Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A primer on the Iowa caucuses – three weeks today

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited January 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A primer on the Iowa caucuses – three weeks today

The Iowa caucuses can play such important part in the nomination process that I thought that the above short feature from CNN was worth putting up simply to explain a political process that really is without parallel in the UK and for that matter in most of the US. What is extraordinary is the seriousness that many Iowans take their role of being the first State to decide to the extent that on a cold February evening they are ready to attend meetings which might take 2 or 3 hours out of their lives.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 600
    Cory Booker would be a good VP pick for all.of the big four.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 28,729
    Gabs3 said:

    Cory Booker would be a good VP pick for all.of the big four.

    So would Bloomberg and his cheque book. #justsaying
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,909
    DavidL said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Cory Booker would be a good VP pick for all.of the big four.

    So would Bloomberg and his cheque book. #justsaying
    I thought Bloomberg said yesterday he'll give his chequebook to whoever wins on a NSA basis as long as long as it isn't Sanders (or possibly even if it is)?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,883
    Biden picking Michelle Obama would seal the deal.....
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546

    Biden picking Michelle Obama would seal the deal.....

    #meghan2020
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 1,909

    Biden picking Michelle Obama would seal the deal.....

    #meghan2020
    I believe she's more of a Republican, these days.

    At least in the original sense...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    edited January 13
    Here are my six thoughts on the Iowa caucuses that all bettors need to be aware of:

    1. There are 1,681 precincts in Iowa. That's an awful lot of precincts for a relatively small number of voters. In Des Moines, there'll be around 25,000 Democratic votes across 177 precincts. That means that there'll be around 140 people at each caucus. Some rural precincts, by contrast, will have fewer than 30 caucus goers.

    2. You can win the popular vote, but lose the caucuses. The overall winner is determined by State Delegate Equivalents. Roughly speaking, this means that a caucus goer from Davis County (8 precincts and fewer than 300 caucus goers) is worth roughly one and a half from Des Moines.

    3. Bernie Sanders did a lot better in rural Iowa last time around then you might have expected. Hillary Clinton won Des Moines but lost Van Buren (199 caucus goers across 8 precincts).

    4. With 1,681 precincts, no candidate will have paid volunteers at every one. Buttigieg will probably manage 90%, Sanders and Warren will probably be at 85%, and Biden may be as low as 70-75%.

    5. Klobuchar, Booker, Steyer, Yang, Bloomberg and Gabbard caucus goers are highly unlikely to find themselves at 15% in many precincts. With the leaders getting (at best 20-23%), the big question is where their second (or third) choices go.

    6. There's a debate tomorrow night, with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren. The debate is in Iowa.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 232
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    rcs1000 said:

    Here are my six thoughts on the Iowa caucuses that all bettors need to be aware of:

    1. There are 1,681 precincts in Iowa. That's an awful lot of precincts for a relatively small number of voters. In Des Moines, there'll be around 25,000 Democratic votes across 177 precincts. That means that there'll be around 140 people at each caucus. Some rural precincts, by contrast, will have fewer than 30 caucus goers.

    2. You can win the popular vote, but lose the caucuses. The overall winner is determined by State Delegate Equivalents. Roughly speaking, this means that a caucus goer from Davis County (8 precincts and fewer than 300 caucus goers) is worth roughly one and a half from Des Moines.

    3. Bernie Sanders did a lot better in rural Iowa last time around then you might have expected. Hillary Clinton won Des Moines but lost Van Buren (199 caucus goers across 8 precincts).

    4. With 1,681 precincts, no candidate will have paid volunteers at every one. Buttigieg will probably manage 90%, Sanders and Warren will probably be at 85%, and Biden may be as low as 70-75%.

    5. Klobuchar, Booker, Steyer, Yang, Bloomberg and Gabbard caucus goers are highly unlikely to find themselves at 15% in many precincts. With the leaders getting (at best 20-23%), the big question is where their second (or third) choices go.

    6. There's a debate tomorrow night, with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren. The debate is in Iowa.

    I'm not sure you really can win the popular vote but lose the caucus in either a betting or political sense. Bookies are paying out on most votes afaik, and the media/momentum from winning surely comes from the popular vote. I get that you can win the vote but lose the delegates, but unless we have a super-tight brokered convention that won't matter.

    Also, being pedantic, what is a 'paid volunteer'?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546
    kicorse said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
    I demand a Pizza's Vote!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546
    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here are my six thoughts on the Iowa caucuses that all bettors need to be aware of:

    1. There are 1,681 precincts in Iowa. That's an awful lot of precincts for a relatively small number of voters. In Des Moines, there'll be around 25,000 Democratic votes across 177 precincts. That means that there'll be around 140 people at each caucus. Some rural precincts, by contrast, will have fewer than 30 caucus goers.

    2. You can win the popular vote, but lose the caucuses. The overall winner is determined by State Delegate Equivalents. Roughly speaking, this means that a caucus goer from Davis County (8 precincts and fewer than 300 caucus goers) is worth roughly one and a half from Des Moines.

    3. Bernie Sanders did a lot better in rural Iowa last time around then you might have expected. Hillary Clinton won Des Moines but lost Van Buren (199 caucus goers across 8 precincts).

    4. With 1,681 precincts, no candidate will have paid volunteers at every one. Buttigieg will probably manage 90%, Sanders and Warren will probably be at 85%, and Biden may be as low as 70-75%.

    5. Klobuchar, Booker, Steyer, Yang, Bloomberg and Gabbard caucus goers are highly unlikely to find themselves at 15% in many precincts. With the leaders getting (at best 20-23%), the big question is where their second (or third) choices go.

    6. There's a debate tomorrow night, with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren. The debate is in Iowa.

    I'm not sure you really can win the popular vote but lose the caucus in either a betting or political sense. Bookies are paying out on most votes afaik, and the media/momentum from winning surely comes from the popular vote. I get that you can win the vote but lose the delegates, but unless we have a super-tight brokered convention that won't matter.

    Also, being pedantic, what is a 'paid volunteer'?
    Is it like a "financially independent Royal"?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here are my six thoughts on the Iowa caucuses that all bettors need to be aware of:

    1. There are 1,681 precincts in Iowa. That's an awful lot of precincts for a relatively small number of voters. In Des Moines, there'll be around 25,000 Democratic votes across 177 precincts. That means that there'll be around 140 people at each caucus. Some rural precincts, by contrast, will have fewer than 30 caucus goers.

    2. You can win the popular vote, but lose the caucuses. The overall winner is determined by State Delegate Equivalents. Roughly speaking, this means that a caucus goer from Davis County (8 precincts and fewer than 300 caucus goers) is worth roughly one and a half from Des Moines.

    3. Bernie Sanders did a lot better in rural Iowa last time around then you might have expected. Hillary Clinton won Des Moines but lost Van Buren (199 caucus goers across 8 precincts).

    4. With 1,681 precincts, no candidate will have paid volunteers at every one. Buttigieg will probably manage 90%, Sanders and Warren will probably be at 85%, and Biden may be as low as 70-75%.

    5. Klobuchar, Booker, Steyer, Yang, Bloomberg and Gabbard caucus goers are highly unlikely to find themselves at 15% in many precincts. With the leaders getting (at best 20-23%), the big question is where their second (or third) choices go.

    6. There's a debate tomorrow night, with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren. The debate is in Iowa.

    I'm not sure you really can win the popular vote but lose the caucus in either a betting or political sense. Bookies are paying out on most votes afaik, and the media/momentum from winning surely comes from the popular vote. I get that you can win the vote but lose the delegates, but unless we have a super-tight brokered convention that won't matter.

    Also, being pedantic, what is a 'paid volunteer'?
    The winner (and the delegates) are determined by how many State Delegate Equivalents you have.

    We will only know popular vote counts some time later. (And in a number of precincts, you just get round numbers... So Ms Clinton got 300 votes in Cass County, 320 in Madison County, 650 in Marion County, 150 in Decataur County, 220 in Guthrie County and 130 in Wayne County. That's the entire South East corner of the state.)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 13
    Danny De Vito endorses Bernie Sanders
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited January 13
    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here are my six thoughts on the Iowa caucuses that all bettors need to be aware of:

    1. There are 1,681 precincts in Iowa. That's an awful lot of precincts for a relatively small number of voters. In Des Moines, there'll be around 25,000 Democratic votes across 177 precincts. That means that there'll be around 140 people at each caucus. Some rural precincts, by contrast, will have fewer than 30 caucus goers.

    2. You can win the popular vote, but lose the caucuses. The overall winner is determined by State Delegate Equivalents. Roughly speaking, this means that a caucus goer from Davis County (8 precincts and fewer than 300 caucus goers) is worth roughly one and a half from Des Moines.

    3. Bernie Sanders did a lot better in rural Iowa last time around then you might have expected. Hillary Clinton won Des Moines but lost Van Buren (199 caucus goers across 8 precincts).

    4. With 1,681 precincts, no candidate will have paid volunteers at every one. Buttigieg will probably manage 90%, Sanders and Warren will probably be at 85%, and Biden may be as low as 70-75%.

    5. Klobuchar, Booker, Steyer, Yang, Bloomberg and Gabbard caucus goers are highly unlikely to find themselves at 15% in many precincts. With the leaders getting (at best 20-23%), the big question is where their second (or third) choices go.

    6. There's a debate tomorrow night, with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren. The debate is in Iowa.

    I'm not sure you really can win the popular vote but lose the caucus in either a betting or political sense. Bookies are paying out on most votes afaik, and the media/momentum from winning surely comes from the popular vote. I get that you can win the vote but lose the delegates, but unless we have a super-tight brokered convention that won't matter.

    Also, being pedantic, what is a 'paid volunteer'?
    It was possible to win in votes but lose the caucus because until this year only delegates where reported by the media.

    Bernie Sanders lost Iowa in 2016 by losing all 7 coin tosses to Hillary, if I remember correctly.

    At least that's how the story of the rigged democratic primary started, because it would have been close to imposible for Hillary to win all 7 coin tosses unless it was rigged.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013
    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Cory Booker would be a good VP pick for all.of the big four.

    So would Bloomberg and his cheque book. #justsaying
    I thought Bloomberg said yesterday he'll give his chequebook to whoever wins on a NSA basis as long as long as it isn't Sanders (or possibly even if it is)?
    Whoever the candidate is, according to the version that I saw.

    In Britain, rural Labour supporters are often quite left-wing, since you have to be pretty fierce to bother to join Labour in somewhere like Surrey. I wonder if Democrats are similar, and that's why Sanders did better in small towns and villages than in Des Moines last time.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,352
    HYUFD said:

    Danny De Vito endorses Bernie Sanders

    Bernie is a sexist!
    https://mobile.twitter.com/mj_lee/status/1216785144134217728
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    edited January 13
    New national poll, solidifying the Biden/Sanders top 2. Also a qualifying poll for Yang. Klobuchar continuing to climb too, albeit still too low to have an impact. If, and I stress IF, she were to surge in Iowa and come top 3 on high teens or better then she has at least some platform to build on.



    Latest Iowa poll has Biden leading, but Sanders also up 5% from the last poll from Monmouth.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    rcs1000 said:

    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here are my six thoughts on the Iowa caucuses that all bettors need to be aware of:

    1. There are 1,681 precincts in Iowa. That's an awful lot of precincts for a relatively small number of voters. In Des Moines, there'll be around 25,000 Democratic votes across 177 precincts. That means that there'll be around 140 people at each caucus. Some rural precincts, by contrast, will have fewer than 30 caucus goers.

    2. You can win the popular vote, but lose the caucuses. The overall winner is determined by State Delegate Equivalents. Roughly speaking, this means that a caucus goer from Davis County (8 precincts and fewer than 300 caucus goers) is worth roughly one and a half from Des Moines.

    3. Bernie Sanders did a lot better in rural Iowa last time around then you might have expected. Hillary Clinton won Des Moines but lost Van Buren (199 caucus goers across 8 precincts).

    4. With 1,681 precincts, no candidate will have paid volunteers at every one. Buttigieg will probably manage 90%, Sanders and Warren will probably be at 85%, and Biden may be as low as 70-75%.

    5. Klobuchar, Booker, Steyer, Yang, Bloomberg and Gabbard caucus goers are highly unlikely to find themselves at 15% in many precincts. With the leaders getting (at best 20-23%), the big question is where their second (or third) choices go.

    6. There's a debate tomorrow night, with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren. The debate is in Iowa.

    I'm not sure you really can win the popular vote but lose the caucus in either a betting or political sense. Bookies are paying out on most votes afaik, and the media/momentum from winning surely comes from the popular vote. I get that you can win the vote but lose the delegates, but unless we have a super-tight brokered convention that won't matter.

    Also, being pedantic, what is a 'paid volunteer'?
    The winner (and the delegates) are determined by how many State Delegate Equivalents you have.

    We will only know popular vote counts some time later. (And in a number of precincts, you just get round numbers... So Ms Clinton got 300 votes in Cass County, 320 in Madison County, 650 in Marion County, 150 in Decataur County, 220 in Guthrie County and 130 in Wayne County. That's the entire South East corner of the state.)
    My mistake, I'd not realised popular vote totals weren't comprehensive in Iowa.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    New poll of New Hampshire out. Whatever happened to Mayor Pete being as strong there as he was in Iowa?

  • You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 232
    speedy2 said:



    It was possible to win in votes but lose the caucus because until this year only delegates where reported by the media.

    Bernie Sanders lost Iowa in 2016 by losing all 7 coin tosses to Hillary, if I remember correctly.

    At least that's how the story of the rigged democratic primary started, because it would have been close to imposible for Hillary to win all 7 coin tosses unless it was rigged.

    127/1

    Or 63/1 that all 7 coin tosses are won by the same candidate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389
    kicorse said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
    That's a base tactic, suggesting that the ignorant and ill educated masses top the understanding of a gastronome.
  • eekeek Posts: 6,900

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    Could be worse...

    Could be Kiwi and pineapple together.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,883
    kicorse said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
    ...whilst watching Die Hard at Christmas. After voting out a Red Wall Labour MP.

    Life gets no better.
  • Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    speedy2 said:

    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here are my six thoughts on the Iowa caucuses that all bettors need to be aware of:

    1. There are 1,681 precincts in Iowa. That's an awful lot of precincts for a relatively small number of voters. In Des Moines, there'll be around 25,000 Democratic votes across 177 precincts. That means that there'll be around 140 people at each caucus. Some rural precincts, by contrast, will have fewer than 30 caucus goers.

    2. You can win the popular vote, but lose the caucuses. The overall winner is determined by State Delegate Equivalents. Roughly speaking, this means that a caucus goer from Davis County (8 precincts and fewer than 300 caucus goers) is worth roughly one and a half from Des Moines.

    3. Bernie Sanders did a lot better in rural Iowa last time around then you might have expected. Hillary Clinton won Des Moines but lost Van Buren (199 caucus goers across 8 precincts).

    4. With 1,681 precincts, no candidate will have paid volunteers at every one. Buttigieg will probably manage 90%, Sanders and Warren will probably be at 85%, and Biden may be as low as 70-75%.

    5. Klobuchar, Booker, Steyer, Yang, Bloomberg and Gabbard caucus goers are highly unlikely to find themselves at 15% in many precincts. With the leaders getting (at best 20-23%), the big question is where their second (or third) choices go.

    6. There's a debate tomorrow night, with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren. The debate is in Iowa.

    I'm not sure you really can win the popular vote but lose the caucus in either a betting or political sense. Bookies are paying out on most votes afaik, and the media/momentum from winning surely comes from the popular vote. I get that you can win the vote but lose the delegates, but unless we have a super-tight brokered convention that won't matter.

    Also, being pedantic, what is a 'paid volunteer'?
    It was possible to win in votes but lose the caucus because until this year only delegates where reported by the media.

    Bernie Sanders lost Iowa in 2016 by losing all 7 coin tosses to Hillary, if I remember correctly.

    At least that's how the story of the rigged democratic primary started, because it would have been close to imposible for Hillary to win all 7 coin tosses unless it was rigged.
    Ms Clinton got 701 State Delegate Equivalents, Mr Sanders got 697.

    But she actually won the popular vote relatively easily, largely because she got a lot of votes in Des Moines.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 28,729
    ydoethur said:

    kicorse said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
    That's a base tactic, suggesting that the ignorant and ill educated masses top the understanding of a gastronome.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 906
    eek said:

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    Could be worse...

    Could be Kiwi and pineapple together.
    Could be Banana
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    edited January 13

    Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.

    I'm fine so long as Bloomberg doesn't win, which while unlikely isn't nearly as unlikely as when I laid him at 67. In fairness, this was after he said he wouldn't run and before he said he would. But it's left me so exposed to him I'm not willing to top up on the insane 8/1 he is right now. Ridiculously short, I'd make him 20-30s or so, personally. Here's my book, note I have a separate bet on Biden which wins £360 (£40 at 9/1, placed shortly before Biden announced he was running).


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Quincel said:

    New poll of New Hampshire out. Whatever happened to Mayor Pete being as strong there as he was in Iowa?

    That's a disastrous poll for Mayor Pete. Worth remembering, though, that he was leading there with an A+ rated pollster (Monmouth) just last week.

    Pantinkin, by the way, doesn't have a 538 rating.

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/new-hampshire/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    For Iowa, worth nothing that Monmouth (A+ rated) also did a forced choice with just four candidates. That had the following results:

    Biden 28%
    Buttigieg 25%
    Sanders 24%
    Warren 16%

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389
    spudgfsh said:

    eek said:

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    Could be worse...

    Could be Kiwi and pineapple together.
    Could be Banana
    Fuck me, there are some horror suggestions on here tonight.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Cory Booker would be a good VP pick for all.of the big four.

    So would Bloomberg and his cheque book. #justsaying
    I thought Bloomberg said yesterday he'll give his chequebook to whoever wins on a NSA basis as long as long as it isn't Sanders (or possibly even if it is)?
    Whoever the candidate is, according to the version that I saw.

    In Britain, rural Labour supporters are often quite left-wing, since you have to be pretty fierce to bother to join Labour in somewhere like Surrey. I wonder if Democrats are similar, and that's why Sanders did better in small towns and villages than in Des Moines last time.
    I think it was a reflection of the usual divide of identity between city dwellers and rural folk.

    Hillary was way too socially liberal and economically conservative for rural voters.
    So the only credible alternative was Sanders.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.

    You and @rottenborough can console each other that you felt the Bern...
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    rcs1000 said:

    For Iowa, worth nothing that Monmouth (A+ rated) also did a forced choice with just four candidates. That had the following results:

    Biden 28%
    Buttigieg 25%
    Sanders 24%
    Warren 16%

    Yes, quite a striking jump for Mayor Pete which suggests the Klobuchar voters may be a good pool of votes for him. Maybe Yang's too, perhaps Mayor Pete is the anti-establishment candidate for lots of them.
  • ydoethur said:

    Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.

    You and @rottenborough can console each other that you felt the Bern...
    My strategy was to lay the old dudes in this race, so Biden winning doesn't help either.

    I need someone to be my Marco Rubio again.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Here are my six thoughts on the Iowa caucuses that all bettors need to be aware of:

    1. There are 1,681 precincts in Iowa. That's an awful lot of precincts for a relatively small number of voters. In Des Moines, there'll be around 25,000 Democratic votes across 177 precincts. That means that there'll be around 140 people at each caucus. Some rural precincts, by contrast, will have fewer than 30 caucus goers.

    2. You can win the popular vote, but lose the caucuses. The overall winner is determined by State Delegate Equivalents. Roughly speaking, this means that a caucus goer from Davis County (8 precincts and fewer than 300 caucus goers) is worth roughly one and a half from Des Moines.

    3. Bernie Sanders did a lot better in rural Iowa last time around then you might have expected. Hillary Clinton won Des Moines but lost Van Buren (199 caucus goers across 8 precincts).

    4. With 1,681 precincts, no candidate will have paid volunteers at every one. Buttigieg will probably manage 90%, Sanders and Warren will probably be at 85%, and Biden may be as low as 70-75%.

    5. Klobuchar, Booker, Steyer, Yang, Bloomberg and Gabbard caucus goers are highly unlikely to find themselves at 15% in many precincts. With the leaders getting (at best 20-23%), the big question is where their second (or third) choices go.

    6. There's a debate tomorrow night, with Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, Sanders and Warren. The debate is in Iowa.

    I'm not sure you really can win the popular vote but lose the caucus in either a betting or political sense. Bookies are paying out on most votes afaik, and the media/momentum from winning surely comes from the popular vote. I get that you can win the vote but lose the delegates, but unless we have a super-tight brokered convention that won't matter.

    Also, being pedantic, what is a 'paid volunteer'?
    It was possible to win in votes but lose the caucus because until this year only delegates where reported by the media.

    Bernie Sanders lost Iowa in 2016 by losing all 7 coin tosses to Hillary, if I remember correctly.

    At least that's how the story of the rigged democratic primary started, because it would have been close to imposible for Hillary to win all 7 coin tosses unless it was rigged.
    Ms Clinton got 701 State Delegate Equivalents, Mr Sanders got 697.

    But she actually won the popular vote relatively easily, largely because she got a lot of votes in Des Moines.
    That's my point, that's how Sanders came close.
    This time though I think voting totals will be used by the media instead of using the delegate number.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    ydoethur said:

    Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.

    You and @rottenborough can console each other that you felt the Bern...
    My strategy was to lay the old dudes in this race
    That must have been hard work given the field is basically all old dudes. Who were you green on? Harris, Buttigieg and Warren (old, but not a dude)?
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.

    You and @rottenborough can console each other that you felt the Bern...
    My strategy was to lay the old dudes in this race
    That must have been hard work given the field is basically all old dudes. Who were you green on? Harris, Buttigieg and Warren (old, but not a dude)?
    Pretty much anyone who isn't Biden, Sanders, and Yang.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,055
    kicorse said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
    I'm in favour of people being allowed to do it, so it is easy to identify deviants.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,276

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    Gabs3 said:

    Cory Booker would be a good VP pick for all.of the big four.

    So would Bloomberg and his cheque book. #justsaying
    I thought Bloomberg said yesterday he'll give his chequebook to whoever wins on a NSA basis as long as long as it isn't Sanders (or possibly even if it is)?
    Whoever the candidate is, according to the version that I saw.

    In Britain, rural Labour supporters are often quite left-wing, since you have to be pretty fierce to bother to join Labour in somewhere like Surrey. I wonder if Democrats are similar, and that's why Sanders did better in small towns and villages than in Des Moines last time.
    Brrrrroadly, the big splits (national rather than Iowa in particular) were that racial and ethnic minorities were more for Clinton, whereas young people were more for Sanders, and other groups were kind of mixed. Conditional on being white, low incomes predicted Sanders votes, and they will go hand in hand with rural status somewhere like Iowa.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For Iowa, worth nothing that Monmouth (A+ rated) also did a forced choice with just four candidates. That had the following results:

    Biden 28%
    Buttigieg 25%
    Sanders 24%
    Warren 16%

    Yes, quite a striking jump for Mayor Pete which suggests the Klobuchar voters may be a good pool of votes for him. Maybe Yang's too, perhaps Mayor Pete is the anti-establishment candidate for lots of them.
    Back in September, he scored really well on "if you can't vote for your favourite candidate, who would you vote for". I haven't seen similar since, but it's really, really important in Iowa, because the top four candidates are only about 75-80% of the electorate. That's a big pool of Bloomberg, Yang, Steyer, Klobuchar, Booker and Gabbard voters that need to go somewhere.

    My guess, for what it's worth, is that if the Biden campaign is relatively well organised, then he'll be the benificiary. And if Biden wins Iowa, then it's largely over, because he's going to win so big in South Carolina.

    Sanders best shot is if either:

    1. The moderate vote is really split, with (say) Klobuchar getting a surge to 15%, while Biden and Buttigieg drop to that level. This potentially means that Sanders can keep winning against a split opposition (and which, because of the 15% rule, doesn't get many delegates.)

    2. Buttigieg wins Iowa, Sanders then picks up New Hampshire and Nevada, and then Biden gets South Carolina. This leaves Biden, Buttigieg and Bloomberg still in the race for Super Tuesday, and gives him a real shot.

    But Sanders is in real trouble if the moderate lane ends up compressing quickly.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For Iowa, worth nothing that Monmouth (A+ rated) also did a forced choice with just four candidates. That had the following results:

    Biden 28%
    Buttigieg 25%
    Sanders 24%
    Warren 16%

    Yes, quite a striking jump for Mayor Pete which suggests the Klobuchar voters may be a good pool of votes for him. Maybe Yang's too, perhaps Mayor Pete is the anti-establishment candidate for lots of them.
    By the way, that poll is also good news for Sanders, as Warren is going to fall short of 15% in a bunch of precincts on those numbers, and some of those voters will go to him.

    Iowa might well end up being a very tight three way contest.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,079
    My Girl Lizzie Warren did not fare well with the increased media scrutiny of being the front runner.

    Has Sanders timed his surge well the avoid the increased criticism he will receive?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Alistair said:

    My Girl Lizzie Warren did not fare well with the increased media scrutiny of being the front runner.

    Has Sanders timed his surge well the avoid the increased criticism he will receive?

    Ultimately, Sanders big problem is that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is a lot smaller than the moderate one.

    That doesn't mean he can't win, because he can, but it means his path is narrower than most of this peers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389
    kle4 said:

    kicorse said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
    I'm in favour of people being allowed to do it, so it is easy to identify deviants.
    This is good thinking. Smoke them out...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    Alistair said:

    My Girl Lizzie Warren did not fare well with the increased media scrutiny of being the front runner.

    Has Sanders timed his surge well the avoid the increased criticism he will receive?

    (As an aside, I can't believe I was selling Warren at a 50% chance not that long ago...)
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,276
    Alistair said:

    My Girl Lizzie Warren did not fare well with the increased media scrutiny of being the front runner.

    Has Sanders timed his surge well the avoid the increased criticism he will receive?

    Sanders has the Trump / Boris gift that people THINK they know him so the media must be lying. It's almost the only thing that matters any more.
  • spudgfshspudgfsh Posts: 906
    ydoethur said:

    spudgfsh said:

    eek said:

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    Could be worse...

    Could be Kiwi and pineapple together.
    Could be Banana
    Fuck me, there are some horror suggestions on here tonight.
    I'm here to help. Now I've got the idea of a Banana Pizza into your head how about a banana, kiwi and pineapple one?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    It looks like a rather nasty case of scepicemia... :(
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389
    spudgfsh said:

    ydoethur said:

    spudgfsh said:

    eek said:

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    Could be worse...

    Could be Kiwi and pineapple together.
    Could be Banana
    Fuck me, there are some horror suggestions on here tonight.
    I'm here to help. Now I've got the idea of a Banana Pizza into your head how about a banana, kiwi and pineapple one?
    I didn’t realise such people still lived...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    ydoethur said:

    spudgfsh said:

    eek said:

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    Could be worse...

    Could be Kiwi and pineapple together.
    Could be Banana
    Fuck me, there are some horror suggestions on here tonight.
    I’ve just seen 1917.

    That was extremely bleak, but not as bleak as some of these pizza suggestions.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613
    Quincel said:

    Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.

    I'm fine so long as Bloomberg doesn't win, which while unlikely isn't nearly as unlikely as when I laid him at 67. In fairness, this was after he said he wouldn't run and before he said he would. But it's left me so exposed to him I'm not willing to top up on the insane 8/1 he is right now. Ridiculously short, I'd make him 20-30s or so, personally. Here's my book, note I have a separate bet on Biden which wins £360 (£40 at 9/1, placed shortly before Biden announced he was running).


    I have a similar book except you’re 8 or 9 times more aggressive than me.

    Oh, and I thought it’d be good to lay Sanders a bit at 3s too.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.

    You and @rottenborough can console each other that you felt the Bern...
    My strategy was to lay the old dudes in this race
    That must have been hard work given the field is basically all old dudes. Who were you green on? Harris, Buttigieg and Warren (old, but not a dude)?
    Pretty much anyone who isn't Biden, Sanders, and Yang.
    Why did you do that ?

    Yang was giving free money literally, that will get you to the debates.
    Biden is the Obama nostalgia candidate.
    Sanders almost beat Hillary all by himself.

    And the competition is dreadfull, with the exception of Kamala Harris against Biden.

    Don't mention Klobuchar or Booker, those were paper candidates, imagine Hillary being named Hillary Klobuchar instead of Clinton, and Marco Rubio being a bald black guy, they are that bad.
    And Harris appeared like she was drunk on the debate stage in almost all of the debates.

    Here ends my rant.
  • So none of you have been to Sweden then.

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699
    viewcode said:

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    It looks like a rather nasty case of scepicemia... :(
    God Almighty! How can any sentient being put such muck into their mouths ...... ?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    Do you mind? I’m eating.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 16,699
    ydoethur said:

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    Do you mind? I’m eating.
    It looks like what you vomit up after having ingested this tripe.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709

    Quincel said:

    Yeah, can we not talk about the Democratic Party's primaries?

    I'm headed for the poor house.

    I'm fine so long as Bloomberg doesn't win, which while unlikely isn't nearly as unlikely as when I laid him at 67. In fairness, this was after he said he wouldn't run and before he said he would. But it's left me so exposed to him I'm not willing to top up on the insane 8/1 he is right now. Ridiculously short, I'd make him 20-30s or so, personally. Here's my book, note I have a separate bet on Biden which wins £360 (£40 at 9/1, placed shortly before Biden announced he was running).


    I have a similar book except you’re 8 or 9 times more aggressive than me.

    Oh, and I thought it’d be good to lay Sanders a bit at 3s too.
    I was very tempted to lay Sanders several times through the process, though only to £0 not negative territory. Almost laid Mayor Pete when he hit 5, regretting not pulling the trigger there.

    For the record this is my largest bet ever. My previous record was a few years ago, laying a no-hoper in the Republican primaries called D Trump...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 33,613

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    What would those pine-botherers know about real food?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389
    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    Do you mind? I’m eating.
    It looks like what you vomit up after having ingested this tripe.
    Tripe as well? On a pizza?


    AAAAAAAAARGHHHH,
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    Do you mind? I’m eating.
    It looks like what you vomit up after having ingested this tripe.
    Tripe as well? On a pizza?


    AAAAAAAAARGHHHH,
    Gutsy!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    What would those pine-botherers know about real food?
    Looks quite nice, but needs anchovies to make it perfect.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 13,228

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    What would those pine-botherers know about real food?
    Nothing wrong with pickled herring on rye bread...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 17,784
    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 13,228
    edited January 13

    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    ydoethur said:

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    Do you mind? I’m eating.
    It looks like what you vomit up after having ingested this tripe.
    Tripe as well? On a pizza?


    AAAAAAAAARGHHHH,
    Gutsy!
    Maybe tripe pizza is just a trial product. It may be intestine.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Could you link to it, please
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,013
    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For Iowa, worth nothing that Monmouth (A+ rated) also did a forced choice with just four candidates. That had the following results:

    Biden 28%
    Buttigieg 25%
    Sanders 24%
    Warren 16%

    Yes, quite a striking jump for Mayor Pete which suggests the Klobuchar voters may be a good pool of votes for him. Maybe Yang's too, perhaps Mayor Pete is the anti-establishment candidate for lots of them.
    Monmouth is A+ ??? See my post earlier about their ridiculously small sample in Iowa (402) and their absurd attempt to draw conclusions from subsamples which must have been in less than three figures.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 17,784
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Could you link to it, please
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 25,389
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Could you link to it, please
    https://youtu.be/7zdkCLhjA
    That is pretty unedifying.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370

    Quincel said:

    rcs1000 said:

    For Iowa, worth nothing that Monmouth (A+ rated) also did a forced choice with just four candidates. That had the following results:

    Biden 28%
    Buttigieg 25%
    Sanders 24%
    Warren 16%

    Yes, quite a striking jump for Mayor Pete which suggests the Klobuchar voters may be a good pool of votes for him. Maybe Yang's too, perhaps Mayor Pete is the anti-establishment candidate for lots of them.
    Monmouth is A+ ??? See my post earlier about their ridiculously small sample in Iowa (402) and their absurd attempt to draw conclusions from subsamples which must have been in less than three figures.
    Yeah, they're one of about three pollsters to get that rating with 538.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 31,883
    ydoethur said:

    spudgfsh said:

    ydoethur said:

    spudgfsh said:

    eek said:

    You see you put pineapple on a pizza and this is the resulting madness.

    Could be worse...

    Could be Kiwi and pineapple together.
    Could be Banana
    Fuck me, there are some horror suggestions on here tonight.
    I'm here to help. Now I've got the idea of a Banana Pizza into your head how about a banana, kiwi and pineapple one?
    I didn’t realise such people still lived...
    To be fair, they are on the run....
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,709
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Could you link to it, please
    Lol, that is pretty tone deaf. It's not too bad if you don't already hold a slightly 'OK Boomer' worldview, but the bit where she says (paraphrasing) "I feel guilty about not passing on wealth because I inherited" and he replies (almost word for word) "When we're on a great holiday drinking wine I won't be thinking about anyone but myself" is not as benign/amusing as Nationwide seem to think!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 13
    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 17,784
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I'm not talking about actual old people like my grandparents who were amazingly unselfish, it's my parents generation that are. Obviously this is all fairly alien to me because I'm Asian and passing down wealth is in our blood. However, the advert is playing vey badly with a generation that's already unimpressed with high street banks, the first of Starling/Monzo to offer mortgages will absolutely clean up.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I've explained to my kids that I want the last cheque I write to bounce. Frankly, I've fed and clothed and kept them warm for the last twelve years, and I think it's time they started doing something for me. Enough of all the giving.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 943
    edited January 13
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    Lunacy to do equity release...noone gave me any help.to get on.the property ladder . I saved 100 a month for 5 yrs' which killed me financially .. i had little no extra money to spend and in the early 80s when mortgage rationing was rife the scabby national refused to.lend me the money.. the bastards.. never forgotten it....
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546
    Foxy said:

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    What would those pine-botherers know about real food?
    Nothing wrong with pickled herring on rye bread...
    Beans-on-Naan
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I'm not talking about actual old people like my grandparents who were amazingly unselfish, it's my parents generation that are. Obviously this is all fairly alien to me because I'm Asian and passing down wealth is in our blood. However, the advert is playing vey badly with a generation that's already unimpressed with high street banks, the first of Starling/Monzo to offer mortgages will absolutely clean up.
    My parents I would imagine are not much different in age from yours and I agree Asian families set an excellent example of wealth preservation in the family
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 13
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I've explained to my kids that I want the last cheque I write to bounce. Frankly, I've fed and clothed and kept them warm for the last twelve years, and I think it's time they started doing something for me. Enough of all the giving.
    Well you are a liberal, that is up to you, I am a conservative and a strong believer in the family and inherited wealth. For me family obligations continue from birth to death for all generations to help each other
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.
    I think this is the usual point in the conversation where I point out that many people have poor parents who have no money to provide help, and that such people might not hold the [rude word] people in that [rude word] advert with such insouciance.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I've explained to my kids that I want the last cheque I write to bounce. Frankly, I've fed and clothed and kept them warm for the last twelve years, and I think it's time they started doing something for me. Enough of all the giving.
    Jeez, tough thirteenth birthday party for the poor tykes!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 13

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    Lunacy to do equity release...noone gave me any help.to get on.the property ladder . I saved 100 a month for 5 yrs' which killed me financially .. i had little no extra money to spend and in the early 80s when mortgage rationing was rife the scabby national refused to.lend me the money.. the bastards.. never forgotten it....
    My help came from parental savings and inheritance from my grandfather rather than equity release but I have no problem with using equity release to help your children get on the housing ladder.

    While you may still be able to scrimp and save to buy a property and get a mortgage yourself on an average wage in the North, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Midlands, in London and the Home Counties you will almost certainly need parental support and given they have benefited from the house price boom no problem with that at all
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I've explained to my kids that I want the last cheque I write to bounce. Frankly, I've fed and clothed and kept them warm for the last twelve years, and I think it's time they started doing something for me. Enough of all the giving.
    Well you are a liberal, that is up to you, I am a conservative and a strong believer in the family and inherited wealth. For me family obligations continue from birth to death for all generations to help each other
    Obligations aren't one way.

    If my children treat me right, I might consider lowering the interest rate on their debt to me.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 232
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I've explained to my kids that I want the last cheque I write to bounce. Frankly, I've fed and clothed and kept them warm for the last twelve years, and I think it's time they started doing something for me. Enough of all the giving.
    Well you are a liberal, that is up to you, I am a conservative and a strong believer in the family and inherited wealth. For me family obligations continue from birth to death for all generations to help each other
    Erm, I'm pretty sure that was irony. Don't think too many liberals would say that to a 12-year-old!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    kicorse said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I've explained to my kids that I want the last cheque I write to bounce. Frankly, I've fed and clothed and kept them warm for the last twelve years, and I think it's time they started doing something for me. Enough of all the giving.
    Well you are a liberal, that is up to you, I am a conservative and a strong believer in the family and inherited wealth. For me family obligations continue from birth to death for all generations to help each other
    Erm, I'm pretty sure that was irony. Don't think too many liberals would say that to a 12-year-old!
    Sssshhhh...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 52,055

    So none of you have been to Sweden then.

    hts://twitter.com/sweden/status/896054161879351296

    And now I never shall. I'm surprised poor cyclefree has not fallen into shocked catatonia.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.
    I think this is the usual point in the conversation where I point out that many people have poor parents who have no money to provide help, and that such people might not hold the [rude word] people in that [rude word] advert with such insouciance.

    Yes but they will always be renting anyway regardless
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 29,370
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.
    I think this is the usual point in the conversation where I point out that many people have poor parents who have no money to provide help, and that such people might not hold the [rude word] people in that [rude word] advert with such insouciance.

    But don't you think those children should pay the price for their parents fecklessness?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 11,908
    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.
    I think this is the usual point in the conversation where I point out that many people have poor parents who have no money to provide help, and that such people might not hold the [rude word] people in that [rude word] advert with such insouciance.

    Yes but they will always be renting anyway regardless
    No, they wont. Some people pay their own deposit (buffs nails modestly)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 13
    kicorse said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children buy a property is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I've explained to my kids that I want the last cheque I write to bounce. Frankly, I've fed and clothed and kept them warm for the last twelve years, and I think it's time they started doing something for me. Enough of all the giving.
    Well you are a liberal, that is up to you, I am a conservative and a strong believer in the family and inherited wealth. For me family obligations continue from birth to death for all generations to help each other
    Erm, I'm pretty sure that was irony. Don't think too many liberals would say that to a 12-year-old!
    Free market liberals like RCS would (if not maybe the soggy social democrat sandal wearers but they would be keener on paying for a big state to provide for them instead)
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,276
    Watch the Nationwide ad like an ad executive and it is saying: guilt about your kids, guilt about your kids, think about getting a big equity release and giving it to your kids.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 13,228
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.

    The fact Nationwide are pushing equity release for expensive holidays too not just helping your children is just a marketing ploy to push their profits, nothing more
    I'm not talking about actual old people like my grandparents who were amazingly unselfish, it's my parents generation that are. Obviously this is all fairly alien to me because I'm Asian and passing down wealth is in our blood. However, the advert is playing vey badly with a generation that's already unimpressed with high street banks, the first of Starling/Monzo to offer mortgages will absolutely clean up.
    Surely the point is to appeal to customers with money that the bank can get their mitts on, not to skint Millenials?

    I have passed on a fair bit of dosh to Fox jr, mostly to put him in the position that I was 30 years ago when finishing Uni. I had fee free university, even a student grant. I have not given him a silver spoon for his mouth, just not setting him off in independent life without the chains of debt.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 67,819
    edited January 13
    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    One of my mates just brought up the new Nationwide advert that's been doing the rounds. I think they have inadvertently captured everything that is wrong about the most selfish generation in existence. The old man character is absolutely the worst kind of hypocrite and I think Nationwide have not understood how poorly their advert is playing among younger people.

    Except in reality most of the older generation are not that selfish, I and most of my friends and partner all got help to get on the property ladder from our parents.
    I think this is the usual point in the conversation where I point out that many people have poor parents who have no money to provide help, and that such people might not hold the [rude word] people in that [rude word] advert with such insouciance.

    Yes but they will always be renting anyway regardless
    No, they wont. Some people pay their own deposit (buffs nails modestly)
    If you are poor near zero chance of being able to afford to pay for your own deposit, certainly in London and the Home Counties
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 723
    kicorse said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
    But Scotland voted for haggis!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    Oh. Biden back as fav. Have I missed something this evening?

    Cory Booker?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 33,546
    sarissa said:

    kicorse said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    alex_ said:

    I’ve heard some laughable ideas in my time, but I’m not sure anything beats a suggestion that the Conservatives might call a General Election in a year! Might call into question the idea that pb.com is a place for serious political debate! ;)

    Hold on a second. I thought this was a place for serious discussions about the merits (or not) of pineapple on pizza? We're supposed to be debating politics? :o
    Don't be silly.

    There are no merits to putting pineapple on pizza.
    The people have spoken:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2017-03-06/Pineapple on pizza-01.png

    Now stop trying to frustrate the putting of pineapple on pizza and get it done.
    But Scotland voted for haggis!
    I had a veggie haggis in a bun at Kilt Rock on the Isle of Skye last summer!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 29,122
    New Iowa Poll Shows Tight Race, With Joe Biden Jumping Ahead
    The poll, conducted by Monmouth University, found Mr. Biden’s top three competitors in close pursuit.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/us/politics/joe-biden-iowa-democratic-poll.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
This discussion has been closed.