politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Expect Warren to get the biggest boost from last night – and t

brokenwheel said:

Speaking of superheroes, the novel coronavirus is saving the planet.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-19/virus-cuts-china-s-carbon-emissions-by-100-million-metric-tons

There will be extreme Gaia theorists who postulate that this is the planet fighting back.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Scottish Tory leader, Jackson Carlaw, plans to lobby Boris Johnson over complaints that Home Office plans for a points-based immigration system could damage Scotland’s economy.

In his first public statement on Priti Patel’s plans, Carlaw told reporters at Holyrood he has been pressurising the home secretary to relax many of the obstacles to low-skilled, low-waged migrants she plans to introduce.

Carlaw described Patel’s proposals as a “work in progress”, implying they broke the Scottish party’s manifesto pledges in December’s general election to introduce a system which worked for Scotland, particularly in remote areas suffering depopulation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/20/scottish-tories-urge-rethink-over-points-based-immigration?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

He'll be told those obstacles will be relaxed only when the obstacle of Hadrian's Wall is rebuilt to a height of forty feet.

Otherwise, Scotland will let in fifty thousand low-skilled, low-waged migrants in the morning - only to find forty nine thousand of them would be on their way to London by night-fall.

slade said:

Back from my travels. Only one bye-election - in Middlesbrough. The former Tory councillor has been charged with sex offences so should be a Labour gain. But Labour are on the floor in Teesside Could be a surprise Independent win?

2 independent candidates and the Tory candidate seems to leave in the ward - I suspect it's a safe Tory win.

Speaking of Ms. Cyclefree, any word on her daughter yet?

speedy2 said:

I can see Bloomberg's Buble bursting, but I can not see who will gain from it yet.

Why would Warren gain at the expense of Sanders when she went after Bloomberg?

Why would Buttigieg gain after his nasty fights with Klobuchar?

Biden could be the one but confidence in his candidacy has been badly shaken for months now.

Right now Bloomberg's articifial vote share could be redistributed to many different candidates.

I think a few natural Warren supporters left her because they didn't think he was viable. Last night, she proved she is viable, and I think that means some of her supporters come home. My view is that these will come from Sanders and from Klobuchar. This is good news and bad news for Sanders. It's good news because Warren would likely back him at a contested convention. It's bad news because it leaves the "Left Lane" more crowded than he would like.

Buttigieg would gain because if Klobuchar leaves the race, then he would be a benificiary. Not the only beneficiary, but she scores well in the same demographics he does. Warren, of course, also benefits if Klobuchar quits the race.

Personally, I think the candidate with the lowest cross over with Sanders is Bloomberg. Very few Bloomberg supporters are closet Sanders supporters, and many would vote for the candidate most likely to beat him.

So... the really interesting question to me is "how does Bloomberg personally feel about running for President?" He will not have enjoyed last night. He may have had his confidence in beating Sanders dented. And he won't want to go through that again.

I can see him doing one of three things from here:

1. He might simply decide not to do anymore debates. That might work. And it might not.
2. He might get better coached, and do better in the future.
3. He might decide that his negatives are such that he's not going to be the nominee. In which case, he's in an incredibly powerful position to throw his support behind someone in return for his backing.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Interesting take:

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1230536112780849153

It's plausible.

But it's only plausible, maybe a little bit possible, but certainly not probable.

Biden has been an utter failure organizationally and in terms of money raising. He should have been, alongside Sanders, the top fund raiser this cycle. He's not: he's way, way down the list.

Forget megadonors, he has far, far fewer small individual donors that Buttigeg.

That's beyond embarrassing.

And his Iowa and New Hampshire organisations have been woeful. He spent the last 21 days of the Iowa caucus camped out in Iowa. He visited every county. He topped many of the polls ahead of the caucuses. Yet he crashed and burned.

It's no surprise that Biden gets fewer people at his events than Sanders. But he's getting fewer than any of the other top tier candidates.

The only people he polls well with are those who are paying very little attention to the primary race. He's the candidate for people who aren't planning on voting. His only chance is to scrape through, as the "well, at least he isn't Sanders" candidate.

And while that's possible, there are a lot of other more... coherent... people gunning for that role.

From another PB.

If Bill Clinton was able to run for President again, he'd have been the second youngest man in the Democratic debate last night.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Scottish Tory leader, Jackson Carlaw, plans to lobby Boris Johnson over complaints that Home Office plans for a points-based immigration system could damage Scotland’s economy.

In his first public statement on Priti Patel’s plans, Carlaw told reporters at Holyrood he has been pressurising the home secretary to relax many of the obstacles to low-skilled, low-waged migrants she plans to introduce.

Carlaw described Patel’s proposals as a “work in progress”, implying they broke the Scottish party’s manifesto pledges in December’s general election to introduce a system which worked for Scotland, particularly in remote areas suffering depopulation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/20/scottish-tories-urge-rethink-over-points-based-immigration?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

He'll be told those obstacles will be relaxed only when the obstacle of Hadrian's Wall is rebuilt to a height of forty feet.

Otherwise, Scotland will let in fifty thousand low-skilled, low-waged migrants in the morning - only to find forty nine thousand of them would be on their way to London by night-fall.

Hint, illegal immigrants already arrive illegally.

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gabs3 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rpjs said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Alistair said:

That's my girl

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1230504059439726592?s=19

I don't know if that works. I'm naturally sympathetic, but it makes me think "With that sort of money at stake, he can hire some expensive lawyers to dodge it". I may well be too pessimistic, but I wonder if voters won't feel similar scepticism.

Yes, looks too good to be true. Also, is it going to be 6% of his wealth every year? That is going it a bit.

Its absolute insanity. Wealth would flee the USA if that came into effect.

The US is one of two countries (the other is Eritrea) that claims the right to tax its citizens.no matter where they live, or keep their money, in the world, and the IRS is pretty damn aggressive about enforcing that right.

Facing 6% per annum of total wealth being expropriated there might be a fair few who reconsider keeping US citizienship - and more than a few countries includng our own, Ireland and Canada willing to welcome with open arms the very wealthy to take their wealth there instead.

I believe the US also has costs for renouncing citizenship. They could also raise those.

$2,350 one off fee vs $2.4 billion per annum

The IRS levies exit taxes on people renouncing US citizenship, and in any case, renouncing US citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation is not allowed.

Alistair said:

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Scottish Tory leader, Jackson Carlaw, plans to lobby Boris Johnson over complaints that Home Office plans for a points-based immigration system could damage Scotland’s economy.

In his first public statement on Priti Patel’s plans, Carlaw told reporters at Holyrood he has been pressurising the home secretary to relax many of the obstacles to low-skilled, low-waged migrants she plans to introduce.

Carlaw described Patel’s proposals as a “work in progress”, implying they broke the Scottish party’s manifesto pledges in December’s general election to introduce a system which worked for Scotland, particularly in remote areas suffering depopulation.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/20/scottish-tories-urge-rethink-over-points-based-immigration?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

He'll be told those obstacles will be relaxed only when the obstacle of Hadrian's Wall is rebuilt to a height of forty feet.

Otherwise, Scotland will let in fifty thousand low-skilled, low-waged migrants in the morning - only to find forty nine thousand of them would be on their way to London by night-fall.

Hint, illegal immigrants already arrive illegally.

Hint, there's a reason why Scotland has a problem attracting low-skilled, low-waged migrants.

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As a PB Leaver, I am officially happy to declare that Priti Patel should not be given an automatic peerage upon leaving office, until all bullying allegations have been fully investigated.

Noted. I will pause however while you gather together an appropriate slew of insults against her of the type that were deployed against Bercow when those allegations emerged.

Patel, though much derided for many past statements and beliefs, has far fewer rememberable instances of or a public persona focused on belittling people (deservedly or otherwise) which make it easy to believe accusations. That said I can easily believe she is a bully, but for general purposes there is less to go on for a casual observer than with Bercow (though she has other flaws which he does not have as compensation). I hope any bully gets suitable comeuppance and that if she is one that will be her fate, but lacking the lead in time of the Bercow stuff (in addition to the political angle against him and for her) it is not going to be an identical reaction and without a smoking gun will probably take more time to have any effect. After all, there was no effect on Bercow while in office, and its not certain there will be now.

Perhaps unfairly, she reminds me of Ségolène Royal, who also had a reputation as a bit of a bully when she was the Environment Minister in France.

I suspect that Patel is the sort of minister that struggles to convince her officials through argument or evidence and is forced back to relying on pulling rank, which won’t endear her to them and can easily turn toward bullying.

I suspect that Patel is the sort of minister that struggles with a smarmy Sir Humphrey type who says "We don't do things that way here, Minister...."

"YA FOOKIN' DO NOW...."

*Exit Sir Humphrey stage left, with an attack of the vapours....*

News from the Emerald Isle:
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1230568916319178752?s=20

Evening all

To help out those struggling with their comics, the original Captain Britain was one Brian Braddock, a Thames University student who was an intern at Darkmoor Nuclear Power Station in the Cheviots (!) when the plant was attacked by Joshua Stagg and his minions. Escaping on a motorbike, Braddock is forced off the road and seriously injured.

Close to death, he finds himself in a stone circle with an amulet and a sword in front of him. An ancient choice demands he choose and being the young man of peace, he chooses the amulet and becomes Captain Britain. Stragg also finds the circle, takes the sword and becomes The Reaver.

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

I can see Bloomberg's Buble bursting, but I can not see who will gain from it yet.

Why would Warren gain at the expense of Sanders when she went after Bloomberg?

Why would Buttigieg gain after his nasty fights with Klobuchar?

Biden could be the one but confidence in his candidacy has been badly shaken for months now.

Right now Bloomberg's articifial vote share could be redistributed to many different candidates.

I think a few natural Warren supporters left her because they didn't think he was viable. Last night, she proved she is viable, and I think that means some of her supporters come home. My view is that these will come from Sanders and from Klobuchar. This is good news and bad news for Sanders. It's good news because Warren would likely back him at a contested convention. It's bad news because it leaves the "Left Lane" more crowded than he would like.

Buttigieg would gain because if Klobuchar leaves the race, then he would be a benificiary. Not the only beneficiary, but she scores well in the same demographics he does. Warren, of course, also benefits if Klobuchar quits the race.

In a contested convention, Warren would be the only non-Sanders candidate who wouldn't split the party, so why would she not win? The longer the contest goes on, the more she becomes the default.

Good point.

Alan Moore's Captain Britain run is suitably bonkers.

CatMan said:

News from the Emerald Isle:
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1230568916319178752?s=20

Tragedy.

Philip_Thompson said:

CatMan said:

News from the Emerald Isle:
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1230568916319178752?s=20

Bizarre, whom will he required to resign to, or will there be no Taoiseach?

Presumably he’s required to resign to the President, who says thanks for your service, but we need you to stay on until there’s someone else voted in to replace you.

The world has gone mad.

https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/1230557724884078592

Offtopic, Qatari media magnate and Paris St Germain chairman charged by Swiss authorities, alongside former FIFA executive, following investigation into awarding of media rights to international football tournaments.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/bein-chairman-and-ex-fifa-boss-charged-in-swiss-corruption-probe-1.982002
Everyone still looking forward to the Qatar World Cup?

Mary Lou in blistering attack on Martin now, not sure if she's inciting FF to get rid of him or is already on the stump for a second election.

eek said:

An interesting overview on the real impact of the Coronavirus

https://twitter.com/SuperMugatu/status/1230562561201819650

I noticed the potential for severe industrial and consumer goods supply shock.

Ironically Britain and America are more prepared than other countries due to Trade Wars.
Germany on the other hand will be snuffed

dodrade said:

Mary Lou in blistering attack on Martin now, not sure if she's inciting FF to get rid of him or is already on the stump for a second election.

Of all the parties, FF is in the deepest hole in an Ireland which seems finally to have moved to left-right voting. Some centre left, some centre right and whatever they do they’ll disappoint part of their supporter base. A LD-esquedilemma.

matt said:

dodrade said:

Mary Lou in blistering attack on Martin now, not sure if she's inciting FF to get rid of him or is already on the stump for a second election.

Of all the parties, FF is in the deepest hole in an Ireland which seems finally to have moved to left-right voting. Some centre left, some centre right and whatever they do they’ll disappoint part of their supporter base. A LD-esquedilemma.

FF/FG perhaps better off letting SF form a minority left coalition now while they are still in a position of relative weakness and can be blocked/brought down if necessary. The alternative is to go for a grand coalition which would keep SF at bay for now but almost guarantee them victory in 4-5 years.

speedy2 said:

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

I can see Bloomberg's Buble bursting, but I can not see who will gain from it yet.

Why would Warren gain at the expense of Sanders when she went after Bloomberg?

Why would Buttigieg gain after his nasty fights with Klobuchar?

Biden could be the one but confidence in his candidacy has been badly shaken for months now.

Right now Bloomberg's articifial vote share could be redistributed to many different candidates.

I think a few natural Warren supporters left her because they didn't think he was viable. Last night, she proved she is viable, and I think that means some of her supporters come home. My view is that these will come from Sanders and from Klobuchar. This is good news and bad news for Sanders. It's good news because Warren would likely back him at a contested convention. It's bad news because it leaves the "Left Lane" more crowded than he would like.

Buttigieg would gain because if Klobuchar leaves the race, then he would be a benificiary. Not the only beneficiary, but she scores well in the same demographics he does. Warren, of course, also benefits if Klobuchar quits the race.

Personally, I think the candidate with the lowest cross over with Sanders is Bloomberg. Very few Bloomberg supporters are closet Sanders supporters, and many would vote for the candidate most likely to beat him.

So... the really interesting question to me is "how does Bloomberg personally feel about running for President?" He will not have enjoyed last night. He may have had his confidence in beating Sanders dented. And he won't want to go through that again.

I can see him doing one of three things from here:

1. He might simply decide not to do anymore debates. That might work. And it might not.
2. He might get better coached, and do better in the future.
3. He might decide that his negatives are such that he's not going to be the nominee. In which case, he's in an incredibly powerful position to throw his support behind someone in return for his backing.

Right now I don't see anything of the above happening in the next 10 days.

Who said that Klobuchar will leave the race? She likes to kick Buttigieg's behinds in every debate.

No-one (serious) is going to leave the race until Super Tuesday.

Staff will take a few days unpaid leave if funds really do run out that quickly, which they probably won't.

10 days is just 10 days.

speedy2 said:

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

I can see Bloomberg's Buble bursting, but I can not see who will gain from it yet.

Why would Warren gain at the expense of Sanders when she went after Bloomberg?

Why would Buttigieg gain after his nasty fights with Klobuchar?

Biden could be the one but confidence in his candidacy has been badly shaken for months now.

Right now Bloomberg's articifial vote share could be redistributed to many different candidates.

I think a few natural Warren supporters left her because they didn't think he was viable. Last night, she proved she is viable, and I think that means some of her supporters come home. My view is that these will come from Sanders and from Klobuchar. This is good news and bad news for Sanders. It's good news because Warren would likely back him at a contested convention. It's bad news because it leaves the "Left Lane" more crowded than he would like.

Buttigieg would gain because if Klobuchar leaves the race, then he would be a benificiary. Not the only beneficiary, but she scores well in the same demographics he does. Warren, of course, also benefits if Klobuchar quits the race.

Personally, I think the candidate with the lowest cross over with Sanders is Bloomberg. Very few Bloomberg supporters are closet Sanders supporters, and many would vote for the candidate most likely to beat him.

So... the really interesting question to me is "how does Bloomberg personally feel about running for President?" He will not have enjoyed last night. He may have had his confidence in beating Sanders dented. And he won't want to go through that again.

I can see him doing one of three things from here:

1. He might simply decide not to do anymore debates. That might work. And it might not.
2. He might get better coached, and do better in the future.
3. He might decide that his negatives are such that he's not going to be the nominee. In which case, he's in an incredibly powerful position to throw his support behind someone in return for his backing.

Right now I don't see anything of the above happening in the next 10 days.

Who said that Klobuchar will leave the race? She likes to kick Buttigieg's behinds in every debate.

Two things:

1. Money. You can't stay in the race without money. Ms Harris was polling higher nationally when she left the race than Klobuchar is today. But she ran out of money. And her big donors said "no more good money after bad". This is an issue for Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

2. Influence. If you endorse someone before Super Tuesday, then you can extract a high price. Afterwards, if you've got bugger all delegates, your leverage is minimal.

Sandpit said:

Offtopic, Qatari media magnate and Paris St Germain chairman charged by Swiss authorities, alongside former FIFA executive, following investigation into awarding of media rights to international football tournaments.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/bein-chairman-and-ex-fifa-boss-charged-in-swiss-corruption-probe-1.982002
Everyone still looking forward to the Qatar World Cup?

I've booked my accommodation and bought my Belgium shirt. Everybody moaned when MotoGP went to Qatar but it's probably the best venue on the circuit so fuck the haters, the WC will probably be good.

rpjs said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gabs3 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rpjs said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Alistair said:

That's my girl

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1230504059439726592?s=19

I don't know if that works. I'm naturally sympathetic, but it makes me think "With that sort of money at stake, he can hire some expensive lawyers to dodge it". I may well be too pessimistic, but I wonder if voters won't feel similar scepticism.

Yes, looks too good to be true. Also, is it going to be 6% of his wealth every year? That is going it a bit.

Its absolute insanity. Wealth would flee the USA if that came into effect.

The US is one of two countries (the other is Eritrea) that claims the right to tax its citizens.no matter where they live, or keep their money, in the world, and the IRS is pretty damn aggressive about enforcing that right.

Facing 6% per annum of total wealth being expropriated there might be a fair few who reconsider keeping US citizienship - and more than a few countries includng our own, Ireland and Canada willing to welcome with open arms the very wealthy to take their wealth there instead.

I believe the US also has costs for renouncing citizenship. They could also raise those.

$2,350 one off fee vs $2.4 billion per annum

The IRS levies exit taxes on people renouncing US citizenship, and in any case, renouncing US citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation is not allowed.

I believe they have a 10 year tail as well

eek said:

An interesting overview on the real impact of the Coronavirus

https://twitter.com/SuperMugatu/status/1230562561201819650

Are there any figures for container ships not leaving Chinese ports on schedule?

Alistair said:

Alan Moore's Captain Britain run is suitably bonkers.

The problem was they couldn't decide if he was going to be a British Captain America or a British Spider-Man but in the end they decided he couldn't be either so it all got a bit mystical with bits of King Arthur (inevitably) involved and a strange back story for the Braddock family.

The other problem with "British" heroes is they get compared to James Bond or Doctor Who (who may claim he is from Gallifrey but as we all know Gallifrey is a small Surrey village between Guildford and Godalming).

Charles said:

rpjs said:

FPT:

Philip_Thompson said:

Gabs3 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rpjs said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Alistair said:

That's my girl

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1230504059439726592?s=19

I don't know if that works. I'm naturally sympathetic, but it makes me think "With that sort of money at stake, he can hire some expensive lawyers to dodge it". I may well be too pessimistic, but I wonder if voters won't feel similar scepticism.

Yes, looks too good to be true. Also, is it going to be 6% of his wealth every year? That is going it a bit.

Its absolute insanity. Wealth would flee the USA if that came into effect.

The US is one of two countries (the other is Eritrea) that claims the right to tax its citizens.no matter where they live, or keep their money, in the world, and the IRS is pretty damn aggressive about enforcing that right.

Facing 6% per annum of total wealth being expropriated there might be a fair few who reconsider keeping US citizienship - and more than a few countries includng our own, Ireland and Canada willing to welcome with open arms the very wealthy to take their wealth there instead.

I believe the US also has costs for renouncing citizenship. They could also raise those.

$2,350 one off fee vs $2.4 billion per annum

The IRS levies exit taxes on people renouncing US citizenship, and in any case, renouncing US citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation is not allowed.

I believe they have a 10 year tail as well

I believe they face what is essentially a 23.8% Capital Gains Tax, which is no doubt substantial, but compared to a 6% per annum total wealth tax plus other ongoing taxes that would be a bargain.

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

I think a few natural Warren supporters left her because they didn't think he was viable. Last night, she proved she is viable, and I think that means some of her supporters come home. My view is that these will come from Sanders and from Klobuchar. This is good news and bad news for Sanders. It's good news because Warren would likely back him at a contested convention. It's bad news because it leaves the "Left Lane" more crowded than he would like.

Buttigieg would gain because if Klobuchar leaves the race, then he would be a benificiary. Not the only beneficiary, but she scores well in the same demographics he does. Warren, of course, also benefits if Klobuchar quits the race.

Personally, I think the candidate with the lowest cross over with Sanders is Bloomberg. Very few Bloomberg supporters are closet Sanders supporters, and many would vote for the candidate most likely to beat him.

So... the really interesting question to me is "how does Bloomberg personally feel about running for President?" He will not have enjoyed last night. He may have had his confidence in beating Sanders dented. And he won't want to go through that again.

I can see him doing one of three things from here:

1. He might simply decide not to do anymore debates. That might work. And it might not.
2. He might get better coached, and do better in the future.
3. He might decide that his negatives are such that he's not going to be the nominee. In which case, he's in an incredibly powerful position to throw his support behind someone in return for his backing.

Right now I don't see anything of the above happening in the next 10 days.

Who said that Klobuchar will leave the race? She likes to kick Buttigieg's behinds in every debate.

Two things:

1. Money. You can't stay in the race without money. Ms Harris was polling higher nationally when she left the race than Klobuchar is today. But she ran out of money. And her big donors said "no more good money after bad". This is an issue for Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

2. Influence. If you endorse someone before Super Tuesday, then you can extract a high price. Afterwards, if you've got bugger all delegates, your leverage is minimal.

You suggested earlier that Biden was burning $1m a week on salaries - that must mean he’s got close to a couple of thousand paid people working for him. What on Earth do they all do, given the campaign is so ineffectual?

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

I think a few natural Warren supporters left her because they didn't think he was viable. Last night, she proved she is viable, and I think that means some of her supporters come home. My view is that these will come from Sanders and from Klobuchar. This is good news and bad news for Sanders. It's good news because Warren would likely back him at a contested convention. It's bad news because it leaves the "Left Lane" more crowded than he would like.

Buttigieg would gain because if Klobuchar leaves the race, then he would be a benificiary. Not the only beneficiary, but she scores well in the same demographics he does. Warren, of course, also benefits if Klobuchar quits the race.

Personally, I think the candidate with the lowest cross over with Sanders is Bloomberg. Very few Bloomberg supporters are closet Sanders supporters, and many would vote for the candidate most likely to beat him.

So... the really interesting question to me is "how does Bloomberg personally feel about running for President?" He will not have enjoyed last night. He may have had his confidence in beating Sanders dented. And he won't want to go through that again.

I can see him doing one of three things from here:

1. He might simply decide not to do anymore debates. That might work. And it might not.
2. He might get better coached, and do better in the future.
3. He might decide that his negatives are such that he's not going to be the nominee. In which case, he's in an incredibly powerful position to throw his support behind someone in return for his backing.

Right now I don't see anything of the above happening in the next 10 days.

Who said that Klobuchar will leave the race? She likes to kick Buttigieg's behinds in every debate.

Two things:

1. Money. You can't stay in the race without money. Ms Harris was polling higher nationally when she left the race than Klobuchar is today. But she ran out of money. And her big donors said "no more good money after bad". This is an issue for Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

2. Influence. If you endorse someone before Super Tuesday, then you can extract a high price. Afterwards, if you've got bugger all delegates, your leverage is minimal.

You suggested earlier that Biden was burning $1m a week on salaries - that must mean he’s got close to a couple of thousand paid people working for him. What on Earth do they all do, given the campaign is so ineffectual?

Biden is the Jeb of 2015 - the dull anointed successor who gets conned into spending gigantic sums on party establishment consultants for minimal electoral effect.

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

From another PB.

If Bill Clinton was able to run for President again, he'd have been the second youngest man in the Democratic debate last night.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1230603615297036299

Now that is a factoid.

No_Offence_Alan said:

eek said:

An interesting overview on the real impact of the Coronavirus

https://twitter.com/SuperMugatu/status/1230562561201819650

Are there any figures for container ships not leaving Chinese ports on schedule?

I see the Chinese container ships going past, out of my window. So far I haven’t noticed any reduction in frequency. But then, tbf, my window is a lag indicator.

Results for Labour selections for London Assembly candidates will be officially announced tomorrow morning...but candidates received the outcome this evening

Barnet and Camden (Andrew Dismore retiring): Anne Clarke (Barnet Cllr. Backed by Dismore)
Round 1: Faduma Hassan 890 Anne Clarke 885 Sagal Abdi-Wali 624 Miriam Mirwitch 347. Final round: Clarke 1365 Hassan 1100

North East (Jennette Arnold retiring): Sem Moema (Hackney Cllr)

Lambeth and Southwark (Florence Eshalomi elected MP): Marian Ahmad (Bromley Cllr)

Brent and Harrow (Navin Shah retiring): Krupesh Hirani (Brent Cllr).
Hirani 624 votes Marbini 619.

South West (Con majority 10% in 2016): Candice Atterton

Bexley and Bromely (Con majority 22%): Stefano Borella

Croydon and Sutton (6.4% Con majority): Patsy Cummings (Croydon Cllr)

Havering and Redbridge (0.8% Con majority): Judith Garfield (Redbridge Cllr)

West Central (9.5% Con majority): Rita Begum (Westminster Cllr)


List ranking...currently 3 Labour AMs...Nicky Gavron and Fiona Twycross retiring. Tom Copley withdrew from selection last month after being appointed as Deputy Mayor for Housing by Khan.

1) Elly Baker (from Barking, national organizer at National Education Union)
2) Sakina Shaikh (Lewisham Cllr)
3) Liam Young (left wing columnist/writer)

The top list AMs are all Momentum backed.
The Momentum candidates have done badly in constituency selections. They only won Croydon & Sutton.
According to some reports, Ahmad and Moema were ahead of Young in the list rankinbg but dropped out after being told they won the constituency selection.

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

rcs1000 said:

kle4 said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As a PB Leaver, I am officially happy to declare that Priti Patel should not be given an automatic peerage upon leaving office, until all bullying allegations have been fully investigated.

Noted. I will pause however while you gather together an appropriate slew of insults against her of the type that were deployed against Bercow when those allegations emerged.

Patel, though much derided for many past statements and beliefs, has far fewer rememberable instances of or a public persona focused on belittling people (deservedly or otherwise) which make it easy to believe accusations. That said I can easily believe she is a bully, but for general purposes there is less to go on for a casual observer than with Bercow (though she has other flaws which he does not have as compensation). I hope any bully gets suitable comeuppance and that if she is one that will be her fate, but lacking the lead in time of the Bercow stuff (in addition to the political angle against him and for her) it is not going to be an identical reaction and without a smoking gun will probably take more time to have any effect. After all, there was no effect on Bercow while in office, and its not certain there will be now.

Perhaps unfairly, she reminds me of Ségolène Royal, who also had a reputation as a bit of a bully when she was the Environment Minister in France.

I suspect that Patel is the sort of minister that struggles to convince her officials through argument or evidence and is forced back to relying on pulling rank, which won’t endear her to them and can easily turn toward bullying.

I suspect that Patel is the sort of minister that struggles with a smarmy Sir Humphrey type who says "We don't do things that way here, Minister...."

"YA FOOKIN' DO NOW...."

*Exit Sir Humphrey stage left, with an attack of the vapours....*

Priti Patel is Tory-Not-So-Secret-Weapon No.1: the anti-Abbott, if you will.

I can't wait to find out what limp biscuit the new Labour leadership puts up to shadow her next

rcs1000 said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

rcs1000 said:

speedy2 said:

I can see Bloomberg's Buble bursting, but I can not see who will gain from it yet.

Why would Warren gain at the expense of Sanders when she went after Bloomberg?

Why would Buttigieg gain after his nasty fights with Klobuchar?

Biden could be the one but confidence in his candidacy has been badly shaken for months now.

Right now Bloomberg's articifial vote share could be redistributed to many different candidates.

I think a few natural Warren supporters left her because they didn't think he was viable. Last night, she proved she is viable, and I think that means some of her supporters

So... the really interesting question to me is "how does Bloomberg personally feel about running for President?" He will not have enjoyed last night. He may have had his confidence in beating Sanders dented. And he won't want to go through that again.

I can see him doing one of three things from here:

1. He might simply decide not to do anymore debates. That might work. And it might not.
2. He might get better coached, and do better in the future.
3. He might decide that his negatives are such that he's not going to be the nominee. In which case, he's in an incredibly powerful position to throw his support behind someone in return for his backing.

Right now I don't see anything of the above happening in the next 10 days.

Who said that Klobuchar will leave the race? She likes to kick Buttigieg's behinds in every debate.

Two things:

1. Money. You can't stay in the race without money. Ms Harris was polling higher nationally when she left the race than Klobuchar is today. But she ran out of money. And her big donors said "no more good money after bad". This is an issue for Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar and Warren.

2. Influence. If you endorse someone before Super Tuesday, then you can extract a high price. Afterwards, if you've got bugger all delegates, your leverage is minimal.

I'm not sure about this.

(1) $1-2m gets you through the next ten days. And you might not even need all of that.

(2) Everyone fancies their chances in Super Tuesday as the race is totally random and up in the air. Why not roll the dice and then decide what best to do after?

If you're polling sub 10% in the national polls (as Klobuchar certainly is, and Buttigieg is quite close), then you're not going to get many delegates, if any. Then you have zero influence. You're an expired parrot.

If you turn up to Bloomberg or Sanders now, offering your support, then you can pretty much name your cabinet position.

Bloomberg is looking a bit of a busted flush today, and Sanders is too short.

Everyone still fancies their chances.

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

From another PB.

If Bill Clinton was able to run for President again, he'd have been the second youngest man in the Democratic debate last night.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1230603615297036299

The American Civil War wasn't that long ago though. I mean, this guy remembers it, and he was interviewed on TV!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPoymt3Jx4

It ended 155 years ago.

Here's an amusing one. I googled for Klobuchar.

And her campaign page wasn't even on page one of Google. And that's an unusual name. And she didn't use AdWords to advertise her site. Weird, given I'm in America.

So then I googled Buttigieg. The first link was Buttigieg's Twitter account, the second his campaign page.

Then I went for Biden. And while he wasn't the first organic link for his name (that was CNN), at least he'd bought the keyword.

Next up Sanders, and (no surprise) berniesanders.com was the top link.

Finally, Warren. She's the top organic link, and she advertises herself.

Why does Klobuchar have such poor SEO skills? Especially given it's not exactly a common search term.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

From another PB.

If Bill Clinton was able to run for President again, he'd have been the second youngest man in the Democratic debate last night.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1230603615297036299

The American Civil War wasn't that long ago though. I mean, this guy remembers it, and he was interviewed on TV!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPoymt3Jx4

It ended 155 years ago.

Was that before or after the (true) Labour party last won a majority?

*innocent face*

I have to admit I'm developing a huge affinity with Sinn Fein and their leader.

https://twitter.com/MaryLouMcDonald/status/1229067572076777472

TheScreamingEagles said:

I have to admit I'm developing a huge affinity with Sinn Fein and their leader.

https://twitter.com/MaryLouMcDonald/status/1229067572076777472

The caption is all wrong. He's looking on in horror as the pineapple is removed from the pizza.

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

From another PB.

If Bill Clinton was able to run for President again, he'd have been the second youngest man in the Democratic debate last night.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1230603615297036299

The American Civil War wasn't that long ago though. I mean, this guy remembers it, and he was interviewed on TV!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPoymt3Jx4

It ended 155 years ago.

9 years after the Crimean War ended, and 50 years after Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo.

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Here's an amusing one. I googled for Klobuchar.

And her campaign page wasn't even on page one of Google. And that's an unusual name. And she didn't use AdWords to advertise her site. Weird, given I'm in America.

So then I googled Buttigieg. The first link was Buttigieg's Twitter account, the second his campaign page.

Then I went for Biden. And while he wasn't the first organic link for his name (that was CNN), at least he'd bought the keyword.

Next up Sanders, and (no surprise) berniesanders.com was the top link.

Finally, Warren. She's the top organic link, and she advertises herself.

Why does Klobuchar have such poor SEO skills? Especially given it's not exactly a common search term.

Interesting. I just googled it, Wikipedia came first (which didn't surprise me), a CNN article about her and Buttigieg was second, then her Twitter handle was the third link, two more news articles, then her website was the sixth entry (on page one).

Doesn't seem that bad to me, for what I'm getting. Hard to organically beat Wikipedia but every entry that wasn't her was an article about her.

Yeah, but you'd want your campaign site to be first, even if it just means spending a few dollars on AdWords.

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Here's an amusing one. I googled for Klobuchar.

And her campaign page wasn't even on page one of Google. And that's an unusual name. And she didn't use AdWords to advertise her site. Weird, given I'm in America.

So then I googled Buttigieg. The first link was Buttigieg's Twitter account, the second his campaign page.

Then I went for Biden. And while he wasn't the first organic link for his name (that was CNN), at least he'd bought the keyword.

Next up Sanders, and (no surprise) berniesanders.com was the top link.

Finally, Warren. She's the top organic link, and she advertises herself.

Why does Klobuchar have such poor SEO skills? Especially given it's not exactly a common search term.

Interesting. I just googled it, Wikipedia came first (which didn't surprise me), a CNN article about her and Buttigieg was second, then her Twitter handle was the third link, two more news articles, then her website was the sixth entry (on page one).

Doesn't seem that bad to me, for what I'm getting. Hard to organically beat Wikipedia but every entry that wasn't her was an article about her.

Yeah, but you'd want your campaign site to be first, even if it just means spending a few dollars on AdWords.

I suppose it depends how many dollars you have available to you?

How soon is your state voting?

Some stats:

Amy Klobchar appears to have no field offices in Nevada.
Biden has five.
Sanders has ten.
Warren has eight.
Buttigieg has eleven.

Make of that what you will.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CatMan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

From another PB.

If Bill Clinton was able to run for President again, he'd have been the second youngest man in the Democratic debate last night.

https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1230603615297036299

The American Civil War wasn't that long ago though. I mean, this guy remembers it, and he was interviewed on TV!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RPoymt3Jx4

It ended 155 years ago.

To be exact, 154 years 9 months and 3 weeks. Johnston surrendered at Bennett Place on the 26th April 1865.

Odd fact about General Joe Johnston.

He caught a cold while serving as a pallbearer at General Sherman's funeral which led to his own death:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Johnston#Postwar_years

Given the university strikes is there anyone who still thinks that tripling student tuition fees was a good idea ?

rcs1000 said:

Some stats:

Amy Klobchar appears to have no field offices in Nevada.
Biden has five.
Sanders has ten.
Warren has eight.
Buttigieg has eleven.

Make of that what you will.

Feels like a win for Sanders. Very very unfortunately. Another nail in the Dems coffin as they sleep walk to an absolute slaughter in November thanks to Bernie.

https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1230615719521538048