politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight the fight for the WH2020 Democratic nomination moves t

Mike - you seem fixated on Biden's supposed 'gaffes'. Maybe it's worth reminding ourselves of the incumbent for some context. If someone who talks about assaulting women can be elected, I'm pretty sure Biden can.

PB perceived wisdom:

1) May's Brexit deal will pass eventually.

2) Boris Johnson won't get to a membership ballot because conservative MP's will block him.

3) Joe Biden won't be the democratic nominee, because he ripped a speech from Neil Kinnock 30 years ago.


On this form I'd be backing Biden!

AllyPally_Rob said:

Mike - you seem fixated on Biden's supposed 'gaffes'. Maybe it's worth reminding ourselves of the incumbent for some context. If someone who talks about assaulting women can be elected, I'm pretty sure Biden can.

PB perceived wisdom:

1) May's Brexit deal will pass eventually.

2) Boris Johnson won't get to a membership ballot because conservative MP's will block him.

3) Joe Biden won't be the democratic nominee, because he ripped a speech from Neil Kinnock 30 years ago.


On this form I'd be backing Biden!

Seems reasonable on the face of it.

AllyPally_Rob said:

Mike - you seem fixated on Biden's supposed 'gaffes'. Maybe it's worth reminding ourselves of the incumbent for some context. If someone who talks about assaulting women can be elected, I'm pretty sure Biden can.

PB perceived wisdom:

1) May's Brexit deal will pass eventually.

2) Boris Johnson won't get to a membership ballot because conservative MP's will block him.

3) Joe Biden won't be the democratic nominee, because he ripped a speech from Neil Kinnock 30 years ago.


On this form I'd be backing Biden!

Re Boris being blocked by MPs: that was due mainly to me; I'm not sure others were persuaded; the opposing HYUFD tendency was perhaps stronger. I was wrong, and so (as I suspect many of them can now see) were the MPs.

On speeches, something Mayor Pete said on one video put me in mind of Gordon Brown, though it is perhaps more likely there was a common ancestor than that Buttigieg is a particular fan of our finest prime minister in the last ten years.

Roger said:

Don't you worry that half your MPs didn't vote for him in the final round even knowing he was a certainty to win? They were prepared to vote for a loser rather than give him a rousing victory.. I suspect that will be reflected among Tory voters throughout the land

For a start the vote for second place was the issue, so votes for Hunt or Gove were meaningful.

Secondly I'm really troubled with what this suggests about today's politics. It suggests that you should be backing a winner rather than who you think is the better candidate. It suggests that once someone has voted for party leader they won't then support the person who is elected. This is a symptom of the main parties splintering which we have seen in GB and the US.

AlastairMeeks said:

Elizabeth Warren seems to be unlucky in the line-up. Most people who choose will watch the other one because it has all the other favourites.

Yes, although it should perhaps be easier for Warren to "win" the weaker debate, assuming the other speakers do not gang up on her, and so lead the field for 24 hours.

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

Not only are there 10 candidates in tomorrow's Dem debate, there are 5 moderators. OTT+

That's an absurd number of moderators, they'll need to cut in all the time to justify being there.

In other matters, looks like Paisley is in trouble again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-48763922

That trip to the Maldives just keeps on causing him issues.

Can't remember his dad ever doing things like that!

ThomasNashe said:

Telegraph: 'Boris hires Iain Duncan Smith to get campaign back on track'. Short of de-railing Grayling, I can't think of anyone less likely to get it 'back on track'.

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1143595926105272321

The only person BoZo really loves...

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1143619493958213632

If that cardboard bus doesn’t have £350 million written on the side somewhere, both copy boy and editor should be sacked.

Scott_P said:

ThomasNashe said:

Telegraph: 'Boris hires Iain Duncan Smith to get campaign back on track'. Short of de-railing Grayling, I can't think of anyone less likely to get it 'back on track'.

https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1143595926105272321

Throw Gavin Williamson into the mix, and that's quite a collection of incompetents he's surrounded himself with. Guess they'll all have to be rewarded with jobs - God help us all.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Bill Clinton won the 1988 nomination when the favourite, Gary Hart, dropped out over the Donna Rice affair.

Do you mean Michael Dukakis? Clinton was 1992.

Incidentally, Hart was struggling in the primaries even before he was caught after that daft challenge he issued. It's one reason why he said it.

(Edited for putting down the 1984 nominee by mistake, amusingly.)

ThomasNashe said:

Telegraph: 'Boris hires Iain Duncan Smith to get campaign back on track'. Short of de-railing Grayling, I can't think of anyone less likely to get it 'back on track'.

Its a peculiar choice because of its symbolism; whilst I guess IDS is respected within Tory circles, less so beyond, it inevitably reminds people of his period of leadership, and it is not obvious what leadership or campaigning skills he has to deploy.

IanB2 said:

ThomasNashe said:

Telegraph: 'Boris hires Iain Duncan Smith to get campaign back on track'. Short of de-railing Grayling, I can't think of anyone less likely to get it 'back on track'.

Its a peculiar choice because of its symbolism; whilst I guess IDS is respected within Tory circles, less so beyond, it inevitably reminds people of his period of leadership, and it is not obvious what leadership or campaigning skills he has to deploy.

Beware the march of IDS.

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1143765994348920833

eristdoof said:

Roger said:

Don't you worry that half your MPs didn't vote for him in the final round even knowing he was a certainty to win? They were prepared to vote for a loser rather than give him a rousing victory.. I suspect that will be reflected among Tory voters throughout the land

For a start the vote for second place was the issue, so votes for Hunt or Gove were meaningful.

Secondly I'm really troubled with what this suggests about today's politics. It suggests that you should be backing a winner rather than who you think is the better candidate. It suggests that once someone has voted for party leader they won't then support the person who is elected. This is a symptom of the main parties splintering which we have seen in GB and the US.

I agree, from the Labour side. This is the debate we had when Corbyn was elected and then challenged - Mike and others insisted that the first priority was to pick someone who was likely to win, but most of us decided to vote for the candidate who seemed best to us and worry about winning after that. I have to say it's not working out well at the moment, but I'd do the same again - there is just no point in politics if you vote for someone whose policies seem vacuous merely because they have an agreeable vote-winning personality.

Here’s a poll for @HYUFD to ignore.

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/1143758593918996480?s=21

Dr. Foxy, best tactic I had was being immensely lucky with the timing of almost every single announcement at the leadership contest for the Lib Dems (that saw Cable win, not the current one). By chance, I'd backed Swinson the day before the contest was known. Her odds fell sharply so I laid, and thought it'd just be nice and green either way.

But I was online when she withdrew, so I backed the other candidates (only about 4 or so), and the same thing happened again. It was only the final withdrawal (maybe Davey) I missed.

It turns out being really lucky helps with betting.

#experttips

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/SteveBakerHW/status/1143765994348920833

The real question is no deal brexit leaving the Eu with a deal that allows tariff free trade to continue? There is only one departure with a deal, the WA, but then we will go round in circles and come back tp ‘they need us more than we need them’ and ‘we hold all the cards’.

AlastairMeeks said:

Elizabeth Warren seems to be unlucky in the line-up. Most people who choose will watch the other one because it has all the other favourites.

But Warren’s debate is first, and indications are that just as many will watch it.
I think it might conceivably help her - particularly as it’s in most of the strugglers’ interests to take shots at Biden rather than her.

IanB2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Here’s a poll for @HYUFD to ignore.

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/1143758593918996480?s=21

If it happens and things go pear shaped, that 28% will rapidly melt away. If the Tories go down that path, what will matter is what people think of it afterwards, not in advance.

IanB2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Here’s a poll for @HYUFD to ignore.

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/1143758593918996480?s=21

If it happens and things go pear shaped, that 28% will rapidly melt away. If the Tories go down that path, what will matter is what people think of it afterwards, not in advance.

Exactly. And of course even people who like the idea of no deal are still going to be cheesed off with adverse consequences of it even if they don't make the link.

NickPalmer said:

eristdoof said:

Roger said:

Don't you worry that half your MPs didn't vote for him in the final round even knowing he was a certainty to win? They were prepared to vote for a loser rather than give him a rousing victory.. I suspect that will be reflected among Tory voters throughout the land

For a start the vote for second place was the issue, so votes for Hunt or Gove were meaningful.

Secondly I'm really troubled with what this suggests about today's politics. It suggests that you should be backing a winner rather than who you think is the better candidate. It suggests that once someone has voted for party leader they won't then support the person who is elected. This is a symptom of the main parties splintering which we have seen in GB and the US.

I agree, from the Labour side. This is the debate we had when Corbyn was elected and then challenged - Mike and others insisted that the first priority was to pick someone who was likely to win, but most of us decided to vote for the candidate who seemed best to us and worry about winning after that. I have to say it's not working out well at the moment, but I'd do the same again - there is just no point in politics if you vote for someone whose policies seem vacuous merely because they have an agreeable vote-winning personality.

You need someone who can lead on policy AND connect with the electorate.

Preaching to the converted (which is what Corbyn does) is as pointless as reaching a broad audience, but having nothing interesting to say.

SouthamObserver said:

Johnson is promising higher public spending, lower taxes and an almost inevitable No Deal Brexit. It's the Magic Money Tree + Fuck Business. I am genuinely struggling to understand how this is better than the prospectus Corbyn and McDonnell are offering. At least they are opposed to a No Deal. The Tories are utterly destroying any reputation they have left for economic confidence - and if that YouGov poll is in any way reflective of public opinion they are going to get absolutely hammered for it.

sounds very New Labour

you should vote for him

NickPalmer said:

eristdoof said:

Roger said:

Don't you worry that half your MPs didn't vote for him in the final round even knowing he was a certainty to win? They were prepared to vote for a loser rather than give him a rousing victory.. I suspect that will be reflected among Tory voters throughout the land

For a start the vote for second place was the issue, so votes for Hunt or Gove were meaningful.

Secondly I'm really troubled with what this suggests about today's politics. It suggests that you should be backing a winner rather than who you think is the better candidate. It suggests that once someone has voted for party leader they won't then support the person who is elected. This is a symptom of the main parties splintering which we have seen in GB and the US.

I agree, from the Labour side. This is the debate we had when Corbyn was elected and then challenged - Mike and others insisted that the first priority was to pick someone who was likely to win, but most of us decided to vote for the candidate who seemed best to us and worry about winning after that. I have to say it's not working out well at the moment, but I'd do the same again - there is just no point in politics if you vote for someone whose policies seem vacuous merely because they have an agreeable vote-winning personality.

Yep, the self-indulgence of largely comfortably-off Labour and Tory members, who are generally protected from the choices they make, have set the country on a path towards catastrophe. The power of unrepresentative party memberships in a first-past-the-post system is another reason why reform is so necessary - a tiny minority get to set the course of the nation. Of course, that's also why we won't get reform.

I remain totally unconvinced of the 76 yer old favourite who has a reputation for being gaff-prone, something reinforced by his comments about working with segregationists during his early career....

But you don’t have to be convinced, Mike.
The gaffes thus far have been of limited impact. He remains very popular indeed in the party, and even among those who really, truly don’t want him as the candidate, there remains a determination that they’d vote for him in a heartbeat anyway while the alternative is Trump.

Unless his electability UPS takes a significant hit, it’s not easy to see how the dynamic changes. Look at his most recent figures in the big swing states to see how high a hurdle his challengers have.
In a perverse sense, even the latest gaffe reinforces his electability pitch among his more committed supporters, as 538 points out:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-will-bidens-latest-comments-affect-his-standing-in-the-democratic-primary/

His is the overwhelming favourite for a reason. His position is very strong.... but possibly very brittle, too.

houndtang said:

Warren would be Trump's dream candidate.

That is the conventional wisdom, but I’m not entirely convinced.
Having weathered the attacks which most thought had sunk her bid completely, she’d be much less vulnerable the second time round.

SouthamObserver said:

NickPalmer said:

eristdoof said:

Roger said:

Don't you worry that half your MPs didn't vote for him in the final round even knowing he was a certainty to win? They were prepared to vote for a loser rather than give him a rousing victory.. I suspect that will be reflected among Tory voters throughout the land

For a start the vote for second place was the issue, so votes for Hunt or Gove were meaningful.

Secondly I'm really troubled with what this suggests about today's politics. It suggests that you should be backing a winner rather than who you think is the better candidate. It suggests that once someone has voted for party leader they won't then support the person who is elected. This is a symptom of the main parties splintering which we have seen in GB and the US.

I agree, from the Labour side. This is the debate we had when Corbyn was elected and then challenged - Mike and others insisted that the first priority was to pick someone who was likely to win, but most of us decided to vote for the candidate who seemed best to us and worry about winning after that. I have to say it's not working out well at the moment, but I'd do the same again - there is just no point in politics if you vote for someone whose policies seem vacuous merely because they have an agreeable vote-winning personality.

Yep, the self-indulgence of largely comfortably-off Labour and Tory members, who are generally protected from the choices they make, have set the country on a path towards catastrophe. The power of unrepresentative party memberships in a first-past-the-post system is another reason why reform is so necessary - a tiny minority get to set the course of the nation. Of course, that's also why we won't get reform.

The slight problem with Corbyn is that he doesn't have voter appeal or the required skills to be PM, and there has been no evidence that he has acquired them since becoming LoTO. Boris Johnson, on the other hand, is believed by some to have voter appeal (I think that is flaky myself), but like Corbyn, has no record of achievement in either government or opposition. They are both empty vessels. There are numerous individuals in both parties that are miles more qualified to be PM.

A lot will come down to the performance of the US economy, as per James Carville's famous phrase. If, as seems increasingly likely, the economy is in a bad place in the summer of 2020, then the Democrats will have a great shot at the presidency, and the best shot if they pick someone who has intelligent-sounding but imaginative things to say about America's economic problems and well developed plans to rectify them. Right now that person looks to be Warren.

Jonathan said:

SouthamObserver said:

Johnson is promising higher public spending, lower taxes and an almost inevitable No Deal Brexit. It's the Magic Money Tree + Fuck Business. I am genuinely struggling to understand how this is better than the prospectus Corbyn and McDonnell are offering. At least they are opposed to a No Deal. The Tories are utterly destroying any reputation they have left for economic confidence - and if that YouGov poll is in any way reflective of public opinion they are going to get absolutely hammered for it.

The 2017 Labour manifesto was modest and pragmatic, more sensible and less ideologically driven than the stuff coming out the Tories right now.

Without exaggeration, Corbyn is currently the more conservative, pragmatic option for PM. That is a measure of how far we have come.

I can believe it. Corbyn, I believe, would be awful, and we know so many of his skeletons now. I shall not vote for his party. But while the idea people are restrained in office is not something one can rely on, he is not the same as he was when he got the job, for better and worse.

The tories are regressing and openly admit that they would rather destroy the uk than not Brexit, heck theyd rather do that than Brexit the wrong way. Add in that they will splurge like mad to try to buy votes to cover their incompetence if the past few years and Boris and Hunt dont look pragmatic on the least.

We will likely find out how bad Corbyn could be. But it's not hugely scary.

eek said:

SouthamObserver said:

Johnson is promising higher public spending, lower taxes and an almost inevitable No Deal Brexit. It's the Magic Money Tree + Fuck Business. I am genuinely struggling to understand how this is better than the prospectus Corbyn and McDonnell are offering. At least they are opposed to a No Deal. The Tories are utterly destroying any reputation they have left for economic confidence - and if that YouGov poll is in any way reflective of public opinion they are going to get absolutely hammered for it.

You miss out leaving using WTO Gatt article 24 which requires both sides (us and the EU) to agree to use it while we don't provide any reason for the EU to agree to it..

The GATT nonsense is just mendacious Unicorn-chasing designed to provide plausibility to a credulous Tory membership. No-one serious believes it will survive contact with the real world. Johnson will have no choice but to find a way to take the UK out of the EU by 31st October. He has placed himself in a position where he has no alternative if he wishes to survive politically.

SouthamObserver said:

eek said:

SouthamObserver said:

Johnson is promising higher public spending, lower taxes and an almost inevitable No Deal Brexit. It's the Magic Money Tree + Fuck Business. I am genuinely struggling to understand how this is better than the prospectus Corbyn and McDonnell are offering. At least they are opposed to a No Deal. The Tories are utterly destroying any reputation they have left for economic confidence - and if that YouGov poll is in any way reflective of public opinion they are going to get absolutely hammered for it.

You miss out leaving using WTO Gatt article 24 which requires both sides (us and the EU) to agree to use it while we don't provide any reason for the EU to agree to it..

The GATT nonsense is just mendacious Unicorn-chasing designed to provide plausibility to a credulous Tory membership. No-one serious believes it will survive contact with the real world. Johnson will have no choice but to find a way to take the UK out of the EU by 31st October. He has placed himself in a position where he has no alternative if he wishes to survive politically.

Which is going to be fun as May's deal is the only option unless he gets an election on July 25th.

He's backed himself into a corner without even realising it..

IanB2 said:

Gallowgate said:

Here’s a poll for @HYUFD to ignore.

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/1143758593918996480?s=21

If it happens and things go pear shaped, that 28% will rapidly melt away. If the Tories go down that path, what will matter is what people think of it afterwards, not in advance.

Britain will end up as an unhappy satellite of the European Union. No-one wants it. No Deal is just the latest form of denial, since the German car manufacturers gambit and the Global Britain rallying cry have failed so comprehensively.

NickPalmer said:

eristdoof said:

Roger said:

Don't you worry that half your MPs didn't vote for him in the final round even knowing he was a certainty to win? They were prepared to vote for a loser rather than give him a rousing victory.. I suspect that will be reflected among Tory voters throughout the land

For a start the vote for second place was the issue, so votes for Hunt or Gove were meaningful.

Secondly I'm really troubled with what this suggests about today's politics. It suggests that you should be backing a winner rather than who you think is the better candidate. It suggests that once someone has voted for party leader they won't then support the person who is elected. This is a symptom of the main parties splintering which we have seen in GB and the US.

I agree, from the Labour side. This is the debate we had when Corbyn was elected and then challenged - Mike and others insisted that the first priority was to pick someone who was likely to win, but most of us decided to vote for the candidate who seemed best to us and worry about winning after that. I have to say it's not working out well at the moment, but I'd do the same again - there is just no point in politics if you vote for someone whose policies seem vacuous merely because they have an agreeable vote-winning personality.

In theory there is merit to your case Nick. However banging your head against a brick wall hoping for a different result tends to the politically incoherent.

Corbyn and team proffered a range of popular policies in 2017 but lacked the credibility of a viable leader to take them over the line. As you implicitly concede, given the present polling, one more heave doesn't look likely to carry the day.

Blair was termed "Bambi" by his opponents in his early years as LotO as being a harmless vacuous vessel. The 1997 general election said different. If Labour could find a Blair for this age then their prospects would improve exponentially but you seem determined to give that brick wall another try with Corbyn.

No Change = No Chance

eek said:

SouthamObserver said:

eek said:

SouthamObserver said:

Johnson is promising higher public spending, lower taxes and an almost inevitable No Deal Brexit. It's the Magic Money Tree + Fuck Business. I am genuinely struggling to understand how this is better than the prospectus Corbyn and McDonnell are offering. At least they are opposed to a No Deal. The Tories are utterly destroying any reputation they have left for economic confidence - and if that YouGov poll is in any way reflective of public opinion they are going to get absolutely hammered for it.

You miss out leaving using WTO Gatt article 24 which requires both sides (us and the EU) to agree to use it while we don't provide any reason for the EU to agree to it..

The GATT nonsense is just mendacious Unicorn-chasing designed to provide plausibility to a credulous Tory membership. No-one serious believes it will survive contact with the real world. Johnson will have no choice but to find a way to take the UK out of the EU by 31st October. He has placed himself in a position where he has no alternative if he wishes to survive politically.

Which is going to be fun as May's deal is the only option unless he gets an election on July 25th.

He's backed himself into a corner without even realising it..

I think he does, hes just doing what they've all done for the last few years and only focused on the immediate task of getting through the next few days. His commitment needed to ge cast iron to win, since Hunt probably cannot match it even if he has blinder during the campaign.

Stores up trouble for later but like the mps hes hoping his popularity will carry him through it, if it happens before any consequences truly bite.

fair comment Jonathan, but I was really defining voter appeal in the sense of someone who can reach beyond their base. Mrs Thatcher and Blair could do this, which is probably why they were/are so hated by some. Corbyn's basic problem is he simply a contrarian, and not really very bright. If he were replaced by almost anyone in the Labour Party they would be 20 percentage points ahead.

One bad straw in the wind for Kamala Harris is that Warren is ahead (As are Sanders and Biden) of her in the latest California poll.

My not confident guess is that as there seems to be little movement in the lower order candidates, that Biden is in a good position for now. The only upwards movement is Elizabeth Warren, who has been around as long as Biden has, and is a known quantity.

SNAFU.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1143781632001892353

a

NickPalmer said:

eristdoof said:

Roger said:

Don't you worry that half your MPs didn't vote for him in the final round even knowing he was a certainty to win? They were prepared to vote for a loser rather than give him a rousing victory.. I suspect that will be reflected among Tory voters throughout the land

For a start the vote for second place was the issue, so votes for Hunt or Gove were meaningful.

Secondly I'm really troubled with what this suggests about today's politics. It suggests that you should be backing a winner rather than who you think is the better candidate. It suggests that once someone has voted for party leader they won't then support the person who is elected. This is a symptom of the main parties splintering which we have seen in GB and the US.

I agree, from the Labour side. This is the debate we had when Corbyn was elected and then challenged - Mike and others insisted that the first priority was to pick someone who was likely to win, but most of us decided to vote for the candidate who seemed best to us and worry about winning after that. I have to say it's not working out well at the moment, but I'd do the same again - there is just no point in politics if you vote for someone whose policies seem vacuous merely because they have an agreeable vote-winning personality.

A lot of political decisions come down to deciding what percentage of what you want you will settle for, with the probability of getting anything at all declining as you shoot for a better outcome. Just ask the ERG.

To say there is "no point in politics" if you don't have any chance of getting everything you want is ridiculous. Not least because no-one ever gets it, politics ultimately being the art of compromise.

Mr. Foremain, that period was akin, writ small, to the enervation of Roman will by luxury which culminated in the Crisis of the Third Century.

Devolution to everywhere that isn't England, and the reneging on a manifesto pledge on a referendum helped lead us to the current situation. We would have voted against Lisbon, enabling a reassessment of the UK-EU situation.

Nigel_Foremain said:

fair comment Jonathan, but I was really defining voter appeal in the sense of someone who can reach beyond their base. Mrs Thatcher and Blair could do this, which is probably why they were/are so hated by some. Corbyn's basic problem is he simply a contrarian, and not really very bright. If he were replaced by almost anyone in the Labour Party they would be 20 percentage points ahead.

I am not sure that is true, replacing Corbyn wins back some Remainers from the LDs and Greens but would lose some leftwingers to the Greens and some Leavers to the Brexit Party

kle4 said:

eek said:

SouthamObserver said:

eek said:

SouthamObserver said:

Johnson is promising higher public spending, lower taxes and an almost inevitable No Deal Brexit. It's the Magic Money Tree + Fuck Business. I am genuinely struggling to understand how this is better than the prospectus Corbyn and McDonnell are offering. At least they are opposed to a No Deal. The Tories are utterly destroying any reputation they have left for economic confidence - and if that YouGov poll is in any way reflective of public opinion they are going to get absolutely hammered for it.

You miss out leaving using WTO Gatt article 24 which requires both sides (us and the EU) to agree to use it while we don't provide any reason for the EU to agree to it..

The GATT nonsense is just mendacious Unicorn-chasing designed to provide plausibility to a credulous Tory membership. No-one serious believes it will survive contact with the real world. Johnson will have no choice but to find a way to take the UK out of the EU by 31st October. He has placed himself in a position where he has no alternative if he wishes to survive politically.

Which is going to be fun as May's deal is the only option unless he gets an election on July 25th.

He's backed himself into a corner without even realising it..

I think he does, hes just doing what they've all done for the last few years and only focused on the immediate task of getting through the next few days. His commitment needed to ge cast iron to win, since Hunt probably cannot match it even if he has blinder during the campaign.

Stores up trouble for later but like the mps hes hoping his popularity will carry him through it, if it happens before any consequences truly bite.

tbf any new leader gets a certain amount of goodwill or opening political capital - from their parties, from the public, from the people they deal with. For example a new leader has a better chance of getting the EU to consider some tweaks to its approach than would May going back for the fourth time.

Boris's issue is that he is almost certainly over-estimating his, and in any event intends to spend it all as soon as he gets the job.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Foremain, that period was akin, writ small, to the enervation of Roman will by luxury which culminated in the Crisis of the Third Century.

Devolution to everywhere that isn't England, and the reneging on a manifesto pledge on a referendum helped lead us to the current situation. We would have voted against Lisbon, enabling a reassessment of the UK-EU situation.

Possibly, and though we disagree on other areas I think your analysis is sound, though without a visit to a parallel universe we will never know!

HYUFD said:

eek said:

SouthamObserver said:

eek said:

SouthamObserver said:

Johnson is promising higher public spending, lower taxes and an almost inevitable No Deal Brexit. It's the Magic Money Tree + Fuck Business. I am genuinely struggling to understand how this is better than the prospectus Corbyn and McDonnell are offering. At least they are opposed to a No Deal. The Tories are utterly destroying any reputation they have left for economic confidence - and if that YouGov poll is in any way reflective of public opinion they are going to get absolutely hammered for it.

You miss out leaving using WTO Gatt article 24 which requires both sides (us and the EU) to agree to use it while we don't provide any reason for the EU to agree to it..

The GATT nonsense is just mendacious Unicorn-chasing designed to provide plausibility to a credulous Tory membership. No-one serious believes it will survive contact with the real world. Johnson will have no choice but to find a way to take the UK out of the EU by 31st October. He has placed himself in a position where he has no alternative if he wishes to survive politically.

Which is going to be fun as May's deal is the only option unless he gets an election on July 25th.

He's backed himself into a corner without even realising it..

Boris voted for May's Deal at MV3, he is not an anti WA hardliner like Baker, Patel and Francois

He's not a "hardliner" on anything other than his own advancement. Haven't you realised that yet?

Nigelb said:

houndtang said:

Warren would be Trump's dream candidate.

That is the conventional wisdom, but I’m not entirely convinced.
Having weathered the attacks which most thought had sunk her bid completely, she’d be much less vulnerable the second time round.

Well...

She's weathered the attacks for now as no Dem gives a shit about the right wings press attacks on the Native American thing. So it doesn't affect the Primary.

The question is whether America's fickle centrists give a shit in the general election.

dr_spyn said:

SNAFU.

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1143781632001892353

Stunning number for the Greens. The Greens and Lib Dems should definitely do a pact at the the next election. They would clean up.

If these numbers are accurate.

Gallowgate said:

Here’s a poll for @HYUFD to ignore.

https://twitter.com/bethrigby/status/1143758593918996480?s=21

So a majority of the country wants to still Leave the EU Deal or No Deal is Boris' policy, only 43% want to Revoke and Remain

Jonathan said:

Corbyn does have voter appeal. He is far more charismatic than most politicians. In the 2017 election he was impressive on the stump. The fact Labour ended up with 40% owed a lot to that.

He's a good campaigner but I see no evidence at all of charisma. He comes across as a cranky old git with very limited intellectual and leadership capacities.

Labour would be in a far happier place if Yvette Cooper had won in 2015 and I suspect most of them know it.

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

fair comment Jonathan, but I was really defining voter appeal in the sense of someone who can reach beyond their base. Mrs Thatcher and Blair could do this, which is probably why they were/are so hated by some. Corbyn's basic problem is he simply a contrarian, and not really very bright. If he were replaced by almost anyone in the Labour Party they would be 20 percentage points ahead.

I am not sure that is true, replacing Corbyn wins back some Remainers from the LDs and Greens but would lose some leftwingers to the Greens and some Leavers to the Brexit Party

I think you may be making the mistake of thinking about Brexit the way most Tories do, and assuming normal people do the same (joke). Evidence suggests that Brexit may be important to many Labour voters, but not important enough to stop them voting Labour. In other words the core vote would be largely unchanged by a more Brexitsceptic centrist leader. If it were someone like Hillary (? have I spelt that right?) Benn who has actually got a track record of holding a brief, and is articulate and intelligent the Tories would be in big trouble, particularly if we elect The Charlatan