politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Key GE2019 party constituency stats from the Commons Library a
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Key GE2019 party constituency stats from the Commons Library analysis
Just before the Christmas break the Commons library published its analysis of the December general election and the above are some of the sets of data that relate to the main national parties.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Top target in 2024.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/opinion/joe-biden-age.html
He isn't that bad in Iowa/NH either. I think there's an underrated scenario where he wins one and does well in the other, wins big in SC/NV and it's basically over once Super Tuesday happens.
And on top of that Corbyn pops up to remind everyone what a major security risk he is, with his reaction to the death of Iran's terror controller.
Much as Labour Leave voters who left the party didn't only disagree with Labour on Brexit, Tory Remainers who left and could leave are likely to have broad issues with the path the Tories are taking.
Another reason I think this will last is it makes sense for both sides. The Lib Dems might gain a dozen Tory seats next election without a huge vote increase, they were a bit unlucky in 2019 with a few seats. And the Tories will win/hold more Northern/Midland seats from Labour than they'll lose down South; at least for another election or two.
Even if he doesn't win it, so long as he polls well, then he's in a great position given he should clean up in SC.
The only really plausible way for Biden to lose is if another moderate (probably Buttigieg, maybe Klobuchar) wins Iowa, and then picks up New Hampshire. In that case, I think a lot of "establishment" Democrats would start to swing behind the the winner of the first two primaries, and Biden's lead would evaporate.
But right now, that's a relatively low probability event (say 15-20%). Biden's price is far too low, buy him. (And keep selling Clinton and Bloomberg.)
(My Democratic nomination book looks pretty good, all things considered. I got on Pete very early, and then sold Clinton in ridiculous size in the low teens. I'm Green on basically everyone except Williamson, Clinton and Bloomberg.)
https://www.axios.com/2024-election-polls-republicans-60f37160-a4fb-48e6-b054-22bd303604a6.html
For the record, I'm not losing any sleep over my Clinton position. Given she's not on the ballot in any of the states. And there is next to no chance that the DNC would hand the nomination to someone who got null delegates.
https://mobile.twitter.com/geoffreyvs/status/1213319500822646785
If Sanders drops out, his support goes to Warren.
If Buttigieg drops out, his support goes to Biden and Warren and Klobuchar.
If Biden drops out, his support goes to whichever establishment Democrat remains.
If Warren drops out, her vote splits equally between Sanders, Biden and Buttigieg.
Given that, it's hard to see how he wins the nomination, because even if he wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the establishment will end up coalescing on a single candidate, and that person (whoever it is) hammers Bernie.
There also has to be a not-insignificant chance that he has another health issue in the next 12 months.
But my M Obama position is simply a consequence of selling Clinton and Bloomberg and various others who were ridiculously overpriced at one point or another. (Mr Yang...)
But Biden's steady lead is impressive anyway. Sometimes favourites do just go on and win, despite all the media efforts to make it more exciting.
Although my analysis above was a little misleading, because a fair number of Sanders supporters (29%) have Biden as a second choice.
Again, this puts Biden in a very strong position.
https://twitter.com/cjsnowdon/status/1213512765945634819?s=21
But his big problem is that while Buttigieg has 27 offices and over 100 paid staffers, he has only 9 offices, and they're concentrated in Iowa's major urban areas.
Sanders also has fewer staffers and offices than Biden, Warren and Klobuchar.
That puts him at a disadvantage in cold and dusty church halls in rural parts of Iowa. And Iowa has a lot of rural parts. I can see Sanders sweeping all before him around the University of Iowa and similar places. But out in the boondocks, where the voters are older and less left wing, he's likely to struggle hard.
And if you drop below 15% in a precinct, you get null delegates.
My rough guessimate would be that Biden is probably favourite for Iowa right now, given his "No Malarky" tour in the state, and an impressive build up of presence there. I'd give him a 35% chance.
Buttigieg is probably a 30% chance, given his organisation in the state, and that he pretty much looks like a perfect candidate for Iowa. (Being white and Christian and centrist).
Sanders is probably a 25% chance, because he's got a tonne of committed supporters and he's been rising in the polls. I also suspect the ratcheting up on tensions in the Middle East favours him.
(As an aside, I suspect Buttigieg will come out at the debate broadly in favour of Trump's killing of that Iranian dude. Which is probably smart politics.)
I took a new approach to this year, and basically laid no-hopers the market liked and did little else. This started with Yang, and then I rolled over the amount against Clinton, Obama, Gabbard, Bloomberg, and even Winfrey.
I did place a few, smaller, back bets. Mostly on Biden, I also backed Warren at 25/1 and cashed out at 6/1. Overall I've now got a bet at 2/9 that none of the longshot above win, with a bonus if Biden does.
Bloomberg wasn't meant to run in my plan, and he is polling a bit higher than I'd like, but I'm probably all right. His decision to skip the early states is nuts.
They just didn't perform as well as the establishment candidates.
She's a good speaker as well, imho in the same league as Barack. I think that she had a big window to become an Illinois senator in 2016, when Barack was leaving office and there was an open seat coming up. The fact she didn't go for it and hasn't teased an entry into politics since made me very confident she was never going to run for office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esmail_Ghaani
Pretty much the only "positive" bets I've made have been on Buttigieg (at 40-1 and more), Klobuchar (at even higher odds) and Biden (around the current level).
2-1 is a 33% chance. That seems too low. It seems to me that the probabilities look something like this:
Biden 50%
Warren 15%
Sanders 15%
Buttigieg 12.5%
The field 7.5%.
Buttigieg has to win Iowa and New Hampshire, and then grab the establishment mantle.
Warren has to beat Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire and grab the liberal mantle. It's possible, but not easy.
Sanders has to beat Warren in the first two states, and then hope to pick up more than a third of Warren's votes.
Biden just has to avoid getting hammered in the early states, because South Carolina should be great for him.
But of equal interest is something in Dominic Cummings' "weirdos and misfits" recruitment post, where he goes on to say about social media:
I noticed in the recent campaign that the world of digital advertising has changed very fast since I was last involved in 2016. This is partly why so many journalists wrongly looked at things like Corbyn’s Facebook stats and thought Labour was doing better than us — the ecosystem evolves rapidly while political journalists are still behind the 2016 tech, hence why so many fell for Carole’s conspiracy theories. The digital people involved in the last campaign really knew what they are doing, which is incredibly rare in this world of charlatans and clients who don’t know what they should be buying.
The full story of what went on in the election's social media campaigns has yet to be written.
https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/thousands-of-misleading-conservative-ads-side-step-scrutiny-thanks-to-facebook-policy/
And Biden beats Trump, doesn't he? - doesn’t he?
🙏
The latter of those can't be accused of not having performed either. Yang isn't going to be preparing to move into the White House this time next year, but that probably hasn't been the aim and his stock has risen with a spirited performance, and he's probably advanced his agenda.
I've been a little surprised Booker hasn't had a "moment". He's pulled in good fundraising, and reliably performs quite well. It's probably (although not definitely) too late for him, and he may well be running for VP at this point.
I'd still tend towards Buttigieg for that one despite evidence that his latest surge is over. He seems very well organised in Iowa and I think the format favours him... it's horribly stereotypical, but I suspect a lot of Pete's activists are terribly well turned-out, charming young men and that the caucus set-up is ideal on that basis.
See https://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2020/01/were-88-of-tory-facebook-adverts-lies.html
What seems to be happening now is whataboutery rather than exonerating Conservative adverts.
Everybody is in at least one group chat and there's always that one person sharing memes non stop. It's also much easier to share content like that in a closed group with people you already trust (post anything Tory on facebook and you will be sworn at or called a bigot).
The Conservatives will have employed some very clever, very young people to make and distribute them, silently, away from the big social media platforms.
There's huge power there and I'd hazard a guess that's what Cummings means when he says Labour's facebook stats don't matter.
Exactly the type of area you'd expect to be anti Corbyn but still, you would expect those types of changes to be happening over long term not in one election!
Both Kier and Jess did degrees there.
There is a case to be made for this strike, but Luntz is not making it. Though his blether is of the kind to impress Trump, which is also in its own way concerning, what with an election coming up....
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/04/mike-pompeo-european-response-to-suleimani-killing
"Pompeo: European response to Suleimani killing 'not helpful enough'"
US secretary of state unfavourably compares European reaction with ‘partners in the region’
At this time in 2004, the two candidates ahead in the polls in Iowa were Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt.
John Kerry, in the last poll in December, was on 9%, and John Edwards was on 5%. Between them, just eight weeks later, they got 70% of the delegates from Iowa.
My simple tactic here is to sell people when they become "too favourite". Sanders, at an implied probability of about 41% is too much of a favourite. Biden, at an implied probability of 25% is too cheap.
https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Draft_News
In fact, I'd go so far as to say an attempted assassination (which he survived with minor injury) would be truly excellent news for Trump's re-election chances.
It simultaneously would make him less of a monster and more of a superman.
It seems that all the old Bush-era neocons are all over the news. Are Jared Kushner and Ivanka now sidelined? Are the hawks taking back control of foreign policy after the dismissal of John Bolton?
The idea of an attack on Trump personally isn't realistic, in my view. It would be a massive escalation, guaranteeing war. It isn't feasible - security around the President is far tighter than around an Iranian general. And, as you suggest, what if you miss (which is pretty likely)?
We're looking at different steps here from Iran - proxy attacks on outposts, kidnapping of US nationals and allies, making special forces operations in Syria nigh on impossible and so on. And I'm afraid security will need tightening around more junior administration members and around public events involving US citizens around the world.
It's terrible to have to say these things, and I fervently hope none of them come to pass. But that's the sort of escalation Iran will be discussing internally.
What a pile of crud.
The safest Labour seats in urban areas, the biggest swing to the LDs and Labour in Remain areas, the biggest swing against them in Leave areas. A clear pattern there
Worth noting that Bloomberg has done well in the last two polls, with 11% and 7%. He appears not to be trying to get any delegates, though. What's his plan? - a third party candidacy?
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8749/CBP-8749.pdf
He's been an enormous boon for Sanders (and to a lesser extent Warren). He splits the moderate/centrist vote and makes it more likely centrist candidates fail to make the 15% cut-off.
The question is whether he's able to maintain his position given he's going to get null delegates in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.
My guess is no. But he's Sanders best hope of the nomination.