politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hurdles Hillary has to surmount are getting higher

1st.

Like the 90% of Junior Doctors who may have resigned by now.

Sanders is so fixated on a very narrow set of responses that he just comes over as a club bore. He offers pledges that can never be achieved. No president can guarantee a significant reduction in the prison population - it is just not within their power to control that sort of thing. He offers populist 'easy' solutions but the economics of his platform just don't add up.

Kevin_McCandless said:

According to Wikipedia, Clinton already has 362 pledged super-delegates. Ties or close-run events in Nevada and South Carolina still gives her a commanding lead. So, no, her being doomed after close losses isn't going to happen.

Superdelegates can change their minds. Yes, nominally she has a big lead if you include superdelegates. But if Nevada is close-run, never mind South Carolina, Sanders will win big numbers ofgenuinely pledged delegates come March (a superdelegate's pledge is no more than a statement of intent).

Of course, super-delegates can change their mind and if Super Tuesday goes bad for Hillary, we;ll probably see them moving en masse to Bernie. But to readily stereotype a huge swathe of people. folks who become super-delegates in the Democratic Party aren't the type to betray a Clinton that quickly.

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

Kevin_McCandless said:

According to Wikipedia, Clinton already has 362 pledged super-delegates. Ties or close-run events in Nevada and South Carolina still gives her a commanding lead. So, no, her being doomed after close losses isn't going to happen.

Superdelegates can change their minds. Yes, nominally she has a big lead if you include superdelegates. But if Nevada is close-run, never mind South Carolina, Sanders will win big numbers ofgenuinely pledged delegates come March (a superdelegate's pledge is no more than a statement of intent).

But they are statements of intent that they don''t want the party nominee to be a bat-shit crazy leftie. They are mostly rock solid for Clinton.

Super delegates aren't going to give the nomination to Clinton if she's lost it at the ballot box to Bernie. Over turning the verdict of voters is dreadful optics.

On a more parochial level, should any of you be placing bets on the Bristol Mayor staying in office, weigh up the odds with care.

http://www.itv.com/news/west/2016-02-12/bristol-mayor-accused-of-nasty-personal-attack-in-green-capital-cash-row/

Perhaps one for the media handlers.

Good article as usual David. As you say Hilary at evens for the Presidency is bonkers, there's so many paths to cross between now and November and she could come unstuck at any one of them.

Personally I dislike her immensely, she stands for nothing at all except gaining power, has a massive sense of entitlement and goes on about taking on the Establishment while being the absolute epitome of that very Establishment she criticises - to the point of taking cash from Goldman Sachs.

The one point I disagree with the header is the emails scandal. Any other Tom, Dick, Petraeus or Manning in the same situation would be in prison now, I can't see how she can survive having a computer full of classified material in her own house. With my IT guy rather than lawyer hat on she's completely bang to rights and a Presidential Pardon would make it look even worse in the eyes of the little people. Trump or Cruz will portray her as completely untrustworthy and a threat to security in the same way as the Conservatives here have managed to pin the security label on Corbyn in the UK.

Pong said:

On Trump....

Everyone is taking trump's declared net worth (or at least a respectable fraction of it) at face value - but what if it's illusory? He might only have a few hundred million to his name - perhaps much less. If that is the case, it'll start drying up pretty soon. He didn't spend that much at all in Iowa/NH which is being presented as trump the brilliant tactician/businessman, but what if he's actually pretty broke?

If he does need help to fund his campaign, who does he turn to?

From the published returns he's really not spending money at all, whereas all around him are spending massive amounts (Jeb!, $100m!) on TV ads, Trump has only done a couple. His costs are for a small team of people around him, most of whom already work for him. He has a large plane he can use to move people around and he's probably only paying hotel and restaurant bills.

His ability to write a cheque is obviously well below the estimates for his personal wealth, but if by the end of the month he's clearly still in contention then the donations will start coming in - if only from those who want to be seen to back the winner.

peter_from_putney said:

" ..... though the 13/2 on Cameron standing down this year with SkyBet may be better value."

I'm not sure this bet is still available with SkyBet but assuming it is, the odds quoted are barely half the 12/1 available from William Hill against Cameron ceasing to be Tory Leader during the course of 2016 which I suggested just 8 days ago. Sadly those odds have since shortened to 7/1.

Yes, thanks for that - I took the 12/1. When we see the polls moving towards Leave I'm not sure if this is good or not. Obviously for Cameron to go it needs a Leave vote but if the polls move too much Cameron may find an excuse to postpone the referendum until 2017. It wouldn't quite be the election that never was in 2007 - but it would be some climb down.

MarqueeMark said:

Cameron is really starting to get on my tits, using every day to make some foolishly extravagant claim about the UK if we don't take his shitty renegotiation. Today it's that we won't "retreat from the world". Who has said we would?

You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35562698

Jeez, this is getting embarrassing. Someone needs to tell him that the Emperor is actually naked.

I was a huge fan of the PM until about a fortnight ago, but he seems to be treating the referendum like it's an election he knows he can't lose against Corbyn. It's not an election, Dave, it's a referendum, and looking increasingly like one you will lose.

MarqueeMark said:

asjohnstone said:

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

Kevin_McCandless said:

According to Wikipedia, Clinton already has 362 pledged super-delegates. Ties or close-run events in Nevada and South Carolina still gives her a commanding lead. So, no, her being doomed after close losses isn't going to happen.

Superdelegates can change their minds. Yes, nominally she has a big lead if you include superdelegates. But if Nevada is close-run, never mind South Carolina, Sanders will win big numbers ofgenuinely pledged delegates come March (a superdelegate's pledge is no more than a statement of intent).

But they are statements of intent that they don''t want the party nominee to be a bat-shit crazy leftie. They are mostly rock solid for Clinton.

Super delegates aren't going to give the nomination to Clinton if she's lost it at the ballot box to Bernie. Over turning the verdict of voters is dreadful optics.

Whereas losing to Trump with a bat-shit crazy leftie at the helm isn't dreadful optics?

Not so much, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, Bernie isn't a bat shit crazy leftie, in policy terms he's much closer to Cameron than Corbyn.

I'm of the opinion if HRC only gets over the line with a huge boost from superdelegates then she loses in Nov anyway. It alienates the base and allows the GOP to paint her as an establishment loser who was gifted in a back room what she lost at the ballot box.

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

Good article as usual David. As you say Hilary at evens for the Presidency is bonkers, there's so many paths to cross between now and November and she could come unstuck at any one of them.

Personally I dislike her immensely, she stands for nothing at all except gaining power, has a massive sense of entitlement and goes on about taking on the Establishment while being the absolute epitome of that very Establishment she criticises - to the point of taking cash from Goldman Sachs.

The one point I disagree with the header is the emails scandal. Any other Tom, Dick, Petraeus or Manning in the same situation would be in prison now, I can't see how she can survive having a computer full of classified material in her own house. With my IT guy rather than lawyer hat on she's completely bang to rights and a Presidential Pardon would make it look even worse in the eyes of the little people. Trump or Cruz will portray her as completely untrustworthy and a threat to security in the same way as the Conservatives here have managed to pin the security label on Corbyn in the UK.

How far does it fly with the public? Is it linked to her poll decline or is that mostly just her being a poor candidate?

If the FBI choose to indict then things certainly become very difficult for a while and if she's in the middle of a battle for the nomination or the White House at the time then could prove decisive. But if the Feds were going to indict, wouldn't they have done so by now?

It's difficult to get a handle on how something is playing out when not in the country, especially with the less than impartial media and lack of real polling in the US. It's very easy to think of something as being a big story when in reality only 10% of the population even know about it.

If the FBI do indict then the story leads all the bulletins and she's surely the proverbial cooked bread, but as you say it seems to be dragging on for months now with no clear resolution in sight. But as time progresses towards through the primaries it becomes very difficult for an alternative candidate to come through.

I still haven't entirely ruled out the possibility of a stitch-up at one or both Conventions to keep Sanders and Trump from being nominated. I think that a brokered convention of some sort is nearer 10/1 than 100/1, the Democratic Super Delegates all voting Hilary against the primary results being the most obvious manifestation of this.

Most scarily of all, one of these people will be President a year from now!

blackburn63 said:

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

Cameron is really starting to get on my tits, using every day to make some foolishly extravagant claim about the UK if we don't take his shitty renegotiation. Today it's that we won't "retreat from the world". Who has said we would?

You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35562698

Jeez, this is getting embarrassing. Someone needs to tell him that the Emperor is actually naked.

I was a huge fan of the PM until about a fortnight ago, but he seems to be treating the referendum like it's an election he knows he can't lose against Corbyn. It's not an election, Dave, it's a referendum, and looking increasingly like one you will lose.

He only has himself to blame, the consensus (especially on here) was that whichever way he went would win, that is now looking probable but dubious. Surround yourself with nodding dogs, suppress dissentors, it works for a while but hubris finishes politicians most often. He'll likely still "win" but he's shown himself up terribly.

Agree completely. I was 50/50 until the EU Royally stitched up up Greece and then Merkel put her foot in it over immigrants last year. I was 75/25 for out until a fortnight ago when the PM tried to pass off the "Deal" as being more than a blank sheet of paper. Now I'm more like 95% for Leave, and struggling to see what Dave can do to bring me back.

PS and off topic, it looks increasingly like I will owe you £30 in May!

david_herdson said:

Sandpit said:

Good article as usual David. As you say Hilary at evens for the Presidency is bonkers, there's so many paths to cross between now and November and she could come unstuck at any one of them.

Personally I dislike her immensely, she stands for nothing at all except gaining power, has a massive sense of entitlement and goes on about taking on the Establishment while being the absolute epitome of that very Establishment she criticises - to the point of taking cash from Goldman Sachs.

The one point I disagree with the header is the emails scandal. Any other Tom, Dick, Petraeus or Manning in the same situation would be in prison now, I can't see how she can survive having a computer full of classified material in her own house. With my IT guy rather than lawyer hat on she's completely bang to rights and a Presidential Pardon would make it look even worse in the eyes of the little people. Trump or Cruz will portray her as completely untrustworthy and a threat to security in the same way as the Conservatives here have managed to pin the security label on Corbyn in the UK.

How far does it fly with the public? Is it linked to her poll decline or is that mostly just her being a poor candidate?

If the FBI choose to indict then things certainly become very difficult for a while and if she's in the middle of a battle for the nomination or the White House at the time then could prove decisive. But if the Feds were going to indict, wouldn't they have done so by now?

One issue is she shares that house with a former POTUS. That might give rise to some interesting "complicity" questions they perhaps would rather not ask (even though there is no real reason to think there was any such act)

asjohnstone said:

MarqueeMark said:

asjohnstone said:

MarqueeMark said:

david_herdson said:

Kevin_McCandless said:

According to Wikipedia, Clinton already has 362 pledged super-delegates. Ties or close-run events in Nevada and South Carolina still gives her a commanding lead. So, no, her being doomed after close losses isn't going to happen.

Superdelegates can change their minds. Yes, nominally she has a big lead if you include superdelegates. But if Nevada is close-run, never mind South Carolina, Sanders will win big numbers ofgenuinely pledged delegates come March (a superdelegate's pledge is no more than a statement of intent).

But they are statements of intent that they don''t want the party nominee to be a bat-shit crazy leftie. They are mostly rock solid for Clinton.

Super delegates aren't going to give the nomination to Clinton if she's lost it at the ballot box to Bernie. Over turning the verdict of voters is dreadful optics.

Whereas losing to Trump with a bat-shit crazy leftie at the helm isn't dreadful optics?

Not so much, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, Bernie isn't a bat shit crazy leftie, in policy terms he's much closer to Cameron than Corbyn.

I'm of the opinion if HRC only gets over the line with a huge boost from superdelegates then she loses in Nov anyway. It alienates the base and allows the GOP to paint her as an establishment loser who was gifted in a back room what she lost at the ballot box.

Paint it whichever you like, but Sanders is a self-proclaimed Socialist, and America isn't ready for a Socialist at the helm.

If Hillary gets over the line using superdelegates, she's over the line - and the narrative moves to her being the first female President.

blackburn63 said:

Sandpit said:

blackburn63 said:

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

Cameron is really starting to get on my tits, using every day to make some foolishly extravagant claim about the UK if we don't take his shitty renegotiation. Today it's that we won't "retreat from the world". Who has said we would?

You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35562698

Jeez, this is getting embarrassing. Someone needs to tell him that the Emperor is actually naked.

I was a huge fan of the PM until about a fortnight ago, but he seems to be treating the referendum like it's an election he knows he can't lose against Corbyn. It's not an election, Dave, it's a referendum, and looking increasingly like one you will lose.

He only has himself to blame, the consensus (especially on here) was that whichever way he went would win, that is now looking probable but dubious. Surround yourself with nodding dogs, suppress dissentors, it works for a while but hubris finishes politicians most often. He'll likely still "win" but he's shown himself up terribly.

Agree completely. I was 50/50 until the EU Royally stitched up up Greece and then Merkel put her foot in it over immigrants last year. I was 75/25 for out until a fortnight ago when the PM tried to pass off the "Deal" as being more than a blank sheet of paper. Now I'm more like 95% for Leave, and struggling to see what Dave can do to bring me back.

PS and off topic, it looks increasingly like I will owe you £30 in May!

Still ample opportunity for Spurs to implode, at least a draw tomorrow and they're bang in with a chance of the title. Fascinating run in at both ends of the table, best in years.

I did think about offering to settle early, but this is Spurs we are talking about!
I wouldn't put it past MU or MC to win every remaining game, although Liverpool and Everton are too far back now and Chelski still closer to relegation than the CL places. No-one (not even @foxinsoxuk ) actually expected Leicester to still be top in February.

Arsenal to pip Spurs to 4th on the last day, on goal difference?

Sandpit said:

foxinsoxuk said:

MattW said:

1st.

Like the 90% of Junior Doctors who may have resigned by now.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/12/hospitals-jeremy-hunt-junior-doctors-contract?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

With some sweet irony it seems as if Foundation Trusts may well refuse to implement the new contract, thereby sweeping up the better prodpects, and leave the non-foundation Trusts with many vacancies. A previous reform undermining the current DOH.

I think we might be close to agreeing on something. National pay bargaining belongs in the 1970s, it should be up to individual Trusts, as with Acadamy schools, to set their own pay rates.

Currently they can do this via banding, not clear if they can do so on the new contract proposed.

One practical issue with local pay is that most junior doctors rotate between Trusts. My own work for 4 different Trusts over their training period, and the pattern of rotation is determined by educational reasons (to cover all areas of training) rather than by individual trainees by market forces.

Off to work now though...

Scott_P said:

Whatever financial formula was offered to accompany new powers would never be enough. However “no detriment” was defined, it would be disputed. Whatever financial risk was transferred, it would be too much. However a vow might be fulfilled, it would be a betrayal. We are bang on script.

That does not mean, of course, that the Nats are wrong to do their sums and find Scotland could be worse off as a result of any deal based on Smith’s recommendations. The problem is that this discovery contradicts every posture they have adopted for umpteen years about Scotland being a victim of the existing fiscal framework – i.e. the grievance agenda.

While “Full Fiscal Autonomy” was never the Nationalists’ ultimate demand, it was certainly their interim war-cry for a couple of decades. With the collapse in oil revenues, it has disappeared from their mantra. Confronted with the possibility of even a partial step in that direction, they are forced to admit that the cost could be too high and the risks too great. The roles are reversed and fallacies exposed.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/brian-wilson-leave-us-scots-to-our-grievance-agenda-1-4029145#ixzz402AkK7Tk

The problem the Scottish government faces is that if they want to include the oil revenues going to them in the good times, they also have to accept the lack of them when the price falls. Any deal done now on the basis that oil revenues belong to Scotland will see them significantly worse off, which they will never be able to sell to the electorate. Hence the attempt to wriggle out of the deal they were all in favour of 18 months ago.

It would be good to see the forthcoming election run on the basis of what the government has the power to do (health, education, policing) rather than what they would or wouldn't have the power to do in future.

Excellent article David.

"All of which makes Hillary’s odds of even money to win outright completely nuts. Trump at 9/2 and Cruz at 18/1 offer far better value. Sanders at 8/1 doesn’t particularly, given the risk of a Bloomberg intervention on top of needing to beat Hillary and the Republican, but his 7/2 for the nomination is more attractive. "

That's what I've done on the Presidency market: backed Trump and Cruz, placed covering stakes on Bloomberg and continued small lays on Sanders with what I can afford. I think Sanders is a good lay at 8/1,

I'm not bothering betting on Clinton atm.

MarqueeMark said:

Cameron is really starting to get on my tits, using every day to make some foolishly extravagant claim about the UK if we don't take his shitty renegotiation. Today it's that we won't "retreat from the world". Who has said we would?

You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35562698

I don't think Leave will win by socking it to Cameron: they need to target the intractability, arrogance and unreasonableness of the EU.

That said, a major turning point for me in my attitude to Dave on this was when he said that he'd join the EU today if he got these renegotiated terms.

The scales really fell from my eyes when I read that.

Jeez

Pub landlord Jason Mawer has twice been asked in public to remove his treasured Union Jack jacket - for risk of it being 'offensive'.

He was told to take off his valuable Mod-style Barbour jacket - designed in honour of legendary rock band The Who - by officials who appeared to be council enforcement officers.

On the second occasion the female official warned him: 'Would you mind removing your coat it might offend somebody.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445028/Pub-landlord-told-council-officers-remove-Union-Jack-jacket-offend-people.html

For those considering proxy votes on Leave, don't ignore the 20/1 you can get on a general election in 2016. It's hard to see how departure negotiations could be conducted without a fresh mandate. It wouldn't just be a fresh face at the top needed.

oxfordsimon said:

She is a fighter. She isn't done yet.

When she wins her next primary she may turn to Peter Mandelson for inspiration for her victory speech.

I do wonder if Clinton doesn't have herself to blame for the Sanders phenomenon. If there had been a couple of other serious candidates in the race she would have probably still come out on top and Sanders wouldn't have had the floor to himself as the only non-Clinton choice.

Mr. Meeks, those are long odds. I'm not convinced that would happen (as the Conservatives had a vote in their referendum) but the odds are longer than the actual chance, I'd suggest.

It'd also open the door for the vote to be ignored, which sceptics would be keen to avoid.

"Oh, you voted No, but then backed Labour/the SNP. Well, that nullifies the referendum result..."

Mr. Glenn, quite. Better multiple weak opponents than one strong opponent.

Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...

Plato_Says said:

Well said, with feeling.

MarqueeMark said:

Cameron is really starting to get on my tits, using every day to make some foolishly extravagant claim about the UK if we don't take his shitty renegotiation. Today it's that we won't "retreat from the world". Who has said we would?

You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35562698

Agreed

I also wish we could have a PM , who did not think he had to make a banal announcement everyday about everything.
Can he just STFU a while,and give himself a rest and us one, on his observations from sport to celebrities and eveything in life in between.

Posters need to avoid projecting their own opinions across the Atlantic. That applies to us on the left. Bernie isn't especially left-wing to us, he wants a single-payer health service and disapproves of Wall Street power, meh. But in US terms he is undoubtedly radical. But "socialist" is not the killer that it was in the States, especially on the Democratic side - 40% of Iowa Democrats said they self-identified as socialists. Younger voters don't have cold-war hangups and see it as the vague "leftie" label that Bernie himself probably means by it, rather than a devotion to the works of Karl Marx. Note, incidentally, that a prominent black representative in SC who was expected to go Clinton is now saying he's tempted by Bernie and discussing it with his family.

Conversely, though, it's a fundamental mistake to think that most Democrats don't like Hillary. They absolutely see that she's competent and moderate (as do some on the right, e.g. Oxford Simon downthread). They don't care about the email stuff. They just think she doesn't stand for anything very interesting, so they're attracted to Bernie. In that there is a transatlantic parallel. I don't know *any* Labour members who dislike Yvette Cooper, but they didn't see that she stood for anything much so they preferred Jeremy. If Bernie loses, then unless Hillary has been really nasty about him, his support will transfer to her at levels over 90%.

david_herdson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

For those considering proxy votes on Leave, don't ignore the 20/1 you can get on a general election in 2016. It's hard to see how departure negotiations could be conducted without a fresh mandate. It wouldn't just be a fresh face at the top needed.

Surely the whole point of a referendum is that it grants the mandate? Particularly so when the party in power promised it in their manifesto. It was Salmond not the SNP government who resigned after No won in 2014.

I don't see how the Conservative party could, for example, agree to freedom of movement with the EU, as in all probability any government post-departure would need to consider or pay a very high price for refusing, without first getting a mandate to do so.

felix said:

Moses_ said:

felix said:

MarqueeMark said:

Cameron is really starting to get on my tits, using every day to make some foolishly extravagant claim about the UK if we don't take his shitty renegotiation. Today it's that we won't "retreat from the world". Who has said we would?

You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35562698

The ones getting on my tits are the shrill little englander nutjobs infesting the site at the moment. Almost as daft as the corbynites.

As soon as " little Englander" is used the argument is lost.

To be fair I don't agree with them either but that's not the point. I want a leave vote purely because of the political system that is used and for which I have never in the entire time since Heath had a chance to express an opinion. In saying that more than happy to be in Europe and commonly work there every week it's a superb place I just detest the political elite at the top and everything being decided by them in cahoots with Merkel.

At least you have an argument but at the end it's only an argument against - 'leave' have presented no alternative view of how things would be after exit - because they have none. Hence the attacks on Cameron. It's much the same as the negativity we saw after 2010 from Labour - they attacked Cameron because they'd got nowt else to say. Here we are today and guess what Cameron is the PM.

Fair points. I would simply point out in this nations history we have been involved with the EU of very short time. Other nations appear to manage quite well in that position. I would tend to agree it would have been much more difficult if we were using the Euro.

What concerns me more is the insatiable demands that will flood in if we remain. It is inevitable and the common cry will be you voted for it so now get on with it . Thing is, they would be correct and we would have effectively handed over Great Britain lock stock and barrel.to an unelected elite of which we have no redress.
I seem to remember that was the previous confederate army line of thought in their difficulties as well the outcomes being Bush, Clintons and possibly now even Trump.

NickPalmer said:

It's a fundamental mistake to think that most Democrats don't like Hillary. They absolutely see that she's competent and moderate (as do some on the right, e.g. Oxford Simon downthread).

Moderate, undoubtedly. But competent? Medicare, Whitewater, Lewinsky, 2008, Libya, emails, Syria, Iran...

I have to admit I am struggling to think of one major success she has pulled off in a long career at the top (since 1972). Admittedly, I'm not an expert. Further, failures get reported more than successes. But in a less propitious climate Kerry has been a far better SoS, and even Dubya achieved more on healthcare reform than she did.

In 2008 she ran a really stupid advert with a phone ringing at 3am, with the strap line, 'who do you want to answer it?' The
resounding response was, quite rightly, 'not you'. She is eight years older and looks a great deal frailer and slower than she did then. I see no reason why the Dems' judgement should change.

She is very fortunate that all the other candidates are even more useless than she is, which is why of course she will not be complaining that she is facing only one other candidate. And if she does win the White House nobody will be able to take away her place in history that she so craves. But if her track record is anything to go by she would be a very bad President.

Sean_F said:

SquareRoot said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

felix said:

MarqueeMark said:

Cameron is really starting to get on my tits, using every day to make some foolishly extravagant claim about the UK if we don't take his shitty renegotiation. Today it's that we won't "retreat from the world". Who has said we would?

You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35562698

The ones getting on my tits are the shrill little englander nutjobs infesting the site at the moment. Almost as daft as the corbynites.

You could always chill out...

Huh.. You should read the kipper stuff.. full of bile especially for Dave.. for many its a case of if I were you I wouldn't start from here, but Dave is there and has to deal with it.. Noone is cutting him any slack at all.. Frankly , the negativity on here is depressing... except when its about Corbyn!

It's the Conservatives who've turned critical of the PM that he needs to worry about.

Quite.

Most of the undecideds were Conservative voters who were waiting to see what the PM could come back with in terms of a deal, and instinctively trusting the PM. It will be useful to see if the reaction on here is reflected in the polling with a smaller number of undecideds. Until last week I would have told a pollster I was undecided, now I would tell them I was for Leave.

NickPalmer said:

Posters need to avoid projecting their own opinions across the Atlantic. That applies to us on the left. Bernie isn't especially left-wing to us, he wants a single-payer health service and disapproves of Wall Street power, meh. But in US terms he is undoubtedly radical. But "socialist" is not the killer that it was in the States, especially on the Democratic side - 40% of Iowa Democrats said they self-identified as socialists. Younger voters don't have cold-war hangups and see it as the vague "leftie" label that Bernie himself probably means by it, rather than a devotion to the works of Karl Marx. Note, incidentally, that a prominent black representative in SC who was expected to go Clinton is now saying he's tempted by Bernie and discussing it with his family.

Conversely, though, it's a fundamental mistake to think that most Democrats don't like Hillary. They absolutely see that she's competent and moderate (as do some on the right, e.g. Oxford Simon downthread). They don't care about the email stuff. They just think she doesn't stand for anything very interesting, so they're attracted to Bernie. In that there is a transatlantic parallel. I don't know *any* Labour members who dislike Yvette Cooper, but they didn't see that she stood for anything much so they preferred Jeremy. If Bernie loses, then unless Hillary has been really nasty about him, his support will transfer to her at levels over 90%.

Nick, I think you need to be a little wary of all those Iowa socialists. Iowa was the 4th most Sanders-friendly state. How many self-identifying Socialists are you going to find in Michigan? or Ohio? Or any big state that decides this thing (maybe a few in California perhaps - but you'd also find self-identifying Nazis there too!)

Absolute filth. Why did we do this to our country?

"Twelve rapists, a 13-year-old victim and a terrifying truth Britain still won't face: The disturbing full story behind the gangs of Pakistani men who target white girls"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445065/Twelve-rapists-13-year-old-girl-terrifying-truth-Britain-won-t-face.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

isam said:

Absolute filth. Why did we do this to our country?

"Twelve rapists, a 13-year-old victim and a terrifying truth Britain still won't face: The disturbing full story behind the gangs of Pakistani men who target white girls"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445065/Twelve-rapists-13-year-old-girl-terrifying-truth-Britain-won-t-face.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

didn't you used to vote Labour ?

Innocent_Abroad said:

Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...

If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority

Alanbrooke said:

isam said:

Absolute filth. Why did we do this to our country?

"Twelve rapists, a 13-year-old victim and a terrifying truth Britain still won't face: The disturbing full story behind the gangs of Pakistani men who target white girls"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445065/Twelve-rapists-13-year-old-girl-terrifying-truth-Britain-won-t-face.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

didn't you used to vote Labour ?

Unfortunately yes... But Heath is to blame as much as anyone. He sacked the only person willing to do something about it, who the public overwhelmingly supported

With Hilary's troubles, the DEM Nevada poll and the South Carolina GOP polling, Trump @ 6.4 for POTUS looks pretty big to me.

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.

And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.

I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!

Mortimer said:

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

Nah - he sounds ridiculous because what he is peddling is awful.

And I say this as someone who talked about 100 miles canvassing and campaigning in the final week of May.

I had real, substantive conversations with people on the doorstep - because we had real substantive policies to offer. Several of which the public sector seem to be horrified that we're actually now enacting!

I'm talking about the "air war" really.

Imo what he is saying now is no more tendentious that what he said in the GE campaign. The difference, for a lot of Tories, is that he's now an opponent and everything he says is filtered differently.

RobD said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

asjohnstone said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Does anyone know how the referendum result will be reported? UK only, constituent nations, regions, counties, whatever...

If Scotland is a precedent, and I think it is, then on a regional basis by local authority

Wasn't the AV one reported by constituency?
I may have mis-remembered.

Looks like it was by larger regions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Must be false memory syndrome for me.
I was certain that I saw 'Hertsmere votes No' flash up on the screen during the results prog.

It does seem to me that many on this forum are turning on David Cameron but for me to be persuaded someone, anyone, has to convince me that any other trade deal would not include free movement of labour. Until that is answered I shall remain in and suspect that when the full spotlight of the deal (if there is a deal) is announced and the Cabinet are released from their collective responsibility then a reasoned debate will commence from both sides. If leave are perceived as 'Little Englander' they will lose as it is a UK wide referendum with heavy majorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to remain.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

The reason he sounds ridiculous is he's campaigning with such a weak hand.

And his poker face tells everyone he has a pair of threes....

MarqueeMark said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Wanderer said:

This stuff about Cameron being embarrassing /ridiculous /absurd highlights a problem for the Conservatives I hadn't fully appreciated.

What Cameron is doing is campaigning. Politicians on the campaign trail always sound absurd to their opponents. When Cameron waved Liam Byrne's note around last year is was objectively absurd - the note was a private joke and said nothing about any Labour Government ever. But it was effective campaigning and Conservative viewers probably saw it as fair comment because, hey, there was an election to win.

Cameron is now in full-on campaigning mode against a large part of his own party. He may yet prove very good at effective at that, too, but will that (very large) section of his party forever afterwards see him as the absurd and embarrassing arsehole who caricatured and manipulated his way to defeating them?

The reason he sounds ridiculous is he's campaigning with such a weak hand.

And his poker face tells everyone he has a pair of threes....

Nah, he's not got as much as a pair. He's got a high 8 at best.

My thanks to Hertsmere Pubgoer and Rob D. It looks to me as though the referendum result will be reported at a fairly small (? constituency) level, in which case I repeat my view that Remain will win on the back of Celtic and big city votes, whilst Leave takes Middle England.

If I'm right about that, there should be some real fun on here.

In the meantime, another question for nerds: what proportion of the electorate are expats? (It sometimes feels as though half the Peebies are...)