politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some Corbyn backers still not persuaded that GE2019 was the to
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Some Corbyn backers still not persuaded that GE2019 was the total disaster for their party that it was
This seems a simple thing to do but haven’t seen it anywhere yet so here it is: Labour % vote share change between 2015 and 2019, by seat, giving the “net Corbyn effect” on the Labour share https://t.co/Ls5hW6GQGg
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Firstly, there's a strong correlation between "not paying much attention to the nomination process" and backing Biden. I think people who aren't actually going to vote, say they're going to vote Biden.
Secondly, compared to the Sanders or Buttigieg campaigns, Biden is not well organised. That's going to matter on Saturday, given the caucus format.
Thirdly, Biden is short on money, perhaps very short. This means he's not been able to match the spending of the other campaigns.
I wouldn't be surprised if Biden fails to pick up delegates again on Saturday. And while he may come second in South Carolina, I don't think that's enough.
My probability of him winning the nomination is less that 10%. Really, the only way I see him getting it is if Klobuchar and Buttigieg make the call that it's better to back an old moderate Pope than to let Sanders (or Bloomberg) in.
Ultimately it was a vote for Corbyn over Boris.
Biden has underperformed at Iowa and New Hampshire, but no-one but Bloomberg is rising above him (though he may simply fall below other candidates). Mayor Pete and Klobuchar show no sign of being viable through Super Tuesday (Warren neither, frankly). If Biden can remain viable, which he may be able to, then he will be one of three candidates standing. Maybe in third place, but that's a lot better than nothing. And the Pete/Klob voters have to go somewhere.
Which is among the reasons I voted for neither.
Will this have an affect on polling down the road?
Sanders 46 Trump 42; Bloomberg 46 Trump 42
Sanders 53 Trump 42; Bloomberg 52 Trump 43
Sanders 51 Trump 45; Bloomberg 50 Trump 45
Sanders 43 Trump 40; Bloomberg 44 Trump 38
Something, something good polls for Sanders don't count something.
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1230124574794186754
Is he crumbling or fairly stable? I'd lean to the former but honestly I don't think it's clear at the moment. And I think we should keep the latter as a possibility in mind.
Less than half of the last few polls have Bloomberg 2nd (the page is currently missing a new Morning Consult poll with Bloomberg 2nd on 20%). The trend looks bad but we can't assume where the polls are going, especially now Biden has some more fertile states before Super Tuesday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#February_2020
1983: 57% of seats for 35% of the vote
2019: 1.7% of seats for 19% of the vote
How far he'll fall isn't clear. He's not wonderful when speaking to crowds but he does have a certain frankness some people might respond to. (As in, "I'm a billionaire, I can say what I want, and that's what I've been accustomed to doing for a long, long time."
Not much time to wait, either.
https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).
The former mayor is on a blood thinner after developing atrial fibrillation in the setting of otherwise normal heart function in 2018, according to the letter. Atrial fibrillation is an irregular heartbeat. It can lead to blood clots, stroke, heart failure and other heart-related complications.
The letter notes Bloomberg takes blood thinners, beta-blockers and cholesterol medication, but does not note specific medications or dosages.
Now that would be fireworks.
I suspect Sanders will gain plenty of votes from fallen candidates and win a H2H, but it's hardly an implausible scenario.
Except it was. Any vote for a Labour candidate was, ultimately, a vote for Corbyn to become PM. That's especially so in a marginal constituency where these votes might really make the difference nationally.
Indeed, how else could the country "stop the Tories" other than by installing Corbyn in No 10?
It might well be that many votes for Labour and hence Corbyn were of a 'least-worst' variety rather than being expressions of enthusiastic support (that was my reasoning, to the opposite conclusion), but nonetheless they had exactly the same effect as those votes which were enthusiastically given.
It's also worth remembering that campaigns run on two things: votes, sure, but also money. And that second one is where Biden is really struggling. Sanders is picking up donations from hundreds of thousands of people. Buttigieg is doing only slightly worse. Klobuchar has seen an influx of cash. Steyer and Bloomberg are self financing. Biden struggled to raise money when he was the front runner, and he has to be doing even worse now. Who's the natural constituency of people to donate to his campaign? Filings show a wage bill alone of $1m/week, and that's before the myriad other costs of a campaign. He had just $9m in the bank at the end of Q4. Biden is in serious danger of running out of money.
And there's one other thing about Biden: have you ever seen a candidate who's seemed so ambivalent about running? He doesn't look like he's enjoying the campaign. Sanders thrives on the fight. Biden looks like it's all a bit of a faff.
Now, none of this means Biden can't win the nomination. If Buttigieg or Klobuchar withdraws and backs him, then he's right back in contention. And I suppose he might do better than expected in Nevada, although the caucus format favours the organised, and there's not a lot of evidence of great organsation.
So, I'm going to go for a sub 10% chance of winning the nomination - perhaps even sub 5%.
"The Delegate Selection Rules for the 2020 Democratic National Convention include two provisions regarding the binding of delegates to the candidates they supported at the time of their selection.[10]
“ No delegate at any level of the delegate selection process shall be mandated by law or Party rule to vote contrary to that person’s presidential choice as expressed at the time the delegate is elected.[12] ”
—Rule 13.I (p. 14)[10]
“ Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.[12] ”
—Rule 13.J (p. 14)[10]
Beyond this, the Delegate Selection Rules do not directly address how a candidate's withdrawal from the race before the convention affects the delegates pledged to that candidate. However, in 13 states, statutes establish provisions for the release of delegates either upon a candidate's withdrawal or after a specific number of ballots have been taken at the national convention. The table below identifies these states. In the column titled "Candidate withdrawal or release provision," a "yes" indicates that the statute allows for the release of pledged delegates either upon a candidate's withdrawal or at the explicit direction of the candidate. In the column titled "Multiple ballot provision," a "yes" indicates that the statute allows for the release of a pledged delegate after a specific number of ballots have been taken at the convention (the number in parentheses indicates the ballot on which the delegates would be released). The full text of relevant statutes and their citations are also provided."
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules,_2020
This time, none of the losers have quit.
On the other hand the 'moderates' are desperate to maintain that control and will use every tactic to undermine Sanders.
Trump is a sideshow in this battle, which to be fair is understandable; he's only got one more term (...or has he?) .
First time Buttigieg registered double digits there ?
This is a man of advancing years, who's just had a heart attack, and is involved in one of the most physically strenuous activities on the planet.
If he was sitting at home writing his memoirs, he'd probably have twenty years. But he's not. He's out in all weathers speaking, campaigning. He's probably not getting proper exercise or nutrition or sleep.
And if he did have to step down for some reason, who takes his place? It has to be Warren, I would have though.
He wouldn't be polling anything like what he currently is without those attack ads.
But the rules vary by state, I think.
I've not fully checked and it gets difficult with definitions anyway but I do think that seven reasonably serious candidates - I'm not counting Gabbard - still competing going into the first state after NH (never mind less than a fortnight before Super Tuesday) is unprecedented.
https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Biden is staring down the barrel …
Warren viscerally loathes Bloomberg's candidacy, even though she might be better off going after Sanders who is more in her "lane"
Klob - Same as Buttigieg.
& He is the absolute poster boy for Sanders billionaire message.
Bloomberg isn't a particularly compelling speaker too imo.
During or immediately after the primaries, once nominee-presumptive: perhaps Warren but we'd be in 1968 territory.
After the convention but before filing deadlines: probably the VP nominee but could be controversial if the convention was brokered.
After filing deadlines: Would have to be Sanders - even if dead - with the VP stepping up. Legal obligations on Electoral College members in enough states probably prevent any actual change of candidate.
(Also, even if he was sitting at home writing his memoirs, I doubt he'd have twenty years. He's already 78 and with a dicky ticker; he'd do very well to make his late 90s).
I'd probably have opted to go LD in Bedford for vote building.
The problem was ASSUMING those votes were enthusiastically given, and so sticking with Corbyn until 2019 (and for some still wanting to stick with him/his policies).
But early voters tend to be more enthused and committed voters. Other than @Quincel, I'm not convinced there are many enthusiastic or committed Biden voters.
The one thing that it does do is limit the effects of the debate this evening. A great night for Klobuchar or Warren or whoever won't have the same impact it might have done in New Hampshire.
My guess is that early voting favours the organised. That is probably good for Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg, all of whom have significant "on the ground" operations in Nevada.
So, I'm going to make a prediction. Warren will be Nevada's Klobuchar. She's going to outperform and make the 15% hurdle in most, maybe all, of Nevada's Congressional Districts. This probably limits Sanders to a high 20s score. I think Buttigieg will be roughly even with Warren, maybe taking second, but more likely third.
Biden will pick up some delegates, making the 15% bar in some (but not all) the CDs. He'll be fourth.
Klobuchar and Steyer will, I think, underperform and get zero delegates.
If I have red that correctly in 37 states, there is nothing written down to indicate whether or not a delegate who has been elected to support one candidate is allowed to switch to another candidate if the first candidate they were elected to support withdraws from the race.
And the national party rules are not precise ether.
Given that there is a reasonable change at the moment of this going to a contested convention, is it safe to assume that delegates in theses 37 states will be able to vote for another candidate, if/when theirs drops out? or is this potentially going to go to the courts?
Any actuaries care to chime in ?
If so does anybody know how he got on?
But both points can be true; they're not either-or.
Yes I agree that the focus on Labour vote share is irrelevant without the context provided by the share of the other parties. The fact that the Labour vote share rose 2% between 2015 and 2019 is no comfort when the Tory vote share rose by 7%. The implosion of UKIP/BXP over that period should have returned more votes to Labour, but it didn't, because some pre 2015 Labour voters went over to the Conservatives in 2019 via UKIP in 2015.
In our system, it's the gap between the Labour and Tory party vote shares that is the key metric, and in modern history only in the 1983 election has Labour trailed further behind the Tories than happened in 2019 (and 1987) when the gap was 12%. The last time before 1983 that the gap exceeded 12% was in 1924.
In context, we need also to remember that the Tories were a shambles throughout most of 2017-2019, in contrast to the formidable election machine of Cameron and Osborne of 2010-2015. Corbyn's Labour could not capitalise only because they were in an even worse state.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108013032.htm
I do wonder if the COVD 19 figures for mortality are significantly skewed because of triage. Scarce ICU beds may well go to the forty something rather than the eighty something with a heart condition.
https://twitter.com/yasnaH_/status/1230097692396748802?s=19
But those who are calmly comparing the 0.5% rate outside of China with the higher rate in Hubei seem to keep ignoring the constraints of an overwhelmed health care system.
The rest of the world is chucking everything it knows at a handful of patients. If it cannot do that anymore we will get mortality rates similar to the Hubei figures. So that's why it's so important to be extremely risk averse about this and do everything we can to keep it out for as long as possible.
Someone replied to me this morning that the NHS was uniquely well placed because of its funding system. The delusion and wishful thinking is extremely high amongst some.
However, isn't Mike arguing that drawing conclusions about Corbyn's popularity (i.e. the net Corbyn effect in the post) simply based on vote share is wrong? Corbyn was just one factor - and a negative one for many, which was outweighed by other factors for voters including Mike.
That's the context that it "was not a vote for Corbyn".
The idea that we can just release an extra '100 million' (lol) and fix a pandemic is just ludicrous.