Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With three hours to go before the Iowa caucuses Betfair punter

12346»

Comments

  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    Foxy said:

    Not quite enough to knock out any of the top five.
    Bad for Biden, good for Mayor Pete, Bizzie Lizzie and Amy if those are correct.

    If I were Bernie I would have underplayed it
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    That would utterly screw the Tory party as the largest user of postal votes are (elderly) Tories.
    Postal voters are the true snowflakes. Demanding their voice be heard but not willing to walk down to the end of the street for the most important decision they can make.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538

    I could have predicted this response. You know full well.
    Your side isn't winning?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,518
    The advantage of our electoral system is that the risks of pursuing electoral fraud and remaining undetected almost always outweigh the potential benefits. And in the rare circumstances where it could theoretically change a Government, that Government would likely be too weak to do anything. Because, unlike Presidential FPTP our system doesn’t give near absolute power to very narrow winners.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,291

    What it does strongly suggest is that Buttigieg did very well indeed. He's 10-1 on Betfair for the nomination - I suspect that will shorten when the official results appear.

    Incidentally, I no longer think that most US voters don't think of the candidates mainly in moderate vs liberal terms. Nearly everyone interviewed on CNN (before I went to bed at 1) was doing exactly that, and voting accordingly.
    Mayor Pete put a lot into Iowa. Possibly his gamble worked. I like Amy too, but of the moderate faction Pete looks a far better candidate than Biden.
  • Agreed of all the issues in the Caucuses this must rank as a non-issue.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,795

    Who’s going to pay for it?
    It would be far cheaper to fund serious rehabilitation efforts.
    At the moment, we are effectively allowing prisons to be centres of radicalisation, which turn our individuals far more extreme than when they went in.

    (Something which is in the process of happening on a much larger scale in the ISIS detention camp in northern Syria.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,795
    Foxy said:

    Mayor Pete put a lot into Iowa. Possibly his gamble worked. I like Amy too, but of the moderate faction Pete looks a far better candidate than Biden.
    Given his recent TV appearances, I fear how bad Biden might be later on this year if he were to win the nomination.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Well at least we agree on that.
    Are you also in favour of big salaries for lawyers?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177

    Indeed. Our system rewards parties which get more votes and not those that get fewer votes.

    Rather than trying to get more votes we get poor losers whining about the voting system instead.

    Here's food for thought for any complainants - take the beam out of your own eye and figure out why voters aren't backing your party.
    I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.

    For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
  • It seems my leadership election form will continue to be poor to a statistically improbable extent.
  • How do you settle a kipper tie?
  • Alistair said:

    For the nom or Iowa?
    Nom.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538

    I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.

    For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
    When the people were asked nine years ago, they said "nah, we'll stick with FPTP".

    It's not our fault that the Labour Party didn't get behind AV.
  • I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.

    For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
    That you believe in something different does not mean our system has "serious problems" - especially when it was endorsed by an overwhelming majority recently.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,795

    I’m sorry but you guys are being deliberately obtuse. You know the counter arguments. Its fine that you support the current system but don’t pretend there are not valid arguments in the other direction.

    For what its worth I have supported PR since about 16 years of age. Being a ‘sore loser’ has nothing to do with it.
    It's the standard line - and I remember it being trotted out in the 80's.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,795

    That you believe in something different does not mean our system has "serious problems" - especially when it was endorsed by an overwhelming majority recently.
    No, an particular alternative system was rejected by an overwhelming majority.
    That is not the same thing at all.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538
    edited February 2020
    Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572
    Foxy said:

    Mayor Pete put a lot into Iowa. Possibly his gamble worked. I like Amy too, but of the moderate faction Pete looks a far better candidate than Biden.
    Until the bandwagon goes to South Carolina....where the wheels on the clown-car will again need re-attaching.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,291
    Nigelb said:

    It would be far cheaper to fund serious rehabilitation efforts.
    At the moment, we are effectively allowing prisons to be centres of radicalisation, which turn our individuals far more extreme than when they went in.

    (Something which is in the process of happening on a much larger scale in the ISIS detention camp in northern Syria.)
    If banging up people for life worked then the USA would be a crime free nirvana. Banging up the Streatham stabbed for life for downloading stuff from the internet does sound a little draconian too.

    The only senior British politician to speak sense on the subject was Douglas Hurd. An expensive way to make bad people worse.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,688
    edited February 2020
    tlg86 said:

    Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?

    It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.

    The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.

    IIRC Clegg had called AV a miserable little compromise.
  • Nigelb said:

    No, an particular alternative system was rejected by an overwhelming majority.
    That is not the same thing at all.

    Our status quo won by an overwhelming majority. It is the same thing. If a majority thought our system was broken they could have voted for change.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572
    Nigelb said:

    It's the standard line - and I remember it being trotted out in the 80's.
    As opposed to the three-year old's tantrum standard line of "IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!"?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,291

    It seems my leadership election form will continue to be poor to a statistically improbable extent.

    Not in tune with the farmers of Iowa?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538

    It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.

    The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.
    Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572

    How do you settle a kipper tie?
    Stop stirring it.....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Due to the tiny caucus sizes there is an absurdly high chance of going to coin tosses. Clinton won something like 6 coin tosses vs Sanders in 2016.
  • Dr. Foxy, their lack of wiffle sticks and F1 enthusiasm is bewildering.
  • tlg86 said:

    Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
    Because AV was as far as the Tories would go and Clegg really didn’t want to go into coalition with Labour.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,291
    In some good news though:

    https://twitter.com/seatsixtyone/status/1224579247177596928?s=09

    Amsterdam less than 6 hours away from Leicester by train, with only one change.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,964
    tlg86 said:

    Why did the Lib Dems accept AV rather than full PR? It wouldn't be because they calculated that they'd do better under AV than PR (or, at least, they'd be more likely to hold the balance of power with AV), would it?

    No. I assumed it was because it was in the Labour Party manifesto, so there was a reasonable epectation that Labour would support it. And also because the Conservatives - who were the majority partner in the coalition - insisted on it. This woud have been because AV suited them better than proper STV. AV was, of course, described at the time as a "miserable little compromise".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,572

    It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.

    The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.

    IIRC Clegg had called AV a miserable little compromise.
    Fitting. Clegg's life after politics, working for Facebook - " a miserable little compromise...."
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,538

    Because AV was as far as the Tories would go and Clegg really didn’t want to go into coalition with Labour.
    They didn't have to go into coalition with anyone.

    Anyway, turnout in 2011 was only 42% so clearly FPTP doesn't annoy that many people (even if you considered AV to still be sub-optimal).
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    tlg86 said:

    Why didn't the Lib Dems say no to AV? If you're going to go into coalition, then you need to extract a high price.
    Would've helped if either AV or STV had actually been in their manifesto.

    The better question is why on earth did they not insist on not increasing tuition fees.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    It was more that Labour offered AV and Dave (pbuh) had to match that.

    The Lib Dems wanted multi member STV.

    IIRC Clegg had called AV a miserable little compromise.
    Clegg was remarkably self-unaware. Most coalitions, which the LD’s professed to love until reality bit, are compromises.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,012
    the cat is out of the bag, you cannot put it back in...
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,333
    That Harry Dunn story keeps rumbling on. It's quite obvious they are never going send the spook/housewife back. We didn't send them that basement dwelling incel that hacked the Pentagon so fair enough, I suppose.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    That would utterly screw the Tory party as the largest user of postal votes are (elderly) Tories.
    Evidence that responsible seniors would stay at home ?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TGOHF666 said:

    Evidence that responsible seniors would stay at home ?
    That they can't be arsed getting off their arses' at the moment.
  • TGOHF666 said:

    Evidence that responsible seniors would stay at home ?
    Two decades of canvassing for the Tory party.

    They’d most likely forget when the election was supposed to be.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,678
    edited February 2020



    Seems like that, although I guess the places where Bernie has a volunteer who's on top of things skew young and/or urban, which I think would favour Mayor Pete over the other moderates.

    FWIW they claim the districts sampled are a representative sample of the state in terms of urban/rural etc. Last tkime, Sanders did much better outside the cities, presumably because (as in the UK), the non-conservatives who bother to be politically active are often more left-wing than their urban counterparts.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    Alistair said:

    Due to the tiny caucus sizes there is an absurdly high chance of going to coin tosses. Clinton won something like 6 coin tosses vs Sanders in 2016.

    Very odd, this delay. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I think it's clear what is going on here. It was looking like a big win for Bernie and the Military Industrial Complex has reacted quickly and got the fix in.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 7,012
    kinabalu said:

    Very odd, this delay. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I think it's clear what is going on here. It was looking like a big win for Bernie and the Military Industrial Complex has reacted quickly and got the fix in.
    You would have thought America would have learned from the British experience of dallying with the hard left as the Opposition....
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,033
    Endillion said:

    Would've helped if either AV or STV had actually been in their manifesto.

    The better question is why on earth did they not insist on not increasing tuition fees.
    I was amazed when you said it wasn't , so I checked. It was, please check your facts.

    "Introduce single transferrable vote system, cut number of MPs by 150 and introduce fixed-term parliaments"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8619630.stm
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825

    You would have thought America would have learned from the British experience of dallying with the hard left as the Opposition....

    Tired old thinking. It's a new era.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,302
    I thought the cat always went back in the bag after use? Or has that horse bolted out of Pandora's box?
  • NEW THREAD

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 76,795
    kinabalu said:

    Very odd, this delay. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I think it's clear what is going on here. It was looking like a big win for Bernie and the Military Industrial Complex has reacted quickly and got the fix in.
    Yeah, sure.
    As I pointed out earlier, this shiny new system is the result of Bernie's complaints about how the process was run last time around.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976

    I was amazed when you said it wasn't , so I checked. It was, please check your facts.

    "Introduce single transferrable vote system, cut number of MPs by 150 and introduce fixed-term parliaments"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8619630.stm
    You are correct. My mistake.
  • kinabalu said:

    Very odd, this delay. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories but I think it's clear what is going on here. It was looking like a big win for Bernie and the Military Industrial Complex has reacted quickly and got the fix in.
    Nurse!
  • Foxy said:

    Is @TheGreenMachine about?

    What in the Good Friday Agreement triggers a border poll on reunification of Ireland?
    We're into new decade, new approach now.

    Also, there's probably a lot of stuff the public don't find out.
This discussion has been closed.