politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Iowa barely a month away Bernie steps up the attacks on B

Hello there.

Smithson Snr and Jnr really not fans of Biden. I appreciate he has serious weaknesses, but I’m curious as to why.

Fpt

Slackbladder said:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1213051224674709504

Corbyn as predictable as ever in deciding that the US is the larger bad guy in any conflict.

It pretty much echoes what Raab has said.

"Following his death, we urge all parties to de-escalate. Further conflict is in none of our interests.”

If anyone would like to argue that there aren't 'belligerent actions and rhetoric coming from the US' from the chickenhawk extraordinaire downwards, feel free to develop this theme.

Anyway, in a small country far away, some stirrings of intelligent life.

https://twitter.com/MonicaLennon7/status/1213038153948372992?s=20

Happy New Year PB. Vanilla embed now working with Google Chrome?

Sandpit said:

Surely they’d be better off highlighting their own policy proposals, rather than tearing shreads out of each other and handing the election to Trump in the process?

Trump came (And dominated) a vigorous race. Obama vs Clinton was no picnic either.
Good candidates can win Generals.

Cookie said:

I wonder if part of the reason two-term presidents appear to be the norm is that post-first-term challengers from the non-incumbent party tend to be so battered by the primaries process that the attack lines against the candidate which wins are already in place and half in the public consciousness already.

At an even simpler level, it is a contest with one candidate has already been elected once, versus a candidate who has never been elected.

What's really exciting is that any of the big four could plausibly win Iowa and then New Hanpshire, or neither state.

The Klob has enough cash to stay in the game for now.
Still has a sniff.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/476609-klobuchar-brings-in-114-million-in-fourth-quarter

“Sanders said that Biden brings ‘a lot of baggage’

Unlike the Bern... LOL.

Sandpit said:

Surely they’d be better off highlighting their own policy proposals, rather than tearing shreads out of each other and handing the election to Trump in the process?

Yes, of course..
Difficult to pull off, though - and Warren and Buttigieg are engaging in a bit of M.A.D. too.

edmundintokyo said:

Pulpstar said:

Biden polls less well in Iowa because he's basically the choice of black Democrats. Iowa is very white.

The question is then whether black Democrats are backing Biden because they think he's great, or because they think he's the right person to win *white* voters and beat Trump. I vaguely recall that before Iowa even *Obama* didn't have great support among black Dems, and his support only really became overwhelming after he won Iowa and proved that he could win white people. It's not really clear whether Biden's claim to be the guy to win elections will survive if he fails to win the elections.

I think it's because he's basically a small c conservative - black Democrats are far more conservative than white Democrats. So Biden fits. Also being Obama's VP provides a good background which none of the others have.
Sanders is obviously very liberal so not a great fit, and Warren has faded generally after her spike to the twenties.
Biden does also lead support amongst white conservative democrats but he's much more in the pack with white voters overall.

Hunter Biden broke up with brother's widow around the same time as he got a stripper pregnant.

not_on_fire said:

I have horrible feeling Trump is trying to provoke a war with Iran to ensure he gets re-elected.

If anything a war with Iran will see Trump lose his base who are very anti-war.

Is Trump's base anti-war? Are new Tory voters anti-war?

US strikes at Iran shortly after Boris Johnson wins huge majority in UK for five years.

Surely these two events cannot be linked.

Ethical veganism is philosophical belief, tribunal rules

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

I think Sanders will win Iowa and New Hampshire, Biden will win South Carolina and the nomination will come down to one if them, Sanders the left liberal populist, Biden the experienced moderate

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).

TrèsDifficile said:

Hunter Biden broke up with brother's widow around the same time as he got a stripper pregnant.

Tennessee Williams, eat your heart out.

Yokes said:

Sanders is not a liberal, he is a socialist, two different things.

People seem to fail to understand Biden's ground, its about sunny optimism and moderation versus what is seen as the unpleasantness and the mean spiritedness of Trump. Its a very clear set of battle lines if he gets the nomination.

Any moderate Democrat, short of a complete balls up, probably has 46-47% locked up in the country already. Motivation against Trump is as strong as motivation for him.

The bigger problem for the Dems other than picking some earnest clear left winger is a decent 3rd party candidate. They will be more impacted by this than Trump.

Bloomberg will almost certainly run as a 3rd party candidate if it is Trump v Sanders or Trump v Warren

Nigelb said:

contrarian said:

Trump's move seems to have had the desired affect as his democrat opponents go in to bat for a man whose job was to co-ordinate terror strikes against theur country.

Hardly. Like the rest of us, they are quite clear what an evil excrescence this guy was.

But they also recognise there are reasons why you tend not to assassinate other country’s leaders, and this excrescence was effectively Iran’s deputy leader.
And you particularly don’t do so if you don’t have any strategic plan to follow up with (tweeting the US flag doesn’t count).

Nasser's quote is an evergreen one: "The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility that we might be missing something."

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

At the last referendum the British Government refused to negotiate terms for anything ahead of the referendum. It would the same again this time.

From previous thread, what kind of idiots are these people that think Scotland is the only country in the world unable to do anything , WTF are these idiots on. F*****ng trolls.
CarlottaVance said:

» show previous quotes
Joyous civic nationalism!

If SINDY wants to rejoin the EU - why would the EU agree to no border with a third country?

Answer came there none....

more absolute crap, again for the blind and hard of hearing , what do all the other countries in the world do with their borders, what is so special about Scotland that it is the only country in the world that could not handle a border, what kind of idiot are you.

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1213084199952846851?s=20

FF43 said:

Tom Harris conflates Nicola Sturgeon's party management issues, which are real to her but don't need to concern the rest of us, with the pitch she is making to the people of Scotland for independence, in particular the group that are sceptical but might be convinced.

If there is another referendum I expect to vote for the Union. I don't feel we should give up on it just because the English nationalists and especially the present UK government are making such a mess of it. We should take a longer view in my opinion. I also expect independence to win the referendum. I suspect Johnson will very forcefully ignore calls for there to be another referendum, which will itself contribute to a constitutional crisis.

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

Unfortunately Harris is a real bellend, though I agree with your sentiments.

Theuniondivvie said:

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).

Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.

This is what people were expecting

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/24/what-if-scotland-had-voted-yes-independence

More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

Last sentence is just the opinion of a diehard unionist , it has ZERO reality and shows how blinkered unionists really are.

eek said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

That's a long article to say that the SNP need something to protest about to hide all the other issues.

Exactly Harris is a tool extraordinaire, the best Tory that was ever in the Labour party

Pulpstar said:

Nemtynakht said:

edmundintokyo said:

Nemtynakht said:

Biden will win the nomination, because he has the name recognition and local organisation, and lose to Trump because Trump will have better name recognition and will use all levers at his disposal no matter how underhand.

That said there is not likely to be value in either of these positions until there is an unexpected primary result, or events like today’s attack in Iraq which might poll badly with the Trump base.

This makes no sense, if you were as confident in either of these propositions as your first paragraph suggests then you would get excellent value backing Biden to win the nomination and Trump to win the presidency.

Forgive me for not thinking 2 to 1 on Biden and evens on Trump is good value for two men in their 70s.

We're half a year out from the nomination and less than a year from the presidency.
Morbidity probability is very low for both Trump and Biden from here till the time of the appropriate event. Assassination probability for Trump doesn't matter if he's in his 30s or 70s.
Their age isn't really that relevant for betting purposes right now.

So if one of them has a stroke or serious heart attack they are just going to carry on being wheeled about by helpers? I don’t think it is unreasonable to say that the value may be in waiting for events to push out odds backing at better odds and then laying when the odds come in. Others are perfectLy able to come up with their own strategy and try and win money in their own way.

HYUFD said:

FF43 said:

Tom Harris conflates Nicola Sturgeon's party management issues, which are real to her but don't need to concern the rest of us, with the pitch she is making to the people of Scotland for independence, in particular the group that are sceptical but might be convinced.

If there is another referendum I expect to vote for the Union. I don't feel we should give up on it just because the English nationalists and especially the present UK government are making such a mess of it. We should take a longer view in my opinion. I also expect independence to win the referendum. I suspect Johnson will very forcefully ignore calls for there to be another referendum, which will itself contribute to a constitutional crisis.

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

On current polls there could be a Unionist majority at Holyrood 2021

bellend of the year award won already

MarqueeMark said:

Ethical veganism is philosophical belief, tribunal rules

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.

sarissa said:

CarlottaVance said:
» show previous quotes
Thank you for another exposition of “joyous civic nationalism” a la SNP.

So how would Scotland deal with a hard border with its biggest trading partner?

Answer came there none.....
A hard border will only be of significance for exports of physical goods. IIRC the proportions of Scottish total goods exports are 38% To rest of UK, 31.5% to the EU and 30.5% to the rest of the World.

see also https://blogs.gov.scot/scotlands-economy/2018/12/06/eu-taking-more-than-half-of-scotlands-exports/

Unless you really mean trade in financial services with the EU is going to be seriously disrupted by Brexit?

she just talks through a hole in her you know what, hates Scotland with a passion.

Nemtynakht said:

malcolmg said:

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

Last sentence is just the opinion of a diehard unionist , it has ZERO reality and shows how blinkered unionists really are.

I’ve said before on here that I would be happy for Scotland to leave. I just don’t understand how a party of independence wants to leave the ‘shackles’ of one Union only to take up those of another.

It is plain that with 60%+ for remain and 45%+ for independence their must be some crossover.

There is also a logical flaw for those who want to leave the EU but remain in the Union.

the EU is completely different to the uk union, no comparison. they would not be taking all our revenue , deciding what to spend it on and then tell us we are useless.

I just don't believe that this was the first opportunity in three years for Trump to have taken out Soleimani. I weep not a single tear for a butcher, but I keep asking myself why now. I don't think Trump has even considered what happens next. That is the concern.

The easiest way to understand things is that Trump sees a personal benefit in doing it now. That is exactly how he has worked since the day he became President. But up to now it has had domestic or bilateral consequences. Now he has gone global.

If that is right, it makes it far harder for governments, including our own, to come up with a response that goes beyond platitudes about de-escalation.

MaxPB said:

MarqueeMark said:

Ethical veganism is philosophical belief, tribunal rules

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.

If people need their thoughts about fictitious characters in the sky protected (who despite being fictitious have caused hundreds of millions of real deaths), then I have no problem with a belief about real animals being protected, however much I think his beliefs are a bit loopy.

Afternoon all

I imagine Riyadh won't be unhappy with current events and I wonder how much sign-off the Saudi Crown Prince had on all this. After all, a small jump in oil prices doesn't hurt the Saudi economy in the short term and destabilising Iran's military structure might assist Saudi efforts in Yemen.

I thought Raab's response measured this morning as was Davey's while Corbyn's was predictable. The question will be the nature of any "response" from Tehran - an attack on Israel perhaps or maybe Saudi ? It may just be the bluster underlines their inability to do anything significant against the global superpower even with their new "allies" - Russia and China.

malcolmg said:

Nemtynakht said:

malcolmg said:

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

Last sentence is just the opinion of a diehard unionist , it has ZERO reality and shows how blinkered unionists really are.

I’ve said before on here that I would be happy for Scotland to leave. I just don’t understand how a party of independence wants to leave the ‘shackles’ of one Union only to take up those of another.

It is plain that with 60%+ for remain and 45%+ for independence their must be some crossover.

There is also a logical flaw for those who want to leave the EU but remain in the Union.

the EU is completely different to the uk union, no comparison. they would not be taking all our revenue , deciding what to spend it on and then tell us we are useless.

It is going to be quite the spectacle, the first time the EU shafts the baby member of their club, Scotland.

The SNP pretending it doesn't hurt at all - and Westminster would have done far worse - will be the comedy turn of the Edinburgh Festival.....

No like Brexit - just as complicated if not more so.

UKIP / Brexit Party still knocking around so I don’t think they will go as quickly as all that. They will probably try a Brexit / Reform Party manoeuvre and rebrand as something like Scotland Together or Scotland First, or invoke a bit of national pride calling themselves the Thistle or Tartan party!

contrarian said:

Nigelb said:

Kevin_McCandless said:

Nigelb said:

contrarian said:

Trump's move seems to have had the desired affect as his democrat opponents go in to bat for a man whose job was to co-ordinate terror strikes against theur country.

Hardly. Like the rest of us, they are quite clear what an evil excrescence this guy was.

But they also recognise there are reasons why you tend not to assassinate other country’s leaders, and this excrescence was effectively Iran’s deputy leader.
And you particularly don’t do so if you don’t have any strategic plan to follow up with (tweeting the US flag doesn’t count).

Nasser's quote is an evergreen one: "The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility that we might be missing something."

The US had the opportunity of a long term settlement with Iran in 2002; Bush blew that.
They could have stayed in Iraq and shut Iran out in 2010 (which would later have prevented Iran saving Assad), but Obama blew that.

I have literally no idea what Trump is up to - beyond swatting someone who offended him.

Surely regime change has to be the number one goal. Iran has a massive pool of young people who don;t give a monjeys about the regime's power games.

Thats always turned out so well in the region. Piece of cake for Trump, I'm sure...

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pulpstar said:

Sanders looks a bit short in the betting at 4.3ish to me.

Judging by current odds and what I remember various bettors backing and tipping up from time to time, loads of books on here must be absolubtely hideously underwater.

Hillary was barely fighting Sanders last time because she'd got the nomination sewn up, so imo that shows the ceiling on Sanders' support and he cannot win. But DYOR because maybe this time it really is different.

He's also the one candidate (Having recently had a heart attack) that you DO have to consider health issues with now for betting purposes.

malcolmg said:

Nemtynakht said:

malcolmg said:

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

Last sentence is just the opinion of a diehard unionist , it has ZERO reality and shows how blinkered unionists really are.

I’ve said before on here that I would be happy for Scotland to leave. I just don’t understand how a party of independence wants to leave the ‘shackles’ of one Union only to take up those of another.

It is plain that with 60%+ for remain and 45%+ for independence their must be some crossover.

There is also a logical flaw for those who want to leave the EU but remain in the Union.

the EU is completely different to the uk union, no comparison. they would not be taking all our revenue , deciding what to spend it on and then tell us we are useless.

Yes you can keep your revenue and find out you are useless on your own! I don’t mean that offensively - unless Sturgeon has some magical powers the Scottish government will be ran as effectively as government in England, Wales, the EU and around the world. Some things will be done to varying degrees of competence and there will be some monumental balls ups.

For example the Scottish Parliament building cost in excess of ten times the amount that the Welsh assembly cost. Was this cost down to materials. Well probably a small amount, but the biggest thing was that rather than consulting at the beginning and then delivering the project, the Scottish Parliament consulted users during the project and had large amounts of changes due to that. Does this tell us that welsh politicians are somehow better than Scots. Not in the slightest, it tells us that organisations mess things up regularly.

Pulpstar said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Pulpstar said:

Sanders looks a bit short in the betting at 4.3ish to me.

Judging by current odds and what I remember various bettors backing and tipping up from time to time, loads of books on here must be absolubtely hideously underwater.

Hillary was barely fighting Sanders last time because she'd got the nomination sewn up, so imo that shows the ceiling on Sanders' support and he cannot win. But DYOR because maybe this time it really is different.

He's also the one candidate (Having recently had a heart attack) that you DO have to consider health issues with now for betting purposes.

If you have to consider it for one then you have to consider it for all. There is a reason that most people are retiring before they get to their 70s.

noneoftheabove said:

MaxPB said:

MarqueeMark said:

Ethical veganism is philosophical belief, tribunal rules

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

This is the kind of shit we need to fix with the majority in parliament. Whatever law is behind this needs to be amended.

If people need their thoughts about fictitious characters in the sky protected (who despite being fictitious have caused hundreds of millions of real deaths), then I have no problem with a belief about real animals being protected, however much I think his beliefs are a bit loopy.

Well isn't that the point, they don't need that protected. If their belief in he sky fairy is so weak that it can't take a few harsh comments then that's on them. The law shouldn't protect opinions or beliefs.

ydoethur said:

SouthamObserver said:

isam said:

SouthamObserver said:

I just don't believe that this was the first opportunity in three years for Trump to have taken out Soleimani. I weep not a single tear for a butcher, but I keep asking myself why now. I don't think Trump has even considered what happens next. That is the concern.

The easiest way to understand things is that Trump sees a personal benefit in doing it now. That is exactly how he has worked since the day he became President. But up to now it has had domestic or bilateral consequences. Now he has gone global.

If that is right, it makes it far harder for governments, including our own, to come up with a response that goes beyond platitudes about de-escalation.

"I weep not a single tear for a butcher"

Are you an ethical vegan as well?

Absolutely - just a deeply flawed one.

Flawed ethically, flawed veganally or do you meat it halfway?

I have tried to give meat the chop, but there is too much at steak. It's eggaxctly the same with diary.

malcolmg said:

Nemtynakht said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

It may be hard for you to get your head round, but there are folk who find it perfectly logical to think EU good, UK bad (or at least not as good).

Well her argument that independence won’t be a mess because she will be negotiating it rather than Westminster seems at the very least fanciful in the extreme.

This is what people were expecting

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/24/what-if-scotland-had-voted-yes-independence

More money for everything basically. Independence will be the end of the SNP.

you mean like brexit except much much simpler. Any dullard knows independence will be end of SNP, that is their sole purpose.

Just like the ANC in SA, eh Malcolm? (Happy New Year by the way)

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

Nemtynakht said:

malcolmg said:

Nemtynakht said:

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/forscotlandsake/status/1213076204728832000?s=21

I’ve always said that there is no problem assessed by the SNP which wouldn’t be solved by independence for Scotland.

If she were clever she should make the case for negotiating terms before a referendum. This would likely lead to some anti Union sentiment, and also get around one of the negatives of a Brexit we voted without knowing what was on offer.

It still doesn’t get around the central flawed logic that union bad, European Union good though.

Last sentence is just the opinion of a diehard unionist , it has ZERO reality and shows how blinkered unionists really are.

I’ve said before on here that I would be happy for Scotland to leave. I just don’t understand how a party of independence wants to leave the ‘shackles’ of one Union only to take up those of another.

It is plain that with 60%+ for remain and 45%+ for independence their must be some crossover.

There is also a logical flaw for those who want to leave the EU but remain in the Union.

the EU is completely different to the uk union, no comparison. they would not be taking all our revenue , deciding what to spend it on and then tell us we are useless.

It is going to be quite the spectacle, the first time the EU shafts the baby member of their club, Scotland.

The SNP pretending it doesn't hurt at all - and Westminster would have done far worse - will be the comedy turn of the Edinburgh Festival.....

Will it be competing with your theatre of the absurdist ‘Taking a Dump on a Fish Supper’ or will you be ad-libbing that down Leith Walk?