politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg slumps sharply in the nomination betting after comin
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg slumps sharply in the nomination betting after coming under fierce attacks in the Las Vegas debate
As everybody was expecting the first appearance on a debate stage by Mike Bloomberg was going to see him as the main target by the other leading contenders in the race. This is how the New York Times is reporting it:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://variety.com/2020/tv/columns/msnbc-democratic-debate-moderators-lost-control-1203508788/
Their conclusion:
Throughout this long, long Democratic primary process, the debate moderation has, with very few exceptions, proved to be especially uninspired. Usually the culprit for that is the slate of questions, which have tended to be unnecessarily combative in a bid to get the candidates to rise to tempting bait. The ever-escalating tenor of cable news constantly demands juicy moments for digesting, and tonight’s unruly debate delivered them rather than the kind of information voters actually need. Tonight’s moderating — or more accurately, lack thereof — sacrificed clarity for fireworks. That might be “good television,” which is maybe all MSNBC wanted in the end, but it also made for a uniquely frustrating debate at a particularly crucial moment during the campaign.
Like the line from Almost Famous, nobody wants to go home. Nobody's going to drop out. They're going to trudge forward to that magical path to victory they're sure in their doomed-to-lose hearts exists. Hooray.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/19/germany-shooting-hanau-latest-news/
Throwing his support behind Baemy or Buttigieg would probably buy him the Treasury Secretary role.
I've cut my liability on Bloomberg from 3.5k to 2k off the back of that.
Oh, and I have topped up on Biden. Yes, he's shite but the polling and that's only been tested so far in one primary state. If Bloomberg dissolves he might pick up and at 13/1 I'm nibbling.
I have been saying since 2017 that the Dems should have run their primaries in 2019 - they could have spent 18 months united behind a 'leader of the opposition' figure, rather than still screaming at each other only nine months before the election.
Doesn't seem to have done the Democratic party much good though.
Because if they’re doing it by themselves this is one for The Book of Heroic Failures.
Not great for the blues, it seems.
But added to the inadequacy of the candidate slate and the Iowa caucus fiasco, it could scarce be going better if he were running it for his own benefit.
Indeed, the best argument against his involvement is if he were running it you would expect him to cock it up somehow and do something that would help the Dems.
There were only six people there.
Sounds like the pundits' immediate reaction to the debate was to lay everyone who took part!
His record as Mayor is only comparable to Buttigieg's record, but he has less experience campaigning.
Once he got confronted in public, he deflated.
That was the reason why Bloomberg avoided participating to the debates until now, he only knows how to run a front porch campaign.
Those who have spent their lifetimes in and around Westminster seriously underestimate the wish of the general public to give a serious kicking to the whole system.
She regularly doesn't get included in head to head polling despite polling higher than others who are.
My book is displeased.
She be one of the last (possibly the last) candidate the Democrats would pick in such a situation.
That’s about the only way he’s going to lose, at this rate.
I think the chances of Bloomberg running as an Independent also increased after last night
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51549847
This year it is more like a school sports day. As you try not to laugh at the bunch of unco-ordinated five year olds, who all run like the current Dr. Who.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-51548337
Important not to totally overreact to this.
Long way to go yet.
"John Major (who was Prime Minister when the Cold War ended) is younger than 3 of the leading Democrats running for President."
Andrew to go fav next week ?
Imagine if the race was lead by Alan Sugar, John McDonnell and John Prescott.
In a Trump/Sanders matchup I guess he could still declare "a plague on both your houses"?
She’s consistently performed pretty well but just hasn’t got much traction.
A group that are largely on index linked state benefits have decided that everyone else is going to have to roll the dice so they can indulge their prejudices.
By this do you mean Politicians and Civil servants working on wonderful T&C or the great unwashed benefit consuming proletariat?
Sanders: 46.7%
Bloomberg: 19.2%
Buttigieg: 9.1%
Biden: 7.7%
Clinton: 3.1 %
Warren: 2.2%
Klobuchar: 0.9%
This sums to ~89%. If you throw in the other available names that have a lay-price (M Obama, Patrick, Stayer), you get to 90%.
Remember, these are the back-prices. You would expect it to sum to more than 100%.
So is there a 10+% chance that the nominee is none of these people? If so, what realistic names are there? If not, you can simply bet on everyone and win.
Having just checked the debate clips on the BBC I was shocked out how aggressive to and rude about him the other candidates were about Bloomberg, Warren effectively called him a sexist pig in all but name, Sanders basically said he was responsible for allowing half the homelessness in America while being super rich himself and Buttigieg said his only belied was using money to buy power.
After 2 hours of insults against him from other Democrats last night, the idea Bloomberg is going to meekly stand back and give half his wealth to someone like Bernie Sanders is for the birds. If he really hates Trump he could run himself as an Independent instead
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51549847
I genuinely wish you and yours all the best, but Brexit has driven you mad. Most people just want to get on with their lives, and to be able to turf out the government when they screw up.
Let's change the subject. It's been rumoured again that the Chancellor is mooting changes to higher rate pensions relief in the Budget. New lifetime allowances are already causing issues with higher-paid public sector workers such as doctors, as well as many in the private sector. Does reducing the incentives to save work out better for the government in the long term, or do you think this is a short term sticking plaster that leads to problems for future governments, as people haven't saved sufficiently for their retirements and become burdensome on the state?
Meanwhile, I again risk at the end of the year having to hold my partner while he suffers uncontrollable seizures because someone decided that continuing a scorched earth policy towards the EU was more important than reliably securing the supply of medicines.
IMO right now, every price above looks like a lay - but someone has to win!