politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to New Hampshire – the first full primary
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And so to New Hampshire – the first full primary
It should be just after midnight in the UK when we will start to get information on how this crucial election is going. One of the best place to look is the New York Times which will be keeping an up to data record of the voting throughout the night.
Comments
-
Where Biden's career goes to die.....0
-
First like Buttigieg0
-
FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself
"
HOW Manet?2 -
Two prosecutors involved in indicting Roger Stone, the flamboyant self-described fixer to Donald Trump, have withdrawn from his criminal case after the president broke protocol and spoke out against a possible lengthy prison term for the former aide.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/11/trump-roger-stone-sentencing-reaction-criticism0 -
I'm feeling so chuffed at myself for laying Biden for the nomination.0
-
It wasn't about the Monet either...MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself "
HOW Manet?0 -
Just two hours until the first polls close...0
-
I am sure this will go down well among the rank and file at the Beeb...
Your fired, your fired, your fired....I'm off to get £12k for half hours work, c yah.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7992449/Senior-BBC-manager-apologises-accepting-12-000-appearance-fee-speak-hedge-fund-managers.html0 -
Are we really expecting anything other than a Bernie win?rcs1000 said:Just two hours until the first polls close...
0 -
Going once, going twice, Gauguin...MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself "
HOW Manet?1 -
I'f I had my caucus money back yet I would have rolled it into Bernie.... Anyone know what Betfair are likely to do about Iowa?0
-
I'm shocked, always thought he was one of PB's lowes Turners. (yes I did steal that from Two Ronnies)squareroot2 said:
It wasn't about the Monet either...MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself "
HOW Manet?0 -
I'm going to bed, rather than Biden my time.
If I wake up for a pee in the night curiousity may get the better of me.
Enjoy!0 -
did you do that deliberately?rottenborough said:First like Buttigieg
0 -
There's way too much ambiguity in your post.Casino_Royale said:I'm going to bed, rather than Biden my time.
If I wake up for a pee in the night curiousity may get the better of me.
Enjoy!0 -
According to @speedy2 there will never be a result, and therefore it will be voided. I think that's unlikely.MightyAlex said:I'f I had my caucus money back yet I would have rolled it into Bernie.... Anyone know what Betfair are likely to do about Iowa?
I think that the results will be certified next week, and Betfair will then payout.0 -
He's taking the Pissarro.....MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself "
HOW Manet?0 -
Ah cheers, I was hoping to see how far the Buttigieg/Bernie accumulator would go....rcs1000 said:
According to @speedy2 there will never be a result, and therefore it will be voided. I think that's unlikely.MightyAlex said:I'f I had my caucus money back yet I would have rolled it into Bernie.... Anyone know what Betfair are likely to do about Iowa?
I think that the results will be certified next week, and Betfair will then payout.0 -
Labour members have an interesting take on reality...still didn't get the memo that thinking that people who don't vote for you must be racist deplorable morons won't get you very far.
https://twitter.com/MattSingh_/status/1227000711495503878?s=200 -
FPT:
I'm sure that the Chinese government can compel ZTE to assist them on security grounds, as the US and UK governments do to their companies.rcs1000 said:Huawei is not the only Chinese telecoms equipment provider. ZTE is also a major provider. And it doesn't face the same scrutiny as Huawei, because while it may be Chinese, at least we know who owns it.
The issue with Huawei is that control and ownership is incredibly opaque.
The NCSC actually advises against using ZTE in communications infrastructure, because unlike with Huawei they do not think the security issues could be mitigated.0 -
Our boy's on a roll tonight. So far in tonight's CLP nominations, he's leading Long-Bailey by a ratio of 3:1. That's 3 to Burgon, 1 to Long-Bailey. If only he had got the nod to run for Leader, Starmer would be facing a real fight.
BTW Starmer has managed 15 so far tonight.0 -
KLOBUCHAR......TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
There's not much chance of increased economic growth in the UK until something is done to increase productivity.eadric said:fpt for foxy
One truly amazing fact: Britain has been mired in the shitshow of Brexit all year, menacing investment, spooking business, etc etc....
Yet it turns out GDP growth in 2019 was marginally HIGHER in the UK than it was in the eurozone. 1.3% over 1.2%
If we can do that in the face of the Brexit galacto-fuck, then maybe we can do some really impressive stuff when we have a strong, determined government with some pro-growth policies.
We've effectively maxed out current resources whether that is people, land or capital.
Some of the economic data coming from the eurozone is pretty horrible though.
For example in December Germany had monthly falls of 3.3% in retail sales and 3.5% in industrial production.0 -
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
0 -
Yes.FrancisUrquhart said:
Are we really expecting anything other than a Bernie win?rcs1000 said:Just two hours until the first polls close...
0 -
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.0 -
Possible.MarqueeMark said:
KLOBUCHAR......TheScreamingEagles said:
But given the total, this is Bernie's, then maybe we are in for a surprise.
0 -
-
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.0 -
The point remains and is pretty much factual.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.0 -
Well, errhhh, hmmm....squareroot2 said:
The point remains and is pretty much factual.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.0 -
The train station is very nice, mind.TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.0 -
While 23% of Germany's exports are vehicles, 27% is Capital Goods, the major purchasers of which are the developing economies of the Far East. Which is why Germany runs a trade surplus with China.eadric said:
Germany is fucked. Their economic model is based on mid-high industry and engineering which is going to be devoured by China/Asia. What happened to the German solar panel industry will now happen to cars, etcanother_richard said:
There's not much chance of increased economic growth in the UK until something is done to increase productivity.eadric said:fpt for foxy
One truly amazing fact: Britain has been mired in the shitshow of Brexit all year, menacing investment, spooking business, etc etc....
Yet it turns out GDP growth in 2019 was marginally HIGHER in the UK than it was in the eurozone. 1.3% over 1.2%
If we can do that in the face of the Brexit galacto-fuck, then maybe we can do some really impressive stuff when we have a strong, determined government with some pro-growth policies.
We've effectively maxed out current resources whether that is people, land or capital.
Some of the economic data coming from the eurozone is pretty horrible though.
For example in December Germany had monthly falls of 3.3% in retail sales and 3.5% in industrial production.
And no-one ships low-value autos around the world. It's nothing to do with tariffs, it's because vehicles are usually specc'ed to order, and that doesn't work (except for things like McLarens) if you have to wait three months for your car to arrive. (Which is why Mercedes makes their C Class in the US rather than shipping it from Germany or Eastern Europe.)0 -
FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-500 -
Germany's dependence on exports makes it very vulnerable to a slowdown in Chinese demand. The Coronavirus is not good news for the people of Munich.another_richard said:
There's not much chance of increased economic growth in the UK until something is done to increase productivity.eadric said:fpt for foxy
One truly amazing fact: Britain has been mired in the shitshow of Brexit all year, menacing investment, spooking business, etc etc....
Yet it turns out GDP growth in 2019 was marginally HIGHER in the UK than it was in the eurozone. 1.3% over 1.2%
If we can do that in the face of the Brexit galacto-fuck, then maybe we can do some really impressive stuff when we have a strong, determined government with some pro-growth policies.
We've effectively maxed out current resources whether that is people, land or capital.
Some of the economic data coming from the eurozone is pretty horrible though.
For example in December Germany had monthly falls of 3.3% in retail sales and 3.5% in industrial production.0 -
No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, they had an enquiry and everything.eadric said:0 -
If he's bought a couple of million pound paintings, that was a hell of a good day's takings at the Poundshop.....CarlottaVance said:
He's taking the Pissarro.....MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself "
HOW Manet?0 -
That's not true.rottenborough said:
As I mentioned in the last thread, it's entirely possible that the most delegates will go to the candidate who comes second in terms of vote share.
The combination of the 15% hurdle at the Congressional District Level, and the fact that the Second District will probably see around 10-20% more votes cast than the first mean that's entirely possible that Sanders wins the vote share race but Buttigieg picks up more delegates.0 -
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.0 -
returning 3 Tory MPs.TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.1 -
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,0 -
A500 is the right answer.TheScreamingEagles said:
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.0 -
A500 is the ring road, so you can get to see all the sights :-)...TheScreamingEagles said:
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.0 -
I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).dr_spyn said:
returning 3 Tory MPs.TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.0 -
Will we ever get to see the Shame of Shami?FrancisUrquhart said:
No problem with antisemitism in the Labour party, they had an enquiry and everything.eadric said:0 -
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.0 -
Your joke,Sir, is both good and original. Unfortunately, that part which is original is not good, and ......TheScreamingEagles said:
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.0 -
I think I heard this right, NBC exit poll talking about a lot more older voters compared to 2016. I thought Bernie was supposed to be getting all the kids out?
Also, far less "very liberal" voters and way more independents have turned out.0 -
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 20 -
YOU'RE shocked. Imagine living near Bolsover......FrancisUrquhart said:
I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).dr_spyn said:
returning 3 Tory MPs.TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.0 -
We'll see, although you'd think everyone would learn to not be surprised at lack of youthquakes, they seem awfully rare.FrancisUrquhart said:I think I heard this right, NBC exit poll talking about a lot more older voters compared to 2016. I thought Bernie was supposed to be getting all the kids out?
0 -
“The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!”TheScreamingEagles said:
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
Samuel Johnson0 -
deleted0
-
JFK would probably have got a second term. Ford came pretty close despite not having been elected President or VP beforehand.rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 21 -
-
First term Presidents seeking re-election, defining first term as first term that party was holding the Presidency, then Carter is the only loser since the start of the 21st century.rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
In reverse order going back to the start of the 20th Century:
Obama - Won re-election
George W Bush - Won re-election
Bill Clinton - Won re-election
Reagan - Won re-election
Carter - Lost
Nixon - Win re-election
LBJ (succeeded JFK after his death) - Won re-election
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Won re-election
FDR - Won re-election
Coolidge (succeeded Harding after his death) - Won re-election
Wilson - Won re-election
Teddy Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley after his death) - Won re-election
In summary all 12 first term Presidents sought re-election. 1/12 lost (8.3%), 11/12 won though 3 of those 11 had only become President following the death of the elected President.
George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Truman, Hoover and Taft were not first term Presidents as they succeeded prior ones from their party who had a 100% record in winning re-election1 -
Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out0 -
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 2
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.
I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.
Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.
I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.0 -
You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.Philip_Thompson said:
First term Presidents seeking re-election, defining first term as first term that party was holding the Presidency, then Carter is the only loser since the start of the 21st century.rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
In reverse order going back to the start of the 20th Century:
Obama - Won re-election
George W Bush - Won re-election
Bill Clinton - Won re-election
Reagan - Won re-election
Carter - Lost
Nixon - Win re-election
LBJ (succeeded JFK after his death) - Won re-election
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Won re-election
FDR - Won re-election
Coolidge (succeeded Harding after his death) - Won re-election
Wilson - Won re-election
Teddy Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley after his death) - Won re-election
In summary all 12 first term Presidents sought re-election. 1/12 lost (8.3%), 11/12 won though 3 of those 11 had only become President following the death of the elected President.
George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Truman, Hoover and Taft were not first term Presidents as they succeeded prior ones from their party who had a 100% record in winning re-election1 -
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out0 -
How typicalCarlottaVance said:
“The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!”TheScreamingEagles said:
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
Samuel Johnson0 -
If accurate that's v bad for Bernie.FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out0 -
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.another_richard said:
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 2
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.
I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.
Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.
I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.0 -
Although Bolsover had been demographically and politically trending away from Labour for over a decade.MarqueeMark said:
YOU'RE shocked. Imagine living near Bolsover......FrancisUrquhart said:
I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).dr_spyn said:
returning 3 Tory MPs.TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.
The real shockers were Burnley and Redcar with the Conservatives going from fourth in 2015 to first in 2019.0 -
Interestingly, Burnley and Redcar have had exactly the same electoral history since, I think, WW2.another_richard said:
Although Bolsover had been demographically and politically trending away from Labour for over a decade.MarqueeMark said:
YOU'RE shocked. Imagine living near Bolsover......FrancisUrquhart said:
I am still shocked that happened (I know the Tories had been closing the gap over a number of elections, but still).dr_spyn said:
returning 3 Tory MPs.TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
If you had told me growing up that the Tories would win Stoke, we would be calling for the men in white coats. They used to weigh the Labour vote.
The real shockers were Burnley and Redcar with the Conservatives going from fourth in 2015 to first in 2019.0 -
It isn't final exit poll (they are updating live)...perhaps all the yuff are only just waking up after partying too hard at the Bernie rock show last night.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out0 -
Why not? The Republicans held the Presidency 53-61 - so the 61 to 65 term was the first term and LBJ's re-election in 1964 was the first election after the Democrats regained the office.rcs1000 said:You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.
The Democrats first term from 1961 ended after LBJ's victory - it didn't end upon JFK's death.
Ford succeeded Nixon but Nixon had already won re-election in 1972 so it was a second term not a first term.1 -
3 of 11 after death.rcs1000 said:
You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.Philip_Thompson said:
First term Presidents seeking re-election, defining first term as first term that party was holding the Presidency, then Carter is the only loser since the start of the 21st century.rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
In reverse order going back to the start of the 20th Century:
Obama - Won re-election
George W Bush - Won re-election
Bill Clinton - Won re-election
Reagan - Won re-election
Carter - Lost
Nixon - Win re-election
LBJ (succeeded JFK after his death) - Won re-election
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Won re-election
FDR - Won re-election
Coolidge (succeeded Harding after his death) - Won re-election
Wilson - Won re-election
Teddy Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley after his death) - Won re-election
In summary all 12 first term Presidents sought re-election. 1/12 lost (8.3%), 11/12 won though 3 of those 11 had only become President following the death of the elected President.
George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Truman, Hoover and Taft were not first term Presidents as they succeeded prior ones from their party who had a 100% record in winning re-election
Sounds like death is a pretty big feature in POTUS.0 -
That's entirely possible.FrancisUrquhart said:
It isn't final exit poll (they are updating live)...perhaps all the yuff are only just waking up after partying too hard at the Bernie rock show last night.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
But I wouldn't want to bet on it unless you gave me some very attractive odds.0 -
You know more than anyone, things can change.TheScreamingEagles said:I'm feeling so chuffed at myself for laying Biden for the nomination.
0 -
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.rcs1000 said:
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.another_richard said:
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely!
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 2
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.
I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.
Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.
I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.0 -
OK, that makes sense.Philip_Thompson said:
Why not? The Republicans held the Presidency 53-61 - so the 61 to 65 term was the first term and LBJ's re-election in 1964 was the first election after the Democrats regained the office.rcs1000 said:You can't include Johnson, but exclude Ford! You either need to eliminate both or include both.
The Democrats first term from 1961 ended after LBJ's victory - it didn't end upon JFK's death.
Ford succeeded Nixon but Nixon had already won re-election in 1972 so it was a second term not a first term.0 -
I also hail from that area, well closer to Crewe. And I remember the A500 as straight, so a curious ring road?FrancisUrquhart said:
A500 is the ring road, so you can get to see all the sights :-)...TheScreamingEagles said:
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.
0 -
7,1,4.Philip_Thompson said:
First term Presidents seeking re-election, defining first term as first term that party was holding the Presidency, then Carter is the only loser since the start of the 21st century.rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
In reverse order going back to the start of the 20th Century:
Obama - Won re-election
George W Bush - Won re-election
Bill Clinton - Won re-election
Reagan - Won re-election
Carter - Lost
Nixon - Win re-election
LBJ (succeeded JFK after his death) - Won re-election
Dwight D. Eisenhower - Won re-election
FDR - Won re-election
Coolidge (succeeded Harding after his death) - Won re-election
Wilson - Won re-election
Teddy Roosevelt (succeeded McKinley after his death) - Won re-election
In summary all 12 first term Presidents sought re-election. 1/12 lost (8.3%), 11/12 won though 3 of those 11 had only become President following the death of the elected President.
George HW Bush, Gerald Ford, Truman, Hoover and Taft were not first term Presidents as they succeeded prior ones from their party who had a 100% record in winning re-election
There could be a pattern.
If trump gets in, he'll be the 5th in a row.0 -
Well its half a ring, "the D road" as its known.Balrog said:
I also hail from that area, well closer to Crewe. And I remember the A500 as straight, so a curious ring road?FrancisUrquhart said:
A500 is the ring road, so you can get to see all the sights :-)...TheScreamingEagles said:
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.0 -
Carter wasn't great.another_richard said:
I wonder if Carter was an all round crap candidate.rcs1000 said:
Yes, I'd agree with all of that.another_richard said:
But LBJ and Ford were hardly significant changes to their predecessors.rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:
Absolutely!
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 2
Likewise Bush 1 was effectively the natural continuation of the Reagan presidency.
I think its probably significant that the the only 3 term party presidency followed immediately after the only 1 term presidency with the 'natural' order then coming back.
Of course Trump is someone who disrupts all 'natural' orders.
I suspect if we had a standard Republican currently as President he would be very likely to be re-elected.
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.
Not just for his thrashing in 1980 but for only scraping a win in 1976.
After Watergate, defeat in Vietnam and the mid 70s recession it should have been a landslide win for the Democrats in 1976.0 -
Amy K sub 30 ..0
-
NBC are talking her up massively at the moment.TGOHF666 said:Amy K sub 30 ..
0 -
Interesting. I never knew why it was called the D road.FrancisUrquhart said:
Well its half a ring, "the D road" as its known.Balrog said:
I also hail from that area, well closer to Crewe. And I remember the A500 as straight, so a curious ring road?FrancisUrquhart said:
A500 is the ring road, so you can get to see all the sights :-)...TheScreamingEagles said:
You have my sympathies.FrancisUrquhart said:
Oi, I'm originally from that part of the world....TheScreamingEagles said:
To be fair would you really want to go to Stoke?FrancisUrquhart said:
Very strange how none of the massive maomentum mob managed to find a train to Stoke to help her out during the GE, despite her calling repeatedly for assistance.rottenborough said:twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1227347499461021698
I mean the place is a shit hole.
What's the best thing to come out of Stoke? The A500*.
*Apologies if it isn't the A500 but some other A road.0 -
Any more of these dreadful puns and I will send for a Constable.CarlottaVance said:
He's taking the Pissarro.....MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself "
HOW Manet?
0 -
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s but 24% ahead of him with under 35s. Biden though is 6% ahead of Buttigieg with over 65s and 7% ahead of Sanders.
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire0 -
It would be staggering if she won.FrancisUrquhart said:
NBC are talking her up massively at the moment.TGOHF666 said:Amy K sub 30 ..
Exciting staggering given I'm very long her.0 -
Ironically though he's probably America's greatest ex-President.another_richard said:rcs1000 said:
Yes, it's amazing how often you see parties take two turns. But if you look at individual Presidents, it's a little less "long cycle":another_richard said:
Yet:rcs1000 said:
I don't think it's anywhere near 90% reelection for first term Presidents. I think there's recency bias creeping in here.Philip_Thompson said:FPT
Absolutely!NickPalmer said:
Using your definitions, c is not independent of a?Philip_Thompson said:
Defining "progressive" as the set of Warren and Sanders, "moderate" as the set of every other Democrat nominee:
a: What is percentage chance that the Democrat nominee is a progressive?
b: If it is a progressive, what percentage chance that it is Warren rather than Sanders?
c: If Warren is nominee, what percentage chance that she beats Trump?
Warren's odds of winning the Presidency are a.b.c
I'd estimate a as 40%, b as 10% and c as about 25%
0.4 * 0.1 * 0.25 = 1%
I've gone with Trump @ 75% for re-election in scenario (a) because first term Presidents almost always win (over 90% in past century) and because even though Trump is "deplorable" Americans don't like socialists. I think if the Democrats go with a "progressive" then they will stick with the devil they know (who won't be able to get a third term).
If the Democrats go with a moderate OTOH I'd put it roughly 50-50
Between Eisenhower and Reagan, I think only Nixon managed to win a second term, with LBJ not contesting ('cause he'd lose), and Carter and Ford losing,
1952, 1956 Rep
1960, 1964 Dem
1968, 1972 Rep
1976 Dem
1980, 1984, 1988 Rep
1992, 1996 Dem
2000, 2004 Rep
2008, 2012 Dem
In fact you have to go back to the 19th century to find another one term Presidency for either party.
Obama - 2
W Bush - 2
Clinton - 2
Bush - 1
Reagan - 2
Carter - 1
Ford - 1
Nixon - 1 and a bit
LBJ - 1 and a bit
JFK - half
Eisenhower - 2
After all the only 1 term presidency was Carter's which finished in both economic recession and international humiliation.0 -
Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.HYUFD said:
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire0 -
Dreadful? Well there's no chance of you being crowned Duchamp.....No_Offence_Alan said:
Any more of these dreadful puns and I will send for a Constable.CarlottaVance said:
He's taking the Pissarro.....MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself "
HOW Manet?0 -
I wonder what damage all the Ukraine stuff has done to him, even if it is all heresay, it did shine a spotlight on the fact his son has earned a lot of money out of his name, kinda of like that Trump family, which can't go down well with Democrats.TGOHF666 said:
Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.HYUFD said:
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire0 -
Well, we'll find our soon enough.HYUFD said:
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s but 24% ahead of him with under 35s. Biden though is 6% ahead of Buttigieg with over 65s and 7% ahead of Sanders.
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire1 -
He's just a very bad campaigner. I've been following the race very closely.FrancisUrquhart said:
I wonder what damage all the Ukraine stuff has done to him, even if it is all heresay, it did shine a spotlight on the fact his son has earned a lot of money out of his name, kinda of like that Trump family, which can't go down well with Democrats.TGOHF666 said:
Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.HYUFD said:
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire0 -
Now you are Rubens me the wrong way....CarlottaVance said:
He's taking the Pissarro.....MarqueeMark said:FPT:
Foxy: "I bought a couple of million pound paintings myself just the other day myself "
HOW Manet?0 -
Dear god, we're not going to come out of state 2 with Bloomberg, Kloch, Buttigeg, Sanders, Warren & Biden still running are we.
Biden surely isn't leaving before SC.0 -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnV8Gp3q6_xICMbgtepU1S5mw9IXs6wY/view
From Change Research:
Among voters 65 and over, Buttigieg leads 21 to 18 over Sanders
He has a very small lead over Sanders in the 50 to 64 age group.
Sanders, though, has massive leads in the 18 to 34 group, and a pretty decent one in 35 to 49.0 -
Biden doesn't get above 13%, even among the oldest voters.rcs1000 said:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pnV8Gp3q6_xICMbgtepU1S5mw9IXs6wY/view
From Change Research:
Among voters 65 and over, Buttigieg leads 21 to 18 over Sanders
He has a very small lead over Sanders in the 50 to 64 age group.
Sanders, though, has massive leads in the 18 to 34 group, and a pretty decent one in 35 to 49.0 -
Given the 2019 UK GDP growth was mostly due to public spending increases (with a small contribution from household spending and business and trade showing no growth across the whole year), just think what the GDP growth rate would be like with Corbyn in power!eadric said:fpt for foxy
One truly amazing fact: Britain has been mired in the shitshow of Brexit all year, menacing investment, spooking business, etc etc....
Yet it turns out GDP growth in 2019 was marginally HIGHER in the UK than it was in the eurozone. 1.3% over 1.2%
If we can do that in the face of the Brexit galacto-fuck, then maybe we can do some really impressive stuff when we have a strong, determined government with some pro-growth policies.0 -
Don't disagree with that from the more casual viewing I have done.nunu2 said:
He's just a very bad campaigner. I've been following the race very closely.FrancisUrquhart said:
I wonder what damage all the Ukraine stuff has done to him, even if it is all heresay, it did shine a spotlight on the fact his son has earned a lot of money out of his name, kinda of like that Trump family, which can't go down well with Democrats.TGOHF666 said:
Biden is electoral AIDS - he’s done.HYUFD said:
No, the value is with Biden, Biden leads with New Hampshire voters over 65 with Suffolk while Buttigieg does better with under 35s than pensioners.rcs1000 said:
If that that is correct, then Buttigieg is clearly value at 5.3,FrancisUrquhart said:Just rewinded the NBC video, their exit poll.
2020
18-29 - 11% turn out
65+ - 33% turn out
2016
18-29 - 19% turn out
65+ - 18% turn out
Indeed Sanders is just 1% behind Buttigieg with over 65s
https://www.suffolk.edu/academics/research-at-suffolk/political-research-center/polls/new-hampshire
Where as I get why people get excited by Bernie, like Jezza, he has 40 years worth of honing the same patter, which unchallenged he can deliver well.0
