Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sanders shows biggest weakness in the overnight Democratic
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Sanders shows biggest weakness in the overnight Democratic Nominee debate: his age
After the massive disappointment for the Hillary campaign in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary it was back to a live TV debate overnight with the 74 year old victor in the primary, socialist Bernie Sanders.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Hillary's age is her problem. Not her actual age, but her political age - she's a progressive gone stale. Looks set up to be one of the greatest presidents America never had.
Anyway, I think we need to dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing.
On Obama, I think one reason this race is so poor is his dumb choice of veep. Even allowing for Biden balancing the ticket in 2008 ahead of a plausible president like Evan Bayh, his age, gaffes and political naivety all rule him out as a possible president. If Obama had picked a potential successor as running mate in 2012, matters would be very different right now.
I thought some of what he says about anti-democratic europe might be of interest
Would be a certain irony if Obama trashed her chances twice, once when his star was in the ascendent, then once again when it was in decline....
And Super Tuesday looks to go her way.
Then we find out whether she can beat Trump.
For all her faults she does look like the only candidate capable of being POTUS.
Beth Rigby
EXCL: Guardian will press Milne to take Voluntary redundancy. On loan to Labour, execs want to finally cut the tie > https://t.co/uEbvW8rI3v
foxinsoxuk - "For all her faults she does look like the only candidate capable of being POTUS" Agree with that. Nearer the day, she will undoubtedly get a boost as American women get excited about the prospect of their first woman President. You just wish it would have been someone more inspiring taking on that mantle.
Whereas of course we did nothing of the sort, actively.
Read the negotiating text. Or remind yourself of the Fiscal Compact which Dave refused to sign and which would have forced us to submit our fiscal plans for EU approval. At the time it was seen as the Conservatives being Conservative rather than a refusal to give up sovereignty.
As a reminder, the negotiating text is quite sobering as 98.9% of people in the UK have misunderstood or have not been paying attention or have been in denial over what the EU actually is. I think for this reason Remain will win but if people actually paid attention to what the UK is a part of and how the EU views itself, it would be much closer not to say Leave might edge it.
And can Labour afford him if they had to pay him?
As an aside, I assume that the arrangement is being disclosed as a donation in kind by the Guardian?
And he was blind.
Just as with the euro (and the fiscal compact), it is the ability of the UK to make decisions without recourse to or approval from that supranational body. But again, even the concept of sovereignty is fairly dry, not to say nebulous (we still troop the colour, after all, so surely all is well), so people focus on EU legislation about the shape of bananas and are rightly dismissed.
Also, The Guardian had a negative cash flow of £50.4m last year, apparently this year is going to be worse and they have a whole load of redundancy payments coming next year, around 200 people might be told to do one.
Hillary about 70. With that too much make up look.
If the immigrant card is going to be played then, again, it must be tied to sovereignty ("The UK is not allowed by the EU to determine who is or is not allowed in to our country."). But immigration has too much baggage imo for it to be a potent weapon for either side and that message will be lost. I mean did anyone actually ask (apart from NF and he is to monotonic to be listened to these days) why Dave's immigration pledge could not have been honoured? It got diverted into the issue of immigration per se.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573
"Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI director-general, said that league tables should not be used to "name and shame" firms, because data could only give a partial picture - factors such as the mix of part-time and full-time workers, as well as sectoral differences, needed to be taken into account."
Also worth recalling women often take years out due to wanting to raise a family. It's not legitimate to expect that to have zero impact on a career.
[Of course, men and women doing the same job should be paid the same, but like must be compared with like. A general comparison of pay is worthless because the populations will do different jobs and, often, men are breadwinners who don't take time out for family, whereas women are more likely to do so].
For that matter, on this side of the Atlantic Jeremy Corbyn is in his late 60s and while he has many detractors none mention his age.
Is the cult of youth officially over?
I think you exaggerate the death of the cult of youth. Corbyn won because Labour MPs were damned fools. If they'd understood their own leadership election rules it would've been Cooper, Burnham or Kendall. America's kicking back against the Establishment, not the Youth.
http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/europe-decision-day-coming/
You've also basically posted a bunch of "Britain is a shit country and too small to survive alone". I'm not sure that is going to convince as many people as you think it will.
The 'establishment' in both the US and European spheres has got way too complacent in recent years imo.
The modern equivalent of 'the occasional assassination' pour encourager les autres.
jeeez
I hope all 56 genders are included. https://t.co/9Q5RDPT5sV
As you are a fan there is no reason for you to mention it but as we have been discussing on here - a power bloc doesn't mean perforce delegating sovereign decisions to a supranational government. The EU differs from the other associations you name because it seeks, by its own articles, to become more than just a set of trading or common interest agreements and wants political and economic union, with some small degree of tolerance for those who don't share those aims (ie us).
Now if that is what the good people of Broxtowe want, then great, but you are being just a tiny bit disingenuous not to describe the differences between the EU and the examples you cite.
Plus!!! "taking a break from politics"??!! But...but you have been regularly contributing to PB....!
Thanks to Nick for the article, very good - lacking only a Labour view of TTIP and its relation to the EU, alas.
Yes, almost an archetype complete with the required heavy dose of pomposity and self-importance
Good luck with that as an argument.
Politics is now more of a hobby than an occupation for me! Come the Euros in 2019, that might change, if we're still members, though I'd be surprised to get a winnable slot.
Of these, Sanders is the least likely but he has revealed weaknesses in her campaign that the GOP will expoloit later, particularly her unwillingness to make a virtue of her Washington experience. Who knows what the FBI will come up with or whether Bloomberg will run if Hillary looks nominee presumpive this time next month. But the combined odds of one of the three stopping her, plus Republicans who either lead i head-to-heads or are within ballpark should add up to more than 50%.
People have been rehearsing versions of that argument for many hundreds of years.
Before WWI there was supposedly only going to be the British Empire, the US and Russia in future according to the geopolitical 'experts', with all other powers of no importance.
In the 16th century Spain was going to become a universal monarchy
etc etc
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3442529/Surging-number-attacks-Germany-s-migrant-centres-sees-Christians-women-homosexuals-forced-flee-Muslim-men.html
Given that Britain lost its powers in a series of salami slices, I accepted that we could only hope to get powers back bit by bit. I wanted the PM to start that process but knew it would be difficult. It would mean abrogating the doctrine that once a power has been transferred to the EU it can never return to a member state. That doctrine (not “ever closer union”) has driven the process of European integration and is held tenaciously by the European Commission.
"Each new directive, regulation and Court ruling will leach power irrevocably from Britain to Europe"
To reverse that ratchet required two things. First, create a precedent by getting some modest powers back. Sadly, the PM was unable to get back a single power previously conceded to the EU. Second, whenever the process of integrating the eurozone involves directives or treaty changes requiring our consent, use that leverage to insist on devolving more powers to the UK. Unfortunately, the draft agreement pledges that the UK “shall not impede the implementation of legal acts directly linked to the functioning of the euro area”. That would mean throwing away our trump cards.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12152759/Why-even-David-Cameron-cannot-convince-me-to-vote-to-remain-in-the-EU.html
From Savile to Stafford to Rotherham to AGW to creeping snooping and restrictions on free speech. It's so oppressive and arse covering.
I used to shrug most of these scandals off as isolated incidents. Now, I feel it's a much broader reflection of an attitude.
Yes, Soubry is as pro-EU as I am. She said in local debate that "I follow Ken Clarke in all things". We agree on plenty - she's socially liberal too, and indeed attacked me for being insufficiently early in welcoming gay marriage (I initially thought civil partnerships were a reasonable way forward, and saw the point about equal marriage later). Our differences are partly tribal - she is as instinctively Tory as I'm instinctively Labour - and partly temperamental: our personal styles are about as different as it's possible to be: she sees herself as in constant battle against enemies on all sides, while I basically don't see anyone as an enemy. She's more successful in her party than I was I mine, so that's not necessarily a comparison to my advantage!
There is no way Shirley that the conservative membership would vote for Fox in a head to head? Do I not understand the makeup of the Conservative membership?
The one saving grace for Labour as they move left is that for many people up north the other plausible options are either toxic (Tories and UKIP) or utterly unlikely to win (Lib Dems)... Until a none toxic centre party arrives Labour will still do well up north.
Once it appears Labour will go the way of Scotland down to a small rump of support...
http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/feb/12/council-legal-advice-scottish-government-cuts
http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2016/02/12/brussels-briefing-brexit-beartraps/
Note that it thinks the financial regulation battle will be won by Britain but that there is a hidden danger relating to child benefit that may be the big problem.
Yes I'm afraid Peter Lilley has identified what the PM's cheerleaders don't want us to understand here, i.e. that the 'deal' not only does nothing for the UK in terms of repatriating powers but actually opens the door to faster EU integration.
'Remain' really is pointless now.
Was tempted to back Ireland to beat France (playing in Paris) but the odds are only evens.
How would we be able to prevent the ever closer union of the Euro area if we were not in the EU?
What meaningful powers could we claim back if we were in the EEA and part of the single market?
The ECHR is not the EU and it is the HRA and UK judges who pass crass verdicts in its name - this it seems is going to be repealed independently of the EU negotiations.
How would we help create a single market in financial services if we were not in the EU?
Is in not now law that any new treaty must pass a referendum before parliament passes it?
How is it that Peter Lilley has suddenly become so so incisive in his political judgements?
Men masturbated at Jess Philips "throughout her childhood". Christ. Where did she live?! https://t.co/7uirckKdKQ https://t.co/6ChV1ynCzS
Great cricket commentary from the other day though!
Peter Lilley, shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer [Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]
“With the removal of banking control to the Financial Services Authority…it is difficult to see how and whether the Bank remains, as it surely must, responsible for ensuring the liquidity of the banking system and preventing systemic collapse.”
“The coverage of the FSA will be huge; its objectives will be many, and potentially in conflict with one another. The range of its activities will be so diverse that no one person in it will understand them all.”
“…that the Government may, almost casually, have bitten off more than they can chew. The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”
[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 731-32.]
The refugee problem is a problem of the Syrian civil war, that is a big enough and serious enough problem to warrant being discussed on its own.