politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The very idea of President Sanders – seriously?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The very idea of President Sanders – seriously?
In contrast to all the interest that the Republicans have delivered in their pre-primary contest, the Democrats’ affair has been a low-key, staid affair so far:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227
This bloke has to tell the police 24 hours before he has sex. I'm struggling to think of a more ridiculous ruling.
Over the last 24 hours, I've come to the same terrifying conclusion.
Having realised my anti-trump bias has been affecting my betting positions - I've reversed my trump lay for no loss and become a backer at 5/1.
I think, given the field, he should be at least an evens shot for the nomination - and between 3/1 & 4/1 for POTUS.
That means there's like, a 20-25% chance we'll have at least 4 years of Donald in the whitehouse.
God help us.
In fact if you had a 24 hr notice of intent of posting something you are outraged about, the site would be better for it.,
Hopefully the sexual risk orders get challenged PDQ.
But for all that, the logistical mechanics of putting together a presidential run from scratch are huge, even for a multi-billionaire. TV and internet perhaps lessen the human factor from what would once have been needed but the institutional and psephological barriers to third parties remain formidable.
A survey back in November found them breakiing 45 to 1 in favoiur of Clinton.
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/13/455812702/clinton-has-45-to-1-superdelegate-advantage-over-sanders
I expect her lead won't be so dramatic now, but it seems likely that she will do better with the superdelegates than the elected delegates.
This makes it easier for her to win, but raises the possibility that she loses the Demoncrat popular vote (maybe even deciisively) but is chosen as the candidate because of her lead with the superdelegates.
This scenario ould be toxic to her chances in the general election. "She's so bad that Deomcrats won't even vote for her" would seem like a potent line of attack.
I'd imagine - pure speculation - that there have been multiple incidents where there has been an accusation and insufficient evidence (perhaps word against word). So the authorities have a pretty clear suspicion that he's not a good egg, but they can't prove that he's guilty of a crime. Hence this - on the face of it - odd sounding order.
My guess is that it's like the US immigration forms: they may not be able to prove that you are a Nazi, but at least they can throw you out of the country for lying on your entry documentation
Surely this is a reasonable approach where the criminal standard of proof for rape is not met, but a civil standard of proof is met?
I could see such orders being very useful in stamping out the sexploitation gangs that have bedeviled so many towns in recent years. One of several reasons that the rings were hard to prosecute was the difficulty of getting the victims to testify against men who they often saw as "boyfriends".
I am not outraged at all, and it shoud be tested in court. In principle it resembles a banning order or ASBO.
But yes, if the Democrat establishment installed Hillary over the heads of the people, it'd be a gift to the Republicans.
In fact, it might be a double gift. As mentioned in the piece, Sanders has never run as a Democrat before, although he has run with Democrat backing. Apart from his early career in a minor party, he's always run as an Independent. Were he to be denied the nomination having gained the popular mandate for it, the Democrat establishment would be seriously risking Sanders running as an independent and handing the Republicans a landslide.
Dr. Foxinsox, I dislike ASBOs a lot as well. Preventing people who haven't committed a crime from doing something legal is crackers.
Some time ago I was subscribed to Private Eye, and recall one ASBO that prevented a woman carrying condoms (she was a prostitute).
What would be more useful in cracking down on gangs would be things like not losing bags full of evidence (quite literally), or taking complaints seriously.
On-topic: it's certainly true the blues are less interesting, simply because the reds have a bonkers chap in the lead.
On Trump, we had an assembly on the presidency yesterday. The 13 year old who read about Trump wrote an absolutely brilliant card talking about his past life, and his difficulty in surviving on a small loan of a million dollars. He did it all without prompting and he would consider himself to the right of Cameron.
God help us all if it's Trump vs Clinton. They are both astonishingly bad - the worst field since 1898?
Much the same points apply to Hilary, she might as well have Likud and Goldman Sachs tattooed to her forehead, which is why Sanders is doing so well. The main thing at the moment is HRC still has traction with blacks, and old white women, but I am not wholly convinced that is enough to carry her through given her track record. Her foreign policy failings and personality are just such a turn off for voters.
I wouldn't read too much in to any Sanders-Trump polling at the moment, he remains a weak candidate and I would expect him to lose to Trump. At the moment he is a consequence free means to signal one's discontent with the powers that be.
"Hundreds of petrol station shops are removing alcohol from sale after being taken over by a Muslim-owned company. The outlets are part of the fast growing Euro Garages, which has 350 petrol stations across the country. The business is worth £1.3billion and has embarked on an aggressive expansion plan which involves buying petrol stations previously run by the likes of BP, Esso and Shell."
//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3412910/Petrol-station-firm-owned-Muslim-family-bans-alcohol-shop-shelves-not-ethical-sell-drink-people-driving.html#ixzz3y3QFQntL
On Trump, we had an assembly on the presidency yesterday. The 13 year old who read about Trump wrote an absolutely brilliant card talking about his past life, and his difficulty in surviving on a small loan of a million dollars. He did it all without prompting and he would consider himself to the right of Cameron.
God help us all if it's Trump vs Clinton. They are both astonishingly bad - the worst field since 1898?
There wasn't an election in 1898. There is something Bryan-esque about Sanders but without the charisma and energy.
I'd consider the label unfair to Clinton: she's not been convicted of anything. I also felt it only fair to Mike to make the point clear for legal purposes here.
Brilliant.
Could we have four prominent candidates and the lowest winning share of the vote ever (off the top of my head, Lincoln in 1860 is the one to beat)?
Indeed it was not unusual for temperance inclined property developers to deliberately not build public houses in residential areas in the heyday of the Victorian and Edwardian Britain. Not so long ago there were parts of Wales that didn't serve alcohol on a Sunday, and "dry counties" are quite common in part of the USA.
And then:
While the Donald is reaping acres of opprobrium and disdain from across the political spectrum, I wonder if he is a better politician than we realise.
He comes into the race with a pretty blank sheet, so he can flap and rewrite his positions almost at will. He has done a very good job of articulating a position that appeals to enough of the electorate he needs to attract, a first rate job of hugging the publicity and starving opponents of media attention. He may well get the nomination.
And Then:
He isn't Mr Nice Guy, and if he is nominated I would expect him to be an effective dirt stirrer towards his opponent, I wouldn't be shocked if his message changed to suit enough of a different electorate (ie be a good politician), to be able to dominate the terms and topic of the with his self publicity skills and as such for him to pull off a remarkable political stunt and become or get close to becoming POTUS.
And then:
????
Actually I've thought of a better one anyway - Hayes vs Tilden, which if memory serves was 1876. The only election to have to be decided by Congress because both candidates were terrible (and of course both of them really were crooks)!
On Trump, we had an assembly on the presidency yesterday. The 13 year old who read about Trump wrote an absolutely brilliant card talking about his past life, and his difficulty in surviving on a small loan of a million dollars. He did it all without prompting and he would consider himself to the right of Cameron.
God help us all if it's Trump vs Clinton. They are both astonishingly bad - the worst field since 1898?
I was asked yesterday if I wanted to have a chat with Michael Dukakis, who was described as having run a brilliant gubernatorial campaign against George Bush. [sic]
And that was by a Democrat! I guess the Presidential campaign is best forgotten...
There is a good argument from Democratic values that Trump would then be the lesser evil."
and
"Should HRC win the primary this self identified FDR Democrat will vote for Donald S Trump should he win the GOP nomination . That is how strongly I believe we cannot afford another NeoCon as POTUS"
are common sentiments I am picking up on the antiwar left.
If I were Trump I would fear Bernie more, he would negate Trump's strength on foreign policy, anti establishment status and anti free trade position that plays so well in the rust belt. I would be very confident Trump can take HRC but Sanders I have more doubt, I guess you would focus on his economic and immigration positions and relative weakness, for a Democrat, amongst minorities.
I'd consider the label unfair to Clinton: she's not been convicted of anything. I also felt it only fair to Mike to make the point clear for legal purposes here.
I quite like Hillary. She will be an excellent President.
Indeed anyone who has not picked up a few scandals along the way is probably too inexperienced to handle the job!
If we are only to permit Paladins to be our politicians then we should not be too surprised that they are a bit to innocent for the real world.
Saunders would put Trump in the White House if chosen. He is not a credible President.
Having said that, I have been laying Hillary as candidate as I always thought her odds too short.
But she doesn't understand that it's not up to her. It's an almost Pharisaic approach to life.
It really was the reason ( excuse? ) they used that was the interesting cross purpose. " immoral to sell to drivers" . Maybe but slowly ever so slowly we see changes happening within this country. Halal is off course the most obvious example to most people something twenty years or more ago would not have been an issue. I am more than use to these sort of requirements having lived and worked throughout the Middle East amongst other places for over 30 years, where such requirements are the norm.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI
Indeed anyone who has not picked up a few scandals along the way is probably too inexperienced to handle the job!
If we are only to permit Paladins to be our politicians then we should not be too surprised that they are a bit to innocent for the real world.
Saunders would put Trump in the White House if chosen. He is not a credible President.
Having said that, I have been laying Hillary as candidate as I always thought her odds too short.
Your acceptance of politicians picking up scandals in their careers is refreshing. I hope that extends to all parts of the spectrum at least.
I find Hillary unlikable, she seems incredibly arrogant and phoney to me, but Sanders has no stature next to her, no gravitas, and Trump seems even worse, if for different reasons.
That said, I love the idea of the two nominations being a guy who has never run as a Democrat and a guy who pse loyalty to the republican brand has been questioned.
Even better would be two sensible candidates, and those two ran anyway. Hell, throw Bloomberg in there too, why not.
Have you noticed that policemen are looking younger as well?
If she were a good politician, that might not matter. But she isn't. Her disastrous record as SoS should be added to her unbelievable ineptitude in drafting a new healthcare bill, which she failed to get through despite the support of Congress because she made it too complicated and then refused to compromise on universal coverage (which is a fair principle in itself) when she could have got massively extended coverage (which would have been a good start that any halfway competent president could have built on).
Her pitch appears to be 'vote for me, I'm a Clinton, a grandmother and have ovaries.' One is a pretty good reason not to vote for her, one is irrelevant and while it would be good to see a female president at last, I think they need to offer a bit more than their gender to be credible.
At least, however, she would not be 'the President after Bush'...
I think restraining orders are different, because they're between two specific individuals. If a man were ordered not to be within 500 yards of any woman, having been convicted of no crime at all, that would be a different kettle of fish.
Likewise, I'm not against convicted paedophiles being barred from being within X yards of a school (which would normally be legal, of course) because of their conviction.
Whether we Leave or Remain the refugee crisis is not going to disappear, not at least until the MENA region sorts itself out. That may take a while.
The shadow hanging over this is the e-mail investigation which is being dragged out shamefully by the FBI. A long running suspicion is far better than an early conclusion and Hillary has been down this path so many times before. We had years and years of Whitewater which never amounted to anything at all.
I really don't like this aspect of American life, the use of the "investigation" to damage as much as any actual wrongdoing and it is probably inclining me to give Hillary more sympathy than she deserves. And it is about time the USA had a woman leader. It's not the Labour party after all.
I'm pleased about this. Offenders have little to chance to turn a new leaf when their past is shackled to them. http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/2572318
Have you toldJunior and his dad that this is your blog? It is fine to write a header; it is not acceptable to dismiss criticism in such tones!
:feckin-lawyers:
It's a sad indictment of a modern society.
I'm talking about the Donald Trump voters, but they also have a race problem too.
There are big plusses along with all that, but Clinton vs Trump ... is that it?
Yep and her hideous offspring seems keen to follow in her footsteps as well
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3412759/Outrageous-ignorant-offensive-Chelsea-Clinton-slams-Charlotte-Rampling.html
so my neighbors outside shoveling in a t-Rex costume........ https://t.co/psNLmnChDq
This is for SeanT, though I'm not sure if he's around - he asked for info on Bhutan, and I promised to ask a friend who's familiar with the area. May be of interest to others:
I've not been to Bhutan but it's culturally similar to Nepal . My advice would be:
Take some iodine and a dropper bottle,dead cheap from a pharmacist. 6 drops per litre in the water and leave for half an hour, kills all the nasties. Some Americans we met had very expensive and heavy kit which didn't work.
Don't eat salads, local curried food which has been boiled for ages is best. Eat what the locals eat.
Places will offer fancy food, best to avoid as it either is very fuel innefficient to make just one or two dishes or is not properly cooked. Rain forest is the source of energy. For the same reasons try to either have cold showers or use places with solar panels.
If you come to a mani wall with prayer wheels, pass on the left hand side spin the wheels and chant om mani padme hum. There are few emergency services so this is your insurance policy for a safe journey.
Greet people by hands together as if praying, bow head and say namaste which means "I worship the God within you".
Take lots of pictures and prints of life in the UK. Just ordinary things like roads, shops, trains, houses. Nothing over fancy as everything will be better than they have.
Pens and pencils for the kids but refrain from sweets. There are few dentists. Toothbrushes could be a useful gift.
Drink tea, not coffee. The water has to be boiled or the tea tastes wrong. Besides they know a lot about tea!
Tibetan tea is disgusting but to refuse without good reason is an insult. One of the Everest team thought he had the answer; he told them that his God had spoken and he had to climb the highest mountain in the world forgoing all luxury on the way. This was accepted, the trouble was he succeeded so he was assured that his God was very pleased and allowed double rations on the way back.
Beer is fine and the local spirit is good for killing leeches.
For instance, my church used to rent out our crypt to a event company that wanted to host "spooky" dinners.
That was fine. When they started holding seances we terminated the contract - entirely for religious reasons.
Con conference 72... He attacks Heath for failing to stick to the pre election promises that won him a narrow majority...
Heaths face is a picture
http://youtu.be/YDRUUZRVMNg
Certainly if a job applicant came to me and declined to be checked I would be concerned. I want to be able to make the assessment for myself. Someone's character is highly relevant to a job, most jobs in fact.
And if someone has a very minor irrelevant caution they want to keep private, it makes them subject to possible blackmail. This is a very real risk in places like banks and in their back offices: criminal gangs will find some small area of weakness in a person, usually junior and unimportant in the hierarchy and use that weakness as leverage, to get them to do something minor which lets the gang into the systems in some way.
Or perhaps we should just revert to that traditional Victorian practice of baby-farming?
http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com/baby-farmers-and-angelmakers-childcare-in-19th-century-england.html
Magnums and cornettos to be made smaller
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/35383842
Honestly I don't mind, but I laugh when they use the word choice when describing such changes. Unless you are still producing at the old size, you aren't helping us make healthier choices, you're making us - and presumably any price reduction, if any, will be less than the saving accrued, so more profit. Which is fine, just don't say it's for my convenience.
Rant over.
But presumably, given your disquiet, you voted against them when they were introduced in 2003?
It may work in the way you suggest or it may highlight a contrast between what the EU is willing to do when Continental countries are affected and how little it is prepared to do when the UK is impacted. And it may just create an image of chaos and panic - because frankly all the problems of Schengen, migration and the spread of crime/terrorism have been foreseeable and were foreseen and were ignored when they were pointed out by UK politicians. Indeed there has been non-stop criticism of the UK for not joining a system which is now falling apart.
Voting to remain in an organisation which seems to be in a state of barely suppressed panic these days may not be seen as the safe choice.
:two-wrongs-do-not-make-it-right:
:avoid-Leicester-NHS-hospitals:
:correlation-and-causation-relationships:
Age/memory is such a bind!
Certainly if a job applicant came to me and declined to be checked I would be concerned. I want to be able to make the assessment for myself. Someone's character is highly relevant to a job, most jobs in fact.
And if someone has a very minor irrelevant caution they want to keep private, it makes them subject to possible blackmail. This is a very real risk in places like banks and in their back offices: criminal gangs will find some small area of weakness in a person, usually junior and unimportant in the hierarchy and use that weakness as leverage, to get them to do something minor which lets the gang into the systems in some way.
Is there much evidence that CRB checks have improved child protection? It has become an industry in its own right, delays staff appointments, causes difficulties for Scouts and Sunday Schools that rely on volunteers (I went on a Scout family camp a few years back, and the major logistical difficulty was CRBing every attending parent).
If there was solid evidence of a reduction in child offences, then it would be a nessecary hassle. Has there been any drop in child offences since they were introduced?
The collapse of Schengen also undermines the notion that our demands from the EU are impossible due to the vast network of treaties, article A subsection 12 etc.
The public can see that this is all complete cr8p. Any EU rules, treaties or accords get thrown out of the window quickly when the bureaucrats want something done.
If there was solid evidence of a reduction in child offences, then it would be a nessecary hassle. Has there been any drop in child offences since they were introduced?
That is my concern. It is a tick box mentality applied to child safety. The children are "safe" if the paperwork is ok. I have real doubts it has helped at all.
I'm in the Rampling corner here.
Did they manage to mention the value of someone's house in the article?
Should they allow countries to discriminate in favour of their own citizens? Yes, of course. But there is a fundamental difference between countries doing what is expressly allowed and that which is expressly prohibited.