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
Comments
-
I'm not convinced re BidenQuincel said:
Yeah. I've actually been ahead of the pundits in how serious a chance I think Bloomberg has, but the odds have always been ahead of where I think he is so I've never been willing to hedge at the price available.Pulpstar said:
Right now I think the 538 model with plurality selected and Biden/Bloomberg switched is about the same as my gut so:
Sanders - 50-60%
Bloomberg - 20-25%
Biden - 15-20%
Biden should get a better result in Nevada and could well then win SC. If either/both of those happen then he might pick up some support again, but the trend for him vs Bloomberg is ominous otherwise.
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.
0 -
What the early voting does do is downgrade any influence an outstandingly good or bad debate performance might have.rcs1000 said:
I'm not convinced re BidenQuincel said:
Yeah. I've actually been ahead of the pundits in how serious a chance I think Bloomberg has, but the odds have always been ahead of where I think he is so I've never been willing to hedge at the price available.Pulpstar said:
Right now I think the 538 model with plurality selected and Biden/Bloomberg switched is about the same as my gut so:
Sanders - 50-60%
Bloomberg - 20-25%
Biden - 15-20%
Biden should get a better result in Nevada and could well then win SC. If either/both of those happen then he might pick up some support again, but the trend for him vs Bloomberg is ominous otherwise.
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.0 -
That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Ultimately it was a vote for Corbyn over Boris.5 -
All else being equal, you'd rather have your supporters be engaged and high turnout voters - sure. But just because you are popular among low-information voters doesn't mean you can't win an election.rcs1000 said:
I'm not convinced re BidenQuincel said:
Yeah. I've actually been ahead of the pundits in how serious a chance I think Bloomberg has, but the odds have always been ahead of where I think he is so I've never been willing to hedge at the price available.Pulpstar said:
Right now I think the 538 model with plurality selected and Biden/Bloomberg switched is about the same as my gut so:
Sanders - 50-60%
Bloomberg - 20-25%
Biden - 15-20%
Biden should get a better result in Nevada and could well then win SC. If either/both of those happen then he might pick up some support again, but the trend for him vs Bloomberg is ominous otherwise.
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.
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.1 -
You could have the same arguments for all the Tory votes despite Johnson (and likely because of Corbyn).tlg86 said:That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Ultimately it was a vote for Corbyn over Boris.
Which is among the reasons I voted for neither.1 -
If Corbyn's Labour "won the argument" with the Tories nicking their ideas then surely the Labour Party is now surplus to requirements and should be disbanded.0
-
Possibly, but there have been signs his support is crumbling, and a caucus system arguably magnifies that effect.Quincel said:
All else being equal, you'd rather have your supporters be engaged and high turnout voters - sure. But just because you are popular among low-information voters doesn't mean you can't win an election.rcs1000 said:
I'm not convinced re BidenQuincel said:
Yeah. I've actually been ahead of the pundits in how serious a chance I think Bloomberg has, but the odds have always been ahead of where I think he is so I've never been willing to hedge at the price available.Pulpstar said:
Right now I think the 538 model with plurality selected and Biden/Bloomberg switched is about the same as my gut so:
Sanders - 50-60%
Bloomberg - 20-25%
Biden - 15-20%
Biden should get a better result in Nevada and could well then win SC. If either/both of those happen then he might pick up some support again, but the trend for him vs Bloomberg is ominous otherwise.
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.
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.0 -
For sure. Mike might argue that he was confident that Boris would be PM and that this was a vote to have a Labour MP over a Tory one, but I'm not sure I'd believe him.Nigelb said:
You could have the same arguments for all the Tory votes despite Johnson (and likely because of Corbyn).tlg86 said:That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Ultimately it was a vote for Corbyn over Boris.
Which is among the reasons I voted for neither.0 -
There is never only one argument.brokenwheel said:If Corbyn's Labour won the argument with the Tories nicking their ideas then surely the Labour Party is now surplus to requirements and should be disbanded.
0 -
Two polls today show Bloomberg bests Trump the most.
Will this have an affect on polling down the road?0 -
I did not realise you had voted Labour last December. You appeared pretty determined not to do so on account of the Anti-Semitism issue.0
-
Which two ?rottenborough said:Two polls today show Bloomberg bests Trump the most.
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.0 -
Shows you how much the Iowa cock-up mattered when so much was invested in it by the rest of the field.
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/12301245747941867540 -
Labour got fewer seats in 2019 than 1983 despite getting about 4% more in share of the vote, which means they must be uselessly (under FPTP) piling up huge majorities in their safe seats.0
-
The polling on Biden is messy, Bloomberg also. There are certainly some signs he is collapsing, but other polls seem to show him falling after NH but only to the high teens. If he can stop the rot there (perhaps with Bloomberg having a rubbish debate, or Biden doing well in Nevada) then it's a very different race.Nigelb said:Possibly, but there have been signs his support is crumbling, and a caucus system arguably magnifies that effect.
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_20200 -
And BJ's long term commitment to anything let alone just ideas is suspect to say the least.Nigelb said:
There is never only one argument.brokenwheel said:If Corbyn's Labour won the argument with the Tories nicking their ideas then surely the Labour Party is now surplus to requirements and should be disbanded.
0 -
Labour's vote share was almost 5% higher than 1983 .The fall in seat numbers is explained by the loss of Scotland.In England Labour has significantly higher representation than 1983 and 1987 - fairly similar to 1992 albeit with a very different regional distribution of seats.Andy_JS said:Labour got fewer seats in 2019 than 1983 despite getting about 4% more in share of the vote, which means they must be uselessly (under FPTP) piling up huge majorities in their safe seats.
0 -
Labour in Scotland:Andy_JS said:Labour got fewer seats in 2019 than 1983 despite getting about 4% more in share of the vote, which means they must be uselessly (under FPTP) piling up huge majorities in their safe seats.
1983: 57% of seats for 35% of the vote
2019: 1.7% of seats for 19% of the vote0 -
But there more seats in Scotland then. Labour would be several seats down on their 1983 score purely on this factor alone.Andy_JS said:Labour got fewer seats in 2019 than 1983 despite getting about 4% more in share of the vote, which means they must be uselessly (under FPTP) piling up huge majorities in their safe seats.
1 -
Imagine if everyone voted for a party regardless of the leader, goodness. No incentive for Labour to learn or change if that's the case.0
-
Bloomberg will start to fail after his appearance at the debate. He's the perfect foil for everyone - on the left and center - to attack for income inequality, stop and frisk, etc etc.Quincel said:
The polling on Biden is messy, Bloomberg also. There are certainly some signs he is collapsing, but other polls seem to show him falling after NH but only to the high teens. If he can stop the rot there (perhaps with Bloomberg having a rubbish debate, or Biden doing well in Nevada) then it's a very different race.Nigelb said:Possibly, but there have been signs his support is crumbling, and a caucus system arguably magnifies that effect.
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
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."0 -
My bank balance hopes you are right. Time will tell.Kevin_McCandless said:
Bloomberg will start to fail after his appearance at the debate. He's the perfect foil for everyone - on the left and center - to attack for income inequality, stop and frisk, etc etc.Quincel said:
The polling on Biden is messy, Bloomberg also. There are certainly some signs he is collapsing, but other polls seem to show him falling after NH but only to the high teens. If he can stop the rot there (perhaps with Bloomberg having a rubbish debate, or Biden doing well in Nevada) then it's a very different race.Nigelb said:Possibly, but there have been signs his support is crumbling, and a caucus system arguably magnifies that effect.
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
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.0 -
What a nice, respectful contest this is:
https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).0 -
If Bloomberg gets completely battered by other candidates (and subsequently falls back), is he thick skinned enough not to sulk in the continuing struggle against Trump?Kevin_McCandless said:
Bloomberg will start to fail after his appearance at the debate. He's the perfect foil for everyone - on the left and center - to attack for income inequality, stop and frisk, etc etc.Quincel said:
The polling on Biden is messy, Bloomberg also. There are certainly some signs he is collapsing, but other polls seem to show him falling after NH but only to the high teens. If he can stop the rot there (perhaps with Bloomberg having a rubbish debate, or Biden doing well in Nevada) then it's a very different race.Nigelb said:Possibly, but there have been signs his support is crumbling, and a caucus system arguably magnifies that effect.
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
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."0 -
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas on the Campaign Trail....Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
https://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).0 -
No, it's because the Lib Dems / Liberals won far less of the vote in 2019 but only a dozen or so fewer seats.Andy_JS said:Labour got fewer seats in 2019 than 1983 despite getting about 4% more in share of the vote, which means they must be uselessly (under FPTP) piling up huge majorities in their safe seats.
0 -
Do Bloomberg's heart issues count ?Nigelb said:
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas on the Campaign Trail....Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
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.0 -
They all want Trump to win a landslide, no? Because the big orange man is the only person who benefits from a nasty and negative Dem campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
ttps://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).0 -
Plenty of Bernie bros wouldn't care if it was Bloomberg vs Trump, and they'd be right not to imo.Sandpit said:
They all want Trump to win a landslide, no? Because the big orange man is the only person who benefits from a nasty and negative Dem campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
ttps://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).0 -
The really interesting question is what happens if Bloomberg/Biden (but probably Bloomberg) *DOES* consolidate the moderate vote. It would probably mean that Sanders wins Super Tuesday and has a big lead, but sometime in the weeks afterwards the moderate candidate overtakes him on vote share. We'd have a situation where Sanders' lead on delegates was too large, so he'd head to the convention with 200-500 more say, but the moderate had won most of the final states and clearly had more popular support as of the convention date.
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.0 -
The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
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.4 -
Maybe it's a bigger deal to the left, but I do wonder how important party unity is in this age of hyper-partisanship. It's not like Trump had the party behind him until he won (and even then he didn't for a while).Sandpit said:
They all want Trump to win a landslide, no? Because the big orange man is the only person who benefits from a nasty and negative Dem campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
ttps://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).0 -
What are the rules on delegates that "fallen" candidates 'own'. Are they all "directed" or can they be released back to the pool for redistribution ?Quincel said:The really interesting question is what happens if Bloomberg/Biden (but probably Bloomberg) *DOES* consolidate the moderate vote. It would probably mean that Sanders wins Super Tuesday and has a big lead, but sometime in the weeks afterwards the moderate candidate overtakes him on vote share. We'd have a situation where Sanders' lead on delegates was too large, so he'd head to the convention with 200-500 more say, but the moderate had won most of the final states and clearly had more popular support as of the convention date.
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.0 -
No idea. Also, would the super-delegates (who kinda exist for this purpose) be willing to go for someone else?Pulpstar said:
What are the rules on delegates that "fallen" candidates 'own'. Are they all "directed" or can they be released back to the pool for redistribution ?Quincel said:The really interesting question is what happens if Bloomberg/Biden (but probably Bloomberg) *DOES* consolidate the moderate vote. It would probably mean that Sanders wins Super Tuesday and has a big lead, but sometime in the weeks afterwards the moderate candidate overtakes him on vote share. We'd have a situation where Sanders' lead on delegates was too large, so he'd head to the convention with 200-500 more say, but the moderate had won most of the final states and clearly had more popular support as of the convention date.
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.0 -
Warren is absolubtely directing any delegates she has to Sanders, not sure about the others.Quincel said:
No idea. Also, would the super-delegates (who kinda exist for this purpose) be willing to go for someone else?Pulpstar said:
What are the rules on delegates that "fallen" candidates 'own'. Are they all "directed" or can they be released back to the pool for redistribution ?Quincel said:The really interesting question is what happens if Bloomberg/Biden (but probably Bloomberg) *DOES* consolidate the moderate vote. It would probably mean that Sanders wins Super Tuesday and has a big lead, but sometime in the weeks afterwards the moderate candidate overtakes him on vote share. We'd have a situation where Sanders' lead on delegates was too large, so he'd head to the convention with 200-500 more say, but the moderate had won most of the final states and clearly had more popular support as of the convention date.
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.0 -
Low information voters didn't turn out in Iowa and didn't turn out in New Hampshire - why should Nevada and South Carolina be any different?Quincel said:All else being equal, you'd rather have your supporters be engaged and high turnout voters - sure. But just because you are popular among low-information voters doesn't mean you can't win an election.
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.
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%.0 -
Hold on, there are some rules but they are pretty vague:Pulpstar said:Warren is absolubtely directing any delegates she has to Sanders, not sure about the others.
"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,_20200 -
There's a new South Carolina poll out from Change Research:
Biden 23%
Sanders 23%
Steyer 20%
Buttigieg 15%
Warren 9%
Klobuchar 8%0 -
Isn't much of Bloombergs adverts generic attacks on Trump, so more a GOTV message for Dems than building a Bloomberg bandwagon?brokenwheel said:Shows you how much the Iowa cock-up mattered when so much was invested in it by the rest of the field.
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/12301245747941867540 -
Oh exactly. No matter who wins the nomination from here, getting Democrats out and united against Trump is November is already looking like a tall order.Pulpstar said:
Plenty of Bernie bros wouldn't care if it was Bloomberg vs Trump, and they'd be right not to imo.Sandpit said:
They all want Trump to win a landslide, no? Because the big orange man is the only person who benefits from a nasty and negative Dem campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
ttps://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).0 -
Normally candidates quit after Iowa and New Hampshire, and therefore those that remain (and those that won) see their polling rise.brokenwheel said:Shows you how much the Iowa cock-up mattered when so much was invested in it by the rest of the field.
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1230124574794186754
This time, none of the losers have quit.0 -
Remember that Bernie Bros are barely Dems and, much like Corbynistas wrt to the Blairites, they care as much about the conflict to wrest control of the left from the Democratic Party machine as they do about Trump.Sandpit said:
They all want Trump to win a landslide, no? Because the big orange man is the only person who benefits from a nasty and negative Dem campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
ttps://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).
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?) .1 -
As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
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.0 -
SteyerNigelb said:
That is interesting.rcs1000 said:There's a new South Carolina poll out from Change Research:
Biden 23%
Sanders 23%
Steyer 20%
Buttigieg 15%
Warren 9%
Klobuchar 8%
First time Buttigieg registered double digits there ?
Steyer on the march too.Nigelb said:
That is interesting.rcs1000 said:There's a new South Carolina poll out from Change Research:
Biden 23%
Sanders 23%
Steyer 20%
Buttigieg 15%
Warren 9%
Klobuchar 8%
First time Buttigieg registered double digits there ?0 -
You can do both at the same time. He's getting his name out there and he's the only one taking the fight to Trump, so they are effectively ads for his presidential campaign.Foxy said:
Isn't much of Bloombergs adverts generic attacks on Trump, so more a GOTV message for Dems than building a Bloomberg bandwagon?brokenwheel said:Shows you how much the Iowa cock-up mattered when so much was invested in it by the rest of the field.
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1230124574794186754
He wouldn't be polling anything like what he currently is without those attack ads.0 -
In 2008, after John Edwards endorsed Obama, his delegates all voted for Obama.Quincel said:
Hold on, there are some rules but they are pretty vague:Pulpstar said:Warren is absolubtely directing any delegates she has to Sanders, not sure about the others.
"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
But the rules vary by state, I think.0 -
They're clever adverts. And that's Bloomberg's message: "I'm the one out there attacking Trump while you lot fight among yourselves."brokenwheel said:
You can do both at the same time. He's getting is face out there and he's the only one taking the fight to Trump, so they are effectively ads for his presidential campaign.Foxy said:
Isn't much of Bloombergs adverts generic attacks on Trump, so more a GOTV message for Dems than building a Bloomberg bandwagon?brokenwheel said:Shows you how much the Iowa cock-up mattered when so much was invested in it by the rest of the field.
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1230124574794186754
He wouldn't be polling anything like what he currently is without those attack ads.0 -
Well, three have (Yang, Bennet and Patrick) but they really were also-rans rather than middle-rank candidates.rcs1000 said:
Normally candidates quit after Iowa and New Hampshire, and therefore those that remain (and those that won) see their polling rise.brokenwheel said:Shows you how much the Iowa cock-up mattered when so much was invested in it by the rest of the field.
https://twitter.com/harrytlambert/status/1230124574794186754
This time, none of the losers have quit.
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.0 -
Except Trump will fulfil the Corbyn role of mobilising his opponents.Sandpit said:
Oh exactly. No matter who wins the nomination from here, getting Democrats out and united against Trump is November is already looking like a tall order.Pulpstar said:
Plenty of Bernie bros wouldn't care if it was Bloomberg vs Trump, and they'd be right not to imo.Sandpit said:
They all want Trump to win a landslide, no? Because the big orange man is the only person who benefits from a nasty and negative Dem campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
ttps://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).0 -
Absolutely. And ditto for those voting Conservative. That WAS a vote for "Boris" and for immediate Brexit of likely the Hard variety. This is simple fact. It matters not a jot how "reluctant" and "agonized" the choice was. They all count one. This is why it is not tenable for anybody who voted Tory on Dec 12th to describe themselves as a Remainer. They are not. They are Leavers.david_herdson said:The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
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.0 -
Northern Ireland Update :
0 -
1
-
A vote for Corbyn over Johnson IS a vote for Corbyn. People choose one option over all the others. That is the act of voting. Same in 2019 as in every other election.tlg86 said:That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
Ultimately it was a vote for Corbyn over Boris.1 -
But who will then generate new ideas?brokenwheel said:If Corbyn's Labour "won the argument" with the Tories nicking their ideas then surely the Labour Party is now surplus to requirements and should be disbanded.
0 -
They can join the Tories as a pressure group.kinabalu said:
But who will then generate new ideas?brokenwheel said:If Corbyn's Labour "won the argument" with the Tories nicking their ideas then surely the Labour Party is now surplus to requirements and should be disbanded.
0 -
Is it a safe assumption that there's going to be a complete pile-on, in the style of Murder On The Orient Express, on Michael Bloomberg tonight?0
-
Trump's current rating is in negative single figures. Corbyn's was in mid-double figures. That's a massive difference.IanB2 said:
Except Trump will fulfil the Corbyn role of mobilising his opponents.Sandpit said:
Oh exactly. No matter who wins the nomination from here, getting Democrats out and united against Trump is November is already looking like a tall order.Pulpstar said:
Plenty of Bernie bros wouldn't care if it was Bloomberg vs Trump, and they'd be right not to imo.Sandpit said:
They all want Trump to win a landslide, no? Because the big orange man is the only person who benefits from a nasty and negative Dem campaign.Richard_Nabavi said:What a nice, respectful contest this is:
ttps://twitter.com/briebriejoy/status/1230150706704912384
(Briahna Gray is Bernie Sanders’ press secretary, Kevin Sheekey is Bloomberg's campaign manager).0 -
It's not a pure caucus this time, though. They've changed the rules to allow early voting for the first time, and the indications are that the number of people using the early-voting option is well over half the total number who took part in the caucus last time. So that might help Biden as a candidate with a strong national profile but a less good ground game, perhaps?rcs1000 said:...
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.
....0 -
Yep.AlastairMeeks said:Is it a safe assumption that there's going to be a complete pile-on, in the style of Murder On The Orient Express, on Michael Bloomberg tonight?
0 -
True but Corbyn acted like kryptonite to a section of Labour Leave voters then add on Tory Remainers who might have voted Lib Dem in Tory marginals and you end up with the perfect storm which delivered that big majority .kinabalu said:
Absolutely. And ditto for those voting Conservative. That WAS a vote for "Boris" and for immediate Brexit of likely the Hard variety. This is simple fact. It matters not a jot how "reluctant" and "agonized" the choice was. They all count one. This is why it is not tenable for anybody who voted Tory on Dec 12th to describe themselves as a Remainer. They are not. They are Leavers.david_herdson said:The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
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.
0 -
Buttigieg hasn't really had much of a bounce after Iowa, needs the moderate lane clearing - so needs to go after Bloomberg with Biden heading backAlastairMeeks said:Is it a safe assumption that there's going to be a complete pile-on, in the style of Murder On The Orient Express, on Michael Bloomberg tonight?
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.
0 -
Now might be a good moment to lay him, I suppose. He hasn't seemed especially nimble with his words till now.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yep.AlastairMeeks said:Is it a safe assumption that there's going to be a complete pile-on, in the style of Murder On The Orient Express, on Michael Bloomberg tonight?
0 -
Depends on the timing.rcs1000 said:As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
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.
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).0 -
Yes, I would lay him now, except that I've already got a biggish red against him.AlastairMeeks said:
Now might be a good moment to lay him, I suppose. He hasn't seemed especially nimble with his words till now.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yep.AlastairMeeks said:Is it a safe assumption that there's going to be a complete pile-on, in the style of Murder On The Orient Express, on Michael Bloomberg tonight?
0 -
Disagree. You vote according to the rules of the contest. I voted tactically for the Tories to reduce a Labour majority in a very safe Labour seat, which proved to be the case. The outcome I voted for wasn't Boris and I admit no responsibility for his majority in parliament, because I was in no way whatsoever responsible for that. The outcome I voted for was to help Labour towards the thought processes it is now having in the leadership contest. I took a slight risk but I am livably pleased with how that turned out.kinabalu said:
Absolutely. And ditto for those voting Conservative. That WAS a vote for "Boris" and for immediate Brexit of likely the Hard variety. This is simple fact. It matters not a jot how "reluctant" and "agonized" the choice was. They all count one. This is why it is not tenable for anybody who voted Tory on Dec 12th to describe themselves as a Remainer. They are not. They are Leavers.david_herdson said:The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
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.
I'd probably have opted to go LD in Bedford for vote building.0 -
Surely that misses the point.david_herdson said:The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
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.
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).0 -
Which suggests how much they enjoyed the experience...Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not a pure caucus this time, though. They've changed the rules to allow early voting for the first time, and the indications are that the number of people using the early-voting option is well over half the total number who took part in the caucus last time...rcs1000 said:...
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.
....0 -
Maybe! But it might simply be that these are shift workers and others who can't easily attend the caucus.Nigelb said:
Which suggests how much they enjoyed the experience...Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not a pure caucus this time, though. They've changed the rules to allow early voting for the first time, and the indications are that the number of people using the early-voting option is well over half the total number who took part in the caucus last time...rcs1000 said:...
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.
....0 -
It might do.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not a pure caucus this time, though. They've changed the rules to allow early voting for the first time, and the indications are that the number of people using the early-voting option is well over half the total number who took part in the caucus last time. So that might help Biden as a candidate with a strong national profile but a less good ground game, perhaps?rcs1000 said:...
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.
....
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.0 -
Thanks for that link, I had been wondering about some of the what if scenarios,Quincel said:
Hold on, there are some rules but they are pretty vague:Pulpstar said:Warren is absolubtely directing any delegates she has to Sanders, not sure about the others.
"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
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?0 -
OGH ended up voting Labour despite saying he never would again whilst Corbyn was leader due to that issue... still surprises me.justin124 said:I did not realise you had voted Labour last December. You appeared pretty determined not to do so on account of the Anti-Semitism issue.
0 -
Should Klobuchar then drop out, that might just give Buttigieg a long shot at SC, if the poll Robert posted earlier isn't a rogue one.rcs1000 said:
It might do.Richard_Nabavi said:
It's not a pure caucus this time, though. They've changed the rules to allow early voting for the first time, and the indications are that the number of people using the early-voting option is well over half the total number who took part in the caucus last time. So that might help Biden as a candidate with a strong national profile but a less good ground game, perhaps?rcs1000 said:...
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.
....
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.0 -
That has me looking at the 200/1 plus odds on her being elected President...rcs1000 said:As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
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.
Any actuaries care to chime in ?0 -
I may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, I would lay him now, except that I've already got a biggish red against him.AlastairMeeks said:
Now might be a good moment to lay him, I suppose. He hasn't seemed especially nimble with his words till now.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yep.AlastairMeeks said:Is it a safe assumption that there's going to be a complete pile-on, in the style of Murder On The Orient Express, on Michael Bloomberg tonight?
1 -
Did Bloomberg, do a debate before the election to be New York mayor?
If so does anybody know how he got on?0 -
So who WAS responsible for the Tory majority if not people who voted Tory?Pro_Rata said:Disagree. You vote according to the rules of the contest. I voted tactically for the Tories to reduce a Labour majority in a very safe Labour seat, which proved to be the case. The outcome I voted for wasn't Boris and I admit no responsibility for his majority in parliament, because I was in no way whatsoever responsible for that. The outcome I voted for was to help Labour towards the thought processes it is now having in the leadership contest. I took a slight risk but I am livably pleased with how that turned out.
I'd probably have opted to go LD in Bedford for vote building.0 -
No, that's definitely missing the point: Mike's talking about 2019, not 2017 (although it is relevant to the current Continuity Corbyn campaign).nova said:
Surely that misses the point.david_herdson said:The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
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.
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 both points can be true; they're not either-or.0 -
Not an actuary, but her odds have got to be better than that. Stuff happens,Nigelb said:
That has me looking at the 200/1 plus odds on her being elected President...rcs1000 said:As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
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.
Any actuaries care to chime in ?0 -
Thank you for the thread Mike.
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.0 -
Perfect storm, it was. Re Corbyn, I think he was flattered by the GE17 result (where Brexit helped him) but in 2019 it was the opposite, he was hurt by Brexit. Take Brexit away - please!nico67 said:True but Corbyn acted like kryptonite to a section of Labour Leave voters then add on Tory Remainers who might have voted Lib Dem in Tory marginals and you end up with the perfect storm which delivered that big majority.
- and run a GE with pure Corbyn the man and a radical Left manifesto and IMO he scores about 240 seats. 0 -
What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?0
-
From this paper the 7 year mortality is about 20%, but age is not a big factor, more other cardiovascular risk factors. I would expect that 20% to be quite front loaded, but as a ball park figure maybe 5% chance of a major repeat event before November.rcs1000 said:As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
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.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108013032.htm0 -
See previous thread.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
0 -
If you assume 15% mortality from COVID19 for people with health conditions near enough 80 then we're looking at ~50% collectively for the serious fieldRichard_Nabavi said:
See previous thread.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
?
0 -
I think we'd have other things to worry about in that scenario, though!Pulpstar said:
If you assume 15% mortality from COVID19 for people with health conditions near enough 80 then we're looking at ~50% collectively for the serious fieldRichard_Nabavi said:
See previous thread.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
?0 -
I suspect Mike Pence in the Oval Office with the Second Amendment.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
1 -
Covid 19 has significant male preponderance, but on the other hand none of these would be triaged out of ICU. Money talks.Pulpstar said:
If you assume 15% mortality from COVID19 for people with health conditions near enough 80 then we're looking at ~50% collectively for the serious fieldRichard_Nabavi said:
See previous thread.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
?
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.0 -
A slightly ominous development, with no obvious China link. Both are now RIP.
https://twitter.com/yasnaH_/status/1230097692396748802?s=190 -
"A net loss of one seat including their leader Swinson herself"0
-
I think likely to be a bit of both. Now these results have been released then it can become self-fulfilling.Foxy said:
Covid 19 has significant male preponderance, but on the other hand none of these would be triaged out of ICU. Money talks.Pulpstar said:
If you assume 15% mortality from COVID19 for people with health conditions near enough 80 then we're looking at ~50% collectively for the serious fieldRichard_Nabavi said:
See previous thread.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
?
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.
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.0 -
OGH is a closet Corbynista?
0 -
Clearly the vote counts the same no matter how reluctantly the pencil marks paper - so I agree that's true.david_herdson said:
No, that's definitely missing the point: Mike's talking about 2019, not 2017 (although it is relevant to the current Continuity Corbyn campaign).nova said:
Surely that misses the point.david_herdson said:The Corbyn fans like to attribute every single Labour vote as being backing for their man. That is nonsense of course. Many LAB voters on December 12th were like me – using my vote tactically to stop the Tories in the tightest LAB-CON marginal in the country. This was not a vote for Corbyn.
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.
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 both points can be true; they're not either-or.
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".0 -
I agree, funding is much less an issue than personnel and facilities. A system with 12 hour trolley waits is not going to cope well in a pandemic. Side rooms for isolation and barrier nursing are less common than private rooms in other systems too.GideonWise said:
I think likely to be a bit of both. Now these results have been released then it can become self-fulfilling.Foxy said:
Covid 19 has significant male preponderance, but on the other hand none of these would be triaged out of ICU. Money talks.Pulpstar said:
If you assume 15% mortality from COVID19 for people with health conditions near enough 80 then we're looking at ~50% collectively for the serious fieldRichard_Nabavi said:
See previous thread.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
?
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.
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.0 -
Electoral College members used to be able to vote how they chose, how much do these legal obligations' tie them down?david_herdson said:
Depends on the timing.rcs1000 said:As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
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.
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).0 -
There goes the 'it only kills East Asians' theory.Foxy said:A slightly ominous development, with no obvious China link. Both are now RIP
0 -
Exactly so the pop up hospitals that were mocked as being a 'dead cat' in Hubei as some sort of propaganda are actually essential to help. They are just the sort of thing we cannot do in a country with finite land, manpower, resources and a lack of political will outside of a war footing.Foxy said:
I agree, funding is much less an issue than personnel and facilities. A system with 12 hour trolley waits is not going to cope well in a pandemic. Side rooms for isolation and barrier nursing are less common than private rooms in other systems too.GideonWise said:
I think likely to be a bit of both. Now these results have been released then it can become self-fulfilling.Foxy said:
Covid 19 has significant male preponderance, but on the other hand none of these would be triaged out of ICU. Money talks.Pulpstar said:
If you assume 15% mortality from COVID19 for people with health conditions near enough 80 then we're looking at ~50% collectively for the serious fieldRichard_Nabavi said:
See previous thread.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
?
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.
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.
The idea that we can just release an extra '100 million' (lol) and fix a pandemic is just ludicrous.0 -
I'm not sure it's all that physically demanding - depends how much you push yourself, but if you can easily sleep on planes etc. I suspect that you can handle it OK. I never felt fitter than when I was canvassing 8 hours a day...Foxy said:
From this paper the 7 year mortality is about 20%, but age is not a big factor, more other cardiovascular risk factors. I would expect that 20% to be quite front loaded, but as a ball park figure maybe 5% chance of a major repeat event before November.rcs1000 said:As an aside, and from a betting perspective, what are the odds that - assuming he's the nominee - Sanders doesn't make it to the General?
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.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041108013032.htm0 -
Also, while the NHS, as a single massive consumer, is well-placed to strike favourable deals on the acquisition of medicines, this is no help where supplies of medicines are short and go to the highest bidder.Foxy said:
I agree, funding is much less an issue than personnel and facilities. A system with 12 hour trolley waits is not going to cope well in a pandemic. Side rooms for isolation and barrier nursing are less common than private rooms in other systems too.GideonWise said:
I think likely to be a bit of both. Now these results have been released then it can become self-fulfilling.Foxy said:
Covid 19 has significant male preponderance, but on the other hand none of these would be triaged out of ICU. Money talks.Pulpstar said:
If you assume 15% mortality from COVID19 for people with health conditions near enough 80 then we're looking at ~50% collectively for the serious fieldRichard_Nabavi said:
See previous thread.Pulpstar said:What's the collective actuarial risk for Bloomberg, Biden, Sanders and Trump between here and November ?
?
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.
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.0
