It could be a double bluff where he wants people to think so - that would be typical of Trump's childishness that he always imagines as great strategy.
The victory last night seriously understated the extent of the swing because of the amount of the early voting which favoured Sanders and included a fair number of votes for Buttigieg. Next round Sanders is going to be thrashed.
Warren exiting very quickly must surely be one of his last hopes, and I don't see any sign of her doing that so far.
Again and again the message of not splitting your votes is incredibly important - the centrist democrats have learnt that this time, but the left-of-centre democrats have failed to, just like the Remainer-dominated parties here in Britain last year, compared to the Brexit-inspired ones.
But the left of the Democrats would still likely lose in a straight fight between the two wings - as per the Bonnie Greer tweet below.
Interesting SNP seems to have made the decision to be serious today, given serious background of covid. Mature and serious questioning from an SNP MP following earlier mature and sensible questioning from Blackford.
Biden won't beat Trump. Very few people who have held cabinet positions go on the be president, it IS only ex-VP'sn but they either did something special in office, or ran against a VP. Biden is a dafty and his son already caused one president to be impeached.
I genuinely can't see how he loses. My one caveat - and it is a big one - is his condition. There will be gaffes. Fine, it's priced in, but not if they are of a nature and frequency that lead people to go, "You know that? This guy is not up to it. It's sad. I'd like to vote for him but I don't think I can."
Has he "gone over" in other words? Not because he is 77 years old. It happens to different people at different ages. Has it happened with Joe? If it has, the Dems might be about to make a monumental blunder. On balance, I think it's going to be OK.
I just think a VP-President line needs some big successes as VP - effectively doing the job of the president eg Bush Sr, and a small attack vector OR be running against an incumbent VP who wasn't a great success and was overshadowed by their predecessor (Humphrey.)
Biden is mad, his son's a crook, and he wasn't in any way a special VP.
Biden won't beat Trump. Very few people who have held cabinet positions go on the be president, it IS only ex-VP'sn but they either did something special in office, or ran against a VP. Biden is a dafty and his son already caused one president to be impeached.
I genuinely can't see how he loses. My one caveat - and it is a big one - is his condition. There will be gaffes. Fine, it's priced in, but not if they are of a nature and frequency that lead people to go, "You know that? This guy is not up to it. It's sad. I'd like to vote for him but I don't think I can."
Has he "gone over" in other words? Not because he is 77 years old. It happens to different people at different ages. Has it happened with Joe? If it has, the Dems might be about to make a monumental blunder. On balance, I think it's going to be OK.
I just think a VP-President line needs some big successes as VP - effectively doing the job of the president eg Bush Sr, and a small attack vector OR be running against an incumbent VP who wasn't a great success and was overshadowed by their predecessor (Humphrey.)
Biden is mad, his son's a crook, and he wasn't in any way a special VP.
The victory last night seriously understated the extent of the swing because of the amount of the early voting which favoured Sanders and included a fair number of votes for Buttigieg. Next round Sanders is going to be thrashed.
Warren exiting very quickly must surely be one of his last hopes, and I don't see any sign of her doing that so far.
Again and again the message of not splitting your votes is incredibly important - the centrist democrats have learnt that this time, but the left-of-centre democrats have failed to, just like the Remainer-dominated parties here in Britain last year, compared to the Brexit-inspired ones.
But the left of the Democrats would still likely lose in a straight fight between the two wings - as per the Bonnie Greer tweet below.
Yes, but narrowly, and probably not in a couple of years, which could be a disaster for the internal stability of the Democratic Party.
I think the only future for the Democrats may be someone like Andrew Yang - to the left of Biden in key areas and so closer to Sanders, but also with a crossover, conscientious business appeal. That could appeal to a lot of Millennials who are used to a social milieu friendly to tech-oriented business combined with a more leftwing idealism.
Interesting SNP seems to have made the decision to be serious today, given serious background of covid. Mature and serious questioning from an SNP MP following earlier mature and sensible questioning from Blackford.
According to the stats I have seen, there are 53 British coronavirus cases. But I personally jnow two people with it, and know at one remove a further 9. (All returners from Italy). It seems unlikely that I'd personally be aware of one fifth of the cases. So either the stats are wrong or there is some serious lead-swinging going on.
According to the stats I have seen, there are 53 British coronavirus cases. But I personally jnow two people with it, and know at one remove a further 9. (All returners from Italy). It seems unlikely that I'd personally be aware of one fifth of the cases. So either the stats are wrong or there is some serious lead-swinging going on.
If its at one remove you know the others and if they are geographically clustered its certainly possible you do.
According to the stats I have seen, there are 53 British coronavirus cases. But I personally jnow two people with it, and know at one remove a further 9. (All returners from Italy). It seems unlikely that I'd personally be aware of one fifth of the cases. So either the stats are wrong or there is some serious lead-swinging going on.
As Philip Thompson says, it’s going to cluster & so if you happen to know one you’re probably only one remove from the rest of that cluster as well.
Interesting SNP seems to have made the decision to be serious today, given serious background of covid. Mature and serious questioning from an SNP MP following earlier mature and sensible questioning from Blackford.
The contrast with Labour couldn't be more stark.
Yes. Well done SNP and why is Corbyn still here
Why doesn’t (didn’t) Corbyn give a PMQs each to Starmer, Long-Bailey & Nandy? I think that would be a great thing for Labour members to see before they cast their votes
It could be a double bluff where he wants people to think so - that would be typical of Trump's childishness that he always imagines as great strategy.
Whilst I don't think Biden is a great candidate, there is absolutely no question in my mind that Trump would prefer Sanders to Biden as an opponent.
Sanders' problem was amply demonstrated by Biden's comeback. Rather like Corbyn, he is congenitally incapable of compromising, apologising, or uniting.
Sanders had every opportunity to put the contest to bed. He needed to use his time as clear frontrunner to praise the moderates (kill them with kindness), make noises about a moderate VP, gently row back on some past comments, and generally say "let's unite on Super Tuesday, then take on Trump together". Instead, he fluffed it and spent his time dancing on moderates' graves and praising Castro. He and his bros have nobody else to blame if, as seems likely, they've lost the race to Biden.
It could be a double bluff where he wants people to think so - that would be typical of Trump's childishness that he always imagines as great strategy.
Whilst I don't think Biden is a great candidate, there is absolutely no question in my mind that Trump would prefer Sanders to Biden as an opponent.
Sanders' problem was amply demonstrated by Biden's comeback. Rather like Corbyn, he is congenitally incapable of compromising, apologising, or uniting.
Sanders had every opportunity to put the contest to bed. He needed to use his time as clear frontrunner to praise the moderates (kill them with kindness), make noises about a moderate VP, gently row back on some past comments, and generally say "let's unite on Super Tuesday, then take on Trump together". Instead, he fluffed it and spent his time dancing on moderates' graves and praising Castro. He and his bros have nobody else to blame if, as seems likely, they've lost the race to Biden.
In which case Sanders has done the entire world a favour by giving us at least a chance of seeing the back of Trump.
The victory last night seriously understated the extent of the swing because of the amount of the early voting which favoured Sanders and included a fair number of votes for Buttigieg. Next round Sanders is going to be thrashed.
Warren exiting very quickly must surely be one of his last hopes, and I don't see any sign of her doing that so far.
Again and again the message of not splitting your votes is incredibly important - the centrist democrats have learnt that this time, but the left-of-centre democrats have failed to, just like the Remainer-dominated parties here in Britain last year, compared to the Brexit-inspired ones.
But the left of the Democrats would still likely lose in a straight fight between the two wings - as per the Bonnie Greer tweet below.
Yes, but narrowly, and probably not in a couple of years, which could be a disaster for the internal stability of the Democratic Party.
I think the only future for the Democrats may be someone like Andrew Yang - to the left of Biden in key areas and so closer to Sanders, but with a crossover, conscientious business appeal. That could appeal to a lot of more idealistic Millennials.
I wholeheartedly agree that we're not going to see another Biden next time around. But there are plenty of alternate futures for the party; Abrams, for example, is not so easy to pigeonhole in quite such a manner.
Whilst I don't think Biden is a great candidate, there is absolutely no question in my mind that Trump would prefer Sanders to Biden as an opponent.
Sanders' problem was amply demonstrated by Biden's comeback. Rather like Corbyn, he is congenitally incapable of compromising, apologising, or uniting.
Sanders has plenty of enthusiastic supporters, but he's not going to win over anyone in the centre, never mind actual Republicans. Biden could and hopefully will do so. Sanders would be relying on people who generally don't vote voting for once, that's a ridiculous strategy.
Interesting SNP seems to have made the decision to be serious today, given serious background of covid. Mature and serious questioning from an SNP MP following earlier mature and sensible questioning from Blackford.
The contrast with Labour couldn't be more stark.
Yes. Well done SNP and why is Corbyn still here
Why doesn’t (didn’t) Corbyn give a PMQs each to Starmer, Long-Bailey & Nandy? I think that would be a great thing for Labour members to see before they cast their votes
Possibly for two reasons - performance at PMQs is not the most important criterion for selecting a leader - and most votes have already been cast.
Would not go that far. It's just that he might have passed his "use by" date.
Different people have different "use by" dates. It's not purely about age. Some are fully functional at 90, others lose utility as early as 50.
I would say for "normal" people, the average "use by" age is 58.
For politicians - because they are by definition so robust - it is on average much higher. Something like 75.
But the average does not matter. Each person is an individual. A statistic of one.
I'm not saying he appears to have dementia because he is 77.
I'm saying he appears to have dementia because he can't speak properly. He can't get to the end of the sentence without forgetting how he started. He mixed up his wife with his sister. He announced at a rally he's running for the US Senate. He completely forgot what he was talking about more than once recently. Brain degradation is sad, but Biden is undergoing it.
It's a fair point, though he doesn't make the obverse one regarding Bloomberg and Biden.
Neither Bloomberg nor Warren have any business being in the race now.
Given the age and obvious frailty of both Bernie and Biden Warren is right to stick in there. Something might happen to one or both.
Warren would herself break the record as the oldest person ever to become US president, were she to be elected.
But frankly, she'd be better suspending her campaign now. If something does happen to Sanders or Biden, she could always reluctantly be drafted back in later.
Would not go that far. It's just that he might have passed his "use by" date.
Different people have different "use by" dates. It's not purely about age. Some are fully functional at 90, others lose utility as early as 50.
I would say for "normal" people, the average "use by" age is 58.
For politicians - because they are by definition so robust - it is on average much higher. Something like 75.
But the average does not matter. Each person is an individual. A statistic of one.
I'm not saying he appears to have dementia because he is 77.
I'm saying he appears to have dementia because he can't speak properly. He can't get to the end of the sentence without forgetting how he started. He mixed up his wife with his sister. He announced at a rally he's running for the US Senate. He completely forgot what he was talking about more than once recently. Brain degradation is sad, but Biden is undergoing it....
Interesting SNP seems to have made the decision to be serious today, given serious background of covid. Mature and serious questioning from an SNP MP following earlier mature and sensible questioning from Blackford.
The contrast with Labour couldn't be more stark.
Yes. Well done SNP and why is Corbyn still here
Why doesn’t (didn’t) Corbyn give a PMQs each to Starmer, Long-Bailey & Nandy? I think that would be a great thing for Labour members to see before they cast their votes
Possibly for two reasons - performance at PMQs is not the most important criterion for selecting a leader - and most votes have already been cast.
I didn’t say it was the most important criterion and it could have been arranged before any votes had been cast.
According to the stats I have seen, there are 53 British coronavirus cases. But I personally jnow two people with it, and know at one remove a further 9. (All returners from Italy). It seems unlikely that I'd personally be aware of one fifth of the cases. So either the stats are wrong or there is some serious lead-swinging going on.
Amazingly the person who gave it to a bunch of them says the same.
Do you have any objective evidence for this sort of bollocks?
There is no authoritative and generally accepted study AFAIK which puts a precise number on the average age at which a person "loses it" - or indeed a precise definition of what "losing it" means - but this surely does not render my insight as "bollocks".
Because people DO lose it, don't they, and they DO do so at different ages, and politicians ARE on the whole more robust than the norm.
Would not go that far. It's just that he might have passed his "use by" date.
Different people have different "use by" dates. It's not purely about age. Some are fully functional at 90, others lose utility as early as 50.
I would say for "normal" people, the average "use by" age is 58.
For politicians - because they are by definition so robust - it is on average much higher. Something like 75.
But the average does not matter. Each person is an individual. A statistic of one.
I'm not saying he appears to have dementia because he is 77.
I'm saying he appears to have dementia because he can't speak properly. He can't get to the end of the sentence without forgetting how he started. He mixed up his wife with his sister. He announced at a rally he's running for the US Senate. He completely forgot what he was talking about more than once recently. Brain degradation is sad, but Biden is undergoing it....
It could be a double bluff where he wants people to think so - that would be typical of Trump's childishness that he always imagines as great strategy.
Whilst I don't think Biden is a great candidate, there is absolutely no question in my mind that Trump would prefer Sanders to Biden as an opponent.
Sanders' problem was amply demonstrated by Biden's comeback. Rather like Corbyn, he is congenitally incapable of compromising, apologising, or uniting.
Sanders had every opportunity to put the contest to bed. He needed to use his time as clear frontrunner to praise the moderates (kill them with kindness), make noises about a moderate VP, gently row back on some past comments, and generally say "let's unite on Super Tuesday, then take on Trump together". Instead, he fluffed it and spent his time dancing on moderates' graves and praising Castro. He and his bros have nobody else to blame if, as seems likely, they've lost the race to Biden.
I don't really agree on that at all. He's more flexible and intellectually spontaneous than Corbyn, and there's a danger of trying to see everything through that lens from this side of the atlantic. There was a recording a couple of years ago of Trump describing Sanders as more of a worry in 2016.
He went out of his way in the pre-Super Tuesday rallies to deflect attention and blame away from Klobuchar and Biden, at the same moments his base were roaring him on to - he said Klobuchar was the "hardest worker I know", and that Biden was "a decent guy, but wrong on the issues" - not exactly Trumpian. If anything, he's been less ruthless than the centrists, which he was also criticised for against Cinton, and I think together with his obstinacy about defining himself as a socialist, when he's in fact the Utah-friendly heir of american religious populists, both have been his undoing so far.
It's a fair point, though he doesn't make the obverse one regarding Bloomberg and Biden.
Neither Bloomberg nor Warren have any business being in the race now.
Given the age and obvious frailty of both Bernie and Biden Warren is right to stick in there. Something might happen to one or both.
Warren would herself break the record as the oldest person ever to become US president, were she to be elected.
But frankly, she'd be better suspending her campaign now. If something does happen to Sanders or Biden, she could always reluctantly be drafted back in later.
Except in a police state those who point this out are in jail, you silly s8d.
No one is saying we live in a police state, but that the toadying, bootlicking planted questions would fit in well in one.
It's a meaningless truism. Supporting your own side is something everyone does not just them. It's like saying "the sun rose in the East this morning, that's just like a POLICE STATE as it always rises in the East in Police states."
Trump isn't remotely scared of Biden, and he doesn't want to face Sanders.
Not because he thinks Biden could beat him and Sanders can't. He's just seen the polling that suggests that Biden backers will en masse vote Sanders over Trump, whereas a sizeable proportion of Sanders backers will sit on their hands rather than vote for anyone else.
He knows that publicly seeming to be backing Sanders doesn't actually help Sanders, and is counting on facing someone else.
Except in a police state those who point this out are in jail, you silly s8d.
No one is saying we live in a police state, but that the toadying, bootlicking planted questions would fit in well in one.
It's a meaningless truism. Supporting your own side is something everyone does not just them. It's like saying "the sun rose in the East this morning, that's just like a POLICE STATE as it always rises in the East in Police states."
I wouldn’t say it’s like saying that at all. The questions to the PM from their own side aren’t always free hits for a start.
It's a fair point, though he doesn't make the obverse one regarding Bloomberg and Biden.
Neither Bloomberg nor Warren have any business being in the race now.
Given the age and obvious frailty of both Bernie and Biden Warren is right to stick in there. Something might happen to one or both.
Warren would herself break the record as the oldest person ever to become US president, were she to be elected.
But frankly, she'd be better suspending her campaign now. If something does happen to Sanders or Biden, she could always reluctantly be drafted back in later.
I am wondering if Warren has been leant on by the DNC somehow to stay in the race, specifically to hurt Sanders. Is it possible that she's been offered the VP slot in return?*
*Rhetorical question; it's unlikely bordering on impossible
Trump isn't remotely scared of Biden, and he doesn't want to face Sanders.
Not because he thinks Biden could beat him and Sanders can't. He's just seen the polling that suggests that Biden backers will en masse vote Sanders over Trump, whereas a sizeable proportion of Sanders backers will sit on their hands rather than vote for anyone else.
He knows that publicly seeming to be backing Sanders doesn't actually help Sanders, and is counting on facing someone else.
For a stupid bumbling orange man, he really does seem to be unfathomably smart...
How awesome is Biden, didn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire and will be the nominee.
I was assured he wouldn't get the nomination if he didn't win at least one of those two states.
Actually Bill Clinton won the 1992 nomination winning South Carolina but losing Iowa and New Hampshire, so you need to win one of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina not just Iowa or New Hampshire.
If Biden does win the nomination he will follow Clinton's path built on South Carolina and southern states on Super Tuesday
Except in a police state those who point this out are in jail, you silly s8d.
No one is saying we live in a police state, but that the toadying, bootlicking planted questions would fit in well in one.
It's a meaningless truism. Supporting your own side is something everyone does not just them. It's like saying "the sun rose in the East this morning, that's just like a POLICE STATE as it always rises in the East in Police states."
I wouldn’t say it’s like saying that at all. The questions to the PM from their own side aren’t always free hits for a start.
It’s a clear abuse of the opportunity to raise issues of genuine concern to an MP and his constituents to use it as propaganda. It’s probably gone on since PMQs were introduced and will continue to put people of politicians, it’s not clever and achieves nothing.
Trump isn't remotely scared of Biden, and he doesn't want to face Sanders.
Not because he thinks Biden could beat him and Sanders can't. He's just seen the polling that suggests that Biden backers will en masse vote Sanders over Trump, whereas a sizeable proportion of Sanders backers will sit on their hands rather than vote for anyone else.
He knows that publicly seeming to be backing Sanders doesn't actually help Sanders, and is counting on facing someone else.
For a stupid bumbling orange man, he really does seem to be unfathomably smart...
His political instincts are a wonder of the modern world. Watching him dismantle the Republican 2016 field one by one was almost unbelievable.
Unfortunately, the US parties have gotten stuck in a loop of thinking that politics is a field where the better you are at it, the higher up you should rise. Hillary Clinton fell into the same trap, at (unfortunately for the rest of us) exactly the same time.
How awesome is Biden, didn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire and will be the nominee.
I was assured he wouldn't get the nomination if he didn't win at least one of those two states.
Actually Bill Clinton won the 1992 nomination winning South Carolina but losing Iowa and New Hampshire, so you need to win one of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina not just Iowa or New Hampshire.
If Biden does win the nomination he will follow Clinton's path built on South Carolina and southern states on Super Tuesday
But you didn't mention South Carolina for the last year and a bit.
You kept on banging on about winning at least one of Iowa and New Hampshire.
Sanders has plenty of enthusiastic supporters, but he's not going to win over anyone in the centre, never mind actual Republicans. Biden could and hopefully will do so. Sanders would be relying on people who generally don't vote voting for once, that's a ridiculous strategy.
Trump isn't remotely scared of Biden, and he doesn't want to face Sanders.
Not because he thinks Biden could beat him and Sanders can't. He's just seen the polling that suggests that Biden backers will en masse vote Sanders over Trump, whereas a sizeable proportion of Sanders backers will sit on their hands rather than vote for anyone else.
He knows that publicly seeming to be backing Sanders doesn't actually help Sanders, and is counting on facing someone else.
For a stupid bumbling orange man, he really does seem to be unfathomably smart...
Why doesn’t (didn’t) Corbyn give a PMQs each to Starmer, Long-Bailey & Nandy? I think that would be a great thing for Labour members to see before they cast their votes
How awesome is Biden, didn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire and will be the nominee.
I was assured he wouldn't get the nomination if he didn't win at least one of those two states.
Actually Bill Clinton won the 1992 nomination winning South Carolina but losing Iowa and New Hampshire, so you need to win one of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina not just Iowa or New Hampshire.
If Biden does win the nomination he will follow Clinton's path built on South Carolina and southern states on Super Tuesday
But you didn't mention South Carolina for the last year and a bit.
You kept on banging on about winning at least one of Iowa and New Hampshire.
With the benefit of hindsight, the SC condition ought to be obvious to anyone...
It's a fair point, though he doesn't make the obverse one regarding Bloomberg and Biden.
Neither Bloomberg nor Warren have any business being in the race now.
Given the age and obvious frailty of both Bernie and Biden Warren is right to stick in there. Something might happen to one or both.
Warren would herself break the record as the oldest person ever to become US president, were she to be elected.
But frankly, she'd be better suspending her campaign now. If something does happen to Sanders or Biden, she could always reluctantly be drafted back in later.
If neither Sanders nor Biden get a majority, she could hand over her delegates for the VP slot.
How awesome is Biden, didn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire and will be the nominee.
I was assured he wouldn't get the nomination if he didn't win at least one of those two states.
Actually Bill Clinton won the 1992 nomination winning South Carolina but losing Iowa and New Hampshire, so you need to win one of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina not just Iowa or New Hampshire.
If Biden does win the nomination he will follow Clinton's path built on South Carolina and southern states on Super Tuesday
But you didn't mention South Carolina for the last year and a bit.
You kept on banging on about winning at least one of Iowa and New Hampshire.
No, if you read my comments I said Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina were the states you needed to win one of, I only said Nevada was irrelevant when arguing with RCS on its relevance, not South Carolina
The Dems really need to get a narrative going on *Trump's* dementia, it's way scarier what Biden may have, and also hasn't had nearly as much play as it should have had.
It's a fair point, though he doesn't make the obverse one regarding Bloomberg and Biden.
Neither Bloomberg nor Warren have any business being in the race now.
Given the age and obvious frailty of both Bernie and Biden Warren is right to stick in there. Something might happen to one or both.
Warren would herself break the record as the oldest person ever to become US president, were she to be elected.
But frankly, she'd be better suspending her campaign now. If something does happen to Sanders or Biden, she could always reluctantly be drafted back in later.
Got to get a lead on Klob and Buttigeg.
I'm not sure that getting thumped in every state is the best way to advertise your electability?
Suddenly realised that if you are going to drink drive, this is the time to do it. So you get a ban, who cares.
Petty and antisocial crimes are going to soar.....
Except that, on the other hand, others will have zero tolerance of them. Thieves will get stabbed to death.
This is going to affect us in innumerable ways we cannot predict.
Men now coolly ventured on what they had formerly done in a corner, and not just as they pleased, seeing the rapid transitions produced by persons in prosperity suddenly dying and those who before had nothing succeeding to their property. So they resolved to spend quickly and enjoy themselves, regarding their lives and riches as alike things of a day. Perseverance in what men called honour was popular with none, it was so uncertain whether they would be spared to attain the object; but it was settled that present enjoyment, and all that contributed to it, was both honourable and useful. Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them. As for the first, they judged it to be just the same whether they worshipped them or not, as they saw all alike perishing; and for the last, no one expected to live to be brought to trial for his offences, but each felt that a far severer sentence had been already passed upon them all and hung ever over their heads, and before this fell it was only reasonable to enjoy life a little.
Sanders has plenty of enthusiastic supporters, but he's not going to win over anyone in the centre, never mind actual Republicans. Biden could and hopefully will do so. Sanders would be relying on people who generally don't vote voting for once, that's a ridiculous strategy.
Is that strategy not how Leave won here in 2016?
To an extent, but generally it's a losing strategy. Leave's win was unexpected and narrow, and a similar win for Sanders — even if he could pull it off — might simply result in a majority of the vote, but losing the electoral college. The Democrats need to play it safe, not reach for the stars.
None of the commentariat in the US is linking it to Pete as the key moment/person, although he, Klobuchar and O'Rourke lining up to endorse Biden of course had a huge impact.
But, as far as the political class here are concerned, none of that would have happened without Clyburn's timely public endorsement and his even more impactful private hard talk with Biden on what he needed to turn things around before the South Carolina primary. Without South Carolina's whomping victory, there'd be no Buttigieg or Klobuchar withdrawal. Without Clyburn, there'd be no South Carolina victory.
According to the stats I have seen, there are 53 British coronavirus cases. But I personally jnow two people with it, and know at one remove a further 9. (All returners from Italy). It seems unlikely that I'd personally be aware of one fifth of the cases. So either the stats are wrong or there is some serious lead-swinging going on.
As Philip Thompson says, it’s going to cluster & so if you happen to know one you’re probably only one remove from the rest of that cluster as well.
A quick bit of facebooking reveals that the two people I know were on the same trip. I had no idea they knew each other. So the stats are starting to look slightly less startling.
It could be a double bluff where he wants people to think so - that would be typical of Trump's childishness that he always imagines as great strategy.
Whilst I don't think Biden is a great candidate, there is absolutely no question in my mind that Trump would prefer Sanders to Biden as an opponent.
Sanders' problem was amply demonstrated by Biden's comeback. Rather like Corbyn, he is congenitally incapable of compromising, apologising, or uniting.
Sanders had every opportunity to put the contest to bed. He needed to use his time as clear frontrunner to praise the moderates (kill them with kindness), make noises about a moderate VP, gently row back on some past comments, and generally say "let's unite on Super Tuesday, then take on Trump together". Instead, he fluffed it and spent his time dancing on moderates' graves and praising Castro. He and his bros have nobody else to blame if, as seems likely, they've lost the race to Biden.
Spot on. Dems need someone who is comfortable having a beer with WWC voters and who can bring in the black vote. Joe, for all his faults, is the guy who can do that. The other Dems are just grist to Trump's mill as was Hillary.
OT good meta piece by Tyler Cowen on the covid-19 arguments:
Overall, the growthers tend to be analytical people who work a lot with numbers and are used to modeling the problems they face. The mindset in Washington, by contrast — and indeed much of America — is much closer to the base-raters.
The base-raters, when assessing the likelihood of a particular scenario, start by asking how often it has happened before. That is, they estimate its base-rate likelihood. And history shows that major pandemics have lately been rare.
Similiar to the reaction to Trump's 'russian' win in 2016 and the nuttier elements of remain here.
People just can't accept when they've lost these days, still at least the Bernie Bros aren't blaming Putin - who would get the blame if he'd won from the other side.
It's a fair point, though he doesn't make the obverse one regarding Bloomberg and Biden.
Neither Bloomberg nor Warren have any business being in the race now.
Given the age and obvious frailty of both Bernie and Biden Warren is right to stick in there. Something might happen to one or both.
Warren would herself break the record as the oldest person ever to become US president, were she to be elected.
But frankly, she'd be better suspending her campaign now. If something does happen to Sanders or Biden, she could always reluctantly be drafted back in later.
If neither Sanders nor Biden get a majority, she could hand over her delegates for the VP slot.
That doesn't work. She could only have that power if she were genuinely the swing vote but she's not accumulating delegates quickly enough for that and won't do when she's polling a good way below 15%.
The genuine swing vote in a brokered convention would be the unpledged super-delegates who come in on the second round. Only if they're closely split might her own support come into it - and that assumes that doing that kind of votes-for-office deal doesn't itself trigger a counter-reaction among superdelegates.
The victory last night seriously understated the extent of the swing because of the amount of the early voting which favoured Sanders and included a fair number of votes for Buttigieg. Next round Sanders is going to be thrashed.
Warren exiting very quickly must surely be one of his last hopes, and I don't see any sign of her doing that so far.
Some polls have more Warren supporters putting Biden as their second choice. Having her stay in might still be to Sanders advantage.
I don't think he could ever win a clear head-to-head contest. He needs as wide a field as possible.
Warren is certainly complicated because she attracts a range of voters, but she does have a clear left-feminist appeal in amongst that too, I think, which would be inclined to head to Sanders over Biden.
I have a feeling that Warren already lost her Bernie backers after Iowa. Her main support may now be the "centerists who want a leftist" who see Bernie as too much
It could be a double bluff where he wants people to think so - that would be typical of Trump's childishness that he always imagines as great strategy.
Whilst I don't think Biden is a great candidate, there is absolutely no question in my mind that Trump would prefer Sanders to Biden as an opponent.
Sanders' problem was amply demonstrated by Biden's comeback. Rather like Corbyn, he is congenitally incapable of compromising, apologising, or uniting.
Sanders had every opportunity to put the contest to bed. He needed to use his time as clear frontrunner to praise the moderates (kill them with kindness), make noises about a moderate VP, gently row back on some past comments, and generally say "let's unite on Super Tuesday, then take on Trump together". Instead, he fluffed it and spent his time dancing on moderates' graves and praising Castro. He and his bros have nobody else to blame if, as seems likely, they've lost the race to Biden.
Spot on. Dems need someone who is comfortable having a beer with WWC voters and who can bring in the black vote. Joe, for all his faults, is the guy who can do that. The other Dems are just grist to Trump's mill as was Hillary.
As mentioned previously, I think that was more relevant to the 2016 Sanders than the 2020 one. Sanders has definitely made progress with these voters, but apparently only in the north, not the South. I can't see Biden pulling off the kind of interview below ; but also as mentioned below, Sanders' obstinacy on the socialist issue may have rendered all this moot and wasted work.
OT good meta piece by Tyler Cowen on the covid-19 arguments:
Overall, the growthers tend to be analytical people who work a lot with numbers and are used to modeling the problems they face. The mindset in Washington, by contrast — and indeed much of America — is much closer to the base-raters.
The base-raters, when assessing the likelihood of a particular scenario, start by asking how often it has happened before. That is, they estimate its base-rate likelihood. And history shows that major pandemics have lately been rare.
In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, on which day will the patch cover half of the lake?
The "lot of fuss about nothing" claim depends heavily on not knowing the right answer to that.
The victory last night seriously understated the extent of the swing because of the amount of the early voting which favoured Sanders and included a fair number of votes for Buttigieg. Next round Sanders is going to be thrashed.
Warren exiting very quickly must surely be one of his last hopes, and I don't see any sign of her doing that so far.
Some polls have more Warren supporters putting Biden as their second choice. Having her stay in might still be to Sanders advantage.
I don't think he could ever win a clear head-to-head contest. He needs as wide a field as possible.
Warren is certainly complicated because she attracts a range of voters, but she does have a clear left-feminist appeal in amongst that too, I think, which would be inclined to head to Sanders over Biden.
I have a feeling that Warren already lost her Bernie backers after Iowa. Her main support may now be the "centerists who want a leftist" who see Bernie as too much
Her and Bloomberg should both drop out now. Their delegate totals may well end up being roughly a wash so it sets up a straight Biden-Sanders contest. That's a much cleaner set up than having the pair of them stay in. I think Biden could probably get a delegate majority even if it was Sanders-Biden-Bloomberg now though.
OT good meta piece by Tyler Cowen on the covid-19 arguments:
Overall, the growthers tend to be analytical people who work a lot with numbers and are used to modeling the problems they face. The mindset in Washington, by contrast — and indeed much of America — is much closer to the base-raters.
The base-raters, when assessing the likelihood of a particular scenario, start by asking how often it has happened before. That is, they estimate its base-rate likelihood. And history shows that major pandemics have lately been rare.
How awesome is Biden, didn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire and will be the nominee.
I was assured he wouldn't get the nomination if he didn't win at least one of those two states.
Actually Bill Clinton won the 1992 nomination winning South Carolina but losing Iowa and New Hampshire, so you need to win one of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina not just Iowa or New Hampshire.
If Biden does win the nomination he will follow Clinton's path built on South Carolina and southern states on Super Tuesday
Clinton did, however, finish a reasonably strong second in New Hampshire in 1992 with 25% to Paul Tsongas' 33% and more than double Bob Kerrey in third; while the Iowa contest that year was meaningless with a home-state candidate.
By contrast, if he wins, Biden would be the first nominee since the 'First In The Nation' Iowa/NH contests became a thing in the 1970s, to gain the nomination without finishing in the top two in either opening state (the record actually goes back much further but it's doubtful how meaningful those earlier years are).
My brief summary: Workers off sick, not a big deal economically. Schools closed, much bigger deal economically. Changing consumption habits (e.g. less eating out), big deal and long-term impact as much of that consumption is not replaced once pandemic ends.
Do you have any objective evidence for this sort of bollocks?
There is no authoritative and generally accepted study AFAIK which puts a precise number on the average age at which a person "loses it" - or indeed a precise definition of what "losing it" means - but this surely does not render my insight as "bollocks".
Because people DO lose it, don't they, and they DO do so at different ages, and politicians ARE on the whole more robust than the norm.
My brief summary: Workers off sick, not a big deal economically. Schools closed, much bigger deal economically. Changing consumption habits (e.g. less eating out), big deal and long-term impact as much of that consumption is not replaced once pandemic ends.
The third point seems mildly unlikely. Didn't the roaring twenties follow on form the even deadlier 'Spanish' flu ?
OT good meta piece by Tyler Cowen on the covid-19 arguments:
Overall, the growthers tend to be analytical people who work a lot with numbers and are used to modeling the problems they face. The mindset in Washington, by contrast — and indeed much of America — is much closer to the base-raters.
The base-raters, when assessing the likelihood of a particular scenario, start by asking how often it has happened before. That is, they estimate its base-rate likelihood. And history shows that major pandemics have lately been rare.
I'm eating oysters and drinking Picpoul in an otherwise deserted restaurant in Maldon, Essex.
I feel like President Mitterand consuming his final ortolans.
I don't have a coronovirus angle for this but did you make it out to Bradwell and Chapel of St Peter-on-the-Wall?
Going there on Saturday. I hear it is amazing?
Awesome (Lindesfarne of Essex etc) while at the same time simple and charming and the whole area is very weirdly spooky, the dead nuclear power station helps.
Despite being in Essex the area's really remote because it's stuck between the two estuaries, the teachers there used to blame their low position in the league tables on in-breeding.
Comments
The contrast with Labour couldn't be more stark.
Neither Bloomberg nor Warren have any business being in the race now.
I think the only future for the Democrats may be someone like Andrew Yang - to the left of Biden in key areas and so closer to Sanders, but also with a crossover, conscientious business appeal. That could appeal to a lot of Millennials who are used to a social milieu friendly to tech-oriented business combined with a more leftwing idealism.
Warren could ask her ancestors for guidance?
Different people have different "use by" dates. It's not purely about age. Some are fully functional at 90, others lose utility as early as 50.
I would say for "normal" people, the average "use by" age is 58.
For politicians - because they are by definition so robust - it is on average much higher. Something like 75.
But the average does not matter. Each person is an individual. A statistic of one.
I`m 55.
Sanders' problem was amply demonstrated by Biden's comeback. Rather like Corbyn, he is congenitally incapable of compromising, apologising, or uniting.
Sanders had every opportunity to put the contest to bed. He needed to use his time as clear frontrunner to praise the moderates (kill them with kindness), make noises about a moderate VP, gently row back on some past comments, and generally say "let's unite on Super Tuesday, then take on Trump together". Instead, he fluffed it and spent his time dancing on moderates' graves and praising Castro. He and his bros have nobody else to blame if, as seems likely, they've lost the race to Biden.
https://twitter.com/eplbible/status/1235145893839613952?s=21
But there are plenty of alternate futures for the party; Abrams, for example, is not so easy to pigeonhole in quite such a manner.
I'm saying he appears to have dementia because he can't speak properly. He can't get to the end of the sentence without forgetting how he started. He mixed up his wife with his sister. He announced at a rally he's running for the US Senate. He completely forgot what he was talking about more than once recently. Brain degradation is sad, but Biden is undergoing it.
https://twitter.com/shaunking/status/1232161051816235009
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1234573252221120513
https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1235043566759501824
I could understand sell-by; but use-buy ?
That's harsh.
But frankly, she'd be better suspending her campaign now. If something does happen to Sanders or Biden, she could always reluctantly be drafted back in later.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/joe-biden-stutter-profile/602401/
I think I'd want a little more evidence before being quite so certain - though a degree of mental decline is certainly... plausible.
Because people DO lose it, don't they, and they DO do so at different ages, and politicians ARE on the whole more robust than the norm.
How old are you, Matt?
He went out of his way in the pre-Super Tuesday rallies to deflect attention and blame away from Klobuchar and Biden, at the same moments his base were roaring him on to - he said Klobuchar was the "hardest worker I know", and that Biden was "a decent guy, but wrong on the issues" - not exactly Trumpian. If anything, he's been less ruthless than the centrists, which he was also criticised for against Cinton, and I think together with his obstinacy about defining himself as a socialist, when he's in fact the Utah-friendly heir of american religious populists, both have been his undoing so far.
Not that I am arguing with your wife, I hasten to add.
All Italian schools and universities to close
All schools and universities are to close in Italy until mid-March as the country battles to control the coronavirus.
The Italian news agency ANSA says the decision was taken at a meeting by the prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, with his cabinet.
There have been 79 deaths from Covid-19 in Italy, the third highest after China and Iran.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/04/bill-and-melinda-gates-fund-study-into-finding-coronavirus-cure
Not because he thinks Biden could beat him and Sanders can't. He's just seen the polling that suggests that Biden backers will en masse vote Sanders over Trump, whereas a sizeable proportion of Sanders backers will sit on their hands rather than vote for anyone else.
He knows that publicly seeming to be backing Sanders doesn't actually help Sanders, and is counting on facing someone else.
*Rhetorical question; it's unlikely bordering on impossible
If Biden does win the nomination he will follow Clinton's path built on South Carolina and southern states on Super Tuesday
#justsaying
Unfortunately, the US parties have gotten stuck in a loop of thinking that politics is a field where the better you are at it, the higher up you should rise. Hillary Clinton fell into the same trap, at (unfortunately for the rest of us) exactly the same time.
You kept on banging on about winning at least one of Iowa and New Hampshire.
I`ve learned something today.
Thucydides on the Athenian plague
But, as far as the political class here are concerned, none of that would have happened without Clyburn's timely public endorsement and his even more impactful private hard talk with Biden on what he needed to turn things around before the South Carolina primary. Without South Carolina's whomping victory, there'd be no Buttigieg or Klobuchar withdrawal. Without Clyburn, there'd be no South Carolina victory.
Might it be Henry the mild mannered Janitor? .....
Similiar to the reaction to Trump's 'russian' win in 2016 and the nuttier elements of remain here.
People just can't accept when they've lost these days, still at least the Bernie Bros aren't blaming Putin - who would get the blame if he'd won from the other side.
The genuine swing vote in a brokered convention would be the unpledged super-delegates who come in on the second round. Only if they're closely split might her own support come into it - and that assumes that doing that kind of votes-for-office deal doesn't itself trigger a counter-reaction among superdelegates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8XdL1nZrIU
In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, on which day will the patch cover half of the lake?
The "lot of fuss about nothing" claim depends heavily on not knowing the right answer to that.
That's a much cleaner set up than having the pair of them stay in.
I think Biden could probably get a delegate majority even if it was Sanders-Biden-Bloomberg now though.
"Bayesians" and "empiricists".
A tale as old as time.
Well, a few generations, anyway.
By contrast, if he wins, Biden would be the first nominee since the 'First In The Nation' Iowa/NH contests became a thing in the 1970s, to gain the nomination without finishing in the top two in either opening state (the record actually goes back much further but it's doubtful how meaningful those earlier years are).
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-economic-effects-of-pandemic.html
My brief summary:
Workers off sick, not a big deal economically.
Schools closed, much bigger deal economically.
Changing consumption habits (e.g. less eating out), big deal and long-term impact as much of that consumption is not replaced once pandemic ends.
Didn't the roaring twenties follow on form the even deadlier 'Spanish' flu ?
(That power station was also the site of one of a series of great shit essex crimes foiled by random traffic stops)
Despite being in Essex the area's really remote because it's stuck between the two estuaries, the teachers there used to blame their low position in the league tables on in-breeding.