politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The second favourite in the WH2020 betting, Kamala Harris, say
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The second favourite in the WH2020 betting, Kamala Harris, says she’s NOT ruling out a run for presidency
One of the key figures in attacking Trump over his immigration policies that have led to children being taken away from their parents is Kamala Harris – Senator from California.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh, and first!
They need to win in the rust belt.
I also can't help but think they're asking the wrong question. If personality and identity were key, Clinton would probably have beaten Trump (who is, after all, a wealthy businessman and the son of a wealthy businessman). It wasn't. Her ambiguity and lack of understanding of the real economic concerns of voters cost her dearly. Yet the Dems are still thinking, 'who will appeal to swing voters?' rather than asking the much more pertinent question, 'why did our policies bomb in the rust belt?'
Roberta McCain (Republican) and Virginia McLaurin (Democrat).
The general rule of US presidential elections is that the most audacious candidate wins; If you want a centre-left woman from the next generation, Kirsten Gillibrand seems like a better bet.
A US Presidential candidate to beat the incumbent has to be unusually good. It's happened 3 times in 86 years* - once when Watergate meant all bets were off, once when Carter was struggling and Reagan was the candidate, and once when Bush was ill and Clinton was the candidate.
*Even if I extend the criteria to 100 years, I only add Hoover vs Roosevelt to that list.
I rest my case.
Having just checked I backed her at long odds (tipped by Mr. Smithson), she is clearly a worth Democrat nominee.
But really, that's twenty odd elections. And we can't count those where there is no standing incumbent. So, now we're down to about 12. So, actually, you're saying that one in four times, Presidents are one term. Which is not so extraordinary.
Edit to add: you forgot to mention that Perot stood in 1992.
Also if anti-Trumpian stability is the pitch then you want experience to go with it, and as @ydoethur says Harris doesn't have a great story to tell there either.
This article estimated that the Dems would pick up Georgia next time if they could get African Americans to vote like they did in 2012 (leaving other groups voting the same). They'd also pick up MI, PA, FL and WI.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/demographic-shifts-show-2020-presidential-race-could-be-close-n868146
Truman - withdrew from 1952 election having been reluctant to take part in the primaries. Had been unexpectedly re-elected in 1948.
Eisenhower - two terms
Kennedy - assassinated
Johnson - withdrew from 1968 election after losing initial primary support.
Nixon - resigned.
Ford - hopeless task, DEFEATED.
Carter - 'incomplete success,' issues with rabbits, DEFEATED.
Reagan - two terms.
George H. Bush - economy, health issues, third term, DEFEATED.
Clinton - two terms
George W. Bush - two terms
Obama - two terms.
I make that 9 who secured re-election at least once against 3 who didn't (one of them was never elected in any way) with one who was shot. So your figures are quite close.
Although she will have to beware of the Old Men in a Hurry (Joe and Bernie, combined age 151) who may think she will settle for balancing the ticket as Veep.
A Warren-Harris ticket would be the stuff of broflake nightmares.
But:
Old, old, old, old, old, old, old.
Hickenlooper is the man. Great backstory. Popular governor of swing state. Slightly boring. Very competent. Beer.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/
My point is that without black swan events, social turmoil, economic meltdown and a long time in office, it's bloody difficult to shift incumbents. Indeed, their opponents often seem to just go through the motions (Dole in 1996, Goldwater 1964, Mondale 1984 and Romney 2012 all spring to mind). I can see how this could easily apply to Trump, I'm just saying we shouldn't assume it. As incumbent, he holds three aces.
My point is that incumbents lose about one in four times. Equally, though, the record of Presidents improving their position between first election and second is about fifty-fifty.
Obama: worse
Bush II: better
Clinton: better
Bush I: worse
Reagan: better
Carter: worse
Nixon: worse
So, I would say that - all things being equal - there should be about a 66% chance of Trump being reelected. However, all things are not equal, and so I'd go with something closer to 50:50, and maybe slightly worse.
I've backed him, but also profitably laid some of the stake, as I think it's maybe 50/50, and the longer he remains undecided, the less likely his candidature.
I have some money on Harris, too. If nothing else, she has guts:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/kamala-harris-a-top-cop-in-the-era-of-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0
In April 2004, four months after she took office in San Francisco, a 29-year-old police officer, Isaac Espinoza, was shot and killed on patrol. The city’s police union urged Harris to seek the death penalty for the suspect. Three days after Espinoza’s death, Harris announced that she would not. More than 2,000 uniformed police officers packed St. Mary’s Cathedral for the funeral. With Harris in the front row, Senator Dianne Feinstein, one of the state’s most powerful Democrats, took the pulpit and called for the death penalty. Waves of cops rose to their feet and applauded. Shyamala sent white roses to her daughter’s office with a card that read “Courage!” Harris held firm, and Espinoza’s killer received a sentence of life in prison. “Our members never forgave Harris,” says Gary Delagnes, then the president of the union…
Or are you referring to Ford compared to Nixon?
You are right: I compared Ford with Nixon
One in four times, the incumbent has lost. If you include Johnson not restanding, then the odds look more like 2:1. But Trump only won marginally first time around, is not a great President, and therefore the right number is probably closer to 50:50.
Thanks for the insight @Dura_Ace . The site would be a lot poorer without it when it comes to defence matters.
Clearly significant cuts have been made since 2010. Is this necessarily a bad choice? We aren’t going to fight the Falklands War again, so do we really need the ability to deploy continuously in the way you describe?
52-60 2x Rep
60-68 2xDem
68-76 2xRep
76-80 1xDem
80-92 3xRep
92-00 2xDem
00-08 2xRep
08-16 2xDem
So 7/8 times the incumbent party has been re-elected or 8/9 if you take a step back to Trueman in 1948.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vShJa6GobFQ
Trump is a duff president who won narrowly while losing the popular vote. So was George W. Bush, yet he still won re-election. Oddly, the two elected presidents who stood and were defeated had both been comfortably elected - Bush by a wide margin of seven points, and Carter by admittedly a 2% margin but an overall majority of the vote.
Trump is in situ. He's news, whatever he does. His policies are controversial and usually stupid, but they're clear and present. The Democrats have currently no obvious challenger, no clear policies and limited time to turn things around.
This is not to say I think he will win (and I'm hoping he doesn't). Just to say I think he's currently hot favourite* if he stands, and past form would bear out that analysis - only two elected presidents who contested the election have lost from the past 13, and only one of those was in the first term for their party.
Anyway, I hope you found that interesting/entertaining. School beckons. Have a good evening.
*just like I thought Clinton, May, Remain were hot favourites - I hope...
https://twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/1011127561542348800?s=21
What do you have in mind?
The Dems ideally want someone from Florida or Ohio. Other swing states are available of course but these are key.
The idea that if we just shut ourselves up behind the territorial waters and shorelines of the British isles, and leave the rest of the world alone, it will leave us alone, is blissfully naive.
We live in a very safe part of the world due to the fact we’re part of a strong nuclear armed alliance. That alliance requires credibility and an ongoing commitment. Also, the UK relies on regional and global stability for its trade and commerce, most of which requires secure sea lanes, being an island and all. Therefore, we do require a global deployment capability to work in concert with our allies to defend and project our values when they are threatened.
The world is becoming more unstable, not less, and the US is taking less and less of an interest in Europe and the Middle East. It’s the worst possible time to makes cuts from an already derisory base.
You can’t defend the UK on its shoreline, and we will live to regret it if we try to do so.
Reminds me of Ed Miliband’s 35% strategy. Far better that the Democrats find a way to speak to the left behinds in the mid-West as well.
Carter in 1980 is the only President since WW2 to lose after only one term of his party in the White House and that is the closer comparison to Trump and he lost to Reagan, the ageing candidate who had been runner up in the Republican primaries 4 years earlier, so that comparison is good for Sanders
"We haven’t seen a compression in earnings inequality like that since the 1970s."
"We continue to treat pensioners as though they need free travel, winter fuel allowances and the like, despite the fact they are on average now the best-off demographic group in the country"
"The 1980s saw hugely increasing inequality, rising rates of poverty and mass unemployment. We are still living with the consequences, but we should not ignore much more recent trends. Of these the increasing numbers of, and poverty among, the mentally ill is perhaps the most urgent to address."
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/13107
Events, it is always events.
Bush W would have been almost certainly been a 1 termer if not for 9/11. His mere existence had fired up the utterly complacent Dem base.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/06/22/oh-gov-democrats-enthused-by-surge-in-dem-voters-party-calls-in-joe-biden-to-rally-the-base
Biden was born in Pennsylvania, another swing state now.
If you fancy betting on Biden, I suggest you bet on him being President (19) rather than Democrat nominee (8.4).
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/25/where-is-jeremy-corbyn-rose-tinted-vision-labour-past
It's a similar story everywhere else in the British forces. Once you lift the fine silk rug you find rotten floorboards. We have F-35 and Typhoon but no SEAD, no offensive EW, not enough AAR and AEW&C that has been allowed to decay into obsolescence and unreliability.
Our capacity for major and independent action outside a US led coalition is now zero. Nobody whether at 1* rank in the force, the MoD or the political establishment is willing to acknowledge the truth that our aspiration far exceeds our willingness to pay. But appearances have to be maintained hence we end up with grotesquely imbalanced forces and essential capabilities that are "gapped".
If the Dems won back Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, they would scrape home.
Though the one time we were attacked in my lifetime (Falklands) neither NATO nor Europe came to our aid.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1010956065201098752
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/03/exodus-the-post-hurricane-puerto-rican-diaspora-mapped/555401/
On that sort of note, Erdogan's entirely democratic victory looks like it'll make him even more powerful, and the country even less free and democratic.
France came to our aid and the EC put strong sanctions on Argentina.
Only hours after Argentine troops landed on the islands, the 10 European Community countries jointly condemned the ''flagrant violation'' of international law.
And in a weeklong flurry of diplomatic activity unmatched even at the height of the Polish crisis, ambassadors were recalled, arms shipments to Argentina halted, and imports worth nearly $2 billion a year to the Argentine economy banned.
Few diplomats could recall when the EC had pulled together so resolutely for a cause - and an ally.
Early last week, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher appealed personally to several European leaders, including French President Francois Mitterrand and West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, to take measures ''similar'' to those Britain adopted against Argentina immediately after the Argentine invasion.
But when the EC agreed April 10 to impose a complete ban on Argentine imports , meeting Britain's request to the letter, even seasoned diplomats were surprised. They recall the nit-picking and foot-dragging within the EC following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 and the military crackdown in Poland four months ago. The action against Argentina is the Community's toughest collective economic sanction ever.
As punishment for the Soviet role in the imposition of martial law in Poland, the diplomats note, the EC wound up cutting Soviet imports by an almost laughable 1.5 percent.
Several times last week the EC called for the immediate application of UN Resolution 502, which demands the withdrawal of Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands and the resolution of the crisis by diplomatic means.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/1982/0412/041231.html
Everyone thought remain had won including the pundits and the City and the politicians - and then the votes were counted. Farage just said out loud what everyone was hinting at - which is and was his way.
Gina Miller and her court case was backed by hedge funds (her hubby runs one) - yes they have too much money and too much influence but they are hardly generally pro Brexit - but that is presumably fine for the Observer as those hedge funds are on the right side.
What Dura Ace said is that the French Navy has less ability to deploy on a sustained basis than the RN (or at least, did until the recent past). In term of actual combat ships we’re more or less even.
The question is, when will we be required to maintain most of our fleet at sea for an extended period without the support of the USA? I can’t foresee a scenario. Which rising power would want to cut the sea lanes to and from the U.K.? It certainly isn’t China.
At some point, financial reality has to enter your grand schemes. 1945-1970 was a dismal period when we overspent on defence at the expense of re-equipping our industrial base, leaving us 30-40% behind France and Germany on a per capita GDP basis. It would be a mistake to repeat that policy, and in any case, there is no meaningful constituency to do so.
Mrs Thatcher realised it would have placed America in an invidious position.
Much better to have their support under the radar.
If you want to know how much America and the EC helped the UK regain the Falklands read the book by Sir Max Hastings and Simon Jenkins on the war, and Mrs Thatcher’s autobiography and Charles Moore’s biography.
Plus it was good for the national psyche if people thought it was just us that retook the Falklands.
F1: vague aside but with the power of the new Mercedes engine, but perhaps dubious reliability (Perez retired due to it), that could mean the Silver Arrows will have either great success or unremitting woe in the next few races.
She grew up in Canada. Isn't she Canadian?
Or Indian?
Or Jamaican?
Or...
Multilateral defense and security alliances do not require political union.