politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bernie edges to odds-on for the nomination as the Nevada caucu
Options
Comments
-
All major TV networks have now projected Nevada for Sanders, CNN is still holding out.1
-
The winning french candidates only campaign in Paris.rcs1000 said:
Ok.brokenwheel said:
Sure ok, California, New York and Texas then.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that works.brokenwheel said:
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
CNN claim to be on 10% in the popular vote.RobD said:Best place for NV results? 538 seem to have taken down their live tracker.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada?xid=ec_crm_nv_d
But by that standard, candidates for the French Presidential election would only campaign in Paris, Marseilles and Lyon.
But they don't. Because campaigning in the same place results in rapidly diminishing returns.0 -
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronationQuincel said:
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.Stereotomy said:0 -
Sanders seems to have been stuck on 6,048 final round votes for a long time.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada?xid=ec_btn_nevada0 -
Sure they do.speedy2 said:
The winning french candidates only campaign in Paris.rcs1000 said:
Ok.brokenwheel said:
Sure ok, California, New York and Texas then.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that works.brokenwheel said:
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
CNN claim to be on 10% in the popular vote.RobD said:Best place for NV results? 538 seem to have taken down their live tracker.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada?xid=ec_crm_nv_d
But by that standard, candidates for the French Presidential election would only campaign in Paris, Marseilles and Lyon.
But they don't. Because campaigning in the same place results in rapidly diminishing returns.0 -
538 has it as 10% in, withAndy_JS said:Sanders seems to have been stuck on 6,048 final round votes for a long time.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada?xid=ec_btn_nevada
CANDIDATE FIRST ALIGNMENT FINAL ALIGNMENT CHANGE
Sanders 34.5% 41.5% +7.0
Biden 16.8 18.6 +1.8
Buttigieg 15.5 16.8 +1.3
Warren 12.9 10.8 -2.1
Klobuchar 9.7 7.3 -2.4
Steyer 8.9 4.3 -4.6
Uncommitted 0.6 0.4 -0.2
Gabbard 0.5 0.1 -0.40 -
So about that Warren surge we were supposed to see at Bernie's expense...1
-
The only question is whether Buttigieg will pass Biden for second place.Stereotomy said:So about that Warren surge we were supposed to see at Bernie's expense...
My money is on yes, but we'll see.0 -
I don't object to that distinction, but I think in this context it renders the 'First 3 time winner' boast a bit meaningless. Because Gore didn't face little opposition because he was an incumbent, he faced little opposition because he scared them off by being such a strong candidate. In my mind the point of this fact is to stress how strong the Sanders campaign is, but the fact Gore didn't face a competitive primary showed his strength; so the distinction here is misleading as opposed to helpful.Stereotomy said:
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronationQuincel said:
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.Stereotomy said:
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.0 -
Watching Mayor Pete's speech right now. If I didn't know better I'd think he'd just won Nevada.
Then again, you'd have thought Amy Klobuchar had come close to winning if you only heard her speech...0 -
But the point is that somebody winning the first three states has always, up until now, indicated a walkover. There hasn't been a case of somebody coming first in those states then being seriously challenged for the remainder of the race.Quincel said:
I don't object to that distinction, but I think in this context it renders the 'First 3 time winner' boast a bit meaningless. Because Gore didn't face little opposition because he was an incumbent, he faced little opposition because he scared them off by being such a strong candidate. In my mind the point of this fact is to stress how strong the Sanders campaign is, but the fact Gore didn't face a competitive primary showed his strength; so the distinction here is misleading as opposed to helpful.Stereotomy said:
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronationQuincel said:
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.Stereotomy said:
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.
I don't really put much weight on those rules of thumb in political predictions (insert xkcd comic here), and that includes this case. Just posted it as it was interesting.0 -
Although if you turn it around and say "how has a candidate averaging 30% in the first three states done?" It looks rather differentStereotomy said:
But the point is that somebody winning the first three states has always, up until now, indicated a walkover. There hasn't been a case of somebody coming first in those states then being seriously challenged for the remainder of the race.Quincel said:
I don't object to that distinction, but I think in this context it renders the 'First 3 time winner' boast a bit meaningless. Because Gore didn't face little opposition because he was an incumbent, he faced little opposition because he scared them off by being such a strong candidate. In my mind the point of this fact is to stress how strong the Sanders campaign is, but the fact Gore didn't face a competitive primary showed his strength; so the distinction here is misleading as opposed to helpful.Stereotomy said:
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronationQuincel said:
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.Stereotomy said:
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.
I don't really put much weight on those rules of thumb in political predictions (insert xkcd comic here), and that includes this case. Just posted it as it was interesting.1 -
Fair enough if that's your reading of it, but I must say my reading of pointing out Sanders has won the first 3 states isn't to suggest the race is surprisingly close but to boost the claim that Sanders is remarkably strong. In which case I'd argue as below that it's misleading to suggest his achievement is unprecedented.Stereotomy said:
But the point is that somebody winning the first three states has always, up until now, indicated a walkover. There hasn't been a case of somebody coming first in those states then being seriously challenged for the remainder of the race.Quincel said:
I don't object to that distinction, but I think in this context it renders the 'First 3 time winner' boast a bit meaningless. Because Gore didn't face little opposition because he was an incumbent, he faced little opposition because he scared them off by being such a strong candidate. In my mind the point of this fact is to stress how strong the Sanders campaign is, but the fact Gore didn't face a competitive primary showed his strength; so the distinction here is misleading as opposed to helpful.Stereotomy said:
I think it's fine to draw a distinction between cases where there's a genuinely competitive contest and one that only technically has multiple candidates but is really basically a coronationQuincel said:
This has been going around a lot but it isn't true. Al Gore in 2000 won every state. Some people are ignoring that by saying Sanders has won all 3 for the first time in a 'competitive' contest, but 2000 was only not competitive because Al Gore won so easily. It's not like her was an incumbent not challenged.Stereotomy said:
Also, Gore did face a recent (at the time) 3-term senator, so while I agree this time is more competitive I'd question if we should really classify 2000 as not a competitive primary.
I don't really put much weight on those rules of thumb in political predictions (insert xkcd comic here), and that includes this case. Just posted it as it was interesting.0 -
Veterans will remember the anecdote about the ISIS cell in the dry cleaners...Philip_Thompson said:
Sure it happened.eadric said:No, that really just happened, about an hour ago. I won't name his hospital obviously, but it is well known.
I was astonished, to be honest, I thought all health bigwigs would be as prepped as Foxy. It was disquieting. And I was actually seeking reassurance.
For more disquiet, see this thread from a guy at John Hopkins Uni, who has been a model of calm until now
https://twitter.com/T_Inglesby/status/1231368528416190466?s=20
When every doctor and expert is publicly saying the exact opposite, then some hypochondriac on the web who is definitely not a fiction author is saying the opposite . . . whom should we believe?1 -
Surely we all recall HYUFD stubbornly refusing to accept that Le Pen didn’t win by a landslide....? Hang on, maybe the US system has merits... (although Le Pen/Trump...)rcs1000 said:
Sure they do.speedy2 said:
The winning french candidates only campaign in Paris.rcs1000 said:
Ok.brokenwheel said:
Sure ok, California, New York and Texas then.rcs1000 said:
I don't think that works.brokenwheel said:
If the US used a raw popular vote what's to stop a candidate just campaigning heavily in California and New York, and **** the rest of the country? Do you honestly think such a situation would be tenable long term?
Ultimately, no matter how much you campaign there's a ceiling of support in any particular state. So, if one candidate campaigned only in California, they might get to 65% (perhaps) of the vote there.
CNN claim to be on 10% in the popular vote.RobD said:Best place for NV results? 538 seem to have taken down their live tracker.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/nevada?xid=ec_crm_nv_d
But by that standard, candidates for the French Presidential election would only campaign in Paris, Marseilles and Lyon.
But they don't. Because campaigning in the same place results in rapidly diminishing returns.0 -
0
-
UK left activists attended events with far right antisemites
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/feb/22/uk-left-activists-at-far-right-events-antisemites-holocaust-deniers0 -
COVID-19 confirmed in Japanese woman who left Diamond Princess after testing negative
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/02/23/national/covid-19-confirmed-japanese-woman-left-diamond-princess-testing-negative/#.XlHzNC-nyhA0 -
Looks like Sanders by KO in Vegas to me1
-
Sanders at 47% in Clark. Most racially diverse in NV ?0
-
Buttigieg doing well in the arse end of nowhere places. Matches IA I guess0
-
Both billionaire egotists have declared there sticking around for Super Tuesday, so I think that’s it.rcs1000 said:
Oh yes.Pulpstar said:Looks like Sanders by KO in Vegas to me
He's definitely favourite now. Unless the moderate lane gets uncrowded real fast, it's all over.
Biden is weak enough that it would be a poor gamble for (say) Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him... and Warren on 9% just thanked Nevada for “keeping her in the race”...
This race is analogous to the last Parliament - almost perfectly designed to prevent any meaningful deals, and thus leading to an outcome the majority wanted to avoid.
0 -
I think that's excellent analysis.Nigelb said:
Both billionaire egotists have declared there sticking around for Super Tuesday, so I think that’s it.rcs1000 said:
Oh yes.Pulpstar said:Looks like Sanders by KO in Vegas to me
He's definitely favourite now. Unless the moderate lane gets uncrowded real fast, it's all over.
Biden is weak enough that it would be a poor gamble for (say) Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him... and Warren on 9% just thanked Nevada for “keeping her in the race”...
This race is analogous to the last Parliament - almost perfectly designed to prevent any meaningful deals, and thus leading to an outcome the majority wanted to avoid.
The only way Sanders does not end up nominee is if Obama and Pelosi and Schumer and the Clintons get on the phone this weekend and essentially force two of Buttigieg, Biden and Baemy to quit the race and endorse the other.0 -
One thing I have noted with US TV, Geico's advertising spend must be even bigger than Bloomberg's0
-
Tyson back in the ring with Holyfield0
-
Caucus system helping Sanders here tbh0
-
Heh Boxing pickers....
They are coming out
My picks...
If Tyson stays the course...a unanimous card will look something like 117/110; 116/111, 115/112
Otherwise a KO- Wilder wins round 71 -
Interesting polling on climate change:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/poll-us-voters-really-do-care-about-climate-change/606907/
Now one of the top two issues (just below healthcare) for all Democrats - and the most polarised issue, including abortion, between Republicans and Democrats.0 -
Almost 14 foot of reach between Fury and Wilder. Battle of the orangutans !0
-
Tom Steyer and Deval Patrick are now unlayable, so eight candidates remain in the market (including the two First Ladies).
89.25% on the eight, that’s a massive under-round. Someone has to win this, it’s not like a boxing match where a draw gets engineered and everyone gets paid loads more to do it all over again next year!0 -
These Vegas great fights are something else...they know how to do showmanship1
-
What the actual f..... Have been watching a local satellite channel that advertised the fight, they’ve shown the whole undercard and pulled the broadcast just as they entered the ring - now expecting me to call a number in Turkey for PPV online. Grrrr.......
Eventually found another way. Commentary in French!0 -
First round to Fury.0
-
-
Interesting (though it probably doesn’t matter much now):
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/22/bernie-sanders-nevada-2020-election-116762
... voters who decided in the days following the debate were roughly divided between supporting Sanders (24%), Pete Buttigieg (21%), Warren (21%), and Biden (19%)....0 -
Because the way people talk about Trump is if he is some savant like genius who stole all the Dem voters from Hilary and has some special unbreakable bond with the common man making him uniquely popular.kle4 said:
Please stop this petty trolling. No one is ever denying that she got more votes so why trot it out like people are denying it? You are able to read so you know thats not what people are doing.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Or alternatively, one could say the Dems got the backing of more American voters than Trump did:Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the Dems lost.Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Dems lost?Philip_Thompson said:
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.Alistair said:
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.rottenborough said:Thread of the evening...
https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/1231340642921598983
Hillary 48%
Trump 46%
Hillary 227
Trump 304
Again its like saying the winner of the Premier League is the club that scores more goals rather than gets most points. You get points by winning individual games over the 38 games. You get electoral college votes by winning individual states over the 50 states.
Hillary 65,853,514
Trump 62,984,828
I get you find it funny but come on, there are limits.
A pleading request.0 -
Yes, the Senate was setup to give small states a voice. The Electoral College was setup because of slavery.Gabs3 said:
That isn't true at all. The electoral college was designed so that southern states could reflect their slave populations in their share of political power, without needing to worry about giving them a vote. It wasn't some carefully arranged setup from a unanimous decision of wise elders. It was the result of a hard fought negotiation between competing interests.Philip_Thompson said:
The electoral college being set proportionate to size +2 Senators is designed deliberately to ensure that the small states concerns aren't overlooked by the large states. Its a deliberate mechanism.Sunil_Prasannan said:
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.Philip_Thompson said:
No you're wrong. There's one President for the whole 50 States of the USA.Sunil_Prasannan said:
But there's only one President for the WHOLE of the USA.Philip_Thompson said:
The whole USA is not a contest any more than the whole Premier League is a single match which Man City is winning this season due to scoring more goals.Sunil_Prasannan said:
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.Philip_Thompson said:
Which is no more a relevant metric than determining the winner of the league by goals scored, or total possession.Sunil_Prasannan said:Philip_Thompson said:
Yes the Dems lost.Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Dems lost?Philip_Thompson said:
The Dems lost 2016 because of swing voters in key sates like Pennsylvania and Michigan.Alistair said:
That seems like a garbage statement. The Dems lost 2016 because of differential turnoit not swing voters.rottenborough said:Thread of the evening...
https://twitter.com/bdomenech/status/1231340642921598983
Hillary 48%
Trump 46%
Hillary 227
Trump 304
Hillary 65,853,514
Trump 62,984,828
The objective is to win games/states.
Hillary WON the whole USA.
There were 50 distinct contests in 2016 not one.
More Americans voted for Hillary than Trump.
Hillary WON the WHOLE of the USA.
More American states voted for Trump than Hillary. By design the 50 States are not one State.
Search your feelings, Philip. You will know the crappiness of the Electoral College to be true!0 -
Yes - headed to Haga then on to Botanic Gardens, which were well worth the effort, plenty of insect eating pitcher plants amongst other delights. Downside was not going to the Volvo Museum next to the mooring berth.StuartDickson said:
Did you stop in Gothenburg?dr_spyn said:Enjoyed a cruise up and down The Adriatic in 2018, huge respect for the entertainments on board, made the sun deck a haven of peace and quiet, and a good place for an evening's reading. Was happy to explore quite a few destinations on foot.
The cooler weather on a 2019 voyage in The Baltic was more taxing, had to wear warmer pullovers and woolly hats. Downside was being herded to and from destinations in St Petersburg, offset by visits to naval museums elsewhere.0 -
Quite. It's bollox. It was an incredible achievement to do what he did in 2016 but it was also a fluke of freakish dimensions. He genuinely has a much better chance this time - is the betting favourite even - but perversely is almost certainly going to lose. Funny old game, politics.Alistair said:Because the way people talk about Trump is if he is some savant like genius who stole all the Dem voters from Hilary and has some special unbreakable bond with the common man making him uniquely popular.
0 -
I don't understand why you still seem to think that Joe is fishing in the same pool as Amy and Pete. They're all moderates but Joe is counting on black voters whereas they're Pete and Amy's weakness.rcs1000 said:
I think that's excellent analysis.Nigelb said:
Both billionaire egotists have declared there sticking around for Super Tuesday, so I think that’s it.rcs1000 said:
Oh yes.Pulpstar said:Looks like Sanders by KO in Vegas to me
He's definitely favourite now. Unless the moderate lane gets uncrowded real fast, it's all over.
Biden is weak enough that it would be a poor gamble for (say) Buttigieg to drop out and endorse him... and Warren on 9% just thanked Nevada for “keeping her in the race”...
This race is analogous to the last Parliament - almost perfectly designed to prevent any meaningful deals, and thus leading to an outcome the majority wanted to avoid.
The only way Sanders does not end up nominee is if Obama and Pelosi and Schumer and the Clintons get on the phone this weekend and essentially force two of Buttigieg, Biden and Baemy to quit the race and endorse the other.
Buttigeig or Klobuchar dropping out would hurt Sanders but Biden dropping probably wouldn't. It might even help him- see South Carolina for an immediate example of why.0
This discussion has been closed.