politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown – now being talked about as a compr
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown – now being talked about as a compromise Dem candidate at a brokered convention
In recent weeks, Democrats have placed a steady stream of calls to Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who opted against running for president nearly a year ago, suggesting that he can emerge as a white knight nominee at a brokered convention — in part on the theory that he may carry his home state in a general election. (Today’s New York Times)
Comments
-
So long as a brokered convention doesn’t choose Hillary Clinton.0
-
Oh was that was a primus inter pares?0
-
-
Replacing someone who gets the most votes with someone who got none would be tricky. Brown would have to give the most dazzling of all dazzling speeches to even think about pulling it off.
But now that you mention him, he looks very... vice-presidential.0 -
If Florida goes for Biden, given New York, Illinois and California likely go for Sanders the key to the race could be Texas next Tuesday, if Sanders wins Texas he is likely to get a majority of delegates if not and Biden wins Texas following a South Carolina win on Saturday and follows it up with a win in Ohio then a contested convention could be on the cards and Brown would have a chance or at least be a potential Biden VP pick.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
FPT
Yes, I had to fast forward through a bit to get to the end, then we deleted it. It almost brought on an anxiety attack. I guess that makes it a good production0 -
Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.0
-
-
Mr Brown looks uncannily like Peter Oborne.0
-
Moderate voters seem to be waking up to the fact they need to go for Biden in order to stop Sanders rather quicker than Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are.
1 -
I think picking someone who didn't take part in the primaries is actually a better look than picking someone who "lost " the primaries .edmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
0 -
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
0 -
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
0 -
Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.0 -
Extremely interesting that Sanders is still the only candidate ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania, considered a difficult state for him, even after all the Castro hullaballoo, and essentially the equivalent of Dudley - nothing like the Corbyn and Brexit situation.HYUFD said:
It still looks extremely difficult to me to say whether he would be the better or worse candidate to beat Trump than BIden, and with both the huge grassroots followings of Trump and Sanders, but their possibly just as strong never-Trump and never-Sanders constituencies out in the country, that Biden doesn't share, it looks absolutely impossible to call and an absolutely fascinating, possibly epochally-defining election.1 -
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.0 -
I agree, they should all retire, and the Dems should pick KLOBUCHAR.MikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
But if it comes to a contested convention their age is a feature not a bug, because you have a Young Cardinals Vote For Old Popes dynamic.0 -
Well the voters have the choice of Buttigieg, Gabbard, Klobuchar, Warren or Steyer over those three - lets have a look at the delegate count for those five combined after Super Tuesday ?MikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
0 -
Joe Kennedy III will be 44 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this yearrcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/0 -
The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024rcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/
Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?0 -
What I don't get is that Warren has some decent national numbers (as in she is hitting 3rd place in some polls) but state polling, like this one, looks absolutely horrific for her. Is there a group of states she is going to come first in that haven't been polled?TheScreamingEagles said:1 -
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.0 -
Goodness knows what JFK and Bobby would have made of Sanders.rcs1000 said:
The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024rcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/
Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?1 -
Who cares ?HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this yearrcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/0 -
Never Trumpets are, even as we speak, positioning in themselves to vote for Trump if Bernie is the candidate. Even Evan McMullin, who has demanded that people.vote for the Dem nominee will drop support if its BernieWhisperingOracle said:
Extremely interesting that Sanders is still the only candidate ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania, considered a difficult state for him, even after all the Castro hullaballoo, and essentially the equivalent of Dudley - nothing like the Corbyn and Brexit situation.HYUFD said:
It still looks extremely difficult to me to say whether he would be the better or worse candidate to beat Trump than BIden, and with both the huge grassroots followings of Trump and Sanders, but their possibly just as strong never-Trump and never-Sanders constituencies out in the country, that Biden doesn't share, it looks absolutely impossible to call and an absolutely fascinating, possibly epochally-defining election.0 -
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.0 -
Sure.HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
But that doesn't make it an iron law, or anything. That just means that Presidents are usually re-elected.0 -
A lot will come next January, for if Trump is re elected and Kennedy becomes the new Massachusetts Senator he is the likely next PresidentNigelb said:
Who cares ?HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this yearrcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/1 -
Joe Kennedy III is Bobby's grandsoncontrarian said:
Goodness knows what JFK and Bobby would have made of Sanders.rcs1000 said:
The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024rcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/
Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?-1 -
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.0 -
Predicting what is likely to happen at a contested convention is hard as there is little recent experience. Sceptical of a dark horse candidate though, especially since the last time that happened it didn't end well.
The left will see anyone but Bernie/Warren as a threat, and the slightly less left will prefer someone who has actually been challenged before entering the presidential bear pit.
0 -
I wonder why he chose not to run?
The timing for a run was absolutely perfect for him
* No incumbent
* No strong candidate leading the field
* Only won re-election to the Senate 2 years ago so is secure in the Senate if he loses, while gains the Presidency if he wins
If the Democrats win this time there'll be no vacancy in 2024 and by the 2024 election he'd be pushing being old for a first term and it'd be the same year he'd need to run for the Senate if he wanted to remain there so couldn't contest both.0 -
Her RCP average is 12.4%, she's picked up 12.9% of the vote so far and 8% of the available delegates.Alistair said:
What I don't get is that Warren has some decent national numbers (as in she is hitting 3rd place in some polls) but state polling, like this one, looks absolutely horrific for her. Is there a group of states she is going to come first in that haven't been polled?TheScreamingEagles said:
She looks strongest where Sanders looks strong.0 -
AOC will be 35 by the time the 2024 vote occurs..Nigelb said:
Who cares ?HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this yearrcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/
And I suspect a lot of what she is campaigning for will be popular in 4 years time..0 -
https://youtu.be/RIGL-KnATQkrcs1000 said:
The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024rcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/
Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?0 -
Warren it is then as it won't be Bernie.brokenwheel said:Predicting what is likely to happen at a contested convention is hard as there is little recent experience. Skeptical of a dark horse candidate though, especially since the last time that happened it didn't end well.
The left will see anyone but Bernie/Warren as a threat, and the slightly less left will prefer someone who has actually been challenged before entering the presidential bear pit.0 -
AOC is too tied to Sanders, if Sanders is nominee and loses her chances likely disappear too.eek said:
AOC will be 35 by the time the 2024 vote occurs..Nigelb said:
Who cares ?HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024 if he wins the Massachusetts Senate race this yearrcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/
And I suspect a lot of what she is campaigning for will be popular in 4 years time..
She would be Long Bailey to Kennedy's Starmer0 -
David Herdson makes an excellent point if it turns out the Pope has the coronavirus.
https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1233034673208594433?s=210 -
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.1 -
Ich bin ein Berliner!!HYUFD said:
https://youtu.be/5XFF_5sUSacrcs1000 said:
The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024rcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/
Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?2 -
contrarian said:
Goodness its uncanny.........Ich bin ein Berliner!!HYUFD said:
https://youtu.be/5XFF_5sUSacrcs1000 said:
The US do like their political dynasties, so you never know...HYUFD said:
Joe Kennedy III will be 39 in 2024rcs1000 said:Morning all.
Biden has one big advantage over Bernie Sanders: his policies won't put off a significant number of moderate voters.
He has one disadvantage, mind. And that is while Sanders is as sharp as a tack, Biden seems to be suffering from mental degradation. If the debates get down to Biden vs Sanders, that's going to be painfully obvious.
It's amazing to think that politics in the US, for the last 28 years, has been dominated by a cadre of people born in the mid to late 40s. Clinton, Bush Jr, Trump. Only Obama bucks that trend.
Before that, politics was dominated by a group of Presidents old enough to fight in the Second World war: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.
The period between 1927 and 1945 provided exactly no Presidents.
This election is surely the immediate post-War generation's last hurrah. The interesting question is whether we see a similar gap, with the next cadre of Presidents being born in 1970 or later. Or whether the gap was simply a statistical quirt.
https://newbostonpost.com/around-new-england/kennedy-markey-neck-and-neck-in-latest-poll/
Is he a particularly inspiring speaker, do you know?0 -
If they all get locked in one room will it be white smoke we're waiting for?TheScreamingEagles said:David Herdson makes an excellent point if it turns out the Pope has the coronavirus.
https://twitter.com/davidherdson/status/1233034673208594433?s=210 -
2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk
2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.3 -
I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.
2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.
And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.0 -
Come on Musk!Pulpstar said:2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk
2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.0 -
Funny thought but Johnson has renounced his US citizenship. Even if he regained it somehow now he's no longer be a "natural born" citizen.Quincel said:
If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...Pulpstar said:2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk
2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.0 -
Chris Curtis of YouGov offers his thoughts.
https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1233038136822976522?s=210 -
Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.rcs1000 said:I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).
2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.
And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.
In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.1 -
Afternoon all
Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.
FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.0 -
Looks as though the FDA is (belatedly) getting its act together on enabling more widespread testing (Gottlieb is, of course, the previous FDA chief):
https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/12330216819181936640 -
Is that how it works? Honestly never realised there was a distinction in that way.Philip_Thompson said:
Funny thought but Johnson has renounced his US citizenship. Even if he regained it somehow now he's no longer be a "natural born" citizen.Quincel said:
If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...Pulpstar said:2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk
2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.0 -
It's never proper Keynesianism though is it ? Govts run deficits in the good times - the time to fix the roof...rcs1000 said:
Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.rcs1000 said:I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).
2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.
And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.
In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.1 -
The US healthcare system and the coronavirus may sort that out.MikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
They might have top-notch healthcare, but their domestic staff?0 -
Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.
FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.0 -
Thank you for this thread. Backed Sherrod at 410 earlier today and laid off at 240.
Merci.0 -
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.0 -
Natural born means since birth, it doesn't mean born on US soil. There've been a few candidates recently who weren't born on US soil but were still natural born Americans.Quincel said:
Is that how it works? Honestly never realised there was a distinction in that way.Philip_Thompson said:
Funny thought but Johnson has renounced his US citizenship. Even if he regained it somehow now he's no longer be a "natural born" citizen.Quincel said:
If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...Pulpstar said:2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk
2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.
There's no precedence here I can think of but I'd presume if he acquired citizenship now he'd be just as ineligible as anyone who wasn't born an American by virtue of having renounced his citizenship.0 -
Well, it's more like proactive Keynesianism... we'll run the deficit to prevent the recession. The problem is, of course, that it requires ever larger deficits to keep one's head above water. Which is why, incredibly late in the economic cycle, Trump is running a massive deficit trying to keep economic growth going.Pulpstar said:
It's never proper Keynesianism though is it ? Govts run deficits in the good times - the time to fix the roof...rcs1000 said:
Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.rcs1000 said:I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).
2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.
And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.
In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.0 -
I guess after sorting out the UK, Boris will want a bigger challenge...Philip_Thompson said:
Natural born means since birth, it doesn't mean born on US soil. There've been a few candidates recently who weren't born on US soil but were still natural born Americans.Quincel said:
Is that how it works? Honestly never realised there was a distinction in that way.Philip_Thompson said:
Funny thought but Johnson has renounced his US citizenship. Even if he regained it somehow now he's no longer be a "natural born" citizen.Quincel said:
If Boris Johnson truly is 'Britain's Trump', and Boris Johnson was born in America...Pulpstar said:2024 Dem primary:
AOC vs Chelsea Clinton vs Joe Kennedy vs Elon Musk
2024 GOP Primary
Ivanka Trump by acclamation.
There's no precedence here I can think of but I'd presume if he acquired citizenship now he'd be just as ineligible as anyone who wasn't born an American by virtue of having renounced his citizenship.0 -
https://xkcd.com/1122/Benpointer said:
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.
Link that is often shared whenever anyone starts relying too heavily upon precedent as an argument).0 -
Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.rcs1000 said:
Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.
FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.
Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated. 0 -
https://xkcd.com/1122/Benpointer said:
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.0 -
Ah yes, thanks (and to @rcs1000). I have seen that one - should have remembered it.Philip_Thompson said:
https://xkcd.com/1122/Benpointer said:
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.
Link that is often shared whenever anyone starts relying too heavily upon precedent as an argument).0 -
I blame Gordon Brown. He ended boom and bust and saved the world don't you know?rcs1000 said:
Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.rcs1000 said:I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).
2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.
And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.
In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.0 -
When you say "anyone"...Philip_Thompson said:
https://xkcd.com/1122/Benpointer said:
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.
Link that is often shared whenever anyone starts relying too heavily upon precedent as an argument).0 -
... I have one name in mind . . .rcs1000 said:
When you say "anyone"...Philip_Thompson said:
https://xkcd.com/1122/Benpointer said:
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.
Link that is often shared whenever anyone starts relying too heavily upon precedent as an argument).0 -
He certainly ended boom. It's a better success rate than average.Philip_Thompson said:
I blame Gordon Brown. He ended boom and bust and saved the world don't you know?rcs1000 said:
Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.rcs1000 said:I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).
2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.
And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.
In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.1 -
I wasn't aware any demographic sets were immune.eadric said:Iranian dissidents are claiming that coronavirus has killed a young female football player
https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1233038778828238854?s=20
If true, it's concerning on a number of levels. Young, fit, female does not tick many boxes.0 -
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.rcs1000 said:
https://xkcd.com/1122/Benpointer said:
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.0 -
Iranian students were studying in Wuhaneadric said:Iranian dissidents are claiming that coronavirus has killed a young female football player
https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1233038778828238854?s=20
If true, it's concerning on a number of levels. Young, fit, female does not tick many boxes.
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-evacuates-students-iraqis-syrians-from-china-coronavirus-epicenter/30418195.html0 -
0% (negative real) interest rates and a bottomless pit of cheap goods from China have delayed the recession we should have had.Philip_Thompson said:
I blame Gordon Brown. He ended boom and bust and saved the world don't you know?rcs1000 said:
Equally interesting, of course, is that from about 1980, the new economic orthodoxy became to accept that recessions happened from time-to-time, and that attempting to use Keynesian policies to prevent them only resulted in even worse outcomes.rcs1000 said:I think there may very well be a sort of natural eight year cycle, which ties to the economic cycle. It's interesting to note how often you have recessions around changes of party: so, 2008 (great recession), 2000 (end of the TMT boom and recession), 1992 (fag end of the early 1990s recession), 1980 (US recession), 1970s (a bunch of recessions and the oil shock).
2016 is unusual, because there was no recession.
And now, of course, the US is doing anything they can to prevent any kind of slowdown.
In the last decade, that's changed, and Keynesian demand management is back in style. Our politicians believe that slowdowns can be ever prevented via larger and larger government deficits. I fear it will all end in tears.
That bottomless pit of goods has possible disappeared - I wonder what else will disappear with it.0 -
A 23 year old US soldier died in S Korea earlier this week. The risk factor still appears dramatically lower for those around that age, though, anecdotage notwithstanding.eadric said:
Children under 10 do seem to be virtually immune (there are some alleged cases in babies etc)Benpointer said:
I wasn't aware any demographic sets were immune.eadric said:Iranian dissidents are claiming that coronavirus has killed a young female football player
https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1233038778828238854?s=20
If true, it's concerning on a number of levels. Young, fit, female does not tick many boxes.
Either way a fatality (if this is true) in a healthy 20-something female is very very rare. Of course it might be fake news.
This is definitely true. A pro footballl player in Italy has got the bug. This is ominous for professional sport.
https://twitter.com/GrupoPeriscopio/status/1233042352027029507?s=20
(And the M/F risk ratio seems to be somewhere around 8/5 - but that's not at all unusual for viral disease.)0 -
Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?Quincel said:
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.
Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?0 -
Will the First race of the festival be run on the intended day?
0 -
Was Adlai Stevenson in 1952 the last selected candidate not to take part in the primaries?Quincel said:
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.rcs1000 said:
https://xkcd.com/1122/Benpointer said:
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.0 -
Got the bug and died from the bug are two very, very different propositions.eadric said:
Children under 10 do seem to be virtually immune (there are some alleged cases in babies etc)Benpointer said:
I wasn't aware any demographic sets were immune.eadric said:Iranian dissidents are claiming that coronavirus has killed a young female football player
https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1233038778828238854?s=20
If true, it's concerning on a number of levels. Young, fit, female does not tick many boxes.
Either way a fatality (if this is true) in a healthy 20-something female is very very rare. Of course it might be fake news.
This is definitely true. A pro footballl player in Italy has got the bug. This is ominous for professional sport.
https://twitter.com/GrupoPeriscopio/status/1233042352027029507?s=20
I would put anything past the Iranian regime. There are some who may view this epidemic as a good opportunity to get rid of people who are troublesome to the regime.0 -
And what's the incentive ?Benpointer said:
Was Adlai Stevenson in 1952 the last selected candidate not to take part in the primaries?Quincel said:
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.rcs1000 said:
https://xkcd.com/1122/Benpointer said:
XKCD applies? As in XKCD Randall Munroe's webcomic?Philip_Thompson said:
Its a point I've made a number of times. Not only was Reagan/Carter the only loss for an incumbent after the first term of his party being in office since WWII . . . but it was the only time since the start of the 20th century.rcs1000 said:
Yeah, but the Republicans had been in power for twelve years before that.contrarian said:
Hang on didn't Clinton beat a one term incumbent? (Bush?)HYUFD said:
The only candidate since WW2 to beat an incumbent president after only one term of his party in the White House, Reagan in 1980, was also over 60rcs1000 said:
The number of times since 1992 that there has been an incumbent facing re-election is three.HYUFD said:
No party has nominated a candidate under 60 to take on an incumbent president since 1992 and that was after 12 years out of office not 4 years as the Democrats are nowMikeSmithson said:
Bernie, Biden and Bloomberg are too effing oldedmundintokyo said:Good candidate but I'm suspicious of the idea that they'll go for a random non-runner. If you're trying to get 51% of votes at the convention it's easier to start with someone who's already got delegates, and since Bernie and Biden look like the front-runners in a scenario like this, and they have excellent Being Likely To Die skills, it's easier to just buy off another runner with the VP slot.
Clinton 1996
Bush 2004
Obama 2012
So, you're extrapolating from an awfully small dataset.
I still remain unconvinced by HYUFD's logic, mind.
In that time 12 first time (for party) incumbents had sought re-election and every single won bar Carter won.
Of course precedent doesn't guarantee the future, XKCD applies, but its very telling and useful to bear in mind.
A candidate imposed over a Sanders plurality of delegates would if anything be more likely to lose than Sanders himself.1 -
Around ftse 5000 is the earliest to think about it.Benpointer said:
Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.rcs1000 said:
Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.
FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.
Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.0 -
Interesting, I'm not expecting it to go that low tbhIshmaelZ said:
Around ftse 5000 is the earliest to think about it.Benpointer said:
Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.rcs1000 said:
Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.
FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.
Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.0 -
We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.Pulpstar said:
Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?Quincel said:
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.
Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses0 -
So long as Retford Half marathon isn't called off next weekend !eadric said:
I reckon professional sport is banjaxed
https://twitter.com/CapitalFMSport/status/1233037885194035206?s=20
https://twitter.com/soccerMeraki/status/1233035869344485376?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoalShakers/status/1233010313630539776?s=20
Sporting events are spreading the virus. They will be cancelled, en masse
London marathon must be seriously in doubt now - certainly the mass participation side of it. I suspect smaller races will go ahead for the moment.0 -
We might see the return of Hamster Racing to fill the gap.isam said:Will the First race of the festival be run on the intended day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamster_racing0 -
Not that Clinton, her rather more successful husband... Tsongas won New Hampshire and Tom Harkin Iowa.Quincel said:
We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.Pulpstar said:
Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?Quincel said:
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.
Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses0 -
1992, Bill Clinton didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire. (Although Iowa wasn't seriously fought as the local senator was also running for the nomination.)Quincel said:
We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.Pulpstar said:
Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?Quincel said:
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.
Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses0 -
You ain't seen nuttin' yet.Benpointer said:
Interesting, I'm not expecting it to go that low tbhIshmaelZ said:
Around ftse 5000 is the earliest to think about it.Benpointer said:
Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.rcs1000 said:
Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.
FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.
Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.0 -
rcs1000 said:
1992, Bill Clinton didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire. (Although Iowa wasn't seriously fought as the local senator was also running for the nomination.)Quincel said:
We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.Pulpstar said:
Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?Quincel said:
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.
Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses
Ah yes, the stat is Top 2 in IA/NH isn't it? Anyway, Biden would destroy the myth that it is an iron rule as opposed to a good indicator.Pulpstar said:
Not that Clinton, her rather more successful husband... Tsongas won New Hampshire and Tom Harkin Iowa.Quincel said:
We'll never know the Iowa popular vote from 2016 but Clinton narrowly won the SDEs.Pulpstar said:
Didn't Clinton pull that trick ?Quincel said:
I would slightly like Biden to win the nomination purely to slightly decrease the amount of people next time saying that no-one can win without winning one of IA/NH.
Bloomberg -> Biden support is probably the softest of all I think, if Bloomberg (Buttigieg & Klobuchar surely suspend after ST) suspends then it might be very competitive between Sanders and Biden ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses0 -
Damn, my pension was almost hitting £100k too. Oh well - 26 years or so to recover xDIshmaelZ said:
You ain't seen nuttin' yet.Benpointer said:
Interesting, I'm not expecting it to go that low tbhIshmaelZ said:
Around ftse 5000 is the earliest to think about it.Benpointer said:
Feeling good about getting out of equities last week.rcs1000 said:
Alternatively, back in 1993, more than a quarter century ago, it reached 3418.stodge said:Afternoon all
Well, the DJIA has opened down but of course it could be one of those hugely volatile sessions with wild inra-day swings.
FTSE around 6800 currently - levels last seen as far back as December 2018. For a tincture of historical perspective, it was 3830 on February 1st 2009 so over an 11 year period it's still an increase of 77.5% which isn't shabby.
Now, if someone could just post on here when the markets bottom out that'd be appreciated.0 -
If that is the law, the law is an ass!eadric said:
Serious question: if you hold a major sporting event and hundreds of people catch the bug, and a few die, because of their attendance at that event, could you be sued? Are you liable?Pulpstar said:
So long as Retford Half marathon isn't called off next weekend !eadric said:
I reckon professional sport is banjaxed
https://twitter.com/CapitalFMSport/status/1233037885194035206?s=20
https://twitter.com/soccerMeraki/status/1233035869344485376?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoalShakers/status/1233010313630539776?s=20
Sporting events are spreading the virus. They will be cancelled, en masse
London marathon must be seriously in doubt now - certainly the mass participation side of it. I suspect smaller races will go ahead for the moment.
If there is any suggestion that could happen, EVERYTHING will get cancelled0 -
Play the games behind closed doors. Give everyone emergency access to football / sport via the BBC.
0 -
If that is all the relevant facts it's a QTWTAIN.isam said:
If that is the law, the law is an ass!eadric said:
Serious question: if you hold a major sporting event and hundreds of people catch the bug, and a few die, because of their attendance at that event, could you be sued? Are you liable?Pulpstar said:
So long as Retford Half marathon isn't called off next weekend !eadric said:
I reckon professional sport is banjaxed
https://twitter.com/CapitalFMSport/status/1233037885194035206?s=20
https://twitter.com/soccerMeraki/status/1233035869344485376?s=20
https://twitter.com/GoalShakers/status/1233010313630539776?s=20
Sporting events are spreading the virus. They will be cancelled, en masse
London marathon must be seriously in doubt now - certainly the mass participation side of it. I suspect smaller races will go ahead for the moment.
If there is any suggestion that could happen, EVERYTHING will get cancelled
Different relevant facts, different outcome.
0 -
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041315/how-much-revenue-airline-industry-comes-business-travelers-compared-leisure-travelers.aspeadric said:https://twitter.com/LionBlogosphere/status/1233037334880440321?s=20
Eeesh. But again, as predicted
Business travel = 12% of flights but *on some routes* 75% of profits0 -
Its quite extraordinary that you take tweets like that at face value. Neither the person nor the company are named. Could easily be a complete fabrication.eadric said:https://twitter.com/LionBlogosphere/status/1233037334880440321?s=20
Eeesh. But again, as predicted0 -
I guess that the Vatican has ambassadors from everywhere.eadric said:WTF is this Vatican Iran link?
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1233052330460884998?s=200 -
It is not inconceivable that Boris could shut off all our borders to any non UK citizen by May, and have Remainers cheering him all the way! What price that last December?eadric said:WTF is this Vatican Iran link?
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1233052330460884998?s=200 -
It's not much use sealing the borders if you still let UK citizens in.isam said:
It is not inconceivable that Boris could shut off all our borders to any non UK citizen by May, and have Remainers cheering him all the way! What price that last December?eadric said:WTF is this Vatican Iran link?
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1233052330460884998?s=200 -
Lots of sensible stuff coming out.eadric said:
Israel is advising its citizens to avoid ALL foreign travelisam said:
It is not inconceivable that Boris could shut off all our borders to any non UK citizen by May, and have Remainers cheering him all the way! What price that last December?eadric said:WTF is this Vatican Iran link?
https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1233052330460884998?s=20
https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1232789316730073094?s=20
Private companies making decisions to protect their employees is really excellent news.
Tick tock PHE / Hancock / DoH - where is your information? Where is the sense of urgency. Time is of the essence.1 -
I think if we're doing it we need to do it. No half measures. Nobody with a sniffle gets in regardless of who they are.williamglenn said:It's not much use sealing the borders if you still let UK citizens in.
Fortress Britain until there's a vaccine.0 -
I've just seen a graphic of Coronavirus death rates (Obviously an early study) but it does suggest it is dangerous for elderly people with existing health problems.
The death rate for 80 plus people is 14.8 per cent, which is very considerable
Lower down the ages it plummets however.
50/59 is 1.3%
40/49 is 0.40%
20/29 is 0.20%.
Its an early study but those are pretty low numbers.
The source is worldometers.info
0
