politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile for the other contenders the battle continues…
Comments
-
Trump has 52% approval among Republicans and 34% among Democrats, so triangulation suggests he'd get about two thirds of what he'd get on the GOP side. That's just above 20%, so your estimate, relative to 35% or so now.MTimT said:
Agreed that there'd be a strong reaction against him, just as there is in the GOP. His net negatives with the Latino electorate is -51 !!! But he'd probably get votes in the majority white states in the North and Midwest, so I'd think 15-25% would be what he'd be pulling.HYUFD said:
His message is a largely populist anti immigrant one, that would not go down well in the Democratic primaries, their anti Wall Street populism is provided by SandersMTimT said:
I wonder if Trump had entered the Dem nomination race what numbers he'd be polling. I have a sneaking suspicion it would be about what it is now as a Republican. He is a populist buffoon rather than a statesman of any particular political stripe.TheScreamingEagles said:
So what's their excuse for Donald Trump?Richard_Nabavi said:
The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.viewcode said:How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.
0 -
We would never have known if his ratings were to improve by the time of the election.HYUFD said:
It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PMSunil_Prasannan said:
True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!HYUFD said:
Howard won 2% more than Ed and gained seats. Had IDS been storming ahead in the polls and gaining by elections he would not have been ousted as leaderSunil_Prasannan said:
Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for LabourHYUFD said:
Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seatsSunil_Prasannan said:
My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!HYUFD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005Sunil_Prasannan said:
But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!HYUFD said:
may well also vote with their hearts for CorbynSunil_Prasannan said:
What do you mean fails to perform??HYUFD said:Big_G_NorthWales said:HYUFD said:
I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper winBig_G_NorthWales said:
If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of electionsDiversityIsOurGodNow said:Depressing. The people in that picture look like the dead-arses you see hanging around outside Wetherspoons in the morning. And to think Burnham was considered top talent prior to the Corbyn surge...truly staggering.
The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.0 -
Hopefully Michael Bloomberg would run 3rd party if Trump v Sanders were the choice and he would probably win, Bloomberg would be better than Hillary and Jeb Bush in my opinion anyway so ironically it could produce the best candidate by default as Bloomberg would never win otherwiseMTimT said:
As someone of libertarian tendencies (fiscal and foreign policy conservative, social liberal), I'd vote any Dem, even Sanders, over Trump if he were the GOP candidate. He would be extraordinarily dangerous for the world. I know a number of Republicans who think the same way.flightpath01 said:
There have been worse VP nominees.Richard_Nabavi said:
The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.viewcode said:How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.
But Trump if he persists musty be seen as a disaster - and not just for the Repunblicans. A mirror image of Corbyn, a Farage with brains, it also speaks volumes for the disaster that is 'populism'.0 -
Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...TheScreamingEagles said:
I just hope for the GOP he is this Primary cycle's Herman Cain.MTimT said:
I wonder if Trump had entered the Dem nomination race what numbers he'd be polling. I have a sneaking suspicion it would be about what it is now as a Republican. He is a populist buffoon rather than a statesman of any particular political stripe.TheScreamingEagles said:
So what's their excuse for Donald Trump?Richard_Nabavi said:
The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.viewcode said:How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.
0 -
Obviously they did as they were a far better predictor of the election result than the party polls which were tiedRobD said:
Weren't we told ad nauseam on here that leadership ratings didn't matter Re: Milliband? I thought we were.HYUFD said:
It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PMSunil_Prasannan said:
True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!HYUFD said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for LabourHYUFD said:
Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seatsSunil_Prasannan said:
My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!HYUFD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005Sunil_Prasannan said:
But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!HYUFD said:
may well also vote with their hearts for CorbynSunil_Prasannan said:
What do you mean fails to perform??HYUFD said:Big_G_NorthWales said:HYUFD said:
I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper winBig_G_NorthWales said:
If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of electionsDiversityIsOurGodNow said:Depressing. The people in that picture look like the dead-arses you see hanging around outside Wetherspoons in the morning. And to think Burnham was considered top talent prior to the Corbyn surge...truly staggering.
The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!0 -
Michael Foot and William Hague won local elections, fat lot of good it did them at the general!Sunil_Prasannan said:
We would never have known if his ratings were to improve by the time of the election.HYUFD said:
It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PMSunil_Prasannan said:
True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!HYUFD said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for LabourHYUFD said:
Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seatsSunil_Prasannan said:
My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!HYUFD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005Sunil_Prasannan said:
But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!HYUFD said:
may well also vote with their hearts for CorbynSunil_Prasannan said:
What do you mean fails to perform??HYUFD said:Big_G_NorthWales said:HYUFD said:
I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper winBig_G_NorthWales said:
If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of electionsDiversityIsOurGodNow said:Depressing. The people in that picture look like the dead-arses you see hanging around outside Wetherspoons in the morning. And to think Burnham was considered top talent prior to the Corbyn surge...truly staggering.
The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.0 -
Philip_Thompson said:
I thought from memory he was suggesting there was value in backing Ed (as there was) rather than supporting Ed personally.HYUFD said:
Mind you Mike was urging Labour to pick Ed rather than David in 2010TheScreamingEagles said:
From my conversations with Mike, I get the impression Mike rates Burnham as a crapper version of Gordon Brown but without the charm or people skills.Danny565 said:LOL, OGH really has it in for Burnham doesn't he.
Furthermore David was crap as was Ed. No reason whatsoever to believe David wouldn't have done equally as dreadfully as his brother he couldn't even beat himself.
He said he thought Ed was a better pick for Labour and all the polling evidence was that David Miliband was the public' s preference for Labour leader at the timePhilip_Thompson said:
I thought from memory he was suggesting there was value in backing Ed (as there was) rather than supporting Ed personally.HYUFD said:
Mind you Mike was urging Labour to pick Ed rather than David in 2010TheScreamingEagles said:
From my conversations with Mike, I get the impression Mike rates Burnham as a crapper version of Gordon Brown but without the charm or people skills.Danny565 said:LOL, OGH really has it in for Burnham doesn't he.
Furthermore David was crap as was Ed. No reason whatsoever to believe David wouldn't have done equally as dreadfully as his brother he couldn't even beat himself.0 -
HYUFD said:
Michael Foot and William Hague won local elections, fat lot of good it did them at the general!Sunil_Prasannan said:
We would never have known if his ratings were to improve by the time of the election.HYUFD said:
It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PMSunil_Prasannan said:
True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!HYUFD said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for LabourHYUFD said:
Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seatsSunil_Prasannan said:
My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!HYUFD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005Sunil_Prasannan said:
But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!HYUFD said:
may well also vote with their hearts for CorbynSunil_Prasannan said:
What do you mean fails to perform??HYUFD said:Big_G_NorthWales said:HYUFD said:
I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper winBig_G_NorthWales said:
If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of electionsDiversityIsOurGodNow said:Depressinggering.
The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.
HYUFD Tories merely replaced one loser, IDS, with another, Howard 0 -
Albany. Sacramento. Austin. Atlanta. Um...RobD said:
Should have bean Juneau... I don't know my state capitals!viewcode said:
It seems like only yesterday, but lord, it's seven years ago now...RobD said:
I remember how much money I won on her winning that. I remember seeing info on that chartered/private flight from Anchorage to Minnesota and piling in on the money... happy times.viewcode said:
How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.Richard_Nabavi said:It's not often that you get to see an organisation disintegrating in real time in front of you in such detail and under such a spotlight.
0 -
That's right, they're all learning English so they can come over and steal your jobs. And also so they can read/write ISIS propagandaDisraeli said:o/t Feeling a bit down in the dumps today, but this cheers me up.
https://twitter.com/DanHannanMEP/status/636640403782037506
0 -
I heard a comment that Trump is like Barbasol - thick and rich.MTimT said:
Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...TheScreamingEagles said:
I just hope for the GOP he is this Primary cycle's Herman Cain.MTimT said:
I wonder if Trump had entered the Dem nomination race what numbers he'd be polling. I have a sneaking suspicion it would be about what it is now as a Republican. He is a populist buffoon rather than a statesman of any particular political stripe.TheScreamingEagles said:
So what's their excuse for Donald Trump?Richard_Nabavi said:
The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.viewcode said:How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.
It's a tad unfair - he did graduate from the Wharton school.0 -
Should we be laying Bush? He's only about 2-1 on Betfair and the probability that he'll be the one to come out top seems less than that on form so far...MTimT said:
Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...0 -
Feeling a tad smug about my home town.......
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/08/24/honest-tea-atlanta-cities/32260581/
Obviously this is not a scientifically rigorous experiment such as I would do with Heidi0 -
How do you think the odds will change for him between now and the result?NickPalmer said:
Should we be laying Bush? He's only about 2-1 on Betfair and the probability that he'll be the one to come out top seems less than that on form so far...MTimT said:
Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...0 -
Leadership ratings rarely change much once the country's come to a settled opinion, which it had - rightly - about IDS by 2003. He wasn't seen as PM material; Howard was, though other ractors held him back, as it did the Tories in general.Sunil_Prasannan said:
We would never have known if his ratings were to improve by the time of the election.HYUFD said:
It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PMSunil_Prasannan said:
True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!HYUFD said:
Howard won 2% more than Ed and gained seats. Had IDS been storming ahead in the polls and gaining by elections he would not have been ousted as leaderSunil_Prasannan said:
Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for LabourHYUFD said:
Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seatsSunil_Prasannan said:
My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!HYUFD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005Sunil_Prasannan said:
But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!HYUFD said:
may well also vote with their hearts for CorbynSunil_Prasannan said:
What do you mean fails to perform??HYUFD said:Big_G_NorthWales said:HYUFD said:
I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper winBig_G_NorthWales said:
If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of elections
The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.0 -
New Peers to be announced this afternoon (ie Thurs).
Accusations of putting out several bits of bad news on the same day. The following will all be announced today:
- Number of people who have died after being found fit for work by DWP
- Migration stats
- New Peers
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/burying-bad-news-allegation-made-over-list-of-new-peers0 -
As if the VA shooting of TV folks during a live interview wasn't enough, a policeman is among 3 people shot in Sunset LA. The shooter is holed up in a convenience store.0
-
A 100,000 people died last year without any pre existing condition. Fit and healthy people die as well as sick people. Been returned to work has nothing to do with it.MikeL said:New Peers to be announced this afternoon (ie Thurs).
Accusations of putting out several bits of bad news on the same day. The following will all be announced today:
- Number of people who have died after being found fit for work by DWP
- Migration stats
- New Peers
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/burying-bad-news-allegation-made-over-list-of-new-peers0 -
Have there? With the exception of Curtis LeMay (who ran on a third party ticket so doesn't really count), I can't think of any.flightpath01 said:
There have been worse VP nominees.Richard_Nabavi said:
The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.viewcode said:How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.
But Trump if he persists musty be seen as a disaster - and not just for the Repunblicans. A mirror image of Corbyn, a Farage with brains, it also speaks volumes for the disaster that is 'populism'.0 -
Colonel Sanders was first choice, before LeMay...david_herdson said:
Have there? With the exception of Curtis LeMay (who ran on a third party ticket so doesn't really count), I can't think of any.flightpath01 said:
There have been worse VP nominees.Richard_Nabavi said:
The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.viewcode said:How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.
But Trump if he persists musty be seen as a disaster - and not just for the Repunblicans. A mirror image of Corbyn, a Farage with brains, it also speaks volumes for the disaster that is 'populism'.0 -
Sunil As David H states Howard was seen as a more credible leader than IDS even if voters were not yet ready for the Tories again in 2005, nightSunil_Prasannan said:HYUFD said:Sunil_Prasannan said:HYUFD said:
It would have been too late to get rid of him by 2005 and he trailed Blair badly as preferred PMSunil_Prasannan said:
True, but he may have turned things round by 2005!HYUFD said:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Still lost - Tories two shy of 200 seats. Even Ed won 232 for LabourHYUFD said:
Yes and he gained 33 seats and cut Labour's majority by 100 seatsSunil_Prasannan said:
My evidence is simple: Howard was leader at GE2005!HYUFD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-2001-2005Sunil_Prasannan said:
But my statement still stands! It was Howard wot lost the GE2005!HYUFD said:
may well also vote with their hearts for CorbynSunil_Prasannan said:
What do you mean fails to perform??HYUFD said:Big_G_NorthWales said:HYUFD said:
I don't think so, the LDs are in an even worse state than Labour and no Blairites will defect to Farron who also despises their mentor, nor will many go to the Tories, and as for the Left if it stayed in Labour under Blair and Brown it is not going to defect wholesale if Burnham or Cooper winBig_G_NorthWales said:
If Burnham was ever considered top talent it says it all about the uselessness of today's labour party. It must be inevitable tha it will split into two or even three after this most depressing of electionsDiversityIsOurGodNow said:Depressinggering.
The Tories were in a similar position under IDS the pendulum turns eventually, indeed someone like Alan Johnson could take over in 3 years or so if Corbyn is elected and fails to perform
IDS never lost a GE as Tory leader!!!
BTW He won most votes at the 2002 Locals, and most votes and seats at the 2003 Locals.
HYUFD Tories merely replaced one loser, IDS, with another, Howard0 -
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/628249873217929218MikeL said:New Peers to be announced this afternoon (ie Thurs).
Accusations of putting out several bits of bad news on the same day. The following will all be announced today:
- Number of people who have died after being found fit for work by DWP
- Migration stats
- New Peers
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/burying-bad-news-allegation-made-over-list-of-new-peers0 -
Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.
Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html0 -
One such candidate was David Laws.MikeL said:Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.
Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html0 -
Will the lift operator at the house of lords be elevated to the peerage?MikeL said:Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.
Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html0 -
Somewhat bizarre that until 4 months ago he was a Minister attending Cabinet meetings (though not an official member).RobD said:
One such candidate was David Laws.MikeL said:Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.
Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html0 -
Thankfully they've installed a Stannah stairlift for the older of our most noble peers.Tim_B said:
Will the lift operator at the house of lords be elevated to the peerage?MikeL said:Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.
Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html
0 -
A pity Danny Alexander didn't want one. Wonder if he has found a position elsewhereMikeL said:
Somewhat bizarre that until 4 months ago he was a Minister attending Cabinet meetings (though not an official member).RobD said:
One such candidate was David Laws.MikeL said:Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.
Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html0 -
Potential new Peers per FT:
Former MPs:
Hague
George Young
Willetts
Darling
Hain
Blunkett
Beith
Campbell
Bruce
Other Conservatives:
Kate Fall
Stephen Gilbert
Simone Finn
Philippa Stroud
James O'Shaughnessy
Michelle Mone
0 -
It's a hilarious Billy Wilder comedy from the early 1960s starring James Cagney as a Coca Cola executive in West Berlin whose daughter falls in love with a communist from East Berlin (Horst Bucholtz).viewcode said:
One of my favorite movies.0 -
I always thought the Lords was a step upRobD said:
Thankfully they've installed a Stannah stairlift for the older of our most noble peers.Tim_B said:
Will the lift operator at the house of lords be elevated to the peerage?MikeL said:Telegraph saying around 40 new Peers - approx 30 will be Con.
Also says 7 proposed Peers were blocked by Appointments Committee - Party not specified - some were MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11826655/Lords-must-be-smaller-and-representative.html 0 -
Tim_B said:
It's a hilarious Billy Wilder comedy from the early 1960s starring James Cagney as a Coca Cola executive in West Berlin whose daughter falls in love with a communist from East Berlin (Horst Bucholtz).viewcode said:
One of my favorite movies.
Phyllis MacNamara: Why can't you get yourself a nice permanent job with the home office in Atlanta?
C.R. MacNamara: Atlanta? You can't be serious! That's Siberia with mint juleps!0 -
Nick
NIck, I've argued from pretty much the start that I don't think Bush will get it because, if he were going to do so, he would have pulled clear from the pack already. That said, he has the Establishment and deep donor pockets, so he is there for the long haul. I just don't see him exciting any base, so I think he'll be in the mix, but it won't be him. But, at the moment, none of the viable candidates is getting the job done. That said, still think it will be one of Rubio, Walker, Bush and Kasich. My dream ticket is Kasich/Rubio, but I would not put much more than a small wager on that.NickPalmer said:
Should we be laying Bush? He's only about 2-1 on Betfair and the probability that he'll be the one to come out top seems less than that on form so far...MTimT said:
Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...0 -
I think it has the snappiest dialog of any Wilder movie.Disraeli said:Tim_B said:
It's a hilarious Billy Wilder comedy from the early 1960s starring James Cagney as a Coca Cola executive in West Berlin whose daughter falls in love with a communist from East Berlin (Horst Bucholtz).viewcode said:
One of my favorite movies.
Phyllis MacNamara: Why can't you get yourself a nice permanent job with the home office in Atlanta?
C.R. MacNamara: Atlanta? You can't be serious! That's Siberia with mint juleps!
Phyllis MacNamara: Atlanta!
C.R. MacNamara: Yeah, I'm the new vice president in charge of bottle caps. They're kicking me upstairs.
Phyllis MacNamara: That's something I've always wanted to do myself.0 -
In surgery today, Lisa was talking to a surgeon whose father has done business with Trump. Says Trump is super smart (he does have a Wharton MBA) and not to be fooled by his buffoonery. He is pro-Trump for the non-poliitician truth-speaker reason. But even so, he does not see him as a viable presidential candidate.Tim_B said:
I heard a comment that Trump is like Barbasol - thick and rich.MTimT said:
Indeed. Although his bump is already about a week longer than Perry's, Huckabee's, Cain's or Gingrich's...TheScreamingEagles said:
I just hope for the GOP he is this Primary cycle's Herman Cain.MTimT said:
I wonder if Trump had entered the Dem nomination race what numbers he'd be polling. I have a sneaking suspicion it would be about what it is now as a Republican. He is a populist buffoon rather than a statesman of any particular political stripe.TheScreamingEagles said:
So what's their excuse for Donald Trump?Richard_Nabavi said:
The Republicans at least had the excuse that she was fairly unknown.viewcode said:How soon we forget Sarah Palin...a charismatic politician who excited the base, but who on even the most cursory examination did not have the character, perspective or ability necessary for the job and whose prospects collapsed under a storm of derision alternating with contempt.
It's a tad unfair - he did graduate from the Wharton school.
That makes me wonder how many of Trump's supporters in the polls at the moment fall into that category - people very pleased to see Trump cutting through the crap and making waves, supportive of his non-PC brashness, but not really seeing him as POTUS.0 -
I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.0
-
Signing off now. Off to Pakistan for a week, probably won't have very good internet there.0
-
Anyone know why MTimT is going to Pakistan? Business?0
-
I guess you won't have as much fun these days as I used to.... No early morning solitary walks in the foothills of the Himalayas, I'm thinking.MTimT said:Signing off now. Off to Pakistan for a week, probably won't have very good internet there.
0 -
Same is true of the alternate history Imperial Senate of 1931RobD said:
Disappointed it doesn't have the Galactic Senate on there, although I suppose its a unicameral legislature.AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
0 -
Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber
Lords is 120% the size of the Commons0 -
As long as it has floating podiums from which the senators address the chamber, I'm all for it!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Same is true of the alternate history Imperial Senate of 1931RobD said:
Disappointed it doesn't have the Galactic Senate on there, although I suppose its a unicameral legislature.AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
0 -
Senator Amidala fromRobD said:
As long as it has floating podiums from which the senators address the chamber, I'm all for it!Sunil_Prasannan said:
Same is true of the alternate history Imperial Senate of 1931RobD said:
Disappointed it doesn't have the Galactic Senate on there, although I suppose its a unicameral legislature.AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
NabooNamibia
0 -
The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber
Lords is 120% the size of the Commons0 -
Not sure that having a large pool of "talent" (stretching to the extreme here, I know) is necessarily a bad thing.RodCrosby said:
The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber
Lords is 120% the size of the Commons0 -
Janner, Hanningfield, Lord Lucan et al are certainly a diverse range of 'talents'...RobD said:
Not sure that having a large pool of "talent" (stretching to the extreme here, I know) is necessarily a bad thing.RodCrosby said:
The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber
Lords is 120% the size of the Commons0 -
Who, thanks to the massive number of peers, constitute a tiny fraction of the chamber. Rotten apples....RodCrosby said:
Janner, Hanningfield, Lord Lucan et all are certainly a diverse range of 'talents'...RobD said:
Not sure that having a large pool of "talent" (stretching to the extreme here, I know) is necessarily a bad thing.RodCrosby said:
The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber
Lords is 120% the size of the Commons0 -
RodCrosby said:
The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber
Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
This "size of the Lords" thing is a bit of a straw man imo.RodCrosby said:
The British House of Lords is larger than the hypothetical upper chamber for a World Government, predicated on the Taagepera formula...Sunil_Prasannan said:
Did you see the %-wise chart I tweeted up-thread?AndyJS said:I get the feeling it's time for another look at Sunil's famous "number of members in the upper house across the world" chart.
Average world-wide is Upper House 44% the size of respective Lower Chamber
Lords is 120% the size of the Commons
They aren't paid for being members, but for attending.
There is access to a wide range of expertise.
The cost is about a quarter of the Commons.
It is effective in holding the Government to account on the non-fashionable aspects, especially in the details.
It prevents *many* pratfalls of the kind that are routine in unicameral Assmblies See Holyrood, and the Senedd.
Some reform needed - yes, but let's have a real debate.
0
