politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big political betting developments this weekend will not a
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big political betting developments this weekend will not about Brexit – but Iowa
We are almost there. Just 3 days to go before Iowa – the first State to decide on its democratic party nomination holds its unique selection processes. What makes this important is that the outcome has, historically, had an impact on the other states that follow.
Comments
-
First.0
-
Oh Lordie, 4 more years of Trump.0
-
Not Brexshit! Hurray!0
-
John Delaney has dropped out of the Dem nominee race.
Not sure anyone knew he was still in it, TBH.0 -
An interesting move by Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/31/trump-iowa-socialism-bernie-sanders
You'd have thought Trump would want Bernie to do well in Iowa.0 -
How they must be laughing in the White House. The Dems are sufficiently worried the questions about Biden's son will damage Biden Snr. that they will plump for a red in tooth and claw socialist instead. Well worth an impeachment hearing for four more years.....DavidL said:Oh Lordie, 4 more years of Trump.
0 -
Boo, The Crown will end after the fifth season.
https://twitter.com/thecrownnetflix/status/1223262356496699394?s=210 -
I think we might find out what would have happened in 2012 had Romney lost Iowa and N.Hampshire.
Biden like Romney is not liked, he can only win if the 75% of Democrats who don't really like him decide on an alternative, and most of them voted Sanders last time so they might vote Sanders again.
I have to wait unti the Selzer poll on Sunday, but as of now I think Sanders wins. He is either leading or close behind with momentum behind him.0 -
Curse the new thread:tlg86 said:
When we were all debating and betting on who should/would be on the £50 bank note, I don't think anyone suggested:nunu2 said:Britain hardly invented anything apperently. Absolutely disgusting trashing of history from the BBC. I dont care if you voted Remain or Leave, everyone should be disgusted bu this.
https://mobile.twitter.com/cbbc/status/1223170327188058113
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison
I was given an after hours tour of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich the other night (we were really lucky as they were able to open up the observatory for us to use the telescope), and it occurred to me that he really ought to have been on a bank note by now.0 -
fpt
We're leaving and the onus is on Remainers to do this, that, or the other.DavidL said:I don't see this as a day for celebration. It is a day of implementation of a difficult and vexed decision which has caused considerable division in the country. Triumphalism would be counterproductive. The object must be to find common ground as quickly as possible and move on.
One of the key tests of this will be the attitude of remainers to the ongoing negotiations with the EU. Will there be the sort of cheering on and instant acceptance of every EU position that we have seen over the last several years or will there be more of a focus on what is actually best for us?
The latter leaves plenty of room for disagreement. A legitimate case can be made for staying in a CU with the EU, for example and there are good arguments why ending our alignment with EU regulation may be self defeating and commercially silly. I am by no means saying that remainers need to sign up for some extreme version of Brexit canvassed from time to time. I am not myself so why should they? What I am saying is that I want us to have that debate in the context of what is good for the UK, not what might either defeat Brexit or what suits the EU best.
This will undoubtedly be more difficult if some of the prattier Brexiteers think it is funny, clever or anything other than stupid to rub the noses of those with a different view in the decision.
WTF?
The Conservatives won the election and one of the key tests will be the attitude of Labour voters...0 -
Too many people still around who can sue?TheScreamingEagles said:Boo, The Crown will end after the fifth season.
https://twitter.com/thecrownnetflix/status/1223262356496699394?s=210 -
Talking about The Crown.
Did that scene with Churchill in the first episode where he turned up last at the wedding happen in real life?0 -
He's been on Only Fools and Horses, which is better than most. As for the £50 note, I can't remember the last time I saw one, and certainly could not tell you who was on it. Poor old Alan Turing: only the drug dealers will get to see him.tlg86 said:Curse the new thread:
tlg86 said:
When we were all debating and betting on who should/would be on the £50 bank note, I don't think anyone suggested:nunu2 said:Britain hardly invented anything apperently. Absolutely disgusting trashing of history from the BBC. I dont care if you voted Remain or Leave, everyone should be disgusted bu this.
https://mobile.twitter.com/cbbc/status/1223170327188058113
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison
I was given an after hours tour of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich the other night (we were really lucky as they were able to open up the observatory for us to use the telescope), and it occurred to me that he really ought to have been on a bank note by now.0 -
Probably.MarqueeMark said:
Too many people still around who can sue?TheScreamingEagles said:Boo, The Crown will end after the fifth season.
https://twitter.com/thecrownnetflix/status/1223262356496699394?s=21
I’m not sure how I’m going to cope with the next season of The Crown with Mrs Thatcher being played by a sex therapist.0 -
In 2016 Bernie would have won is the saying.Richard_Nabavi said:An interesting move by Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/31/trump-iowa-socialism-bernie-sanders
You'd have thought Trump would want Bernie to do well in Iowa.
In 2020 Bernie might win too.
America is ripe for change, that's how Trump won.
It reminds me of 1976-80.
America wanted change then, Carter and Reagan were selling the same thing but with a different style, in 1976 Carter won because Reagan wasn't the nominee, in 1980 Reagan beat Carter because he won the nomination.
They both followed the exact same policies but Reagan was a sunnier character, and luckier too.0 -
Red in tooth and claw is exactly how I want a person to look after the fight with Donald Trump.MarqueeMark said:How they must be laughing in the White House. The Dems are sufficiently worried the questions about Biden's son will damage Biden Snr. that they will plump for a red in tooth and claw socialist instead. Well worth an impeachment hearing for four more years.....
0 -
But 55% didn't vote Tory so hard to argue a democratic mandateTOPPING said:fpt
We're leaving and the onus is on Remainers to do this, that, or the other.DavidL said:I don't see this as a day for celebration. It is a day of implementation of a difficult and vexed decision which has caused considerable division in the country. Triumphalism would be counterproductive. The object must be to find common ground as quickly as possible and move on.
One of the key tests of this will be the attitude of remainers to the ongoing negotiations with the EU. Will there be the sort of cheering on and instant acceptance of every EU position that we have seen over the last several years or will there be more of a focus on what is actually best for us?
The latter leaves plenty of room for disagreement. A legitimate case can be made for staying in a CU with the EU, for example and there are good arguments why ending our alignment with EU regulation may be self defeating and commercially silly. I am by no means saying that remainers need to sign up for some extreme version of Brexit canvassed from time to time. I am not myself so why should they? What I am saying is that I want us to have that debate in the context of what is good for the UK, not what might either defeat Brexit or what suits the EU best.
This will undoubtedly be more difficult if some of the prattier Brexiteers think it is funny, clever or anything other than stupid to rub the noses of those with a different view in the decision.
WTF?
The Conservatives won the election and one of the key tests will be the attitude of Labour voters...0 -
Only two candidates have the momentum going into Iowa:
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1223231325865422848
If it's a tie nationally I expect Sanders to beat Biden in Iowa easily because Iowa doesn't have African Am.0 -
But 88% didn't vote LibDem....MikeSmithson said:
But 55% didn't vote Tory so hard to argue a democratic mandateTOPPING said:fpt
We're leaving and the onus is on Remainers to do this, that, or the other.DavidL said:I don't see this as a day for celebration. It is a day of implementation of a difficult and vexed decision which has caused considerable division in the country. Triumphalism would be counterproductive. The object must be to find common ground as quickly as possible and move on.
One of the key tests of this will be the attitude of remainers to the ongoing negotiations with the EU. Will there be the sort of cheering on and instant acceptance of every EU position that we have seen over the last several years or will there be more of a focus on what is actually best for us?
The latter leaves plenty of room for disagreement. A legitimate case can be made for staying in a CU with the EU, for example and there are good arguments why ending our alignment with EU regulation may be self defeating and commercially silly. I am by no means saying that remainers need to sign up for some extreme version of Brexit canvassed from time to time. I am not myself so why should they? What I am saying is that I want us to have that debate in the context of what is good for the UK, not what might either defeat Brexit or what suits the EU best.
This will undoubtedly be more difficult if some of the prattier Brexiteers think it is funny, clever or anything other than stupid to rub the noses of those with a different view in the decision.
WTF?
The Conservatives won the election and one of the key tests will be the attitude of Labour voters...1 -
Tell it not in Gath but I don't think Olivia Coleman was particularly good. She was carried by the rather brilliant performances of Tobias Menzies and Helena Bonham-Carter.MarqueeMark said:
Too many people still around who can sue?TheScreamingEagles said:Boo, The Crown will end after the fifth season.
https://twitter.com/thecrownnetflix/status/1223262356496699394?s=210 -
Look away now @rottenborough .speedy2 said:Only two candidates have the momentum going into Iowa:
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1223231325865422848
If it's a tie nationally I expect Sanders to beat Biden in Iowa easily because Iowa doesn't have African Am.
1 -
As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.MarqueeMark said:
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.0 -
The ultimate way to follow thatspeedy2 said:
In 2016 Bernie would have won is the saying.Richard_Nabavi said:An interesting move by Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/31/trump-iowa-socialism-bernie-sanders
You'd have thought Trump would want Bernie to do well in Iowa.
In 2020 Bernie might win too.
America is ripe for change, that's how Trump won.
It reminds me of 1976-80.
America wanted change then, Carter and Reagan were selling the same thing but with a different style, in 1976 Carter won because Reagan wasn't the nominee, in 1980 Reagan beat Carter because he won the nomination.
They both followed the exact same policies but Reagan was a sunnier character, and luckier too.
2017 Jeremy Corbyn nearly won
2020 Jeremy Corbyn didn't nearly win
This is despite twice winning the party leadership easily
I do wonder when push comes to shove if enough Dems will rally to Bernie or if he will be overtaken by one of the other candidates. If enough Dems support him, he still has to garner the support of the middle ground of America, which may not be a simple process.0 -
Reading that NBC article, Bloomberg has spent a quarter of a billion dollars on adverts.
Erm. OK. 0 -
What's that saying about hoors, power and responsibility?
https://twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1223170197823139841?s=20
0 -
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromoMysticrose said:
As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.MarqueeMark said:
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Reagan net approval at this point +17
Trump net approval -9
Unemployment is rising in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. All states Trump won by small margins.
That being said, I think the Libertarian candidate (oh please be John McAfee) will do much less well this time around, which probably adds two percentage points to Trump's share.0 -
How can a proud Yorkshireman like TSE support a team from (historic) Lancashire?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
2017 Corbyn won 55 fewer seats than the Toriesphiliph said:
The ultimate way to follow thatspeedy2 said:
In 2016 Bernie would have won is the saying.Richard_Nabavi said:An interesting move by Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/31/trump-iowa-socialism-bernie-sanders
You'd have thought Trump would want Bernie to do well in Iowa.
In 2020 Bernie might win too.
America is ripe for change, that's how Trump won.
It reminds me of 1976-80.
America wanted change then, Carter and Reagan were selling the same thing but with a different style, in 1976 Carter won because Reagan wasn't the nominee, in 1980 Reagan beat Carter because he won the nomination.
They both followed the exact same policies but Reagan was a sunnier character, and luckier too.
2017 Jeremy Corbyn nearly won
2020 Jeremy Corbyn didn't nearly win
This is despite twice winning the party leadership easily
I do wonder when push comes to shove if enough Dems will rally to Bernie or if he will be overtaken by one of the other candidates. If enough Dems support him, he still has to garner the support of the middle ground of America, which may not be a simple process.
2017 Corbyn won only 4 more seats than Brown did in 20100 -
That graph is VERY inaccurate.0
-
No. It's the opposite. He's not only losing (to whoever) but losing big.Mysticrose said:As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Whenever I see this bleak uttering from you I will be moved to reply in this vein.0 -
I don't think it's at all accurate to say Carter and Reagan had "the exact same policies".speedy2 said:
In 2016 Bernie would have won is the saying.Richard_Nabavi said:An interesting move by Trump:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/31/trump-iowa-socialism-bernie-sanders
You'd have thought Trump would want Bernie to do well in Iowa.
In 2020 Bernie might win too.
America is ripe for change, that's how Trump won.
It reminds me of 1976-80.
America wanted change then, Carter and Reagan were selling the same thing but with a different style, in 1976 Carter won because Reagan wasn't the nominee, in 1980 Reagan beat Carter because he won the nomination.
They both followed the exact same policies but Reagan was a sunnier character, and luckier too.
Carter did move to a tighter monetary policy (as did Callaghan in the UK) and some deregulation, but the economic policies were still pretty different. Similarly on spending priorities, environmental issues, aspects of foreign policy etc.0 -
It’s a very exciting race. I’m not going to pretend I have a clear sense how this is going to pan out.
The non-Sanders Democrats need to appreciate fast that if they don’t unite around a candidate, any candidate, he’s going to be hard to stop in the way that the never-Trumps found out in 2016. In an open field, all a polarising figure needs is continuing disunity among his opponents.2 -
0
-
I’m a rootless cosmopolitan, plus they were the only side on the telly when I was a child.Sunil_Prasannan said:
How can a proud Yorkshireman like TSE support a team from (historic) Lancashire?TheScreamingEagles said:
Add in the fact I wasn’t allowed to go to football matches as they weren’t very welcoming to people like me.
Plus you can change your house, name, occupation, nationality, wife, and even your gender but you can never change the team you support.0 -
It confers almost unimaginable power on an individual, doesn't it, being a billionaire? Which can be used for good or ill. In this case, with the mission being to rid us of Trump, it can be deemed benign.RobD said:Reading that NBC article, Bloomberg has spent a quarter of a billion dollars on adverts.
Erm. OK.0 -
Battalions, corps, haven't these goons realised the war is over?
https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1223160098220056577?s=200 -
That's remarkable. And that's without considering the amount the team has won from prize money from winning the Champions League, Super Cup and Club World Cup . . . nor the probable corresponding increase in merchandise and other commercial interests.TheScreamingEagles said:
I expect when the financial accounts for Liverpool are released after this season they're going to look pretty darn healthy.
A remarkable turnaround from the Hicks and Gillett days.0 -
Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.0
-
But they haven't got a world wide noodle sponsor like Man Utd. Winning here!Philip_Thompson said:
That's remarkable. And that's without considering the amount the team has won from prize money from winning the Champions League, Super Cup and Club World Cup . . . nor the probable corresponding increase in merchandise and other commercial interests.TheScreamingEagles said:
I expect when the financial accounts for Liverpool are released after this season they're going to look pretty darn healthy.
A remarkable turnaround from the Hicks and Gillett days.1 -
The only groups of people who would argue against this are:AlastairMeeks said:It’s a very exciting race. I’m not going to pretend I have a clear sense how this is going to pan out.
The non-Sanders Democrats need to appreciate fast that if they don’t unite around a candidate, any candidate, he’s going to be hard to stop in the way that the never-Trumps found out in 2016. In an open field, all a polarising figure needs is continuing disunity among his opponents.
The other 5 or 6 top Democratic candidates
Labour, LibDems, SNP and other assorted anti Brexit parliamentry parties when forming a strategy to defeat Johnson over Brexit.0 -
I genuinely don't know.kinabalu said:
No. It's the opposite. He's not only losing (to whoever) but losing big.Mysticrose said:As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Whenever I see this bleak uttering from you I will be moved to reply in this vein.
I can muster arguments for everything from a comfortable Trump win, to an easy Democratic one.
Trump is relatively unpopular. I think his net approval is worse than all but one other President at this stage.
But then again, the Democrats might well pick someone equally voter repellant.
The economy is slowing, and much of the rust belt is probably in recession.
But the last three years, thanks to some aggressive fiscal easing, have generally been good economically for the US. And polls suggest Donald Trump is well regarded for his handling of the economy.
There is a continual whiff of scandal around the adminstration. Not enough to shake the base, obviously. But perhaps enough to cause a few moderate Republicans to stay at home.
But the same was true of the Clinton adminstration. Voters are often very forgiving if they think you are on their side.
My guess is that we'll see relatively few states change hands. I think the traditional bellwethers of Ohio and Florida are now solidly Republican. Other than Virginia, and maybe Nevada, I can't see any of the existing Democratic states flipping.
The Republicans, though, need to defend Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Iowa. If African American turnout is up sharply, they might struggle in North Carolina too. (And Florida, which I tagged as safely Republican, is about to see a 25% increase in it's black voting population...)
So I don't know.1 -
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
0 -
Thank God for that! Series 3 has been nowhere as good as the first 2 series. Like @Mysticrose I though Olivia Coleman was not very good in it - miscast IMO.TheScreamingEagles said:Boo, The Crown will end after the fifth season.
https://twitter.com/thecrownnetflix/status/1223262356496699394?s=210 -
No. What I think you want is orange in tooth and claw.......kinabalu said:
Red in tooth and claw is exactly how I want a person to look after the fight with Donald Trump.MarqueeMark said:How they must be laughing in the White House. The Dems are sufficiently worried the questions about Biden's son will damage Biden Snr. that they will plump for a red in tooth and claw socialist instead. Well worth an impeachment hearing for four more years.....
1 -
Deeply depressing. And my wallet is weeping already. I cannot face putting money on Trump and I deeply red on Bernie.Mysticrose said:
As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.MarqueeMark said:
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Dems are bonkers.0 -
rcs1000 said:
I genuinely don't know.kinabalu said:
No. It's the opposite. He's not only losing (to whoever) but losing big.Mysticrose said:As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Whenever I see this bleak uttering from you I will be moved to reply in this vein.
I can muster arguments for everything from a comfortable Trump win, to an easy Democratic one.
Trump is relatively unpopular. I think his net approval is worse than all but one other President at this stage.
But then again, the Democrats might well pick someone equally voter repellant.
The economy is slowing, and much of the rust belt is probably in recession.
But the last three years, thanks to some aggressive fiscal easing, have generally been good economically for the US. And polls suggest Donald Trump is well regarded for his handling of the economy.
There is a continual whiff of scandal around the adminstration. Not enough to shake the base, obviously. But perhaps enough to cause a few moderate Republicans to stay at home.
But the same was true of the Clinton adminstration. Voters are often very forgiving if they think you are on their side.
My guess is that we'll see relatively few states change hands. I think the traditional bellwethers of Ohio and Florida are now solidly Republican. Other than Virginia, and maybe Nevada, I can't see any of the existing Democratic states flipping.
The Republicans, though, need to defend Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Iowa. If African American turnout is up sharply, they might struggle in North Carolina too. (And Florida, which I tagged as safely Republican, is about to see a 25% increase in it's black voting population...)
So I don't know.
Taking your line:
Trump is relatively unpopular. I think his net approval is worse than all but one other President at this stage.
I think a better line may be that Trump is Polarising, just like Marmite.
Those that don't like him are far more vocal and therefore more easily heard. Is the level of dislike measured at a higher level than it truly exists as it has a high volume?
Trump should be the easiest incumbent to beat for a good while. I am far from persuaded that the Dems know who will or how to do it.
0 -
Anybody betting on individual states in the presidential election would do well to keep their eye on this page: https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
It's Trump net approval by state.
There are a couple of surprising numbers in there, in particular Georgia and Alaska.1 -
I can't keep my eyes off. It's like watching a slow motion car smash.RobD said:
Look away now @rottenborough .speedy2 said:Only two candidates have the momentum going into Iowa:
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1223231325865422848
If it's a tie nationally I expect Sanders to beat Biden in Iowa easily because Iowa doesn't have African Am.
Dems are idiots.0 -
Do you think this is how they looked at us with Corbyn as Labour leader?rottenborough said:
I can't keep my eyes off. It's like watching a slow motion car smash.RobD said:
Look away now @rottenborough .speedy2 said:Only two candidates have the momentum going into Iowa:
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1223231325865422848
If it's a tie nationally I expect Sanders to beat Biden in Iowa easily because Iowa doesn't have African Am.
Dems are idiots.0 -
I don't disagree with your conclusion.philiph said:rcs1000 said:
I genuinely don't know.kinabalu said:
No. It's the opposite. He's not only losing (to whoever) but losing big.Mysticrose said:As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Whenever I see this bleak uttering from you I will be moved to reply in this vein.
I can muster arguments for everything from a comfortable Trump win, to an easy Democratic one.
Trump is relatively unpopular. I think his net approval is worse than all but one other President at this stage.
But then again, the Democrats might well pick someone equally voter repellant.
The economy is slowing, and much of the rust belt is probably in recession.
But the last three years, thanks to some aggressive fiscal easing, have generally been good economically for the US. And polls suggest Donald Trump is well regarded for his handling of the economy.
There is a continual whiff of scandal around the adminstration. Not enough to shake the base, obviously. But perhaps enough to cause a few moderate Republicans to stay at home.
But the same was true of the Clinton adminstration. Voters are often very forgiving if they think you are on their side.
My guess is that we'll see relatively few states change hands. I think the traditional bellwethers of Ohio and Florida are now solidly Republican. Other than Virginia, and maybe Nevada, I can't see any of the existing Democratic states flipping.
The Republicans, though, need to defend Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Iowa. If African American turnout is up sharply, they might struggle in North Carolina too. (And Florida, which I tagged as safely Republican, is about to see a 25% increase in it's black voting population...)
So I don't know.
Taking your line:
Trump is relatively unpopular. I think his net approval is worse than all but one other President at this stage.
I think a better line may be that Trump is Polarising, just like Marmite.
Those that don't like are far more vocal and therefore more easily heard. Is the level of dislike measured at a higher level than it truly exists as it has a high volume?
Trump should be the easiest incumbent to beat for a good while. I am far from persuaded that the Dems know who will or how to do it.
But I think most Presidents are pretty polarising figures: Clinton, "W" Bush and Obama were all loathed to irrational levels by their opponents.0 -
No, I'm talking nationally. I can't see ANY sort of crossover appeal between Sanders and Bloomberg whatsoever, Bloomberg is simply removing Biden and to a lesser extent Warren/Buttigieg votes.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
The delegates Bloomberg might win won't make up for the delegates he's removing from Biden in particular - below 15% the Democrat nomination is a stepwise process.
In addition I think his entrance to the race has boosted Sanders as he kind of makes the point about Billionaires and so forth better than a Sanders ad ever could.0 -
This is the missing link in the polling for the Labour leadership race. Two months in, more have a formed opinion of the candidates, and it's as good for Starmer as it is predictably bad for Long-Bailey.
If Labour were to have a leader with a net +5 favorability rating on the eve of GE polling day, they could well win.
https://twitter.com/benatipsosmori/status/1223258716893523968/photo/10 -
No, he's likely to deny Biden the win in Iowa, leaving Sanders to take the laurel both there and NH. Given his politics, it's bizarre he'd spend a billion dollars (by the end of the campaign) essentially improving Sanders chances.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
i guess there's no fool like an old, megarich fool.0 -
Agreed. Bloomberg has become a fool.Pulpstar said:
No, I'm talking nationally. I can't see ANY sort of crossover appeal between Sanders and Bloomberg whatsoever, Bloomberg is simply removing Biden and to a lesser extent Warren/Buttigieg votes.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
The delegates Bloomberg might win won't make up for the delegates he's removing from Biden in particular - below 15% the Democrat nomination is a stepwise process.
In addition I think his entrance to the race has boosted Sanders as he kind of makes the point about Billionaires and so forth better than a Sanders ad ever could.0 -
TV networks love him though.Nigelb said:
No, he's likely to deny Biden the win in Iowa, leaving Sanders to take the laurel both there and NH. Given his politics, it's bizarre he'd spend a billion dollars (by the end of the campaign) essentially improving Sanders chances.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
i guess there's no fool like an old, megarich fool.0 -
+1Pulpstar said:
No, I'm talking nationally. I can't see ANY sort of crossover appeal between Sanders and Bloomberg whatsoever, Bloomberg is simply removing Biden and to a lesser extent Warren/Buttigieg votes.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
The delegates Bloomberg might win won't make up for the delegates he's removing from Biden in particular - below 15% the Democrat nomination is a stepwise process.
In addition I think his entrance to the race has boosted Sanders as he kind of makes the point about Billionaires and so forth better than a Sanders ad ever could.
(That being said, Bloomberg really gets under Trump's skin, which I enjoy.)0 -
A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=200 -
I particularly enjoyed last night’s wafting away of the Brexit party in the European Parliament as a fringe. They were the party of choice of Leavers just 8 months ago.Theuniondivvie said:A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=200 -
I see your Alaska and raise you Texas - just positive by 1%......rcs1000 said:Anybody betting on individual states in the presidential election would do well to keep their eye on this page: https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
It's Trump net approval by state.
There are a couple of surprising numbers in there, in particular Georgia and Alaska.0 -
The structure of the caucuses mean that people who turn up to vote for Bloomberg will need to find another candidate to support, so I don't see how he hands Iowa to Sanders.Nigelb said:
No, he's likely to deny Biden the win in Iowa, leaving Sanders to take the laurel both there and NH. Given his politics, it's bizarre he'd spend a billion dollars (by the end of the campaign) essentially improving Sanders chances.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
i guess there's no fool like an old, megarich fool.
For the record, I think Sanders should be no more than a 35-40% chance to win Iowa. All the polls point to a very, very close race, and I question how many second choices he gets.
0 -
Which he ought to have confined himself to doing.rcs1000 said:
+1Pulpstar said:
No, I'm talking nationally. I can't see ANY sort of crossover appeal between Sanders and Bloomberg whatsoever, Bloomberg is simply removing Biden and to a lesser extent Warren/Buttigieg votes.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
The delegates Bloomberg might win won't make up for the delegates he's removing from Biden in particular - below 15% the Democrat nomination is a stepwise process.
In addition I think his entrance to the race has boosted Sanders as he kind of makes the point about Billionaires and so forth better than a Sanders ad ever could.
(That being said, Bloomberg really gets under Trump's skin, which I enjoy.)
Had he not actually run, and just gone ahead with his plan to spend money to help get Trump out, he'd be a hero to half of America. As it is....
0 -
It's not as simple as that, since not every orphan caucus-goer crosses over to another group.rcs1000 said:
The structure of the caucuses mean that people who turn up to vote for Bloomberg will need to find another candidate to support, so I don't see how he hands Iowa to Sanders.Nigelb said:
No, he's likely to deny Biden the win in Iowa, leaving Sanders to take the laurel both there and NH. Given his politics, it's bizarre he'd spend a billion dollars (by the end of the campaign) essentially improving Sanders chances.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
i guess there's no fool like an old, megarich fool.
For the record, I think Sanders should be no more than a 35-40% chance to win Iowa. All the polls point to a very, very close race, and I question how many second choices he gets.
But agreed, it could be very close - which is why improving Sanders chances at the margin is not a good idea.
0 -
Ouch. I missed that. That's not a good number. (Demographically, of course, Texas is following New Mexico and Arizona in becoming increasingly Hispanic. At some point in the future it will probably go Democrat. I'm not betting on it being in 2020.)MarqueeMark said:
I see your Alaska and raise you Texas - just positive by 1%......rcs1000 said:Anybody betting on individual states in the presidential election would do well to keep their eye on this page: https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
It's Trump net approval by state.
There are a couple of surprising numbers in there, in particular Georgia and Alaska.0 -
They were the protest of choice. Anyone who thought they were a credible party was just fooling themselves.AlastairMeeks said:
I particularly enjoyed last night’s wafting away of the Brexit party in the European Parliament as a fringe. They were the party of choice of Leavers just 8 months ago.Theuniondivvie said:A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=20
I held no love for them, I despise Farage, but I voted for them purely to send a protest message to get Theresa May out and ensure the MPs next time put forward a more suitable candidate than May.
The message got through. May went and was replaced by Boris. Job done. The Brexit Party's job was done at that point.0 -
The recent special election in Texas doesn't suggest any immediate Democratic breakthrough.rcs1000 said:
Ouch. I missed that. That's not a good number. (Demographically, of course, Texas is following New Mexico and Arizona in becoming increasingly Hispanic. At some point in the future it will probably go Democrat. I'm not betting on it being in 2020.)MarqueeMark said:
I see your Alaska and raise you Texas - just positive by 1%......rcs1000 said:Anybody betting on individual states in the presidential election would do well to keep their eye on this page: https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
It's Trump net approval by state.
There are a couple of surprising numbers in there, in particular Georgia and Alaska.0 -
Yeah but Reagan had a lot of domestic problems going into 1980. Trump's in a stronger position. And never mind 'net approval.' It's all about polling against your opponent, where Trump will win hands down.rcs1000 said:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromoMysticrose said:
As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.MarqueeMark said:
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Reagan net approval at this point +17
Trump net approval -9
Unemployment is rising in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. All states Trump won by small margins.
That being said, I think the Libertarian candidate (oh please be John McAfee) will do much less well this time around, which probably adds two percentage points to Trump's share.
Weeks before the election, Reagan trailed Carter in most polls. In the Gallup poll on October 26, Jimmy Carter was at 47 percent and Ronald Reagan at 39 percent.
Trump's going to win bigger in the Electoral College than last time.0 -
@Dura_Ace 's next ride ?
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi-first-delivery-date-jk-moving/
0-60 5sec.
Which is not particularly impressive, until you look at it...0 -
Bloomberg voters, though, are likely to be anti-Sanders voters. If they can't get Bloomberg, I think they'll migrate to the moderate most likely to beat him.Nigelb said:
It's not as simple as that, since not every orphan caucus-goer crosses over to another group.rcs1000 said:
The structure of the caucuses mean that people who turn up to vote for Bloomberg will need to find another candidate to support, so I don't see how he hands Iowa to Sanders.Nigelb said:
No, he's likely to deny Biden the win in Iowa, leaving Sanders to take the laurel both there and NH. Given his politics, it's bizarre he'd spend a billion dollars (by the end of the campaign) essentially improving Sanders chances.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
i guess there's no fool like an old, megarich fool.
For the record, I think Sanders should be no more than a 35-40% chance to win Iowa. All the polls point to a very, very close race, and I question how many second choices he gets.
But agreed, it could be very close - which is why improving Sanders chances at the margin is not a good idea.
Indeed, I'd reckon that Buttigieg is probably the biggest beneficiary of Bloomberg voters needing to find new homes.0 -
If you voted for them, you are responsible for them being in the European Parliament and their antics that embarrass Britain.Philip_Thompson said:
They were the protest of choice. Anyone who thought they were a credible party was just fooling themselves.AlastairMeeks said:
I particularly enjoyed last night’s wafting away of the Brexit party in the European Parliament as a fringe. They were the party of choice of Leavers just 8 months ago.Theuniondivvie said:A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=20
I held no love for them, I despise Farage, but I voted for them purely to send a protest message to get Theresa May out and ensure the MPs next time put forward a more suitable candidate than May.
The message got through. May went and was replaced by Boris. Job done. The Brexit Party's job was done at that point.0 -
He's said he'll still spend money to back the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.Nigelb said:
Which he ought to have confined himself to doing.rcs1000 said:
+1Pulpstar said:
No, I'm talking nationally. I can't see ANY sort of crossover appeal between Sanders and Bloomberg whatsoever, Bloomberg is simply removing Biden and to a lesser extent Warren/Buttigieg votes.No_Offence_Alan said:
On the contrary, Bloomberg will go all the way to Convention as king maker and back Biden. Or are you just talking about Iowa?Pulpstar said:Bloomberg won't win I think, but he might just prevent Biden from beating Sanders.
The delegates Bloomberg might win won't make up for the delegates he's removing from Biden in particular - below 15% the Democrat nomination is a stepwise process.
In addition I think his entrance to the race has boosted Sanders as he kind of makes the point about Billionaires and so forth better than a Sanders ad ever could.
(That being said, Bloomberg really gets under Trump's skin, which I enjoy.)
Had he not actually run, and just gone ahead with his plan to spend money to help get Trump out, he'd be a hero to half of America. As it is....0 -
" (And Florida, which I tagged as safely Republican, is about to see a 25% increase in it's black voting population...)"rcs1000 said:
I genuinely don't know.kinabalu said:
No. It's the opposite. He's not only losing (to whoever) but losing big.Mysticrose said:As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Whenever I see this bleak uttering from you I will be moved to reply in this vein.
I can muster arguments for everything from a comfortable Trump win, to an easy Democratic one.
Trump is relatively unpopular. I think his net approval is worse than all but one other President at this stage.
But then again, the Democrats might well pick someone equally voter repellant.
The economy is slowing, and much of the rust belt is probably in recession.
But the last three years, thanks to some aggressive fiscal easing, have generally been good economically for the US. And polls suggest Donald Trump is well regarded for his handling of the economy.
There is a continual whiff of scandal around the adminstration. Not enough to shake the base, obviously. But perhaps enough to cause a few moderate Republicans to stay at home.
But the same was true of the Clinton adminstration. Voters are often very forgiving if they think you are on their side.
My guess is that we'll see relatively few states change hands. I think the traditional bellwethers of Ohio and Florida are now solidly Republican. Other than Virginia, and maybe Nevada, I can't see any of the existing Democratic states flipping.
The Republicans, though, need to defend Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Iowa. If African American turnout is up sharply, they might struggle in North Carolina too. (And Florida, which I tagged as safely Republican, is about to see a 25% increase in it's black voting population...)
So I don't know.
Why is that? A court ruling perhaps?0 -
He's also anti-gun and pro doing something about Climate Change. I'd be happy to see him succeed in getting rid of Trump and even becoming President.kinabalu said:
It confers almost unimaginable power on an individual, doesn't it, being a billionaire? Which can be used for good or ill. In this case, with the mission being to rid us of Trump, it can be deemed benign.RobD said:Reading that NBC article, Bloomberg has spent a quarter of a billion dollars on adverts.
Erm. OK.1 -
“Shame” is a better word than “embarrass”. IMHO.AlastairMeeks said:
If you voted for them, you are responsible for them being in the European Parliament and their antics that embarrass Britain.Philip_Thompson said:
They were the protest of choice. Anyone who thought they were a credible party was just fooling themselves.AlastairMeeks said:
I particularly enjoyed last night’s wafting away of the Brexit party in the European Parliament as a fringe. They were the party of choice of Leavers just 8 months ago.Theuniondivvie said:A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=20
I held no love for them, I despise Farage, but I voted for them purely to send a protest message to get Theresa May out and ensure the MPs next time put forward a more suitable candidate than May.
The message got through. May went and was replaced by Boris. Job done. The Brexit Party's job was done at that point.0 -
The bettors on here wouldn't be. Between myself, @Quincel, @rcs1000 and Meeks there's probably enough to buy a new motor in with our collective liabilities.logical_song said:
He's also anti-gun and pro doing something about Climate Change. I'd be happy to see him succeed in getting rid of Trump and even becoming President.0 -
Is Trump stronger or weaker than 2016? Probably stronger.
Are the Democrats stronger or weaker than 2016? Probably weaker (unless they find a star)
So I'm reckoning on another 4 glorious years.0 -
Farage is a prat and I despise him but he's been a toxic stain on this nation for a dozen years already.AlastairMeeks said:
If you voted for them, you are responsible for them being in the European Parliament and their antics that embarrass Britain.Philip_Thompson said:
They were the protest of choice. Anyone who thought they were a credible party was just fooling themselves.AlastairMeeks said:
I particularly enjoyed last night’s wafting away of the Brexit party in the European Parliament as a fringe. They were the party of choice of Leavers just 8 months ago.Theuniondivvie said:A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=20
I held no love for them, I despise Farage, but I voted for them purely to send a protest message to get Theresa May out and ensure the MPs next time put forward a more suitable candidate than May.
The message got through. May went and was replaced by Boris. Job done. The Brexit Party's job was done at that point.
I'd rather think I am responsible for ensuring that as of tomorrow he is redundant and can fade away into history. He would have remained in Brussels without my vote anyway, he got there for the prior elections without it, but my vote helped ensure that as of tomorrow he is gone and will not be missed.
Had I and those like me voted for May there's every chance Farage would never have left the European Parliament.0 -
Well, what a surprise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bmw-mini-exclusive/exclusive-bmw-delays-next-generation-mini-due-to-brexit-uncertainty-costs-idUSKBN1ZU2DD?il=0
BMW (BMWG.DE) has delayed the development of its next generation Mini as it seeks to cut costs and as uncertainty over Britain’s trade relations with the European Union make long-term investment decisions harder.0 -
@rcs1000
Thanks for the useful summary of thoughts. And of course I don't know either. I also know that you guys don't do it this way - you're data driven - but I am intuiting my way into the head of an American who is neither a partisan Republican nor one of Trump's dreaded "base", and who voted for him queasily in 2016, maybe disliking HRC, maybe rather intrigued and entertained by him despite their better instincts, hoping that he would prove OK in office.
So, I'm in there now - in that head - and I'm getting close to breaking point. I keep making allowances for him but I know - deep down I know - that this is a joke and a sick one at that, that this guy is unfit to be my president on just about every level, that to most of the world he is a figure of fun, at best, and I'm about to flip. Perhaps I don't even know it yet but come November, come the day. I'm either voting Dem or, if I can't stomach the Dem candidate, I'm staying at home.
It's a "dam breaking" kind of thing, seemingly sudden when it happens but a long time brewing, which if it does happen with a sufficient number of people like "me" - and it does not have to be that large to be sufficient - will deal him a crushing loss. That's my call and I'm hoping for EC supremacy markets coming out with the consensus assumption that it will be a tight race, so that I can sell him and clean up.0 -
You do not make people redundant by turning into them. The Tories should have taken on Farage rather than wearing his clothes. Oh well. Too late now.Philip_Thompson said:
Farage is a prat and I despise him but he's been a toxic stain on this nation for a dozen years already.AlastairMeeks said:
If you voted for them, you are responsible for them being in the European Parliament and their antics that embarrass Britain.Philip_Thompson said:
They were the protest of choice. Anyone who thought they were a credible party was just fooling themselves.AlastairMeeks said:
I particularly enjoyed last night’s wafting away of the Brexit party in the European Parliament as a fringe. They were the party of choice of Leavers just 8 months ago.Theuniondivvie said:A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=20
I held no love for them, I despise Farage, but I voted for them purely to send a protest message to get Theresa May out and ensure the MPs next time put forward a more suitable candidate than May.
The message got through. May went and was replaced by Boris. Job done. The Brexit Party's job was done at that point.
I'd rather think I am responsible for ensuring that as of tomorrow he is redundant and can fade away into history. He would have remained in Brussels without my vote anyway, he got there for the prior elections without it, but my vote helped ensure that as of tomorrow he is gone and will not be missed.
Had I and those like me voted for May there's every chance Farage would never have left the European Parliament.
0 -
There are only really two realistic pick up chances for the Republicans this time around: Virginia and Nevada. (Unless Sanders is the nominee, of course, in which case New Hampshire and a whole bunch of other states come into play.)Mysticrose said:
Yeah but Reagan had a lot of domestic problems going into 1980. Trump's in a stronger position. And never mind 'net approval.' It's all about polling against your opponent, where Trump will win hands down.rcs1000 said:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromoMysticrose said:
As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.MarqueeMark said:
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Reagan net approval at this point +17
Trump net approval -9
Unemployment is rising in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. All states Trump won by small margins.
That being said, I think the Libertarian candidate (oh please be John McAfee) will do much less well this time around, which probably adds two percentage points to Trump's share.
Weeks before the election, Reagan trailed Carter in most polls. In the Gallup poll on October 26, Jimmy Carter was at 47 percent and Ronald Reagan at 39 percent.
Trump's going to win bigger in the Electoral College than last time.
Indeed, I could well imagine a situation where the Democrat and Republican vote shares are reversed, but the Democrats end up with more EC votes than in 2016.
(To demonstrate this, just do a Monte Carlo simulation on the 2016 results where you randomly jiggle the individual state results by a percent or two either way, while keeping the national vote shares the same. You'll find that the actual result is nowhere near the center point. Trump was extremely lucky to win a bunch of states by tiny margins.)0 -
Northern Ireland Update :
Hopefully it passes.0 -
Gods I hope not. But it is a scenario where I think the classic faux concern about how opponents handle things (eg remainers) would actually be true - there's a lot of media and celebrity figures who have become utterly obsessed in their coverage of Trump and how awful he is, and if the american electoral system were to return Trump to the White House once again, I think some people may just explode.DavidL said:Oh Lordie, 4 more years of Trump.
0 -
They're not wearing his clothes. They're not banging on about migrants bringing AIDS into this country, or ensuring women clean behind the fridge or any of the other bullshit he was happy to be associated with.Jonathan said:
You do not make people redundant by turning into them. The Tories should have taken on Farage rather than wearing his clothes. Oh well. Too late now.Philip_Thompson said:
Farage is a prat and I despise him but he's been a toxic stain on this nation for a dozen years already.AlastairMeeks said:
If you voted for them, you are responsible for them being in the European Parliament and their antics that embarrass Britain.Philip_Thompson said:
They were the protest of choice. Anyone who thought they were a credible party was just fooling themselves.AlastairMeeks said:
I particularly enjoyed last night’s wafting away of the Brexit party in the European Parliament as a fringe. They were the party of choice of Leavers just 8 months ago.Theuniondivvie said:A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=20
I held no love for them, I despise Farage, but I voted for them purely to send a protest message to get Theresa May out and ensure the MPs next time put forward a more suitable candidate than May.
The message got through. May went and was replaced by Boris. Job done. The Brexit Party's job was done at that point.
I'd rather think I am responsible for ensuring that as of tomorrow he is redundant and can fade away into history. He would have remained in Brussels without my vote anyway, he got there for the prior elections without it, but my vote helped ensure that as of tomorrow he is gone and will not be missed.
Had I and those like me voted for May there's every chance Farage would never have left the European Parliament.
Goodbye and good riddance Farage. I for one will not miss him.0 -
Ex-felons, which is a staggering 25% of Florida's black population, were previously not allowed to vote. There was a state referendum, and now they can.logical_song said:
" (And Florida, which I tagged as safely Republican, is about to see a 25% increase in it's black voting population...)"rcs1000 said:
I genuinely don't know.kinabalu said:
No. It's the opposite. He's not only losing (to whoever) but losing big.Mysticrose said:As I keep saying, Trump is a shoo-in.
I can't remember a more dead cert re-election except perhaps Ronald Reagan although Reagan was in more trouble than Trump at this stage.
Whenever I see this bleak uttering from you I will be moved to reply in this vein.
I can muster arguments for everything from a comfortable Trump win, to an easy Democratic one.
Trump is relatively unpopular. I think his net approval is worse than all but one other President at this stage.
But then again, the Democrats might well pick someone equally voter repellant.
The economy is slowing, and much of the rust belt is probably in recession.
But the last three years, thanks to some aggressive fiscal easing, have generally been good economically for the US. And polls suggest Donald Trump is well regarded for his handling of the economy.
There is a continual whiff of scandal around the adminstration. Not enough to shake the base, obviously. But perhaps enough to cause a few moderate Republicans to stay at home.
But the same was true of the Clinton adminstration. Voters are often very forgiving if they think you are on their side.
My guess is that we'll see relatively few states change hands. I think the traditional bellwethers of Ohio and Florida are now solidly Republican. Other than Virginia, and maybe Nevada, I can't see any of the existing Democratic states flipping.
The Republicans, though, need to defend Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Iowa. If African American turnout is up sharply, they might struggle in North Carolina too. (And Florida, which I tagged as safely Republican, is about to see a 25% increase in it's black voting population...)
So I don't know.
Why is that? A court ruling perhaps?0 -
I disagree completely, no matter how humble the opinion. Shame is a word people really over use, and encourages the idea that everday people should feel really deeply about actions of others they may have nothing to do with or even abhor, because there is some overall stain on them by their association with their own country, and that if someone does not feel it so deeply they are in the wrong. Embarrassment leading to action to address that embarrassment is sufficient.Cyclefree said:
“Shame” is a better word than “embarrass”. IMHO.AlastairMeeks said:
If you voted for them, you are responsible for them being in the European Parliament and their antics that embarrass Britain.Philip_Thompson said:
They were the protest of choice. Anyone who thought they were a credible party was just fooling themselves.AlastairMeeks said:
I particularly enjoyed last night’s wafting away of the Brexit party in the European Parliament as a fringe. They were the party of choice of Leavers just 8 months ago.Theuniondivvie said:A rotten apple spoiling the barrel of good natured celebration, nae doot.
https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1223282469413232645?s=20
I held no love for them, I despise Farage, but I voted for them purely to send a protest message to get Theresa May out and ensure the MPs next time put forward a more suitable candidate than May.
The message got through. May went and was replaced by Boris. Job done. The Brexit Party's job was done at that point.0 -
I tried again to get through the first series and couldn't, and I'm a monarchist for goodness sake. My overriding impression was just of Prince Phillip whining all the time.Cyclefree said:
Thank God for that! Series 3 has been nowhere as good as the first 2 series. Like @Mysticrose I though Olivia Coleman was not very good in it - miscast IMO.TheScreamingEagles said:Boo, The Crown will end after the fifth season.
https://twitter.com/thecrownnetflix/status/1223262356496699394?s=210 -
And if you believe that you'll believe anything.Richard_Nabavi said:Well, what a surprise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bmw-mini-exclusive/exclusive-bmw-delays-next-generation-mini-due-to-brexit-uncertainty-costs-idUSKBN1ZU2DD?il=0
BMW (BMWG.DE) has delayed the development of its next generation Mini as it seeks to cut costs and as uncertainty over Britain’s trade relations with the European Union make long-term investment decisions harder.
Car manufacturers don't have a clue at the minute how to deal with the massive transformations in their industry with regards to electric vehicles . . . and it doesn't help that politicians are still hesitating about whether or when to ban petrol and diesel engines . . . so companies investing in electric vehicles are going ahead like yesterday's news of major investment, while traditional companies are pausing before committing themselves.
Its got nothing to do with Brexit but that's a handy excuse to wait and see rather than "we don't know how to deal with our own industry at the minute".0 -
That quote rather sums up far too many people as desperate to have nothing to do with anything serious and substantive, lest they get any blame for it. I feel like she and Corbyn would get along well in that regard.Theuniondivvie said:What's that saying about hoors, power and responsibility?
https://twitter.com/TheNewEuropean/status/1223170197823139841?s=200 -
As an aside, I want Trump to win this year.
Because it's important that he -rather than his successor- is in charge when the hangover from the Trump tax & spend kicks in. (Trump's fiscal policies are probably even looser than Jeremy corbyn's)0 -
There's a great 538 piece on the Iowa caucuses: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-iowa-caucuses-are-in-4-days-almost-anything-could-still-ha0
-
The fact the F56 mini's life has been extended isn't news. The original plan was to use a Toyota platform for the next version (as BMW don't have a platform small enough) and that fell through about 2 years ago.Richard_Nabavi said:Well, what a surprise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bmw-mini-exclusive/exclusive-bmw-delays-next-generation-mini-due-to-brexit-uncertainty-costs-idUSKBN1ZU2DD?il=0
BMW (BMWG.DE) has delayed the development of its next generation Mini as it seeks to cut costs and as uncertainty over Britain’s trade relations with the European Union make long-term investment decisions harder.
The model was supposed to be replaced in 2022 and it's now due to continue to 2024 (or beyond depending on the take up of electric ).1 -
Yeah, yeah, of course. Uncertaintly, possible tariffs, and disruptions to the supply chain have zero impact on multi-year investment plans. And we most certainly shouldn't listen to the people actually making the decisions. Yeah, right.Philip_Thompson said:
And if you believe that you'll believe anything.Richard_Nabavi said:Well, what a surprise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bmw-mini-exclusive/exclusive-bmw-delays-next-generation-mini-due-to-brexit-uncertainty-costs-idUSKBN1ZU2DD?il=0
BMW (BMWG.DE) has delayed the development of its next generation Mini as it seeks to cut costs and as uncertainty over Britain’s trade relations with the European Union make long-term investment decisions harder.
Car manufacturers don't have a clue at the minute how to deal with the massive transformations in their industry with regards to electric vehicles . . . and it doesn't help that politicians are still hesitating about whether or when to ban petrol and diesel engines . . . so companies investing in electric vehicles are going ahead like yesterday's news of major investment, while traditional companies are pausing before committing themselves.
Its got nothing to do with Brexit but that's a handy excuse to wait and see rather than "we don't know how to deal with our own industry at the minute".
0 -
Just look at the evidence. Companies investing in electric vehicles are going ahead in or out of Britain. Companies investing in internal combustion engines are hesitating in and out of Britain.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, yeah, of course. Uncertaintly, possible tariffs, and disruptions to the supply chain have zero impact on multi-year investment plans. And we most certainly shouldn't listen to the people actually making the decisions. Yeah, right.Philip_Thompson said:
And if you believe that you'll believe anything.Richard_Nabavi said:Well, what a surprise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bmw-mini-exclusive/exclusive-bmw-delays-next-generation-mini-due-to-brexit-uncertainty-costs-idUSKBN1ZU2DD?il=0
BMW (BMWG.DE) has delayed the development of its next generation Mini as it seeks to cut costs and as uncertainty over Britain’s trade relations with the European Union make long-term investment decisions harder.
Car manufacturers don't have a clue at the minute how to deal with the massive transformations in their industry with regards to electric vehicles . . . and it doesn't help that politicians are still hesitating about whether or when to ban petrol and diesel engines . . . so companies investing in electric vehicles are going ahead like yesterday's news of major investment, while traditional companies are pausing before committing themselves.
Its got nothing to do with Brexit but that's a handy excuse to wait and see rather than "we don't know how to deal with our own industry at the minute".
Brexit is a convenient excuse to justify hesitation in this nation, but the hesitation is occuring across the continent.0 -
Belfast councillors passing a caged animal motion has put a rather evening-spoiling image in my head.TheGreenMachine said:Northern Ireland Update :
Hopefully it passes.1 -
I remember when Brexiteers and Eurosceptics used to enjoy blaming the EU for any passing trouble.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, yeah, of course. Uncertaintly, possible tariffs, and disruptions to the supply chain have zero impact on multi-year investment plans. And we most certainly shouldn't listen to the people actually making the decisions. Yeah, right.Philip_Thompson said:
And if you believe that you'll believe anything.Richard_Nabavi said:Well, what a surprise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bmw-mini-exclusive/exclusive-bmw-delays-next-generation-mini-due-to-brexit-uncertainty-costs-idUSKBN1ZU2DD?il=0
BMW (BMWG.DE) has delayed the development of its next generation Mini as it seeks to cut costs and as uncertainty over Britain’s trade relations with the European Union make long-term investment decisions harder.
Car manufacturers don't have a clue at the minute how to deal with the massive transformations in their industry with regards to electric vehicles . . . and it doesn't help that politicians are still hesitating about whether or when to ban petrol and diesel engines . . . so companies investing in electric vehicles are going ahead like yesterday's news of major investment, while traditional companies are pausing before committing themselves.
Its got nothing to do with Brexit but that's a handy excuse to wait and see rather than "we don't know how to deal with our own industry at the minute".0 -
Not me.Jonathan said:
I remember when Brexiteers and Eurosceptics used to enjoy blaming the EU for any passing trouble.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, yeah, of course. Uncertaintly, possible tariffs, and disruptions to the supply chain have zero impact on multi-year investment plans. And we most certainly shouldn't listen to the people actually making the decisions. Yeah, right.Philip_Thompson said:
And if you believe that you'll believe anything.Richard_Nabavi said:Well, what a surprise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bmw-mini-exclusive/exclusive-bmw-delays-next-generation-mini-due-to-brexit-uncertainty-costs-idUSKBN1ZU2DD?il=0
BMW (BMWG.DE) has delayed the development of its next generation Mini as it seeks to cut costs and as uncertainty over Britain’s trade relations with the European Union make long-term investment decisions harder.
Car manufacturers don't have a clue at the minute how to deal with the massive transformations in their industry with regards to electric vehicles . . . and it doesn't help that politicians are still hesitating about whether or when to ban petrol and diesel engines . . . so companies investing in electric vehicles are going ahead like yesterday's news of major investment, while traditional companies are pausing before committing themselves.
Its got nothing to do with Brexit but that's a handy excuse to wait and see rather than "we don't know how to deal with our own industry at the minute".0 -
Or you can do a bit of research and see how BMW messed up the options they had for replacing the model - as I stated below they don't have a suitable platform on which to build a 3 door Mini (and I'm sure this news is at least 2 or more years old).Richard_Nabavi said:
Yeah, yeah, of course. Uncertaintly, possible tariffs, and disruptions to the supply chain have zero impact on multi-year investment plans. And we most certainly shouldn't listen to the people actually making the decisions. Yeah, right.Philip_Thompson said:
And if you believe that you'll believe anything.Richard_Nabavi said:Well, what a surprise:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bmw-mini-exclusive/exclusive-bmw-delays-next-generation-mini-due-to-brexit-uncertainty-costs-idUSKBN1ZU2DD?il=0
BMW (BMWG.DE) has delayed the development of its next generation Mini as it seeks to cut costs and as uncertainty over Britain’s trade relations with the European Union make long-term investment decisions harder.
Car manufacturers don't have a clue at the minute how to deal with the massive transformations in their industry with regards to electric vehicles . . . and it doesn't help that politicians are still hesitating about whether or when to ban petrol and diesel engines . . . so companies investing in electric vehicles are going ahead like yesterday's news of major investment, while traditional companies are pausing before committing themselves.
Its got nothing to do with Brexit but that's a handy excuse to wait and see rather than "we don't know how to deal with our own industry at the minute".0
