't called off next weekend !

London marathon must be seriously in doubt now - certainly the mass participation side of it. I suspect smaller races will go ahead for the moment.

Serious question: if you hold a major sporting event and hundreds of people catch the bug, and a few die, because of their attendance at that event, could you be sued? Are you liable?

If there is any suggestion that could happen, EVERYTHING will get cancelled

If that is the law, the law is an ass!

GideonWise

Play the games behind closed doors. Give everyone emergency access to football / sport via the BBC.

algarkirk

isam said:

eadric said:

Pulpstar said:

eadric said:

I reckon professional sport is banjaxed

https://twitter.com/CapitalFMSport/status/1233037885194035206?s=20
https://twitter.com/soccerMeraki/status/1233035869344485376?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoalShakers/status/1233010313630539776?s=20

Sporting events are spreading the virus. They will be cancelled, en masse

So long as Retford Half marathon isn't called off next weekend !

London marathon must be seriously in doubt now - certainly the mass participation side of it. I suspect smaller races will go ahead for the moment.

Serious question: if you hold a major sporting event and hundreds of people catch the bug, and a few die, because of their attendance at that event, could you be sued? Are you liable?

If there is any suggestion that could happen, EVERYTHING will get cancelled

If that is the law, the law is an ass!

If that is all the relevant facts it's a QTWTAIN.

Different relevant facts, different outcome.

IshmaelZ

eadric said:

https://twitter.com/LionBlogosphere/status/1233037334880440321?s=20

Eeesh. But again, as predicted

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041315/how-much-revenue-airline-industry-comes-business-travelers-compared-leisure-travelers.asp

Business travel = 12% of flights but *on some routes* 75% of profits

contrarian

eadric said:

https://twitter.com/LionBlogosphere/status/1233037334880440321?s=20

Eeesh. But again, as predicted

Its quite extraordinary that you take tweets like that at face value. Neither the person nor the company are named. Could easily be a complete fabrication.

logical_song

eadric said:

WTF is this Vatican Iran link?


https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1233052330460884998?s=20

I guess that the Vatican has ambassadors from everywhere.

isam

eadric said:

WTF is this Vatican Iran link?


https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1233052330460884998?s=20

It is not inconceivable that Boris could shut off all our borders to any non UK citizen by May, and have Remainers cheering him all the way! What price that last December?

williamglenn

isam said:

eadric said:

WTF is this Vatican Iran link?


https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1233052330460884998?s=20

It is not inconceivable that Boris could shut off all our borders to any non UK citizen by May, and have Remainers cheering him all the way! What price that last December?

It's not much use sealing the borders if you still let UK citizens in.

GideonWise

eadric said:

isam said:

eadric said:

WTF is this Vatican Iran link?


https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1233052330460884998?s=20

It is not inconceivable that Boris could shut off all our borders to any non UK citizen by May, and have Remainers cheering him all the way! What price that last December?

Israel is advising its citizens to avoid ALL foreign travel

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1232789316730073094?s=20

Lots of sensible stuff coming out.

Private companies making decisions to protect their employees is really excellent news.

Tick tock PHE / Hancock / DoH - where is your information? Where is the sense of urgency. Time is of the essence.

kinabalu

williamglenn said:

It's not much use sealing the borders if you still let UK citizens in.

I think if we're doing it we need to do it. No half measures. Nobody with a sniffle gets in regardless of who they are.

Fortress Britain until there's a vaccine.

contrarian

I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.

The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable

Lower down the ages it plummets however.

50/59 is 1.3%
40/49 is 0.40%
20/29 is 0.20%.

Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.

The source is worldometers.info