Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hurdles Hillary has to surmount are getting higher
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The hurdles Hillary has to surmount are getting higher
Eugene Debs must be grinning in his grave. OK, Bernie Sanders isn’t quite the firebrand radical that Debs was a hundred years ago but the notion that there is a credible route for a self-declared socialist to the White House is one that only a few months ago would have been dismissed with derision. Not now.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Like the 90% of Junior Doctors who may have resigned by now.
She is a fighter. She isn't done yet.
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.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/hillary-clinton-needs-to-win-the-voters-she-lost-in-2008/
If so, it might be worth keeping an eye on the demographics of each state for primary betting.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You're embarrassing yourself now, Prime Minister. Please - just STFU a while.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35562698
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?
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.
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.
Their one saving grace is that the Republican field, in a stroke of tactical brilliance unsurpassed since Tilden threw away the 1876 election with an inept horse trade, are managing to make an even worse mess of things.
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!
The main complaint is that the expenditure headings appear to be so broad that only large figures are quoted so the individual expenditures that make up that total is vague or not known. This is where the suspicions have arisen and the opponents now want more clarity and all the accounts published in detail.
This one has the potential to develop and I think has legs, certainly locally. What impact if any it will have outside the area is unknown . Perhaps the next green capital may reflect on the present situation?
PS and off topic, it looks increasingly like I will owe you £30 in May!
Very good piece, Mr. Herdson. Must say I still think Remain will win, with relative ease, but a Leave victory is not impossible.
As for the 'retreat from the world' nonsense, I for one welcome our new Great Britain-sized space station home. Or are we going to Narnia?
If Hillary gets over the line using superdelegates, she's over the line - and the narrative moves to her being the first female President.
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 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?
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...
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.
"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.
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.
"A gang of men from Pakistani origin were jailed for a total of 140 years at Crown Court, for 13 months of horrendous abuse of a British white girl in Keighley, West Yorkshire. However, the view expressed by some members of the Muslim community was that even if they might have had sex with a 13-year-old, she had lied about her age and went with them willingly. In other words, in that chilling phrase, 'it takes two to tango'.
Keighley was recently named among the 'least integrated' places in the UK in a report by the Policy Exchange think-tank. Anyone who believes that race and cultural differences are incidental to these scandals should study the evidence in this most recent case.
The young victim was repeatedly called a 'little white bastard', 'little white slag', and 'white bitch'. White girls are seen as more available, more promiscuous and an easy outlet for young Muslims who may be trapped in unhappy arranged marriages."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445065/Twelve-rapists-13-year-old-girl-terrifying-truth-Britain-won-t-face.html
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.
Which US Presidential candidates are winning the Facebook election? Share of likes, by county.
By @FiveThirtyEight https://t.co/hKGIaclqC3
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..."
Trump is really fishing in the same sort of voter pool as UKIP - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/i_can_t_hate_donald_trump_i_do_hate_the_republicans_who_ve_enabled_him.html . Just as UKIP voters last May came from both major parties, so does Trump's coalition - but he'll have the inestimable advantage of actually being the Republican candidate as well. Rust belt states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Michigan become far more viable for the Republicans under Trump.
That said, I personally still think the GOP will stop him eventually, given his unfavourables, but I agree he's value at present.
PS on the "useless tossers" bit, this interpretation is apparently incorrect - the delegates awarded by coin tosses were county delegates, not "statewide delegate equivalents" which is what the headline 701-697 result represents.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/
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.
That's all
I'd rather LEAVE and have a Govt that opened our borders to the world than REMAIN with a special deal that said zero immigration for 5 years
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.
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%.
Seems improbable that they are council officials acting in an official capacity, especially if he didn't see any ID. Moreover of course council officials have no special legal authority in public places. So if they asked him to do something, especially if he was breaking no law, they might themselves be guilty of harassment, or at the very least an offence under the Public Order Act - behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.
I was wondering if it might be some busybody organisation or other, possibly including members of the council's staff, akin to the old London Public Morality Council, and emboldened by Corbyn's apparent success. If so, Labour are losing touch with reality even faster than I had thought possible.
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.
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.
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.
There is much wrong with the EU - but much is also right, especially on the economic side. As an expat living in Spain it gives me great protection against an often corrupt and disorganised Spanish government. As for the idea that the USE 'project' will continue I have great doubts about that at the moment - although ironically it is needed for the Euro area. Merkel is a busted flush, France a joke and the EU is if anything likely to be slimmed back in the next decade or so. But even if I'm wrong and they try to push further at nation state sovereignty is nothing forcing us to comply.
How did they manage to produce such a pile of crap as candidates? Trump's leading because he's the noisiest and shoutiest and that seems to be the benchmark. Carson looked like an academic in a school playground but as he's an odd God-botherer and far too reserved, he'll go nowhere. The others indulged in a shouting contest - all heat and no light.
Sanders was an old git in the Harry Enfield style, and Clinton was Clinton (I've got ovaries, vote for me). The e-mail defence was typical - all those men do it too. Not so much ... Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, but Murky Grey and the Seven Dwarves.
Still, it's their election, so if they want to elect and idiot, it's up to them. Labour picked Corbyn!
Errr did you see some of our choices at the last GE ?
"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
It's pathetic, laughable, unconvincing rubbish. I take our security very seriously and wouldn't want to rely on the EU under any circumstances.
"Errr did you see some of our choices at the last GE ?"
Point taken.
I claim no expertise in US politics, so perhaps there's a seam of gold hidden in the dross?
Can't say the same about our bunch.
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?
I may have mis-remembered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011
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!
Dave is at the epicentre of that world. He IS that world.
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.
I was certain that I saw 'Hertsmere votes No' flash up on the screen during the results prog.
Either of Sanders or Clinton are dream opponents for Trump. Nevada and South Carolina will tell us whether Sanders has made inroads into HRC's minority firewall.
The EU deal has shown up Cameron for what he is, can't see anyone but leave winning and Cameron has been fatally damaged. Just another charlatan.
2009 95.0
2010 99.3
2011 101.4 - George Osborne proclaims the 'March of the Makers' in his Budget
2012 100.0
2013 98.9
2014 101.6
2015 101.4
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=K22A&dataset=diop&table-id=A1
On a quarterly basis manufacturing output has gone from 101.6 and rising in 2011q1 to 101.0 and falling in 2015q4.
Now am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising manufacturing output in 2011 and decided to jump on the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?
As a thought experiment, could some of the more broadminded Conservative Leavers explain what they would be comfortable hearing David Cameron say on behalf of Remain, bearing in mind that the Leave side is (naturally enough) also playing fast and loose to gather the votes in? After all, it's hardly a revelation that he's coming out for Remain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445090/The-sky-high-half-term-RIP-OFFS.html
Did none of their journos ever do a 101 course in economics, or do they think it equally outrageous that florists are restaurants are also putting up prices this weekend?
2009 399bn
2010 444bn
2011 497bn
2012 502bn - George Osborne announces a trillion pound export target in his Budget
2013 521bn
2014 513bn
2015 512bn
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/datasets-and-tables/data-selector.html?cdid=IKBH&dataset=mret&table-id=A01
On a quarterly basis exports have gone from 128bn and rising in 2012q2 to 127bn and falling in 2015q4.
Am I being too cynical in suspecting that Osborne was told about rising exports in 2012 and decided to jump of the bandwagon and claim credit for it ?
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...)
' A married human resources director who was called a “whore” and then sacked after she spurned the advances of her NHS boss was awarded more than £800,000 in compensation yesterday.
Helen Marks, 50, lost her job at Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust after fending off the unwanted attentions of its chairman, Alan Baines. Angered by her rejection he then “colluded” with the trust’s chief executive, Steve Trenchard, to dismiss Mrs Marks from her £99,000-a-year post, an employment tribunal heard.
Mrs Marks has now received a payout of £832,711 in a scandal that has cost the taxpayer close to £1.5 million.
The trust, which spent £424,000 on legal fees and investigations, yesterday made a public apology and promised that “lessons have been learnt”.
Last summer an employment tribunal in Nottingham ruled Mrs Marks had been unfairly dismissed after being sexually harassed by Mr Baines and called a “whore”.
For his part in the scandal Professor Trenchard was suspended on full pay for seven months at a cost of £90,000.
He quit this week with a £75,000 payoff. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12153238/NHS-executive-who-was-sacked-after-turning-down-her-boss-is-awarded-832000-compensation.html