politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you are betting on the Iowa caucuses be warned – Betfair co
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you are betting on the Iowa caucuses be warned – Betfair could be paying out on a different winner than Ladbrokes
We all know that tonight’s Iowa caucuses are a unique form of election and are highly complicated. That perception could be even more the case tonight when it comes to working out the winner.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Anyone in 2020 preferring to see the candidature of Sanders over the ejection of Trump should be ashamed of themselves.
Considering we have multiple world leading universities and punch well above our weight with scientific research, technology and Nobel Laureates etc while the EU lacks even having any leading universities I see little reason for us to subcontract out to an inferior foreign entity our scientific programs.
We can and should cooperate globally but the cold reality of that is that until the EU develops we may end up cooperating more across the Atlantic.
By coincidence, my browser is open at Nature's (our leading scientific research journal) 2019 tables, which show that for Natural Sciences research in 2018, Britain came fourth behind the United States, China, and, erm, Germany.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01921-0
For physical sciences, the only European institutions at the top are in France, Germany and Switzerland. (Though if Oxford and Cambridge were to merge, or the University of London to report as one institution, things might be different.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01920-1
So while we Brits punch above our weight, it is not as if the Continentals are back in the Stone Age. Pb used to have a very wise poster called @SeanT who never comes here any more, but used to warn against Osborne's cuts while China was throwing money at anyone with a white coat and bunsen burner. He may have had a point.
And the Dems really need to win this election as I'm not sure Bader Ginsburg can hang on for another 5 years.
There's a lot of feeling here that the mainstream "moderate" politicians of either party have failed to make any difference. That's why Trump won, and it's why, when Trump's failure is clear as the economy weakens, Sanders or Warren can win as well.
For the record, when the New York primary swings round at the end of April I will be voting for whichever of Sanders or Warren appears to be best placed, and if neither is clearly ahead, I will vote for Sanders.
(see, e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01566-z )
I don't have the figures to hand, but the above goes up to 2019, I think, so incorporates a possible dip -I don't know whether there are figures on that, but a general concensus in my field that it has happened - in applications/approved applications since 2016.
Lots of us, including me, feel that Sanders has exploitable issues that Trump will seize on. But there's a view that Trump will launch a barrage against anyone and robust resilience to it is what matters. On that count Sanders may score quite well.
EDIT: This is fundamentally un-British behaviour. Fair play to the Mail and Telegraph for walking out in solidarity.
https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1224345957409656839
Believing Sanders is the solution to that is like believing drinking absinthe will sober you up.
I suspect that in practice most of them will in the end vote for whoever is opposing Trump. Time is a great healer, and they'll have had several months to process.
On the chance that they don't: I wonder whether we'll experience a similar phenomenon here if (as expected) Starmer beats out RLB to the Labour leadership? I would guess not, but it would be very funny. The campaign doesn't seem to have gotten anywhere near nasty enough for this to be plausible, but a) there's still a long way to go and b) I'm unclear that that's the driver in the US either.
Also, who were the "people in power" who wanted us to leave the EU? Cos it certainly doesn't include Boris Johnson. I'm struggling with the notion that Dominic Cummings invented the Leave campaign solely or primarily to damage the left wing media apparatus by keeping them out the loop on major stories.
No chance I renew my membership in May.
https://order-order.com/2020/02/03/lobby-stages-walkout-number-10-briefing/
I did see that he'd had a bust up with the lobby over live tweeting, which he won.
That could be the future with Mexicanlagervirus.
Those who only get their news from him will get their prejudices re-enforced but that's the point, isn't it? You don't go to Guido for objective reporting.
The day Guido turns on Boris will be significant.
https://tinyurl.com/zn9uads
A vote to leave would cause a profound economic shock creating instability and uncertainty which would be compounded by the complex and interdependent negotiations that would follow. The central conclusion of the analysis is that the effect of this profound shock would be to push the UK into recession and lead to a sharp rise in unemployment.
Two scenarios have been modelled to provide analysis of the adverse impact on the economy: a ‘shock’ to the economy, and a ‘severe shock’.
In the ‘shock’ scenario, a vote to leave would result in a recession, a spike in inflation and a rise in unemployment. After two years, the analysis shows that GDP would be around 3.6% lower in the shock scenario compared with a vote to remain. In this scenario, the fall in the value of the pound would be around 12%, and unemployment would increase by around 500,000, with all regions experiencing a rise in the number of people out of work.
In the ‘severe shock’ scenario, the rise in uncertainty, the effect on financial conditions and the transition effects are larger. The analysis shows that after two years the level of GDP would be 6% lower, the fall in the value of the pound would be 15% and unemployment would increase by around 800,000.
[A No 10 source] pointed out that the Guardian was invited to today’s briefing, as well as the Times, the BBC, ITV and Sky. He also said that there were selective lobby briefings when Theresa May was PM.
In fact, the practice goes back much further than that. Years ago I wrote a history of the lobby, and this was even happening in the 1960s, when the term “white commonwealth” was used to describe those journalists favoured by Harold Wilson who were given special access during his premiership.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/feb/03/brexit-news-boris--johnson-speech-barnier-cabinet-ministers-claims-uk-does-not-need-trade-deal-with-eu-ahead-of-pms-speech-live-news
Many in the Tory party haven’t forgiven him for the disgusting homophobic smears against William Hague when William & Ffion we’re going through a bad time trying to start a family.
Only Trump and pro-Trump PACs were advertising in Wisconsin
Only Clinton and pro-Clinton PACs were advertising in California
In the final weeks of the campaign Clinton went campaigning in California. She did not visit Wisconsin.
Trump won Wisconsin's 10 electoral college votes by 0.77%. California was not close.
Why does no-one produce a browser which simply blocks all animations, without a single exception, unless you explicitly authorise them? That way you wouldn't need to bother with ad-blockers.
https://twitter.com/matthewbennett/status/1224344633796329474
I suspect there is a cadre of bloggers and commentators who may believe they now own the soul of the Conservative Party and can make or break a leader, whether Prime Minister or not.
They may even believe they brought down May and perhaps Cameron too.
She chose to do repeated visits in the final weeks to California while never visiting Wisconsin.
As you said only an idiot would do that. She did that.
The egos of journalists need to be kept in control as a big ego can easily result in poor reporting.
Edit: burn, not dump.
Over to PPrune we go.
I wonder how much Boris's speech today compared with this:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/full-text-boris-johnsons-brexit-speech/
I thought it was today's speech - perhaps it is.
There is precisely no counter argument. No challenge that the argument on ‘system racism’ may be overblown. No evidence of that very serious charge given. No explanation included of the rationale for the decisions over the nominations or the awards from BAFTA themselves. No positive suggestions of how they might be changed. Not even (and it’s not a line of criticism I like) pointing out of the hypocrisy in that he himself accepted an award, and is White, It’s a lot of rhetoric, and grandstanding waffle.
And this seems to be par for the course for BBC journalism these days.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51355206
Twitter is not news and its not representative.
They knew they were in trouble in the rust belt and deliberately chose not to campaign there. It wasn't accidentally leaving them out, it was deliberate strategy.
http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/television-committee
http://www.bafta.org/about/key-personnel/film-committee
They both have BAME representation, including Noel Clarke who wrote Kidulthood, and the television one is overwhelmingly female.
Do we think (just possibly) that rather than being all ghastly racists there is something else going on? Like, this year the best nominees won??
ETA my own pet peeve for 20 or more years is the BBC taking its lead from the American news channels, especially overnight and at weekends when more senior staff have gone home, meaning American domestic stories are given far too much prominence.
Hilary's Campaign staff were seemingly obsessed with proving that Obama had won in the 'wrong' way. They were obsessed with projecting strength, thus the trips to Arizona and the like. I read the strength and assumed Clinton was a lock so did not green out my position.
So furious with them.
[1] Yes I know you don't believe so @rcs1000 , but run with me for a minute...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0blmn5l/clips
Of course, we know the answer: it’s much easier for BBC online journalists to churn out content inside an hour or two based on Twitter accounts they already follow, and have sympathy with.
It might be easier, but it reinforces the bubble and pisses off people outside it.
There are valid reasons for encouraging people but it does risk lesser quality content being promoted over better items.
Political chaos theory in practise.
Didn't apply to Spain and Portugal, of course.
However, rather than talk about any of that some Hollywood actors like to collect their award and throw around accusations of racism at others. It really pisses me off.
Quite aside from the sheer nerve, hypocrisy and pomposity it ends up fuelling and reinforcing racial divisions, on both side, rather than breaking them down, which is unhealthy at best for the rest of us and downright dangerous at worst.
If race is to become irrelevant in awards then we need to get past cultural appropriation and all that nonsense and just train up very good directors, actors and actresses who are able to put themselves to and perform in any role.
That means being so good that they make people forget what colour or race they are at all in their performances, which matters for front stage nominees, and doesn’t matter at all for back stage ones.
She actively suppressed her own GOTV then was horrified that she lost. Its the worst political strategy I've ever seen.
The link below has some good discussions of Spanish flu, and pandemics more generally (if you filter out the insurance-specific considerations).
https://media.swissre.com/documents/pandemic_influenza_a_21st_century_model_en.pdf
Also does anyone have a good link to follow the results, video or text is good.
Thanks in advance