Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020 could be the election that the US finally chooses a wom

SystemSystem Posts: 11,685
edited June 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » WH2020 could be the election that the US finally chooses a woman

Over the past couple of nights we had the first tv debates of the battle in the Democratic party to secure the nomination for next year’s White House election to come up presumably against Donald Trump .

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    More likely the USA to be led by a woman than the Labour Party.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    First! Like Biden
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    First! Like Biden

    Quite fitting lol.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    Also with Warren and Harris having promised to take away everybody's health insurance and bankrupt all the hospitals and Joe Biden having a hard time remembering what his policies are there's KLOBUCHAR
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    edited June 2019
    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic. With the advantage of incumbency Trump could beat either in both the popular vote and electoral college.

    Biden and Sanders poll much better v Trump than Warren or Harris do.

    However the US arguably already has chosen a woman to lead them already, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives which is US equivalent of the UK Prime Minister, even if there has been no female President as US Head of State yet
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    SNP MP complains about non-showing of film shot in Montana.....good to see she's got her priorities right.....

    https://twitter.com/CMonaghanSNP/status/1144480185472843776
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,969

    SNP MP complains about non-showing of film shot in Montana.....good to see she's got her priorities right.....

    https://twitter.com/CMonaghanSNP/status/1144480185472843776

    Asking the questions that matter. They really are a grievance machine, aren’t they?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    An interesting idea - but with Harris at 8.6, and Warren at 11.5 on Betfair, not particularly attractive, unless you're Bill Maher.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    "but it is apparent that Senators Harris and Warren are the ones to beat. "

    I can't even begin to describe how far this statement gets ahead of itself
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,855
    Afternoon all :)

    I must confess I've not given the 2020 WH election much thought though I can obviously see the many trading opportunities for the more devoted players as fortunes wax and wane and gaffes are made and forgotten.

    Slightly closer to home, the Greek GE is just over a week away and two new polls show New Democracy maintaining a solid 10 point lead over Syriza leading 39-29. That's a 9% swing to ND from last time and more than enough to put Mitsotakis into power and slightly redressing the European balance after the recent centre-left win in Denmark.

    The latest German polls show the CDU/CSU and the Greens locked together at 25-27% each.

    Back home, fascinating to read the Times front page and some sense of where a Johnson Government will take us. Clearly, he and his advisers have decided the threat of a No Deal economic slowdown can only be countered by a large dose of fiscal stimulus so "aggressive" tax cuts and the abolition of stamp duty for properties over £500k look options.

    I'm opposed to all of this - if we have spare funds we should be paying down the debt and reducing interest payments so future generations aren't saddled with our profligacy. I'm also far from convinced a debt-fuelled consumption-led boom is going to be of any use except in terms of Johnson's short term political prospects - they've rarely ended well before.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Well, she's more federal government interventionist, which is not the same thing.

    But it some respects that's a bit meaningless, as the more ambitious ideas of the candidates (if elected) would run into Congress and go no further.
  • Options
    Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,790
    Hillary Clinton lost, not because she was a woman but because she was a Clinton. One of these women should provide a bigger and better challenge for the Pussy Grabber in Chief
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    Pulpstar said:

    "but it is apparent that Senators Harris and Warren are the ones to beat. "

    I can't even begin to describe how far this statement gets ahead of itself

    There was plenty of that in the last thread - and I see that HYUFD has continued in the same vein below.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626

    Also with Warren and Harris having promised to take away everybody's health insurance and bankrupt all the hospitals and Joe Biden having a hard time remembering what his policies are there's KLOBUCHAR

    95 on BETFAIR.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008

    Hillary Clinton lost, not because she was a woman but because she was a Clinton. One of these women should provide a bigger and better challenge for the Pussy Grabber in Chief

    No, Bill Clinton would have beaten Trump, he was advising Hillary not to ignore the rustbelt but her millennial advisers decided Hispanics and graduates for her meant she could ignore the white working class
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,680
    RobD said:

    SNP MP complains about non-showing of film shot in Montana.....good to see she's got her priorities right.....

    https://twitter.com/CMonaghanSNP/status/1144480185472843776

    Asking the questions that matter. They really are a grievance machine, aren’t they?
    The replies from the faithful are a hoot.....when the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems are nails.....
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626

    Hillary Clinton lost, not because she was a woman but because she was a Clinton. One of these women should provide a bigger and better challenge for the Pussy Grabber in Chief

    He might do a Boris if faced with the prospect of debating Warren. Though I think his ego would get the better of him.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    Someone disagrees with Our Genial Host and has just laid a massive chunk of Harris out to 4.9.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    I must confess I've not given the 2020 WH election much thought though I can obviously see the many trading opportunities for the more devoted players as fortunes wax and wane and gaffes are made and forgotten.

    Slightly closer to home, the Greek GE is just over a week away and two new polls show New Democracy maintaining a solid 10 point lead over Syriza leading 39-29. That's a 9% swing to ND from last time and more than enough to put Mitsotakis into power and slightly redressing the European balance after the recent centre-left win in Denmark.

    The latest German polls show the CDU/CSU and the Greens locked together at 25-27% each.

    Back home, fascinating to read the Times front page and some sense of where a Johnson Government will take us. Clearly, he and his advisers have decided the threat of a No Deal economic slowdown can only be countered by a large dose of fiscal stimulus so "aggressive" tax cuts and the abolition of stamp duty for properties over £500k look options.

    I'm opposed to all of this - if we have spare funds we should be paying down the debt and reducing interest payments so future generations aren't saddled with our profligacy. I'm also far from convinced a debt-fuelled consumption-led boom is going to be of any use except in terms of Johnson's short term political prospects - they've rarely ended well before.

    So if ND and the centre right win in Greece that is now the last Corbynista Government gone in a democracy outside of Mexico
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    SL eight down.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
    Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

    Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
    Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

    Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print
    And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,981

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    edited June 2019
    eek said:


    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...

    Agree, I don't know if we'll end up with generic wealth taxes but we'll certainly have more on types of wealth like property. I think there's a good case for Warren's proposal because of the way wealth has been concentrating at the top, especially in the US.

    But it's definitely way more left-wing than anything Hillary ran on.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    Nigelb said:


    95 on BETFAIR.

    BARGAIN
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    edited June 2019
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
    Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

    Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print
    And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.
    The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,981
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Read the first part of my statement - once you've got tax at above 40% for most employment income where else do you get money from.

    And it's rapidly approaching 40% if you include Employers NI...
  • Options
    MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,288
    edited June 2019
    Surely banning private medical insurance is going to be a step too far that loses the election.

    There must be a decent chunk of swing voters who aren't going to want to lose their current private insurance. Even worse if it means things like people potentially having to go to a new consultant etc.

    And for major treatment rich people will probably just go and get it done somewhere else like Canada.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    edited June 2019
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
    Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

    Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print
    And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.
    The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal
    Which is your opinion, fair enough.

    But to suggest that head to head presidential polling against Democratic candidates - some of whom have been national politicians for years, even decades, and others who are at this stage barely known - holds any predictive meaning for the general election at the end of next year, is simply delusional.

    What is of interest is how that head to head polling for each candidate changes over time.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,283
    edited June 2019
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Read the first part of my statement - once you've got tax at above 40% for most employment income where else do you get money from.

    And it's rapidly approaching 40% if you include Employers NI...
    So is not at 40% with Employers NI then, there already is a hefty inheritance tax at 40% on estates over £1 million anyway.

    Raise NI on 50 to 65 year olds, Japan, the Netherlands etc fund social care through National Insurance largely
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    edited June 2019
    MikeL said:

    Surely banning private medical insurance is going to be a step too far that loses the election.

    There must be a decent chunk of swing voters who aren't going to want to lose their current private insurance. Even worse if it mean things like people potentially having to go to a new consultant etc.

    And for major treatment rich people will probably just go and get it done somewhere else like Canada.

    Yup, it's quite a mad proposition. Even Britain doesn't do it, and the British system is literally communism, complete with waiting for months for things.

    The other problem is that medicare rates are way lower than the rates insurance companies pay, so you end up bankrupting a bunch of hospitals.

    I think it will turn out to be a problem even among Democratic primary voters, if some feisty centrist with a folksy manner and a strong sarcasm game starts going after the Bernie imitators.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
    They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
    Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

    Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print
    And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.
    The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal
    Which is your opinion, fair enough.

    But to suggest that head to head presidential polling against Democratic candidates - some of whom have been national politicians for years, even decades, and others who are at this stage barely known - holds any predictive meaning for the general election at the end of next year, is simply delusional.

    What is of interest is how that head to head polling for each candidate changes over time.
    What it shows is a left liberal elitist like Warren or Harris is far easier for Trump to beat than a charismatic moderate like Biden
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    edited June 2019
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Read the first part of my statement - once you've got tax at above 40% for most employment income where else do you get money from.

    And it's rapidly approaching 40% if you include Employers NI...
    So is not at 40% with Employers NI then, there already is a hefty inheritance tax at 40% on estates over £1 million anyway.

    Raise NI on 50 to 65 year olds, Japan, the Netherlands etc fund social care through National Insurance largely
    You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my £5! In that age range you would hit Tory voters hardest. I thought the Conservative Party favoured regressive taxes like VAT. Likewise the Republican Party.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626

    MikeL said:

    Surely banning private medical insurance is going to be a step too far that loses the election.

    There must be a decent chunk of swing voters who aren't going to want to lose their current private insurance. Even worse if it mean things like people potentially having to go to a new consultant etc.

    And for major treatment rich people will probably just go and get it done somewhere else like Canada.

    Yup, it's quite a mad proposition. Even Britain doesn't do it, and the British system is literally communism, complete with waiting for months for things.

    The other problem is that medicare rates are way lower than the rates insurance companies pay, so you end up bankrupting a bunch of hospitals.

    I think it will turn out to be a problem even among Democratic primary voters, if some feisty centrist with a folksy manner and a strong sarcasm game starts going after the Bernie imitators.
    I think it likely some of these positions will... evolve.
    Though probably not Bernie's.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    HYUFD said:

    So is not at 40% with Employers NI then, there already is a hefty inheritance tax at 40% on estates over £1 million anyway.

    Raise NI on 50 to 65 year olds, Japan, the Netherlands etc fund social care through National Insurance largely

    The Japanese system involves massive deficits, elderly people working in convenience stores when they're clearly not up to standing up for long, and is clearly totally inadequate for the coming demographic changes. The government was planning an election and just cancelled it when someone in the finance ministry wrote a report saying you'd need 20 million yen of savings to cover the shortfall between your pension and your living costs, and everybody looked at their bank books and said ruh roh. Definitely not a system to be imitated.

    Although the land taxation is good policy.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,008

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Read the first part of my statement - once you've got tax at above 40% for most employment income where else do you get money from.

    And it's rapidly approaching 40% if you include Employers NI...
    So is not at 40% with Employers NI then, there already is a hefty inheritance tax at 40% on estates over £1 million anyway.

    Raise NI on 50 to 65 year olds, Japan, the Netherlands etc fund social care through National Insurance largely
    You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my £5! In that age range you would hit Tory voters hardest. I thought the Conservative Party favoured regressive taxes like VAT. Likewise the Republican Party.
    No, hitting Tory voters hardest would be making over 65s pay NI
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Read the first part of my statement - once you've got tax at above 40% for most employment income where else do you get money from.

    And it's rapidly approaching 40% if you include Employers NI...
    So is not at 40% with Employers NI then, there already is a hefty inheritance tax at 40% on estates over £1 million anyway.

    Raise NI on 50 to 65 year olds, Japan, the Netherlands etc fund social care through National Insurance largely
    You are Jeremy Corbyn and I claim my £5! In that age range you would hit Tory voters hardest. I thought the Conservative Party favoured regressive taxes like VAT. Likewise the Republican Party.
    No, hitting Tory voters hardest would be making over 65s pay NI
    OK we better not do that then.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    Yes I am on at 5 for female president. I like that price with Warren and Kamala running for me. It's time. Viva la femme!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    kinabalu said:

    Yes I am on at 5 for female president. I like that price with Warren and Kamala running for me. It's time. Viva la femme!

    You left liberal elitist ! :wink:
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,981
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
    They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc
    So you bin them and introduce a wealth tax instead - that will encourage people to ensure their wealth works for a living if nothing else...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    (OT F1)
    Should Bottas really be double Hamilton's odds for Austria quality ?
    It'a been quite a good track for him.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic. With the advantage of incumbency Trump could beat either in both the popular vote and electoral college.

    Biden and Sanders poll much better v Trump than Warren or Harris do.

    However the US arguably already has chosen a woman to lead them already, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives which is US equivalent of the UK Prime Minister, even if there has been no female President as US Head of State yet

    Let's not rewrite history so soon after the event. He did not find it easy to beat Hillary. It was a photo finish after a long and bruising campaign.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,981
    edited June 2019
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic. With the advantage of incumbency Trump could beat either in both the popular vote and electoral college.

    Biden and Sanders poll much better v Trump than Warren or Harris do.

    However the US arguably already has chosen a woman to lead them already, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives which is US equivalent of the UK Prime Minister, even if there has been no female President as US Head of State yet

    Let's not rewrite history so soon after the event. He did not find it easy to beat Hillary. It was a photo finish after a long and bruising campaign.
    He might have found beating Hilary easy - we were looking at the wrong thing until RCS2000 mentioned the rural Florida vote....

    That's why when we are looking at things for 2020 we are no longer looking at sheer number of votes and swing states it's the electoral collage and fly over states that are important...
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    OK, weird clarification from Kamala on banning private health insurance: Apparently she meant she'd ban her own private health insurance, but everyone else can keep theirs...

    https://twitter.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1144584397187944455
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,283
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
    They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc
    If you taxed wealth whether it was being deployed or sitting idle, you could dispense with those last three. A sensible land value tax could dispense with the first as well.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic. With the advantage of incumbency Trump could beat either in both the popular vote and electoral college.

    Biden and Sanders poll much better v Trump than Warren or Harris do.

    However the US arguably already has chosen a woman to lead them already, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives which is US equivalent of the UK Prime Minister, even if there has been no female President as US Head of State yet

    Let's not rewrite history so soon after the event. He did not find it easy to beat Hillary. It was a photo finish after a long and bruising campaign.
    It was the biggest win ever.




    For Vladimir.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

    & Was it a good or a bad thing ?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    edited June 2019

    OK, weird clarification from Kamala on banning private health insurance: Apparently she meant she'd ban her own private health insurance, but everyone else can keep theirs...

    https://twitter.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1144584397187944455

    See what I mean about evolve....
    :smile:

    This will be one of the key battlegrounds of the campaign (both nomination and general election). Threading the needle to win both is going to be tough going.
    Though it's helped by Trump essentially not having a healthcare policy.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929

    OK, weird clarification from Kamala on banning private health insurance: Apparently she meant she'd ban her own private health insurance, but everyone else can keep theirs...

    https://twitter.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1144584397187944455

    Can someone go after her on healthcare in the next debate, I've got a betting book to balance up here.
  • Options
    Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,790
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
    They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc
    If you taxed wealth whether it was being deployed or sitting idle, you could dispense with those last three. A sensible land value tax could dispense with the first as well.
    interesting. If that were introduced then you would kill off most family owned farms in this country, which would be a very bad thing IMO. That said, the Brexiteers seem happy enough to kill off farming
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,467
    Pulpstar said:

    I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

    & Was it a good or a bad thing ?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Pulpstar said:

    I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

    & Was it a good or a bad thing ?

    It was a very complicated thing, and very controversial at the time.

    Larry Sabato's take on the issue as raised last night is interesting:

    Harris powerfully reproached Biden for his opposition to school busing to achieve racial balance in the 1970s, noting that she had benefitted from busing. It was another time and place, and older observers (including one of us) recall that plenty of Democrats were damaged or defeated because of their support of busing, which was greatly unpopular among whites and also disliked by many blacks, because it limited extracurricular activities and resulted in many students leaving home very early and returning home after dark. But none of that matters now, and Biden is paying a price. Biden didn’t answer these criticisms well, and some of his staff privately said he hadn’t followed the script they’d devised.

    http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/2-debates-20-candidates-26-hours/
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    Pulpstar said:

    OK, weird clarification from Kamala on banning private health insurance: Apparently she meant she'd ban her own private health insurance, but everyone else can keep theirs...

    https://twitter.com/VaughnHillyard/status/1144584397187944455

    Can someone go after her on healthcare in the next debate, I've got a betting book to balance up here.
    And I've got a trading position to play with over the next month....

    I think after the July 30th debate, things will solidify, and it will be time to place longer term bets, but for now I'm still ducking and diving.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    Pulpstar said:

    I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

    & Was it a good or a bad thing ?

    Bussing kids from their home to schools further away so that there was less segregation between schools. It is certainly perceived to be a good thing by the sounds of it.
  • Options
    macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
    Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

    Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print
    And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.
    The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal
    Which is your opinion, fair enough.

    But to suggest that head to head presidential polling against Democratic candidates - some of whom have been national politicians for years, even decades, and others who are at this stage barely known - holds any predictive meaning for the general election at the end of next year, is simply delusional.

    What is of interest is how that head to head polling for each candidate changes over time.
    What it shows is a left liberal elitist like Warren or Harris is far easier for Trump to beat than a charismatic moderate like Biden
    Biden linked to Obama and Harris to Clinton whose staffers are running her campaign. Trump would come back to that in campaign and debate as a default. Warren is a different problem and I would expect her to be much sharper on her feet than either of the other two and much more articulate, which could disarm Trump.
  • Options
    Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    "Interesting" choice of media for the wingnut in chief to give his first interview to....

    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1144597440475148289
  • Options
    Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 13,790
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
    Reducing or capping business rates would be a lot better. It is crippling for many small businesses, unless their premises are very small
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,120
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
    They don't if you believe in family property as I do and in any case we already have plenty of them council tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty etc
    "family property" = inherited wealth and privilege, of which there is an over-supply in this country. Better for the tax system to do more to equalise opportunities ex ante rather than taxing success ex post.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    Pulpstar said:

    I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

    & Was it a good or a bad thing ?

    It is either

    a. A promotion of racial integration by moving ethnic children to a predominantly white school by bus.

    Or

    b. Cardboard modelling of transportation systems by B. Johnson Esq.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626

    Pulpstar said:

    I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

    & Was it a good or a bad thing ?

    It was a very complicated thing, and very controversial at the time.

    Larry Sabato's take on the issue as raised last night is interesting:

    Harris powerfully reproached Biden for his opposition to school busing to achieve racial balance in the 1970s, noting that she had benefitted from busing. It was another time and place, and older observers (including one of us) recall that plenty of Democrats were damaged or defeated because of their support of busing, which was greatly unpopular among whites and also disliked by many blacks, because it limited extracurricular activities and resulted in many students leaving home very early and returning home after dark. But none of that matters now, and Biden is paying a price. Biden didn’t answer these criticisms well, and some of his staff privately said he hadn’t followed the script they’d devised.

    http://crystalball.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/2-debates-20-candidates-26-hours/
    Bottom line is that desegregation would not have happened without Federal action, and Biden still doesn't acknowledge being somewhat on the wrong side of that argument.
    That it was unpopular at the time isn't really the point today.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311

    Pulpstar said:

    I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

    & Was it a good or a bad thing ?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing
    which brings us onto (one of) our favourite discussion subjects the telly - just started watching This Is Us.

    Fantastic.

    (Busing is mentioned.)
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    O/T

    "A Frenchman who killed his parents, wife and children after pretending for two decades to be a successful doctor, in a case that inspired a book and films, has been released on parole after 26 years in jail, his lawyer said Friday.

    Jean-Claude Romand murdered his parents, wife and two children in 1993 as they were about to learn about his double life."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/28/notorious-fake-doctor-killed-entire-family-found-freed-26-years/
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    Nigelb said:

    Bottom line is that desegregation would not have happened without Federal action, and Biden still doesn't acknowledge being somewhat on the wrong side of that argument.
    That it was unpopular at the time isn't really the point today.

    Personally I thought Kamala Harris' attack on him was unfair, unreasonable, shouty and frankly rather obnoxious, but I'm not the target market and I expect it will have gone down well.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150

    Pulpstar said:

    I should probably know this seeing as I'm betting on the thing but what was "bussing".

    & Was it a good or a bad thing ?

    It is either

    a. A promotion of racial integration by moving ethnic children to a predominantly white school by bus.

    Or

    b. Cardboard modelling of transportation systems by B. Johnson Esq.
    c. The Anti-Christ of wingman'ing. To do the complete opposite of helping out a fellow comrade in the pursuit of an individual. Also referred to as Captain Cockblock.
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bussing

    Biden should say he thought they were talking about that.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    Scott_P said:
    Water and Mars Bars - we'll be fine.
    Where's your British spirit ?
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,981

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
    Reducing or capping business rates would be a lot better. It is crippling for many small businesses, unless their premises are very small
    That screws up local government finances though which does make things more complex...
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    MikeL said:

    Surely banning private medical insurance is going to be a step too far that loses the election.

    There must be a decent chunk of swing voters who aren't going to want to lose their current private insurance. Even worse if it mean things like people potentially having to go to a new consultant etc.

    And for major treatment rich people will probably just go and get it done somewhere else like Canada.

    Yup, it's quite a mad proposition. Even Britain doesn't do it, and the British system is literally communism, complete with waiting for months for things.

    The other problem is that medicare rates are way lower than the rates insurance companies pay, so you end up bankrupting a bunch of hospitals.

    I think it will turn out to be a problem even among Democratic primary voters, if some feisty centrist with a folksy manner and a strong sarcasm game starts going after the Bernie imitators.
    I believe Canada bans private health insurance, although the actual providers are a mixture of public charity and private, the same as the US. I think I'm right in saying Canada outright bans for-profit providers though, although if it's like the US most "not-for-profits" look and quack like a for-profit, making hefty "surpluses".

    As to bankrupting hospitals due to lower rates, no-one in the US actually pays the hospitals' sticker prices, insurance co.s "negotiate" massive discounts and even private payers can arrive at payment plans which usually result in a hefty wedge off the notional price.

    And most ordinary peoples' employer-provided insurance plans are becoming junk insurance, Obamacare minimums not withstanding, with huge deductibles heading towards $10k per person per year and < 100% reimbursement. Typically you have to pay 10-20% "co-insurance" even after the deductible has been met. So great, the insurance company pays for 90% of your (negotiated down) $150k hospital stay after a bad accident but you're still on the hook for $15k. 4/5s of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, and they aren't going to be able to afford that. This is exactly the situation my wife's cousin is in and his family have had to resort to a GoFundMe to pay his bills.

    So it ought to be pretty easy for the Democrats to point out how much better universal healthcare would be, but whether they can actually pull that off is another matter.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626
    Nigelb said:

    (OT F1)
    Should Bottas really be double Hamilton's odds for Austria quality ?
    It'a been quite a good track for him.


    That was not a well timed suggestion.
    Just stuffed it into the wall.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,197
    Scott_P said:
    Mr Johnson's genius is of course this also resolves childhood obescity issues at the same time. So this will save the NHS a further £350b a day, week, minute or whatever it was. Brilliant!
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    Nigelb said:

    You left liberal elitist ! :wink:



    Got the tee shirt.

    But I do try to stay in touch with ordinary people. Indeed I have conversed with them on several occasions.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,079
  • Options
    macisbackmacisback Posts: 382

    Nigelb said:

    Bottom line is that desegregation would not have happened without Federal action, and Biden still doesn't acknowledge being somewhat on the wrong side of that argument.
    That it was unpopular at the time isn't really the point today.

    Personally I thought Kamala Harris' attack on him was unfair, unreasonable, shouty and frankly rather obnoxious, but I'm not the target market and I expect it will have gone down well.
    Yes but she overplayed her hand by lying on her personal situation regarding that subject and leaves herself wide open, whenever Biden chooses to strike back.
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.

    Monster wealth tax on rich people. It sounds small because it's only a couple of percent but it's every year.

    Also like Bernie and Kamala she appears to have committed to banning private health insurance.
    I think wealth taxes are inevitable and unavoidable long term - there is only so much you can tax income and more money is going to be required to pay for old age care...
    National Insurance should pay for social care not more wealth and death taxes
    Taxes on wealth and death make a lot more sense than taxes on jobs.

    Reducing employers’ NI would be more constructive than reducing corporation tax.
    Reducing or capping business rates would be a lot better. It is crippling for many small businesses, unless their premises are very small
    That screws up local government finances though which does make things more complex...
    If sales are moving online, the local govt tax base needs to shift somewhat - certainly more of it will need to come from general taxation.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,626

    Nigelb said:

    Bottom line is that desegregation would not have happened without Federal action, and Biden still doesn't acknowledge being somewhat on the wrong side of that argument.
    That it was unpopular at the time isn't really the point today.

    Personally I thought Kamala Harris' attack on him was unfair, unreasonable, shouty and frankly rather obnoxious, but I'm not the target market and I expect it will have gone down well.
    In what way was it unfair ?

    (And his response was pretty 'shouty', too.)
  • Options
    BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    Pretty obvious given most of the 41% would never consider Tory or even have their best interests at heart.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
    Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

    Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print
    And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.
    The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal
    Which is your opinion, fair enough.

    But to suggest that head to head presidential polling against Democratic candidates - some of whom have been national politicians for years, even decades, and others who are at this stage barely known - holds any predictive meaning for the general election at the end of next year, is simply delusional.

    What is of interest is how that head to head polling for each candidate changes over time.
    What it shows is a left liberal elitist like Warren or Harris is far easier for Trump to beat than a charismatic moderate like Biden
    You simply can't assert that based on polls. At the same stage last time, the head-to-heads were:

    54% Clinton 41% Bush
    56% Clinton 37% Christie
    56% Clinton 39% Rubio
    57% Clinton 38% Walker
    59% Clinton 34% Trump

    In fact I think Clinton would have won against any of the other candidates, and Trump was always likely to be her toughest opponent.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/donald-trump-poll-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush/index.html
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    macisback said:

    Nigelb said:

    Bottom line is that desegregation would not have happened without Federal action, and Biden still doesn't acknowledge being somewhat on the wrong side of that argument.
    That it was unpopular at the time isn't really the point today.

    Personally I thought Kamala Harris' attack on him was unfair, unreasonable, shouty and frankly rather obnoxious, but I'm not the target market and I expect it will have gone down well.
    Yes but she overplayed her hand by lying on her personal situation regarding that subject and leaves herself wide open, whenever Biden chooses to strike back.
    No I think it was effective, what I question is how much of the Dem base is the ultra-woke twitterati that was never going to vote for Biden anyway.

    And does one good debate performance really justify making her the 3-1 favourite ?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,311
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    You left liberal elitist ! :wink:



    Got the tee shirt.

    But I do try to stay in touch with ordinary people. Indeed I have conversed with them on several occasions.
    No Tories I would hope.
  • Options
    BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic.

    How is Warren more left liberal than Hillary? Warren's main political platform is rebuilding the middle class.
    Warren wants to tax and spend, wants universal state healthcare unlike Hillary and is not as tough on defence than Hillary. Trump beats Warren with few problems
    You realise Trump against foreign interventionism? Warren not being a hawk on military action makes her tougher for Trump to handle.
    Obviously you misses the Trump bombings on the Taliban or the US presence still in the Middle East or the sanctions and pressuring he is ramping up in Iran.

    Fox has Warren ahead of Trump by 2% in the popular vote, same as Hillary, Harris is only up 1%, Biden leads Trump by 10% and Sanders by 9%

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-6-16.print
    And (yet again) such polling is meaningless this far out.
    The Democrats will not beat Trump in the rustbelt swing states with an elitist left liberal
    Which is your opinion, fair enough.

    But to suggest that head to head presidential polling against Democratic candidates - some of whom have been national politicians for years, even decades, and others who are at this stage barely known - holds any predictive meaning for the general election at the end of next year, is simply delusional.

    What is of interest is how that head to head polling for each candidate changes over time.
    What it shows is a left liberal elitist like Warren or Harris is far easier for Trump to beat than a charismatic moderate like Biden
    You simply can't assert that based on polls. At the same stage last time, the head-to-heads were:

    54% Clinton 41% Bush
    56% Clinton 37% Christie
    56% Clinton 39% Rubio
    57% Clinton 38% Walker
    59% Clinton 34% Trump

    In fact I think Clinton would have won against any of the other candidates, and Trump was always likely to be her toughest opponent.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/01/politics/donald-trump-poll-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush/index.html
    It's pretty clear that Biden and Trump will have an overlap and fish in a similar pool. Biden will certainly win votes from Trump. Can anyone say that Harris will win round any Trump 2016 voters? She's relying on unlocking non 2016 voters which is a much more dangerous business. She would be a huge risk.
  • Options
    macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    I doubt it, Trump will find Warren and Harris even easier to beat than Hillary, both are more left liberal than her, especially Warren and neither are particularly charismatic. With the advantage of incumbency Trump could beat either in both the popular vote and electoral college.

    Biden and Sanders poll much better v Trump than Warren or Harris do.

    However the US arguably already has chosen a woman to lead them already, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives which is US equivalent of the UK Prime Minister, even if there has been no female President as US Head of State yet

    Let's not rewrite history so soon after the event. He did not find it easy to beat Hillary. It was a photo finish after a long and bruising campaign.
    The final scoreboard didn't show a photo finish. Trump pretty much won all the states he wanted, some were close but won all the same.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    edited June 2019
    rpjs said:


    As to bankrupting hospitals due to lower rates, no-one in the US actually pays the hospitals' sticker prices, insurance co.s "negotiate" massive discounts and even private payers can arrive at payment plans which usually result in a hefty wedge off the notional price.
    healthcare would be, but whether they can actually pull that off is another matter.

    Sure, but IIUC Medicare gets even bigger discounts than the insurance companies. This is usually deployed as an argument for a government-run system: Medicare can use its bulk negotiating power to get better deals.

    Barely-related PS: My friend's mother died in the ambulance on the way to hospital. The hospital sent the estate a bill for $60,000 for preparing the room and the people who would have tried to treat her if she'd made it there.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226

    Personally I thought Kamala Harris' attack on him was unfair, unreasonable, shouty and frankly rather obnoxious, but I'm not the target market and I expect it will have gone down well.

    Lock her up!
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,071
    Brom said:

    It's pretty clear that Biden and Trump will have an overlap and fish in a similar pool. Biden will certainly win votes from Trump. Can anyone say that Harris will win round any Trump 2016 voters? She's relying on unlocking non 2016 voters which is a much more dangerous business. She would be a huge risk.

    I think Warren will be able to win over what could be called Trump Democrats more effectively than Biden, who is typical of the kind of establishment politician that Trump upended in 2015/2016.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,226
    Brom said:

    Pretty obvious given most of the 41% would never consider Tory or even have their best interests at heart.

    That begs an interesting question. How many members of the public genuinely do have the best interests of the Tory Party at heart? Not too many I would wager.
  • Options
    DadgeDadge Posts: 2,038
    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    "A Frenchman who killed his parents, wife and children after pretending for two decades to be a successful doctor, in a case that inspired a book and films, has been released on parole after 26 years in jail, his lawyer said Friday.

    Jean-Claude Romand murdered his parents, wife and two children in 1993 as they were about to learn about his double life."

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/28/notorious-fake-doctor-killed-entire-family-found-freed-26-years/

    I don't remember that case, but I can guarantee you there are thousands of people who are pretending to their family that they are doing a job that they aren't. Cases of people leaving for "work" when they don't actually have any work to go to are sadly commonplace. Thankfully these lies rarely lead to murder, but they do sometimes lead to suicide.
This discussion has been closed.