Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kamala Harris edging down in the Dem VP betting with Susan Ric
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Kamala Harris edging down in the Dem VP betting with Susan Rice continuing to advance
With Joe Biden expected to announce his VP choice within the next fortnight there’s been a lot of movement on the Betfair market where Kamala Harris has edged downwards from a 60%+ chance to a 37% one. A big driver is the money now going on Susan rice who is now rated on the markets as having a 25% chance.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
> Biden has demonstrated ability to pull Black voters, at levels that rival Bill Clinton and exceed Hillary; little to no evidence a Black VP would boost Joe much more
> Biden has northeast pretty much sewn up, Harris is from DC which will vote for Joe whomever he picks for VP.
> Biden has decades of federal experience, including service on Senate Foreign Relations committee and hanging with Barrack in situation rooms & secret bunkers
> Country is NOT interested in foreign affairs right now, and no reason to bring it up (folks scared of Trumpsky's finger on the trigger already in Joe's camp); on other hand, PLENTY of reasons NOT to bring up Benghazi and Syria, which nomination of Susan Rice would revive as major GOP talking points
> Most Democrats - also Independents & Republicans - about as eager for a Black Dick Cheney as they are for a return of the White one.
However, note that fact she landed a pretty good punch against Biden in the debates, is a sign that she might just land some blow against both Trumpsky and Bobblehead in the general.
Biden ... said this week he expected the background vetting process to conclude around July 24. He would then interview each finalist before making a decision, expected by early August.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-biden-running-mate/biden-facing-pressure-within-party-as-running-mate-search-enters-final-phase-idUKKCN24I17Y
In addition, I remain sceptical it will come down to whichever VP can deliver a state or demographic. It is hard to think of any recent choices where that seemed to be a consideration, including Biden himself. The nearest might be the closest: Mike Pence delivering the Christian right to Donald Trump but at the time it was more that no-one else wanted the job, and Trump had those groups sewn up anyway.
But if that is to be the overwhelming factor then Grisham might be the closest, as the Latina Governor of New Mexico. Her presence on the ticket might be calculated to boost turnout amongst the Hispanic communities in neighbouring states that Biden needs to win. 38 on Betfair.
It's what people EXPECT of politicos. It's NOT been a silver bullet or even a half-way decent hit in previous presidential general election campaigns, and methinks it will NOT be once again in fall 2020.
I’ve got this fear that when Biden does reveal the name we will declare with hindsight that it was clear all along.
More likely to be that we've long known the half dozen or so in the frame so why haven't we backed all of them?
The warning comes amid gloomy predictions of the worst employment market since the 1980s, with millions of jobs at risk as companies aggressively cut back their operations...
... many bosses privately doubt Mr Johnson’s hopes for a return to normality in time for Christmas.
In a survey of its 174 of its* members conducted up to July 14, the number of companies planning to make redundancies in the next six months rose to 53 per cent, up from 25 per cent just two months ago.
Almost a third of companies plan to cut between 11 per cent and 25 per cent of employees, with almost one in 10 making between a quarter and half the workforce redundant.
(£) https://www.ft.com/content/afa20d03-480a-4e56-a23e-4c522d96089c
(*Make UK, which represents 20,000 companies of all sizes)
- 60m doses of vaccine from Valneva (Option for additional 40m)
- 30m doses from Pfizer/BioNTech
- 1m doses of antibody treatment for those who can’t have vaccines (AstraZeneca)
More to come, watch this space
Both prices now shorter than they have been, but longer than one would have expected at this stage, suggesting some doubts about the candidates.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53465971
Didn’t stop Reagan picking him as running mate, or them winning comfortably.
They seem to be Obama White House insiders, not Biden campaign insiders.
It might be more instructive to have a look at Biden’s current advisers and campaign team, though a brief search doesn’t throw up any coherent narrative.
1) Taking it will annoy potential customers when companies like Primark aren't touching it.
2) there are hidden conditions that may cause problems down the line - I'm not aware of any but you never know..
2) very unlikely and you are not in the scheme until you claim so could have just waited
There’s been a quiet campaign behind the scenes to encourage larger firms who don’t need the money to turn it down (as there was with the furlough scheme).
By not putting strict criteria on the scheme you reduce the chance of missing those who don’t need it; combining this with moral suasion reduces the deadweight cost
You count number of employees who were on furlough and are still there in Feb and claim for them. You can have some redundant in between.
There is no risk to employers from over committing.
Trouble ahead for the UK Road Haulage industry.
The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) scheme, distributes a fixed number of permits per country. There were 8,348 UK-registered international road hauliers last year, according to Department for Transport data.
However, under the ECMT scheme, the UK would be allocated permits for only 2,088 companies.
Good to see a header about veep betting.
Go Susan!
"John Lewis are retaining their staff" . . . I fail to see how that is a negative. To me any company that retains their staff that is surely a good thing.
The only companies I'd be upset about claiming the job retention bonus are those that dodged taxes pre-crisis.
Customer facing businesses that rely on good staff /customer interaction - Workers cooperatives
Natural monopolies like utilities /transport etc - Consumer cooperatives.
Pure capitalism works best in innovative sectors where there is a problem and a need to solve it fast by the need to offer large financial rewards to the sucessful
"Neither Primark nor JLP need relatively small amounts of money in return for such a whoppingly huge commitment. Getting £1,000 per employee for keeping them on the payroll three months longer than you need is a commercially rotten idea if your staff earn more than £350 a month and the firm's reasonably cash-flush.
The offer MIGHT be enough to persuade a few seriously cash-strapped businesses to delay long-term restructuring - and right now, Sunak needs as many businesses as possible to delay their layoffs till after next spring, so the scheme is probably a useful part of his armoury for getting through the next year.
It offers little appeal to most businesses: but that's not a lethal flaw in the scheme: no two businesses are identical
The only people "embarrassed" by Sunak's offer are commercially illiterate commentators who simply don't understand how expensive unnecessary staff are, and how much damage over-employment does to a business."
---------------
With all due respect it is you who is demonstrating commercial illiteracy.
The bonus is available to companies on a per employee basis whether they reduce their head count or not. Companies make absolutely no commitment re this bonus. They simply do a count of employees on Feb 1st who were ever on furlough and submit a claim.
Now back to Susan Rice. Rice or Harris, either enhance the ticket.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1285109179720577024
To me it seems entirely logical to do this from the taxpayers perspective. The taxpayer has funded furlough through this crisis with no guarantee that people actually go back to work afterwards . . . by tying these final payments with ensuring people are back working for a few months through the Festive Period into the New Year then it is helping to ensure we got more value for money with the original furlough.
All I can think of in the case of John Lewis is that they are going to make the great majority of their furloughed staff redundant, and they don't want the hassle of reputational damage from if there's a furore when at the same time of announcing mass redundancies they claim for the few staff that they keep on. If so, those are not good omens.
Worries for his mental health.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53467658
Eg if a lot of people were to be replaced between now and the New Year due to churn then I am assuming their replacements (even though its the same job) will be ineligible for the bonus . . . so a large employer may not wish to avoid negative headlines "revealing" that they've retained much fewer staff than they have.
Fun times if you like to eat or buy things! I'm sure @HYUFD thinks its marvellous
Why not analyse these measures in detail and weigh up the costs and benefits. Some will be good, others flawed? The fact that a policy is from the pen of Johnson or Sunak doesn't automatically mean it is perfect. Conversely, neither are they always bad.
*Supposed end. They'll have to extend it if the kind of second wave that is starting to show its head elsewhere comes here. And with our crap record dealing with the rona we start from a much higher infection rate which means a much bigger spike...
Knowing how you address, I am surprised. Still I am giving you the benefit of any doubt! Lol!
eg There are EU Community Licences in the mix.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/eu-community-licences-for-international-road-haulage
When we are facing a once in a century pandemic and the deepest depression in over 300 years of recorded history then value for money right now is not the top priority. Next year post-pandemic we will need to get value for money but moving fast and swiftly is more important than seeking good value right now.
Plus if we tried to do it in a much more complicated way then no doubt the added complication will make it cost much, much more per head.
So it would not be a surprise to see serious changes.
Businesses aren't just in a position of either being on their last legs and unable to survive, or perfectly positioned to weather the storm. There will be a bell curve distribution and a great many (especially small) businesses will be in the middle: struggling but working hard to survive. Schemes like this will be useful for them.
Perhaps instead of the stupidity of trying to force people back into offices so that they can go back to buying Pret, the government could simply issue nice clear instructions like "you Must go and buy overpriced takeaway coffee and take it home. Don't wear a mask in the coffee shop as its safe indoors with people but if you go there on the bus wear a mask as it isn't safe indoors with people."
Like-for-like the job retention scheme will get more money per job saved to businesses that were forced to furlough than simply tinkering with NI would. But I would 100% support employers NI being cut or even abolished in the next Budget or next year's Budget.
Companies are not stopped from claiming the bonus if they make redundancies despite this being a widespread belief. They can choose whatever headcount suits them and then still claim per employee.
I know we laugh and say that no-one sane would want the job, but really?
But I suppose the other way of looking at it is that a slightly smaller amount of money is about to be wasted than we previously thought.
It's embarrassing because he's made a big play about saying how he is going to spend to keep employment down, and he's now come up with something that is going to cost billions and isn't going to make a difference.
But John Lewis? High business rates, lots of staff, no fat cat bosses or shareholders and stores forced closed by the govt? Who is going to think its terrible they claimed a grant govt?
Isn;t it something they should have released quietly next year, when things have returned to some sort of normal?
Bit of an act of self-harm it seems to me.
Kanye West has officially launched his campaign for the 2020 US presidential election, with an unorthodox rally in Charleston, South Carolina.
West, 43, is running as a candidate for his self-styled "Birthday Party".
Didn't seem the best of rallies, TBH, given the report!
If you judge it on the one off will employers keep someone on because of £1k, then it doesnt work. If you look at it as a form of pumping £5-9bn into the economy relatively cheaply and direct to business rather than via the banking system (where it always seems to disappear and not reach businesses), then it is ok. Jobs will be kept because companies have better balance sheets and the economy is more active not the £1k v redundancy trade off.