politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Elizabeth Warren trounces betting favourite, Bernie Sanders, i

SystemSystem Posts: 11,683
edited May 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Elizabeth Warren trounces betting favourite, Bernie Sanders, in the first Democratic primary poll of WH2020

NEW HAMPSHIREIf the Democratic primary for president were held today and the candidates were [see below] …Warren 26%Biden 20%Sanders 13%Booker 8%Harris 4%Patrick 4%Gillibrand 2%McAuliffe 2%Unsure 21%(Suffolk U. Poll, Democratic primary voters, 4/26-30/18)

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    First! Like Leave, No & May.....
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    In other news:

    https://twitter.com/AP/status/991864756746309632
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Warren keeps saying no, she won't run. Kinda....

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/10/elizabeth-warren-2020-presidential-campaign-454192
  • Options
    MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited May 2018
    MarqueeMark said:

    Warren keeps saying no, she won't run. Kinda....

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/10/elizabeth-warren-2020-presidential-campaign-454192

    Her response is a carefully worded "I am not running for President" which is a true statement at this time but not a statement that she won't. My guess is that this poll could encourage her.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,995
    It looks like Michael Unsure, the Democratic congressman for the California 21st is in a strong second place.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,282
    Fifth like UKIP
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    CarlottaVance said:

    In other news:

    https://twitter.com/AP/status/991864756746309632

    Well we knew that he’s a lying f*cker, but it’s good to have his lawyer confirm it.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,641
    A useful electoral guide for tonight, even with bathtime scheduled.

    https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/991766041222172672?s=19
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    MarqueeMark said:

    Warren keeps saying no, she won't run. Kinda....

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/10/elizabeth-warren-2020-presidential-campaign-454192

    It’s traditional for prospective candidates to say that whether or not they intend running. As Mike said, that poll might just tip the balance... though it’s one poll.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    rcs1000 said:

    It looks like Michael Unsure, the Democratic congressman for the California 21st is in a strong second place.

    I'm not convinced about him either!
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    The account of yesterday's Brexit Cabinet meeting in the Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5684613/How-new-boy-Sajid-Javid-difference-war-cabinet-meeting.html
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,003
    Trouble at the Nobel Academy:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43974363
  • Options
    HarryHayfieldHarryHayfield Posts: 55
    This means nothing. On September 11th 2014, Sanders had a 53% lead in New Hampshire, six days later Clinton had a 53% lead in New Hampshire. The final result? Sanders lead of 22%. Polls this far out are complete and absolute nonsense. It's like saying "Who will win the general election of 2027?"
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,990
    edited May 2018
    If Biden had run in 2016..........

    However that ship has sailed. As, surely, has Bernie’s.
    Either could, though, become kingmakers!
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850
    JosiasJessop said:

    Trouble at the Nobel Academy:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43974363

    Even Harvey Weinstein didn't go as far as assaulting Royalty.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    edited May 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    It looks like Michael Unsure, the Democratic congressman for the California 21st is in a strong second place.

    I'd vote for a candidate called that any day of the week. Think how easy it would make life:

    Who's the President? Unsure.

    Who's got the best position on the economy? Unsure.

    Has there ever been a scandal surrounding the candidates? Yes, Unsure.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    HarryHayfield said:

    This means nothing. On September 11th 2014, Sanders had a 53% lead in New Hampshire, six days later Clinton had a 53% lead in New Hampshire. The final result? Sanders lead of 22%. Polls this far out are complete and absolute nonsense. It's like saying "Who will win the general election of 2027?"

    No, it's like saying 'who are the current frontrunners ?'
    Plenty of time for candidates to emerge, but it's unusual for the strong frontrunners to be septuagenarians and an almost septuagenarian.

    I have a little money on Harris, as I think she has a decent shot of being the next generation pick.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    Sean_F said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Trouble at the Nobel Academy:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43974363

    Even Harvey Weinstein didn't go as far as assaulting Royalty.
    So far as we know.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Good morning, fellow voters.

    Upon checking, I have no money on Warren, but do on a few others, so I hope this is not indicative. Long way to go to the election, of course.

    Best of luck to PBers standing in today's elections, particularly if you're standing for Labour in Trafford, the Lib Dems in Sutton, or the Conservatives in Barnet.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    It looks like Michael Unsure, the Democratic congressman for the California 21st is in a strong second place.

    I'd vote for a candidate called that any day of the week. Think how easy it would make life:

    Who's the President? Unsure.

    Who's got the best position on the economy? Unsure.

    Has there ever been a scandal surrounding the candidates? Yes, Unsure.
    He could campaign on the Uncertainty Principle, and adopt the slogan "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"...

    I'm warming to him.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,641
    Nigelb said:

    HarryHayfield said:

    This means nothing. On September 11th 2014, Sanders had a 53% lead in New Hampshire, six days later Clinton had a 53% lead in New Hampshire. The final result? Sanders lead of 22%. Polls this far out are complete and absolute nonsense. It's like saying "Who will win the general election of 2027?"

    No, it's like saying 'who are the current frontrunners ?'
    Plenty of time for candidates to emerge, but it's unusual for the strong frontrunners to be septuagenarians and an almost septuagenarian.

    I have a little money on Harris, as I think she has a decent shot of being the next generation pick.
    I don't think the Democrats will go for Biden, Warren or Bernie. The primaries are still a long way off for anything more than tiny bets on outsiders. Harris looks best of the names being bandied around.

    Senators or Governors are the best bets, but after Trump, anything goes.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,150
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    HarryHayfield said:

    This means nothing. On September 11th 2014, Sanders had a 53% lead in New Hampshire, six days later Clinton had a 53% lead in New Hampshire. The final result? Sanders lead of 22%. Polls this far out are complete and absolute nonsense. It's like saying "Who will win the general election of 2027?"

    No, it's like saying 'who are the current frontrunners ?'
    Plenty of time for candidates to emerge, but it's unusual for the strong frontrunners to be septuagenarians and an almost septuagenarian.

    I have a little money on Harris, as I think she has a decent shot of being the next generation pick.
    I don't think the Democrats will go for Biden, Warren or Bernie. The primaries are still a long way off for anything more than tiny bets on outsiders. Harris looks best of the names being bandied around.

    Senators or Governors are the best bets, but after Trump, anything goes.
    Kamala Harris might look good on paper but if you follow her Twitter it's all incredibly dull and plodding. I think the era calls for a bit more spikiness. At a bare minimum candidates need a basic grasp of meme warfare.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    HarryHayfield said:

    This means nothing. On September 11th 2014, Sanders had a 53% lead in New Hampshire, six days later Clinton had a 53% lead in New Hampshire. The final result? Sanders lead of 22%. Polls this far out are complete and absolute nonsense. It's like saying "Who will win the general election of 2027?"

    No, it's like saying 'who are the current frontrunners ?'
    Plenty of time for candidates to emerge, but it's unusual for the strong frontrunners to be septuagenarians and an almost septuagenarian.

    I have a little money on Harris, as I think she has a decent shot of being the next generation pick.
    I don't think the Democrats will go for Biden, Warren or Bernie. The primaries are still a long way off for anything more than tiny bets on outsiders. Harris looks best of the names being bandied around...
    We'll see. I think Biden stands a very good chance if none of the youngsters manage to emerge from the pack.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Best of luck to PBers standing in today's elections, particularly if you're standing for Labour in Trafford, the Lib Dems in Sutton, or the Conservatives in Barnet.

    Is that the sign of remarkably elastic political principles or a book that you have an optimum outcome for, Mr Dancer?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    On topic, I think that says as much about name recognition and who the pollsters picked as much as anything else.

    Also governors tend to do better than former senators when they stand, although there are many exceptions to that rule.

    I would have thought Andrew Cuomo would have to be in with a reasonable chance if he stands.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,999
    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    If you want to know who is standing where you are:

    https://whocanivotefor.co.uk
  • Options
    FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
  • Options
    archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    CarlottaVance said:

    The account of yesterday's Brexit Cabinet meeting in the Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5684613/How-new-boy-Sajid-Javid-difference-war-cabinet-meeting.html

    Will May survive beyond May? I can't see it. She didn't realise that the Customs Partnership model proposed by arch remainer Olly Robbins would leave us in the Customs Union in all but name? Seriously?

    All the issues have been kicked down the road endlessly but there is no time left. May has to decide - surrender to the EU or stand up and insist on what she promised - no CU, no regulatory alignment, which right now is going to mean a no deal Brexit. She can't survive the former; she might have a chance with the latter of she takes the nation with her.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    Metatron said:

    Bet on Elizabeth Warren to be 2016 nominee and if she was that talented she would have been.Avoid her.Ladbrokes have closed my online. betting account and unbelievably are refusing to refund my surplus refund.I have committed no offence.
    Ladbrokes are stealing my money
    I STRONGLY RECOMMEND ALL PB PUNTERS DO NOT PLACE ONLINE BETS WITH LADBROKES IF YOU CAN AVOID IT.AT PRESENT LADBROKES APPEAR TO HAVE A POLICY OF NOT JUST CLOSING DOWN WINNING ACCOUNTS BUT REFUSING TO PAY THE PUNTER OUT WHICH LEGALLY UNBELIEVABLY THEY ARE NOT OBLIGED OUT TO.

    Why would they be legally not obliged to pay out a winning bet? Unless there is fraud such a contract is now legally enforceable. Clearly you have an issue with them but that is a very serious accusation to put on a betting site.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,242
    DavidL said:

    Metatron said:

    Bet on Elizabeth Warren to be 2016 nominee and if she was that talented she would have been.Avoid her.Ladbrokes have closed my online. betting account and unbelievably are refusing to refund my surplus refund.I have committed no offence.
    Ladbrokes are stealing my money
    I STRONGLY RECOMMEND ALL PB PUNTERS DO NOT PLACE ONLINE BETS WITH LADBROKES IF YOU CAN AVOID IT.AT PRESENT LADBROKES APPEAR TO HAVE A POLICY OF NOT JUST CLOSING DOWN WINNING ACCOUNTS BUT REFUSING TO PAY THE PUNTER OUT WHICH LEGALLY UNBELIEVABLY THEY ARE NOT OBLIGED OUT TO.

    Why would they be legally not obliged to pay out a winning bet? Unless there is fraud such a contract is now legally enforceable. Clearly you have an issue with them but that is a very serious accusation to put on a betting site.
    It's not the first time they've been accused of sharp practice:

    http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4841315.Bookmaker_only_pays_out___31_on___7_1m_snow_bet/
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    Tessie sent me an email this morning telling me my vote was important (I think I can call her that since we are apparently on first name terms). I find it slightly concerning that CCO has still not realised that there are in fact no elections at all today in Scotland and I don't have a vote to give her.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Metatron said:

    Bet on Elizabeth Warren to be 2016 nominee and if she was that talented she would have been.Avoid her.Ladbrokes have closed my online. betting account and unbelievably are refusing to refund my surplus refund.I have committed no offence.
    Ladbrokes are stealing my money
    I STRONGLY RECOMMEND ALL PB PUNTERS DO NOT PLACE ONLINE BETS WITH LADBROKES IF YOU CAN AVOID IT.AT PRESENT LADBROKES APPEAR TO HAVE A POLICY OF NOT JUST CLOSING DOWN WINNING ACCOUNTS BUT REFUSING TO PAY THE PUNTER OUT WHICH LEGALLY UNBELIEVABLY THEY ARE NOT OBLIGED OUT TO.

    Why would they be legally not obliged to pay out a winning bet? Unless there is fraud such a contract is now legally enforceable. Clearly you have an issue with them but that is a very serious accusation to put on a betting site.
    It's not the first time they've been accused of sharp practice:

    http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4841315.Bookmaker_only_pays_out___31_on___7_1m_snow_bet/
    I'm sure it isn't, they are bookmakers after all. But that is the sort of accusation that they will take very seriously and I wouldn't want Mike to get into bother for it.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,003
    In what feels like a bit of a farce, today I'm voting for three district councillors - which is fair enough.

    However I also have nineteen parish councillors to vote for, out of twenty-six candidates. I like doing due diligence before I vote, but that's just overwhelming. I reckon for many people it'll be recognition of a couple of names, followed by pin-in-paper time. It seems ridiculous.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
  • Options
    QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    I love the smell of ballot papers in the morning. Smells like...democracy.

    To all those standing for election or who have been campaigning: Thank you.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    Quincel said:

    I love the smell of ballot papers in the morning. Smells like...democracy.

    To all those standing for election or who have been campaigning: Thank you.

    Great post.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    DavidL said:

    Tessie sent me an email this morning telling me my vote was important (I think I can call her that since we are apparently on first name terms). I find it slightly concerning that CCO has still not realised that there are in fact no elections at all today in Scotland and I don't have a vote to give her.

    Did it include the phrase “Strong and Stable”?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    For fans of historical irony, this ranks quite highly:
    https://twitter.com/edwest/status/991574018934362112
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    Decent early morning turnout at my local ward in Chessington South (part of Kingston). This will be an interesting one. There are 3 LD councillors but in 2014 they survived by the right wing vote being split almost perfectly between Tories and UKIP.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    Not just the Ilford Tories who had election material muck-ups:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/02/policy-goes-here-a-tory-leaflet-template-and-other-election-gaffes

    Move away from the computer....do not open Photoshop....
  • Options
    QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I wouldn't be so sure. Bush won two terms, the Democrats then won with The Obama Coalition of firing up turnout in their base. He served two terms, the GOP didn't win by finding a compromise candidate.

    Sometimes triangulation works, but sometimes distinguishing yourself clearly works too.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    not_on_fire said:

    DavidL said:

    Tessie sent me an email this morning telling me my vote was important (I think I can call her that since we are apparently on first name terms). I find it slightly concerning that CCO has still not realised that there are in fact no elections at all today in Scotland and I don't have a vote to give her.

    Did it include the phrase “Strong and Stable”?
    No, it did mention a country that works for everyone though.

    Well, apart from undocumented legal immigrants, natch.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,607
    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    I think Trump would relish facing someone like Warren. If she became the Dem nominee he'd be the happiest person. Her Fauxcohantas stuff will come out at every single debate, rally and speech and Trump will force her to admit she lied to get into Harvard. That alone will kill her chances.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    Quincel said:

    I love the smell of ballot papers in the morning. Smells like...democracy.

    To all those standing for election or who have been campaigning: Thank you.

    Well said.
  • Options
    MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,942
    Quincel said:

    I love the smell of ballot papers in the morning. Smells like...democracy.

    To all those standing for election or who have been campaigning: Thank you.

    +1
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    DavidL said:

    Tessie sent me an email this morning telling me my vote was important (I think I can call her that since we are apparently on first name terms). I find it slightly concerning that CCO has still not realised that there are in fact no elections at all today in Scotland and I don't have a vote to give her.

    You weren't the only one:

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/991937941604831232
  • Options
    not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,341
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
    And FL of course
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    FPT

    Tyke


    I’m in London.

    Viewcode


    Class calculator is a rather blunt instrument I think. Says I am ‘elite’ - I guess because of the value of my house, which isn’t that unusual down here.


  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    David Cameron tweets:

    https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/991935615154446337
  • Options
    AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Quincel said:

    I love the smell of ballot papers in the morning. Smells like...democracy.

    To all those standing for election or who have been campaigning: Thank you.

    I completely forgot to vote this morning even though the station is a mere 200yds from my house. I guess I’ll do the pub run tonight.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    Some French nez hors de l'articulation

    https://twitter.com/banquedefrance/status/991939052688601088
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    CarlottaVance said:

    DavidL said:

    Tessie sent me an email this morning telling me my vote was important (I think I can call her that since we are apparently on first name terms). I find it slightly concerning that CCO has still not realised that there are in fact no elections at all today in Scotland and I don't have a vote to give her.

    You weren't the only one:

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/991937941604831232
    I'm feeling slightly hurt now. I assumed it was, you know, personal.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    not_on_fire said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
    And FL of course
    True.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,750
    edited May 2018
    JosiasJessop said:

    In what feels like a bit of a farce, today I'm voting for three district councillors - which is fair enough.

    However I also have nineteen parish councillors to vote for, out of twenty-six candidates. I like doing due diligence before I vote, but that's just overwhelming. I reckon for many people it'll be recognition of a couple of names, followed by pin-in-paper time. It seems ridiculous.

    Even for a parish that's a lot of votes. They should really ward.

    I saw a parish with 16 candidates for 15 seats. 1 poor bastard to lose.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    kle4 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    In what feels like a bit of a farce, today I'm voting for three district councillors - which is fair enough.

    However I also have nineteen parish councillors to vote for, out of twenty-six candidates. I like doing due diligence before I vote, but that's just overwhelming. I reckon for many people it'll be recognition of a couple of names, followed by pin-in-paper time. It seems ridiculous.

    Even for a parish that's a lot of votes. They should really ward.

    I saw a parish with 16 candidates for 15 seats. 1 poor baarard to lose.
    A round of musical chairs would surely have been cheaper.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,990
    CarlottaVance said:

    Not just the Ilford Tories who had election material muck-ups:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/02/policy-goes-here-a-tory-leaflet-template-and-other-election-gaffes

    Move away from the computer....do not open Photoshop....

    Every agents nightmare. Rule 1 in the book says Check, check and then get someone else to check. Only then send it out.
    TBH, smacks of haste and ill-prepardness.
  • Options
    BromptonautBromptonaut Posts: 1,113
    archer101au said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    The account of yesterday's Brexit Cabinet meeting in the Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5684613/How-new-boy-Sajid-Javid-difference-war-cabinet-meeting.html

    Will May survive beyond May? I can't see it. She didn't realise that the Customs Partnership model proposed by arch remainer Olly Robbins would leave us in the Customs Union in all but name? Seriously?

    All the issues have been kicked down the road endlessly but there is no time left. May has to decide - surrender to the EU or stand up and insist on what she promised - no CU, no regulatory alignment, which right now is going to mean a no deal Brexit. She can't survive the former; she might have a chance with the latter of she takes the nation with her.
    Big ‘of’ (sic) that.
  • Options
    prh47bridgeprh47bridge Posts: 441
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Metatron said:

    Bet on Elizabeth Warren to be 2016 nominee and if she was that talented she would have been.Avoid her.Ladbrokes have closed my online. betting account and unbelievably are refusing to refund my surplus refund.I have committed no offence.
    Ladbrokes are stealing my money
    I STRONGLY RECOMMEND ALL PB PUNTERS DO NOT PLACE ONLINE BETS WITH LADBROKES IF YOU CAN AVOID IT.AT PRESENT LADBROKES APPEAR TO HAVE A POLICY OF NOT JUST CLOSING DOWN WINNING ACCOUNTS BUT REFUSING TO PAY THE PUNTER OUT WHICH LEGALLY UNBELIEVABLY THEY ARE NOT OBLIGED OUT TO.

    Why would they be legally not obliged to pay out a winning bet? Unless there is fraud such a contract is now legally enforceable. Clearly you have an issue with them but that is a very serious accusation to put on a betting site.
    It's not the first time they've been accused of sharp practice:

    http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4841315.Bookmaker_only_pays_out___31_on___7_1m_snow_bet/
    Interestingly the solicitor quoted in that article got the law wrong. The incident occurred in 2009 by which time the relevant provisions in the Gambling Act 2005 were in force. So the solicitor was completely wrong to say that gambling debts are unenforceable. I hope Mr Bryant got better advice when he consulted a solicitor. Unfortunately I can't see any evidence that Ladbrokes ever paid up.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,750
    DavidL said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    DavidL said:

    Tessie sent me an email this morning telling me my vote was important (I think I can call her that since we are apparently on first name terms). I find it slightly concerning that CCO has still not realised that there are in fact no elections at all today in Scotland and I don't have a vote to give her.

    You weren't the only one:

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/991937941604831232
    I'm feeling slightly hurt now. I assumed it was, you know, personal.
    Reminds me of a bit John Stewart fid on a campaign emails, from both sides, includine seemingly personal invitations, up to desperate cries of it being it being too late and just give up, almost like the sender was on the ledge about to jump...Unless you have them 5 dollars.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,750
    CarlottaVance said:

    David Cameron tweets:

    https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/991935615154446337

    Most of the money goes on adult social care and the like.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    archer101au said:

    no CU, no regulatory alignment, which right now is going to mean a no deal Brexit. She can't survive the former; she might have a chance with the latter of she takes the nation with her.

    Only if the "nation" (sic) is Little England
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,990
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    In what feels like a bit of a farce, today I'm voting for three district councillors - which is fair enough.

    However I also have nineteen parish councillors to vote for, out of twenty-six candidates. I like doing due diligence before I vote, but that's just overwhelming. I reckon for many people it'll be recognition of a couple of names, followed by pin-in-paper time. It seems ridiculous.

    Even for a parish that's a lot of votes. They should really ward.

    I saw a parish with 16 candidates for 15 seats. 1 poor baarard to lose.
    A round of musical chairs would surely have been cheaper.
    My professional body has 14 candidates for four seats on it’s governing council. To complicate the situation furtrher there’s a casual vcancy, but we’re not given a vote for that. The seat will be filled by the candidate who comes fifth.
    Who thinks up these things?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,677
    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,990
    edited May 2018
    kle4 said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    David Cameron tweets:

    https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/991935615154446337

    Most of the money goes on adult social care and the like.
    Wonder if that applies in Oxfordshire. His mother famously complained about poorer services, and got him to write to the council!

    Edit: sp (FFS again!)
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,205
    I voted a few days ago as I have a postal vote. A bit odd that. I asked for one for the EU referendum but only for that but they continue to give it to me. Which doesn’t say much for them following my instructions.

    Anyway the Tories and the Lib Dems, who have been the only ones canvassing, were still putting material through my front door at 10 pm last night. Poor sods.

    Re this (fpt) -“And maybe the career opportunities wont exist in a computerised and globalised economy”, I do wonder. IT problems last week in TSB; this week with NHS breast screening - and these are by no means isolated examples. The idea that there will be no work in a computerised world strikes me as optimistic. We will probably spend our time putting right all the cock ups caused by those intelligent computers, just as we now spend our time trying to sort out the messes caused by intelligent humans.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,750
    CarlottaVance said:

    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544

    I wish the voters were. Hold local referendums and we'll see.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    I had to show ID this morning. It meant there was one extra person at the polling station. I’m not sure what they’re doing for postal votes. My guess is very little.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,990
    tlg86 said:

    I had to show ID this morning. It meant there was one extra person at the polling station. I’m not sure what they’re doing for postal votes. My guess is very little.

    And yet surely fraud is easier with a postal vote.
  • Options
    hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591
    edited May 2018
    Anazina said:

    Quincel said:

    I love the smell of ballot papers in the morning. Smells like...democracy.

    To all those standing for election or who have been campaigning: Thank you.

    I completely forgot to vote this morning even though the station is a mere 200yds from my house. I guess I’ll do the pub run tonight.
    I voted this morning and spoiled my ballot paper with a heavy heart after much thought and consideration. If one person googles the message that I put on the ballot paper about that infamous address in the borough of Barnet connected to massive fraud theft and money laundering historically then it will have been worth it!
  • Options
    murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,040
    CarlottaVance said:

    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544

    To be honest, we need to have a grown-up debate on tax. If we want world class public services, we might need to pay more tax.

    Even some Tories are cottoning onto the idea now.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,983
    Mr. 86, what sort of ID? The voting card?
  • Options
    GazGaz Posts: 45
    kle4 said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    David Cameron tweets:

    https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/991935615154446337

    Most of the money goes on adult social care and the like.
    Not out of metropolitan and unitaries though. These are district council elections.

  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
    Bingo, it's all about the suburban whites. The suburban whites who seem to have swung heavily away from the Republicans in special elections so far.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
    Yeah fair in terms of actually winning - but I think Clinton significantly underperformed Obama in rural America. I still think Trump is vulnerable there to the right candidate (or perhaps just anyone who isn't Hilary Clinton).
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/hillary-clintons-surprising-vote-deficit/509174/
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    Tessie sent me an email this morning telling me my vote was important (I think I can call her that since we are apparently on first name terms). I find it slightly concerning that CCO has still not realised that there are in fact no elections at all today in Scotland and I don't have a vote to give her.

    Does it count as an election expense if there is no election?
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    Scott_P said:

    archer101au said:

    no CU, no regulatory alignment, which right now is going to mean a no deal Brexit. She can't survive the former; she might have a chance with the latter of she takes the nation with her.

    Only if the "nation" (sic) is Little England
    Little England or Grossdeutschland

    you choose
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited May 2018
    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
    Yeah fair in terms of actually winning - but I think Clinton significantly underperformed Obama in rural America. I still think Trump is vulnerable there to the right candidate (or perhaps just anyone who isn't Hilary Clinton).
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/hillary-clintons-surprising-vote-deficit/509174/
    The problem was not Hillary Clinton per se but her campaign team who repeated against Trump precisely the same mistakes made against Obama in the primaries -- of racking up piles of votes where they were not needed and forgetting about the states that made the difference. The risk for the Democrats next time round is the same incompetent fools do it again.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,306
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    DavidL said:

    Tessie sent me an email this morning telling me my vote was important (I think I can call her that since we are apparently on first name terms). I find it slightly concerning that CCO has still not realised that there are in fact no elections at all today in Scotland and I don't have a vote to give her.

    You weren't the only one:

    https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/991937941604831232
    I'm feeling slightly hurt now. I assumed it was, you know, personal.
    Reminds me of a bit John Stewart fid on a campaign emails, from both sides, includine seemingly personal invitations, up to desperate cries of it being it being too late and just give up, almost like the sender was on the ledge about to jump...Unless you have them 5 dollars.
    I never claimed to be original.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,335
    rcs1000 said:

    It looks like Michael Unsure, the Democratic congressman for the California 21st is in a strong second place.

    Euphegenia Doubtfire in San Francisco is a strong contender as well.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,067
    edited May 2018
    Alanbrooke said:

    Scott_P said:

    archer101au said:

    no CU, no regulatory alignment, which right now is going to mean a no deal Brexit. She can't survive the former; she might have a chance with the latter of she takes the nation with her.

    Only if the "nation" (sic) is Little England
    Little England or Grossdeutschland

    you choose
    The EU is not Grossdeutschland, Grossengland or Grossfrankreich.

    Your comment does imply you think the UK is finished though.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,754
    williamglenn said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Scott_P said:

    archer101au said:

    no CU, no regulatory alignment, which right now is going to mean a no deal Brexit. She can't survive the former; she might have a chance with the latter of she takes the nation with her.

    Only if the "nation" (sic) is Little England
    Little England or Grossdeutschland

    you choose
    The EU is not Grossdeutschland, Grossengland or Grossfrankreich.

    Your comment does imply you think the UK is finished though.
    only in Glennworld
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,990
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
    Yeah fair in terms of actually winning - but I think Clinton significantly underperformed Obama in rural America. I still think Trump is vulnerable there to the right candidate (or perhaps just anyone who isn't Hilary Clinton).
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/hillary-clintons-surprising-vote-deficit/509174/
    The problem was not Hillary Clinton per se but her campaign team who repeated against Trump precisely the same mistakes made against Obama in the primaries -- of racking up piles of votes where they were not needed and forgetting about the states that made the difference. The risk for the Democrats next time round is the same incompetent fools do it again.
    If you win, it’s due to the strength of the candidate. if you lose, it’s due to mismanagement by the agent.

    Is what I was told when I started being an agent many years ago.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,205
    murali_s said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544

    To be honest, we need to have a grown-up debate on tax. If we want world class public services, we might need to pay more tax.

    Even some Tories are cottoning onto the idea now.
    And that grown up debate needs to include people paying more from their own resources (including insurance) for the services they need and use. Tax is not the only way of paying for such things and limiting the debate in such a way is as intellectually and politically dishonest as those who claim that there is no need for any extra tax.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
    Yeah fair in terms of actually winning - but I think Clinton significantly underperformed Obama in rural America. I still think Trump is vulnerable there to the right candidate (or perhaps just anyone who isn't Hilary Clinton).
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/hillary-clintons-surprising-vote-deficit/509174/
    The problem was not Hillary Clinton per se but her campaign team who repeated against Trump precisely the same mistakes made against Obama in the primaries -- of racking up piles of votes where they were not needed and forgetting about the states that made the difference. The risk for the Democrats next time round is the same incompetent fools do it again.
    And who chooses the campaign team ... ?
    Most usually the candidate.

    The ability to manage an effective presidential campaign is to some extent an indication of executive competence (a rule of course subject to the Trump exception...).
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    edited May 2018
    murali_s said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544

    To be honest, we need to have a grown-up debate on tax. If we want world class public services, we might need to pay more tax.

    Even some Tories are cottoning onto the idea now.
    What part of £2356.46 council tax is too little ?!
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,003
    murali_s said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544

    To be honest, we need to have a grown-up debate on tax. If we want world class public services, we might need to pay more tax.

    Even some Tories are cottoning onto the idea now.
    I've always said I'm willing to pay more tax as long as we get better services. Sadly, all too often money gets pumped into stupid things and is utterly wasted, at both local and national level.

    we need a grown-up debate on tax, but we also need grown-ups spending that money wisely.

    That's where Labour has problems ..
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    edited May 2018
    CarlottaVance said:

    David Cameron tweets:

    https://twitter.com/David_Cameron/status/991935615154446337

    Something for nothing. Cake and eat it.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,003
    kle4 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    In what feels like a bit of a farce, today I'm voting for three district councillors - which is fair enough.

    However I also have nineteen parish councillors to vote for, out of twenty-six candidates. I like doing due diligence before I vote, but that's just overwhelming. I reckon for many people it'll be recognition of a couple of names, followed by pin-in-paper time. It seems ridiculous.

    Even for a parish that's a lot of votes. They should really ward.

    I saw a parish with 16 candidates for 15 seats. 1 poor bastard to lose.
    That's one of the odd things: this is a new ward.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    Cyclefree said:

    I voted a few days ago as I have a postal vote. A bit odd that. I asked for one for the EU referendum but only for that but they continue to give it to me. Which doesn’t say much for them following my instructions.

    Anyway the Tories and the Lib Dems, who have been the only ones canvassing, were still putting material through my front door at 10 pm last night. Poor sods.

    Re this (fpt) -“And maybe the career opportunities wont exist in a computerised and globalised economy”, I do wonder. IT problems last week in TSB; this week with NHS breast screening - and these are by no means isolated examples. The idea that there will be no work in a computerised world strikes me as optimistic. We will probably spend our time putting right all the cock ups caused by those intelligent computers, just as we now spend our time trying to sort out the messes caused by intelligent humans.

    It will at the very least be a several decades long transition until our digital overlords take over.

    This story is very much to the point...
    https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/elon-musk-says-a-flufferbot-caused-the-model-3-delays.html?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,929
    JosiasJessop said:

    kle4 said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    In what feels like a bit of a farce, today I'm voting for three district councillors - which is fair enough.

    However I also have nineteen parish councillors to vote for, out of twenty-six candidates. I like doing due diligence before I vote, but that's just overwhelming. I reckon for many people it'll be recognition of a couple of names, followed by pin-in-paper time. It seems ridiculous.

    Even for a parish that's a lot of votes. They should really ward.

    I saw a parish with 16 candidates for 15 seats. 1 poor bastard to lose.
    That's one of the odd things: this is a new ward.
    Ah - that means you'll soon have the delight of a parish precept on your council tax bill. And no, the rest of it won't reduce to compensate :p
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,226
    murali_s said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544

    To be honest, we need to have a grown-up debate on tax. If we want world class public services, we might need to pay more tax.

    Even some Tories are cottoning onto the idea now.
    I am reminded of this Stephen Bush tweet, which he keeps pinned:

    https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/865461468094840832
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,613
    Pulpstar said:

    murali_s said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544

    To be honest, we need to have a grown-up debate on tax. If we want world class public services, we might need to pay more tax.

    Even some Tories are cottoning onto the idea now.
    What part of £2356.46 council tax is too little ?!
    Probably the 46p ?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,003
    Nigelb said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I voted a few days ago as I have a postal vote. A bit odd that. I asked for one for the EU referendum but only for that but they continue to give it to me. Which doesn’t say much for them following my instructions.

    Anyway the Tories and the Lib Dems, who have been the only ones canvassing, were still putting material through my front door at 10 pm last night. Poor sods.

    Re this (fpt) -“And maybe the career opportunities wont exist in a computerised and globalised economy”, I do wonder. IT problems last week in TSB; this week with NHS breast screening - and these are by no means isolated examples. The idea that there will be no work in a computerised world strikes me as optimistic. We will probably spend our time putting right all the cock ups caused by those intelligent computers, just as we now spend our time trying to sort out the messes caused by intelligent humans.

    It will at the very least be a several decades long transition until our digital overlords take over.

    This story is very much to the point...
    https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/elon-musk-says-a-flufferbot-caused-the-model-3-delays.html?
    This is a good article on this:
    https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/04/experts-say-tesla-has-repeated-car-industry-mistakes-from-the-1980s/

    Basically, running before they could walk.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,082
    murali_s said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Labour should run with it:

    https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/991945454580588544

    To be honest, we need to have a grown-up debate on tax. If we want world class public services, we might need to pay more tax.

    Even some Tories are cottoning onto the idea now.
    What happens if we pay more tax to get 'world class public services' and then don't get 'world class public services' ?

    In what areas is this country capable of providing 'world class public services' irrespective of funding ?

    Because if 'championship level public services' is the best we can produce then funding them to 'world class level' is going to be a waste of finite resources.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,897
    OldKingCole said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    rkrkrk said:

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Warren is the perfect anti-Trump in many ways with an interesting back story but she gives the impression of not wanting it badly enough.

    Don't they need someone who isn't the polar opposite of Trump? What's the point in piling up extra votes in California?
    I agree. They need someone with appeal beyond the coasts, particularly in the rust bucket states that swung it for Trump the last time. Is that Elizabeth Warren? I don't think so.
    I think someone who plays well in rural america maximises the Dems chance of victory.
    Trump is vulnerable there anyway, and his trade war really hasn't helped.
    I think rural USA is probably beyond the reach of any Democratic candidate. Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin are not. That is where the next election will be won, just as it was lost last time out.
    Yeah fair in terms of actually winning - but I think Clinton significantly underperformed Obama in rural America. I still think Trump is vulnerable there to the right candidate (or perhaps just anyone who isn't Hilary Clinton).
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/hillary-clintons-surprising-vote-deficit/509174/
    The problem was not Hillary Clinton per se but her campaign team who repeated against Trump precisely the same mistakes made against Obama in the primaries -- of racking up piles of votes where they were not needed and forgetting about the states that made the difference. The risk for the Democrats next time round is the same incompetent fools do it again.
    If you win, it’s due to the strength of the candidate. if you lose, it’s due to mismanagement by the agent.

    Is what I was told when I started being an agent many years ago.
    Surely the agent or the print shop would have noticed someone sending in the template file instead of the actual leaflet, before hundreds of them actually got printed? Then, even after they’ve been printed, surely no-one thought it would be worth compounding the error by putting them through letterboxes?

    That all said, good luck to all PB-ers standing for election or helping out today, and good luck to TSE that he makes it back from Rome in one piece.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,226
    On the topic: Hasn't Warren ruled herself out by stating she will definitely complete a Senate term?
  • Options
    timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    Bit cross with Shadsys mob yestrrday.
    Tried to put a double on the locals..lib dems to win Richmond and Tories to hang on in Kingston..they would only accept singles and then only up to £50...
    They are meant to be bookies.
This discussion has been closed.