politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Michael Bloomberg to spend $80m helping the Democrats in key r

Just for Topping....what do we think the Aussies will get here in the ODI? ;-)

rottenborough said:

Bloomberg gonna run for POTUS?

Running on a platform of banning the big gulp nationwide?

I think stuff like this is perhaps of more relevance (though Schmidt has been on the brink for some time):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/today-i-renounce-my-membership-longtime-gop-strategist-steve-schmidt-announces-hes-leaving-his-party/2018/06/20/5918d7ee-747d-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html
“29 years and nine months ago I registered to vote and became a member of The Republican Party which was founded in 1854 to oppose slavery and stand for the dignity of human life,” Schmidt wrote. “Today I renounce my membership in the Republican Party. It is fully the party of Trump.”

Tipping swing voters will likely win the House for the Democrats; if they can peel off a few Republicans, it's just about conceivable that the Senate could be in play.

Trump can weather a Democrat House; a Democrat Senate would present him with considerably greater problems (for an example, no more free appointments to the federal judiciary).

In the 2017 election there were more switchers between the Conservatives and Labour than at any other election, including 1997 and 1970.
https://twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/1009802836291485696

williamglenn said:

In the 2017 election there were more switchers between the Conservatives and Labour than at any other election, including 1997 and 1970.
https://twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/1009802836291485696

Red Tories? Who knew the Blairites were so numerous.

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

In the 2017 election there were more switchers between the Conservatives and Labour than at any other election, including 1997 and 1970.
https://twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/1009802836291485696

I wonder what percentage of SNP leave voter went Tory in 2017.

Interesting question. The independence mindset never seemed particularly compatible with membership of the EU to me, even although the SNP wanted to appear a more mainstream social democrat party. I think it may well have been a significant issue in the north east in particular.

Anazina said:

tlg86 said:

No.

Brilliant. Anyone who rolls over the absolutely dismal 'First' shite gets a treble gold star.

Killjoy.

Casino_Royale said:

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

In the 2017 election there were more switchers between the Conservatives and Labour than at any other election, including 1997 and 1970.
https://twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/1009802836291485696

I wonder what percentage of SNP leave voter went Tory in 2017.

The Con Remainers who switched were sold a pup.

You mean an 'absolute' pup?

Why would the Democrats want to "turn the tide" ?

If the tide turns it'll be the GOP winning the house.

Casino_Royale said:

Alistair said:

williamglenn said:

In the 2017 election there were more switchers between the Conservatives and Labour than at any other election, including 1997 and 1970.
https://twitter.com/chris__curtis/status/1009802836291485696

I wonder what percentage of SNP leave voter went Tory in 2017.

The Con Remainers who switched were sold a pup.

They deserve nothing less. Now their great leader has abandoned them as well. They are probably hoping for Vince Cable to come to their rescue now.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

tlg86 said:

No.

Brilliant. Anyone who rolls over the absolutely dismal 'First' shite gets a treble gold star.

Somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning...

Just don't mention the strawberries....

DavidL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Anazina said:

tlg86 said:

No.

Brilliant. Anyone who rolls over the absolutely dismal 'First' shite gets a treble gold star.

Somebody got out of bed the wrong side this morning...

Just don't mention the strawberries....

Had some lovely ones from Waitrose yesterday....I believe they were from a bloke called harry in Herefordshire.

AndyJS said:

"@britainelects
2m2 minutes ago

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (-)
LAB: 40% (+1)
LDEM: 9% (+1)
UKIP: 3% (-)
GRN: 2% (-)

via @YouGov, 18 - 19 Jun"

Progressives 51%, Retrogressives 45%

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Surby, 'progressive' is a daft term. It's just a grown-up attempt to ape the infantile 'goodies' and 'baddies' language.

Good afternoon, my fellow progressive anthropophiliac pro-mankind optimists overflowing with goodly niceness.

Good enough for me.

On topic, how far does $80m go in the Congressional mid-term elections? Some figures from the NYT here relating to the 2012 elections suggest that a campaign in a swing district cost around $3m (the article's five years old but I doubt it's got cheaper since).

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/how-much-does-a-house-seat-cost/

It also quoted a figure of $10m for victorious senate candidates, though doesn't seem to differentiate there between safe and swing states, gained or retained seats, or large and small states.

So if he wants to make a big difference, it looks as if he'll have to choose between funding a small number of seats, where the finance will really make a difference but risking that the targeting is out, or funding a larger number, spreading the money thinner and risking that it doesn't make all that much difference.

'Help to turn the tide' is about right. It could make a meaningful difference if spent in the right way in the right places.

England better have bought their batting boots again today, as they are going to need buckets loads to win.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1009807528862076929?s=21

So how much of our territory are we planning on handing over to Russia?

david_herdson said:

On topic, how far does $80m go in the Congressional mid-term elections? Some figures from the NYT here relating to the 2012 elections suggest that a campaign in a swing district cost around $3m (the article's five years old but I doubt it's got cheaper since).

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/how-much-does-a-house-seat-cost/

It also quoted a figure of $10m for victorious senate candidates, though doesn't seem to differentiate there between safe and swing states, gained or retained seats, or large and small states.

So if he wants to make a big difference, it looks as if he'll have to choose between funding a small number of seats, where the finance will really make a difference but risking that the targeting is out, or funding a larger number, spreading the money thinner and risking that it doesn't make all that much difference.

'Help to turn the tide' is about right. It could make a meaningful difference if spent in the right way in the right places.

It's a good point. I am so glad that we don't live in a system where $80m may not make that much of a difference or, for that matter, where it is possible for 1 person's money to have so much influence on the outcome.

That's sure enough Overton for the time being? Bring back Rashid.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Surby, the wrapping up of morality in politics is delinquent tomfoolery.

If one assumes that difference of political preference is not a matter of judgement or personal taste but a question of morality then it logically follows on from that that one's own side is good. However, that necessarily means that deviation from that 'good' perspective is indicative of wickedness.

But that flies in the face of the essential principle of democratic freedom, namely that it's entirely legitimate for intelligent people to hear the same arguments, see the same evidence, and yet reach differing conclusions as to the best way forward.

And such people then cling to their self-ordained righteousness even when they celebrate the death of an OAP. It's zealous idiocy.

People can differ without being evil or stupid.

Selfish, greedy people vote for a party that promotes selfishness and greed.

That is their democratic right. Doesn't mean the rest of us can't look at them critically.

FrancisUrquhart said:

England better have bought their batting boots again today, as they are going to need buckets loads to win.

Australia are awesome in dead rubbers!

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, how far does $80m go in the Congressional mid-term elections? Some figures from the NYT here relating to the 2012 elections suggest that a campaign in a swing district cost around $3m (the article's five years old but I doubt it's got cheaper since).

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/how-much-does-a-house-seat-cost/

It also quoted a figure of $10m for victorious senate candidates, though doesn't seem to differentiate there between safe and swing states, gained or retained seats, or large and small states.

So if he wants to make a big difference, it looks as if he'll have to choose between funding a small number of seats, where the finance will really make a difference but risking that the targeting is out, or funding a larger number, spreading the money thinner and risking that it doesn't make all that much difference.

'Help to turn the tide' is about right. It could make a meaningful difference if spent in the right way in the right places.

It's a good point. I am so glad that we don't live in a system where $80m may not make that much of a difference or, for that matter, where it is possible for 1 person's money to have so much influence on the outcome.

Er... Arron Banks?

SandyRentool said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Surby, the wrapping up of morality in politics is delinquent tomfoolery.

If one assumes that difference of political preference is not a matter of judgement or personal taste but a question of morality then it logically follows on from that that one's own side is good. However, that necessarily means that deviation from that 'good' perspective is indicative of wickedness.

But that flies in the face of the essential principle of democratic freedom, namely that it's entirely legitimate for intelligent people to hear the same arguments, see the same evidence, and yet reach differing conclusions as to the best way forward.

And such people then cling to their self-ordained righteousness even when they celebrate the death of an OAP. It's zealous idiocy.

People can differ without being evil or stupid.

Selfish, greedy people vote for a party that promotes selfishness and greed.

That is their democratic right. Doesn't mean the rest of us can't look at them critically.

Spot on!

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1009807528862076929?s=21

"The approach, recommended by the European Parliament based on Theresa May’s red lines, would not include single market or customs union membership"

Sounds alright.

Let's hope Putin doesn't take it as a licence to annex Kent.

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1009807528862076929?s=21

"The approach, recommended by the European Parliament based on Theresa May’s red lines, would not include single market or customs union membership"

Sounds alright.

“Association agreements can vary in scope, though the ones with the closest levels of economic cooperation, such as Ukraine’s, are overseen by the European Court of Justice.”

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, how far does $80m go in the Congressional mid-term elections? Some figures from the NYT here relating to the 2012 elections suggest that a campaign in a swing district cost around $3m (the article's five years old but I doubt it's got cheaper since).

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/how-much-does-a-house-seat-cost/

It also quoted a figure of $10m for victorious senate candidates, though doesn't seem to differentiate there between safe and swing states, gained or retained seats, or large and small states.

So if he wants to make a big difference, it looks as if he'll have to choose between funding a small number of seats, where the finance will really make a difference but risking that the targeting is out, or funding a larger number, spreading the money thinner and risking that it doesn't make all that much difference.

'Help to turn the tide' is about right. It could make a meaningful difference if spent in the right way in the right places.

It's a good point. I am so glad that we don't live in a system where $80m may not make that much of a difference or, for that matter, where it is possible for 1 person's money to have so much influence on the outcome.

Er... Arron Banks?

I thought about him but the only election he really influenced was what will prove to be the last UK election to the European Parliament. Other than that UKIP were killed by FPTP and he got very little for his money.

Apart from Brexit.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tánaiste-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-as-negotiations-stall-1.3538765

Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

Benpointer said:

DavidL said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, how far does $80m go in the Congressional mid-term elections? Some figures from the NYT here relating to the 2012 elections suggest that a campaign in a swing district cost around $3m (the article's five years old but I doubt it's got cheaper since).

https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/how-much-does-a-house-seat-cost/

It also quoted a figure of $10m for victorious senate candidates, though doesn't seem to differentiate there between safe and swing states, gained or retained seats, or large and small states.

So if he wants to make a big difference, it looks as if he'll have to choose between funding a small number of seats, where the finance will really make a difference but risking that the targeting is out, or funding a larger number, spreading the money thinner and risking that it doesn't make all that much difference.

'Help to turn the tide' is about right. It could make a meaningful difference if spent in the right way in the right places.

It's a good point. I am so glad that we don't live in a system where $80m may not make that much of a difference or, for that matter, where it is possible for 1 person's money to have so much influence on the outcome.

Er... Arron Banks?

I thought about him but the only election he really influenced was what will prove to be the last UK election to the European Parliament. Other than that UKIP were killed by FPTP and he got very little for his money.

True but of course recent elections don't count for anything compared to the EU-Ref (as we have seen this week). Banks' wealth (and that of others) undoubtedly did influence the referendum.

That's a fair point.

Thank you Mr. Bloomberg. I agree with your desire to rebalance the US system of checks & balances.
But, with gratitude and respect, your $80 million pales compared to Boris's Brexit Bus with £350 million on its side.

Mr. Rentool, indeed, ideas shouldn't be sacred and shouldn't be immune to criticism, examination, or ridicule. What I'm arguing against is demonising people who hold different political views. Condemning people as malevolent for not subscribing to the One True Way is entirely different to disagreeing with their policy on income tax, for example, and laying out the reasons why.

Edited extra bit: 'reasons' initially had an errant apostrophe, which I have since removed before disembowelling myself.

Elliot said:

Benpointer said:

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1009807528862076929?s=21

"The approach, recommended by the European Parliament based on Theresa May’s red lines, would not include single market or customs union membership"

Sounds alright.

Let's hope Putin doesn't take it as a licence to annex Kent.

Can we give him Northern Ireland instead?

I don't think the EU will allow that.

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

TGOHF said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1009807528862076929?s=21

"The approach, recommended by the European Parliament based on Theresa May’s red lines, would not include single market or customs union membership"

Sounds alright.

“Association agreements can vary in scope, though the ones with the closest levels of economic cooperation, such as Ukraine’s, are overseen by the European Court of Justice.”

Yes that bit will have to go - but in general this sounds far easier than starting from scratch.

A loose deal with frictionless trade and security cooperation would seem a reasonable compromise like cherry-picking.

Corrected

Chris Deerin is rapidly turning into Nicola Sturgeon's favourite columnist which is a phrase I never thought I would write.

Ever.

david_herdson said:

Anazina said:

Benpointer said:

O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-world-cup-predictions/bracket/

That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.

Unless the Germans lose another ...

They play Sweden on Saturday.

Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.

This might be even more effective for the US elections. Damn, it moved me.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/president-trump-looms-over-sobbing-immigrant-child-in-times-latest-cover-2018-06-21

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tánaiste-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-as-negotiations-stall-1.3538765

Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”

Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.

Then over the cliff it is...

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tánaiste-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-as-negotiations-stall-1.3538765

Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”

Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.

What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.

It's all going Pete Tong for Australia now - I should have stuck to my original prediction of 330.

https://twitter.com/jgforsyth/status/1009813983845548034?s=21

RobD said:

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tánaiste-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-as-negotiations-stall-1.3538765

Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”

Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.

Then over the cliff it is...

The Irish go over the cliff as well. And guess who gets to build the dreaded border ...

TGOHF said:

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tánaiste-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-as-negotiations-stall-1.3538765

Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”

Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.

The Irish will be sacrificed on the EU altar as the clock runs out.

I wouldn't count on it, any more than German car makers saving our bacon.

I reckon the EU27 take solidarity very seriously. That is what Unions do.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tánaiste-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-as-negotiations-stall-1.3538765

Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”

Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.

What is clear is the Irish are screwed. They should not have let the EU use them as a pawn in the bigger game.

That’s illogical. If the EU don’t mean it, they gain nothing by taking this position.

Wrong. Against a weak opponent they would gain by frightening them into accepting what they want.

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/tánaiste-warns-of-no-deal-brexit-as-negotiations-stall-1.3538765

Mr Coveney added: “But let’s be very clear, there will be no withdrawal agreement, no transition agreement and no managed Brexit if the British government do not follow through on their clear commitments in writing to Ireland and the whole EU.”

Couldn't be clearer. May is going to have to accept an open-ended commitment to NI remaining in SM/CU or it's over the cliff.

May has only committed to non divergence for NI and no physical infrastructure.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Rentool, indeed, ideas shouldn't be sacred and shouldn't be immune to criticism, examination, or ridicule. What I'm arguing against is demonising people who hold different political views. Condemning people as malevolent for not subscribing to the One True Way is entirely different to disagreeing with their policy on income tax, for example, and laying out the reasons why.

Edited extra bit: 'reasons' initially had an errant apostrophe, which I have since removed before disembowelling myself.

Criticism and demonisation are points on a continuum. I don't see a clear distinction.

GarethoftheVale2 said:

Foxy said:

david_herdson said:

Anazina said:

Benpointer said:

O/T For those who can't wait for sall the actual WC games to play out, 538 have a really cool WC predictor. Great fun - and you only have to plug in a couple of upsets for England to win it!

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-world-cup-predictions/bracket/

That is a work of mathematical art. England might need to make sure they don't win their group. The German defeat to Mexico really could put the cat among the pigeons.

Unless the Germans lose another ...

They play Sweden on Saturday.

Fox jr has pointed out to me that in the few World Cups the holder has gone out in the group stage of the subsequent one.

That's interesting. I guess to win a world cup you need a group of players at their peak. 4 years later, if you have the same team they are now past their peak.

Plus, as automatic qualifiers, they dont have qualifying rounds to build a team on.

Benpointer said:

Three simple questions for EU Citixens to stay in the UK:
1. Can you prove your ID?
2. Do you have any criminal convictions?
3. Do you live in the UK?
and, er...
4. Do you have an Android phone?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44553225

Another exanple of the apple icrap...where nothing bloody works properly anymore.

The whole selling point of apple was lovely design and an OS that just worked. Now every day there is a new story how it doesn’t.

Mr. Rentool, because you've misunderstood the distinction.

Criticising ideas is fine. Detesting people because of prejudice is not.