politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We may not have the Iowa results yet but punters think Biden w

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We may not have the Iowa results yet but punters think Biden was the big loser

Hopefully we should get the Iowa results at some stage during the day. One thing that punters seem to agree on is that ex-VP and former favourite for the nomination, Jo Biden, had a poor night. Even though some pre-caucus Iowa polls had him as favourite he’s not being given an earthly at the moment.

Read the full story here

ClippP

First

brokenwheel

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

MikeSmithson

brokenwheel said:

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

As a general rule punters tend to overreact

MaxPB

What the hell is going on in Iowa. It's become a complete joke.

Casino_Royale

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Casino_Royale

https://twitter.com/TrekCore/status/1224670404746321921?s=20

kle4

MikeSmithson said:

brokenwheel said:

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

As a general rule punters tend to overreact

How dare you say that sir, you have offended my honour! I don't overreact and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1224719138960093190

Andy_JS

MaxPB said:

What the hell is going on in Iowa. It's become a complete joke.

The system worked okay in previous years. They shouldn't have changed it unless they were almost 100% sure it would be an improvement.

rcs1000

brokenwheel said:

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

While that's true, most Biden supporters only like him because he's "electable".

He lacks other obvious traits that would make him an adequate nominee, such as the ability to get to the end of a sentence without forgetting how it started.

If he bombs in Iowa and he bombs in New Hampshire, then what is his pitch? The Dems will likely find themselves a new moderate candidate as their champion. (South Carolina is his firewall. He has to perform there.)

rcs1000

If Buttigieg has won Iowa, then the interesting question is whether he picks up momentum into New Hampshire. Can he grab the moderate mantle, and manage a solid second behind Sanders?

rcs1000

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1224719138960093190

Your call on Buttigieg in Iowa is looking like a good one.

rcs1000

Stocky said:

rcs1000 said:

BigRich said:

There are a few more precincts on this now:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VpPjgfoH-n7Ie8OmIa2eHoP88IvIkBR9wwkUL7bO1Y4/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0

That has Biden on 6% for final numbers. That's a horrendous number.

looking at these numbers, why isn`t Warren in the mix to win?

I don't think Warren has done very well in rural Iowa.

rottenborough

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1224719138960093190

Your call on Buttigieg in Iowa is looking like a good one.

Thanks. But I'm keeping calm on that one. Early days. It does seem odd that Pete is so confident given almost complete lack of results.

Alistair

rcs1000 said:

brokenwheel said:

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

While that's true, most Biden supporters only like him because he's "electable".

He lacks other obvious traits that would make him an adequate nominee, such as the ability to get to the end of a sentence without forgetting how it started.

If he bombs in Iowa and he bombs in New Hampshire, then what is his pitch? The Dems will likely find themselves a new moderate candidate as their champion. (South Carolina is his firewall. He has to perform there.)

Sherrod Brown looks down at his beer and sadly mutters "It could have been me" whilst shaking his head "if only I had the courage"

brokenwheel

rcs1000 said:

brokenwheel said:

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

While that's true, most Biden supporters only like him because he's "electable".

He lacks other obvious traits that would make him an adequate nominee, such as the ability to get to the end of a sentence without forgetting how it started.

If he bombs in Iowa and he bombs in New Hampshire, then what is his pitch? The Dems will likely find themselves a new moderate candidate as their champion. (South Carolina is his firewall. He has to perform there.)

The biggest danger for him was probably Pete getting a big win; his biggest upside would be either him or Sanders winning. No one is 'winning' Iowa now, so bit of a score draw.

The whole debacle has serious implications for the left though, which has long had suspicions of a mainstream Dem party stitch-up, and this plays heavily into that narrative. Whether it fires them up or leads them to give up on the primaries could change the race. For instance I could see some on the left preferencing Biden to spite Buttigieg.

rcs1000

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1224719138960093190

Your call on Buttigieg in Iowa is looking like a good one.

Thanks. But I'm keeping calm on that one. Early days. It does seem odd that Pete is so confident given almost complete lack of results.

Yes, but he had campaign staff in 77% of precincts - which is more than anyone else. He was also only 1% behind Sanders in the entrance poll, which should make him confident. And in a lot of rural precints (where votes are worth more on a SDE-basis), Sanders isn't making the cut

TheScreamingEagles

See I told you to lay Biden.

Never in doubt.

Now about my strategy about laying Sanders...

logical_song

brokenwheel said:

rcs1000 said:

brokenwheel said:

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

While that's true, most Biden supporters only like him because he's "electable".

He lacks other obvious traits that would make him an adequate nominee, such as the ability to get to the end of a sentence without forgetting how it started.

If he bombs in Iowa and he bombs in New Hampshire, then what is his pitch? The Dems will likely find themselves a new moderate candidate as their champion. (South Carolina is his firewall. He has to perform there.)

The biggest danger for him was probably Pete getting a big win; his biggest upside would be either him or Sanders winning. No one is 'winning' Iowa now, so bit of a score draw.

The whole debacle has serious implications for the left though, which has long had suspicions of a mainstream Dem party stitch-up, and this plays heavily into that narrative. Whether it fires them up or leads them to give up on the primaries could change the race.

Bloomberg steadily climbing.

brokenwheel

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1224719138960093190

Your call on Buttigieg in Iowa is looking like a good one.

Thanks. But I'm keeping calm on that one. Early days. It does seem odd that Pete is so confident given almost complete lack of results.

It isn't about knowing he's won, it's about making it appear that he won.

logical_song

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

He's a moderate, strong on gun control and climate change.
Oh and he's very, very rich.
Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

wooliedyed

Had a message checking in on me as I hadn't posted in a while (the dyedwoolie account is now this wooliedyed version). I'm ok, health not great and my mother has been diagnosed with cancer so am spending time looking after her and dad. Not likely to be around much before local elections this spring but am grateful for the concern showed.
P.s. lol @ democrats

logical_song

brokenwheel said:

rcs1000 said:

brokenwheel said:

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

While that's true, most Biden supporters only like him because he's "electable".

He lacks other obvious traits that would make him an adequate nominee, such as the ability to get to the end of a sentence without forgetting how it started.

If he bombs in Iowa and he bombs in New Hampshire, then what is his pitch? The Dems will likely find themselves a new moderate candidate as their champion. (South Carolina is his firewall. He has to perform there.)

The biggest danger for him was probably Pete getting a big win; his biggest upside would be either him or Sanders winning. No one is 'winning' Iowa now, so bit of a score draw.

The whole debacle has serious implications for the left though, which has long had suspicions of a mainstream Dem party stitch-up, and this plays heavily into that narrative. Whether it fires them up or leads them to give up on the primaries could change the race. For instance I could see some on the left preferencing Biden to spite Buttigieg.

It looks like a straightforward tech problem, people on here seem to be seeing conspiracy where there probably is none.

"The Iowa plan was relatively simple: Count support for candidates and report back via an app. What happened in practice was that the app didn't scale, connectivity was spotty and now we're all waiting for hand counting."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/iowa-caucus-results-delayed-due-to-reporting-inconsistencies-after-switching-to-new-tech-system/?ftag=TRE-03-10aaa6b&bhid=5789242
https://www.zdnet.com/article/iowa-caucus-app-fiasco-highlights-need-for-it-best-practices/?ftag=TRE-03-10aaa6b&bhid=5789242

Casino_Royale

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

He's a moderate, strong on gun control and climate change.
Oh and he's very, very rich.
Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

I don’t see why Democrats would vote for him.

It’d be like Boris (post London mayor but without the Brexit bit) joining the current Labour leadership election runners.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dyed, sorry to hear about that, but good to see you on.

Casino_Royale

Is there any evidence Buttigieg has won this, or is it all hearsay and rumour?

brokenwheel

logical_song said:

brokenwheel said:

rcs1000 said:

brokenwheel said:

Probably an overreaction, Biden didn't need a boost from Iowa as much as most of the other candidates.

While that's true, most Biden supporters only like him because he's "electable".

He lacks other obvious traits that would make him an adequate nominee, such as the ability to get to the end of a sentence without forgetting how it started.

If he bombs in Iowa and he bombs in New Hampshire, then what is his pitch? The Dems will likely find themselves a new moderate candidate as their champion. (South Carolina is his firewall. He has to perform there.)

The biggest danger for him was probably Pete getting a big win; his biggest upside would be either him or Sanders winning. No one is 'winning' Iowa now, so bit of a score draw.

The whole debacle has serious implications for the left though, which has long had suspicions of a mainstream Dem party stitch-up, and this plays heavily into that narrative. Whether it fires them up or leads them to give up on the primaries could change the race. For instance I could see some on the left preferencing Biden to spite Buttigieg.

It looks like a straightforward tech problem, people on here seem to be seeing conspiracy where there probably is none.

Clearly you've never had the misfortune to read Bernie-twitter. They have the same distrust of the Democratic party machine as Corbynistas of the 'Blairites'.

rottenborough

brokenwheel said:

rottenborough said:

rcs1000 said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1224719138960093190

Your call on Buttigieg in Iowa is looking like a good one.

Thanks. But I'm keeping calm on that one. Early days. It does seem odd that Pete is so confident given almost complete lack of results.

It isn't about knowing he's won, it's about making it appear that he won.

Could backfire massively if he hasn't won. God alone knows what new nickname Trump will come up with if that happens.

MaxPB

FPT

MarqueeMark said:

Cookie said:

Interestingly, not ten minutes ago, I've been doing some back of a fag packet calculations on this subject - by my calculations, if the entire fleet went electric tonight, assuming that the vast bulk of chargin was done overnight, the electricity needed to power the fleet would almost exactly equal the difference between the peak and the off peak demand.
That is, based on existing generation, we could power the fleet.
Now all we haveto do is shift the remaining 30-40% of power generated through fossil fuels to sustainable sources - which should haooen in the next decade or two, on current trends.

But get high pressure sitting over the country, nobody is moving tomorrow....

If you want a sensbile portfolio of power from zero-carbon, you ideally want

1. Wind power - cheap and quick to install, but not reliable. Can only power a country in conjunction with other sources

2. Solar - cheap and more reliable, but built in idleness - much more than 50% in dark, bitterly cold winter nights

3. Tidal - each lagoon produces for 14 hours a day (slack water and a while for tide/turbine level to have sufficient drop to generate power). A series of them can get baseload cover because of the later tide in say Solway Firth or the Wash. Utterly reliable. Price of electricity from the Cardiff Lagoon (powering 1.6m homes) would be about half that of Hinckly C - the Swansea pathfinder project still considerably cheaper. And 125 year minimum life. It is now needed to plug the domestic fuel gap that shale gas was supposed to provide, but seismic issues have now canned.

4. Nuclear - expensive, but 24/7. However, current generation require import of nuclear materials from dodgy regimes. Limited life of each nuclear plant. Waste management and decommissioning issues. And if it goes wrong....
terrorism/malfunction - bye-bye Britain. Tide on the other hand delivers itself, twice a day.... reliable as long as the Moon is up there. And if it isn't, we have bigger worries.

5. Something to plug the gap. Natural gas - but now supply issues. If Putin turns off the tops into Europe.... Needs expensive LNG kit as back-up back-up.

Coupling wind and solar with Gravitricity is the near term solution. The government needs to back this technology with money and engineering resources. We should get this idea up and running and become a world leader in mass non-battery based power storage for electrical grids.

rottenborough

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

He's a moderate, strong on gun control and climate change.
Oh and he's very, very rich.
Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

If Biden sinks without trace early on, then Bloomberg must have a shot at it surely?

Stocky

Help please: Can someone explain again how the bookies are establishing who the Iowa winner is?

I have backed Buttgieg with BF and Lads. BF say “this market will be settled based on the number of state delegate equivalents each candidate receives*, and Lads say the winner will be based on “Final alignment votes”.

Does one of my Buttigieg bets have a better chance of winning than the other? If so, which?

Big_G_NorthWales

wooliedyed said:

Had a message checking in on me as I hadn't posted in a while (the dyedwoolie account is now this wooliedyed version). I'm ok, health not great and my mother has been diagnosed with cancer so am spending time looking after her and dad. Not likely to be around much before local elections this spring but am grateful for the concern showed.
P.s. lol @ democrats

So sorry to hear your news. Best wishes to you and your family

Politics comes well after health and family

Mysticrose

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump

Stocky

wooliedyed said:

Had a message checking in on me as I hadn't posted in a while (the dyedwoolie account is now this wooliedyed version). I'm ok, health not great and my mother has been diagnosed with cancer so am spending time looking after her and dad. Not likely to be around much before local elections this spring but am grateful for the concern showed.
P.s. lol @ democrats

Thanks for getting back to us Mr Woolie.

Sorry to hear about your, and your mother`s, health.

I enjoyed your posts and hope that you will become a regular PBer again in future.

ClippP

Casino_Royale said:

Is there any evidence Buttigieg has won this, or is it all hearsay and rumour?

If all his precinct captains have reported back to base with reliable figures, I would have thought his team had a pretty good idea about what the final result was going to be.

rottenborough

Stocky said:

Help please: Can someone explain again how the bookies are establishing who the IOWA winner is?

I have backed Buttgieg with BF and Lads. BF say “this market will be settled based on the number of state delegate equivalents each candidate receives*, and Lads say the winner will be based on “Final alignment votes”.

Does one of my Buttigieg bets have a better chance of winning than the other? If so, which?

I think there was a thread on this a day or two ago. Lads and BF are doing it differently. BF seem to be following the NYT view of which result is the important.

rkrkrk

Is mayor Pete value at 2-1 for Iowa? Betfair price, so based on state delegates...

Casino_Royale

ClippP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Is there any evidence Buttigieg has won this, or is it all hearsay and rumour?

If all his precinct captains have reported back to base with reliable figures, I would have thought his team had a pretty good idea about what the final result was going to be.

He could just be ramping.

Stocky

rottenborough said:

Stocky said:

Help please: Can someone explain again how the bookies are establishing who the IOWA winner is?

I have backed Buttgieg with BF and Lads. BF say “this market will be settled based on the number of state delegate equivalents each candidate receives*, and Lads say the winner will be based on “Final alignment votes”.

Does one of my Buttigieg bets have a better chance of winning than the other? If so, which?

I think there was a thread on this a day or two ago. Lads and BF are doing it differently. BF seem to be following the NYT view of which result is the important.

I know about the previous thread - I didn`t understand it and still don`t. I`ve been trying to pick up snippets of information (e.g. Nate Silver) and from what I can gather (I think) Buttgieg has a better chance of winning under the BF definition than the Lads definition. If so, then Buttigieg should be favourite with BF rather than Sanders, so an opportunity may lie there. Current odds: Buttgieg 3.05, Sanders 1.42.

Stocky

rkrkrk said:

Is mayor Pete value at 2-1 for Iowa? Betfair price, so based on state delegates...

Ha ha - our posts crossed. Yes.

rcs1000

Stocky said:

Help please: Can someone explain again how the bookies are establishing who the Iowa winner is?

I have backed Buttgieg with BF and Lads. BF say “this market will be settled based on the number of state delegate equivalents each candidate receives*, and Lads say the winner will be based on “Final alignment votes”.

Does one of my Buttigieg bets have a better chance of winning than the other? If so, which?

Yes, your Betfair bet is massively better than the Ladbrokes one.

The way it works is a bit like the electoral college, but with proportionality. Different counties in Iowa have different numbers of State Delegates (and they have half delegates too). This means winning in a sparsely populated county can make your votes worth 3x as much as winning in Jefferson County.

I actually think Buttigieg will probably win both, but the Betfair one is the likelier.

Philip_Thompson

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Locking up people works.

It is releasing people that doesn't.

A "libertarian" speaks. 👀

I'm as libertarian as it gets when it comes to innocent people. Do whatever you want in my opinion so long as it doesn't harm others.

Prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes that we have on the books should be abolished. A lot of our prisoners are in for crimes that shouldn't be crimes.

But try to kill someone which is what terrorism is and you've gone too far. At that point you sacrifice your liberty.

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist.

rcs1000

Casino_Royale said:

ClippP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Is there any evidence Buttigieg has won this, or is it all hearsay and rumour?

If all his precinct captains have reported back to base with reliable figures, I would have thought his team had a pretty good idea about what the final result was going to be.

He could just be ramping.

Buttigieg was only 1% behind Sanders in the entrance poll, and (with Warren viable almost everywhere) Sanders has lost his most reliable source of "second choice votes".

The rural numbers we've seen have also been bad for Sanders, with him missing the cut in a bunch of precincts.

Now, we still don't know *that* much. But I would flip the Sanders and Buttigieg probabilities round.

Stocky

rcs1000 said:

Stocky said:

Help please: Can someone explain again how the bookies are establishing who the Iowa winner is?

I have backed Buttgieg with BF and Lads. BF say “this market will be settled based on the number of state delegate equivalents each candidate receives*, and Lads say the winner will be based on “Final alignment votes”.

Does one of my Buttigieg bets have a better chance of winning than the other? If so, which?

Yes, your Betfair bet is massively better than the Ladbrokes one.

The way it works is a bit like the electoral college, but with proportionality. Different counties in Iowa have different numbers of State Delegates (and they have half delegates too). This means winning in a sparsely populated county can make your votes worth 3x as much as winning in Jefferson County.

I actually think Buttigieg will probably win both, but the Betfair one is the likelier.

Thanks rcs1000 - that`s what I suspected, but it`s a shame it`s that way round. I have £65 with Lads at 10/1.

rcs1000

Mysticrose said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump

Why wouldn't Bloomberg have a good chance? I would have a thought that moderate Republians find it much easier to stay at home if it was Bloomberg vs Trump than if it was Sanders vs Trump.

rcs1000

Mysticrose said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump

Why wouldn't Bloomberg have a good chance? I would have a thought that moderate Republians find it much easier to stay at home if it was Bloomberg vs Trump than if it was Sanders vs Trump.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Locking up people works.

It is releasing people that doesn't.

A "libertarian" speaks. 👀

I'm as libertarian as it gets when it comes to innocent people. Do whatever you want in my opinion so long as it doesn't harm others.

Prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes that we have on the books should be abolished. A lot of our prisoners are in for crimes that shouldn't be crimes.

But try to kill someone which is what terrorism is and you've gone too far. At that point you sacrifice your liberty.

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist.

What about downloading extremist material from the Internet?

Endillion

New take: the closer to the NH primary the Iowa results get announced, the more momentum the winner receives. A declaration for (say) Buttigieg over the weekend could tip the balance towards the moderates finally unifying, and allow him to win bigly next Tuesday.

Stocky

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Locking up people works.

It is releasing people that doesn't.

A "libertarian" speaks. 👀

I'm as libertarian as it gets when it comes to innocent people. Do whatever you want in my opinion so long as it doesn't harm others.

Prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes that we have on the books should be abolished. A lot of our prisoners are in for crimes that shouldn't be crimes.

But try to kill someone which is what terrorism is and you've gone too far. At that point you sacrifice your liberty.

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist.

Sounds to me like there is a dose of strong liberalism in the mix (harm principle). Libertarianism is regarded as an anachist position. I guess liberalism can tip into libertarianism at the extremes.

Philip_Thompson

Quincel said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Nigelb said:

The plurality of those imprisoned for terrorist offences are serving sentences of less than four years. And out of those released, two out of over two hundred have actually gone on to committed acts of terror like this.
And for that you want to introduce preventive life sentences ?

As we saw with the London Bridge murderer, it is entirely likely that someone would be able "to satisfy the parole board they are now safe", and still go on to offend.

You are suggesting a highly expensive solution which would likely not be a great deal more effective than what we have now, and would introduce the principle of lifetime incarceration on suspicion into English law.
I do not think that would turn out well.

I didn't suggest life sentences on suspicion. I said on conviction.

A couple of years for terrorism is farcical. Terrorism is the attempted murder of people. That should be a whole life sentence. But I maintain innocence until proven guilty of course, those who have been proven guilty should earn their release.

If the parole board is tricked then we should investigate and figure out what needs improvement.

Yes a sound criminal justice system may be expensive. Loss of life because you cut corners is not the solution. We should fund our criminal justice system with the same seriousness a week fund our military. Both are about keeping us safe.

Not all terror offences are attempted terror attacks. Some are membership of a banned group, or fundraising, or promoting/advocating for. It makes sense we don't treat these as seriously as the directly violent crimes.

I don't see why. Conspiracy to commit murder should lead to a life sentence just as much as commiting murder yourself. Paying someone to murder your spouse should not result in a couple of years for yourself just because you didn't pull the trigger.

If you are paying for murder, which is what fundraising is, then that should be a whole life sentence. If you are promoting/advocating for murder you should be convicted to a whole life sentence.

If a parole board determines you are no danger to the public then sure be released, but until then you should not be on the streets.

Stocky

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Locking up people works.

It is releasing people that doesn't.

A "libertarian" speaks. 👀

I'm as libertarian as it gets when it comes to innocent people. Do whatever you want in my opinion so long as it doesn't harm others.

Prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes that we have on the books should be abolished. A lot of our prisoners are in for crimes that shouldn't be crimes.

But try to kill someone which is what terrorism is and you've gone too far. At that point you sacrifice your liberty.

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist.

What about downloading extremist material from the Internet?

Should be illegal if you have commissioned it.

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Locking up people works.

It is releasing people that doesn't.

A "libertarian" speaks. 👀

I'm as libertarian as it gets when it comes to innocent people. Do whatever you want in my opinion so long as it doesn't harm others.

Prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes that we have on the books should be abolished. A lot of our prisoners are in for crimes that shouldn't be crimes.

But try to kill someone which is what terrorism is and you've gone too far. At that point you sacrifice your liberty.

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist.

What about downloading extremist material from the Internet?

Same principle as child pornography. It does cause harm.

rkrkrk

Stocky said:

rkrkrk said:

Is mayor Pete value at 2-1 for Iowa? Betfair price, so based on state delegates...

Ha ha - our posts crossed. Yes.

I've had a nibble but am mindful there is rarely free money lying around.
I hope Rcs1000 point about rural voters stacks up.

Philip_Thompson

Stocky said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Locking up people works.

It is releasing people that doesn't.

A "libertarian" speaks. 👀

I'm as libertarian as it gets when it comes to innocent people. Do whatever you want in my opinion so long as it doesn't harm others.

Prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes that we have on the books should be abolished. A lot of our prisoners are in for crimes that shouldn't be crimes.

But try to kill someone which is what terrorism is and you've gone too far. At that point you sacrifice your liberty.

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist.

Sounds to me like there is a dose of strong liberalism in the mix (harm principle). Libertarianism is regarded as an anachist position. I guess liberalism can tip into libertarianism at the extremes.

I consider myself a liberal - liberal on economics and liberal on social policies. But a classic dry sort of liberal.

The problem is the word liberal nowadays means different to what it used to so classic liberalism nowadays is closer to what people call libertarian than liberal nowadays.

rcs1000

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Locking up people works.

It is releasing people that doesn't.

A "libertarian" speaks. 👀

I'm as libertarian as it gets when it comes to innocent people. Do whatever you want in my opinion so long as it doesn't harm others.

Prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes that we have on the books should be abolished. A lot of our prisoners are in for crimes that shouldn't be crimes.

But try to kill someone which is what terrorism is and you've gone too far. At that point you sacrifice your liberty.

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist.

What about downloading extremist material from the Internet?

Same principle as child pornography. It does cause harm.

Child pornography causes harm to the people used in creating it. (I.e. the children.) It's for that reason it's illegal.

A person who plans or commits a murder or a terrorist incident has committed a vile criminal act. They have attempted to, or actually done, something which causes untold damage to people.

But here's the bit where it gets blurred.

If I write a rape or murder fantasy, then I have committed no crime. It's disgusting, but it's free speech.

If I write an extremist fantasy about killing Jews or Christians or decadent Brits, then I have crossed over a line.

And if I download the first fantasy, I have committed no crime. But if I download the second, then I could go to jail for a long time.

I'm not particularly comfortable about the distinction.

Philip_Thompson

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

rcs1000 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Locking up people works.

It is releasing people that doesn't.

A "libertarian" speaks. 👀

I'm as libertarian as it gets when it comes to innocent people. Do whatever you want in my opinion so long as it doesn't harm others.

Prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes that we have on the books should be abolished. A lot of our prisoners are in for crimes that shouldn't be crimes.

But try to kill someone which is what terrorism is and you've gone too far. At that point you sacrifice your liberty.

I'm a libertarian not an anarchist.

What about downloading extremist material from the Internet?

Same principle as child pornography. It does cause harm.

Child pornography causes harm to the people used in creating it. (I.e. the children.) It's for that reason it's illegal.

A person who plans or commits a murder or a terrorist incident has committed a vile criminal act. They have attempted to, or actually done, something which causes untold damage to people.

But here's the bit where it gets blurred.

If I write a rape or murder fantasy, then I have committed no crime. It's disgusting, but it's free speech.

If I write an extremist fantasy about killing Jews or Christians or decadent Brits, then I have crossed over a line.

And if I download the first fantasy, I have committed no crime. But if I download the second, then I could go to jail for a long time.

I'm not particularly comfortable about the distinction.

There certainly should be a distinction between fantasy novels and plotting murder.

The way I see it is if you swap "Jews or Christians or decadent Brits" with eg "your wife" would it still be a crime? Encouraging people to murder your wife is a crime.

Stocky

rkrkrk said:

Stocky said:

rkrkrk said:

Is mayor Pete value at 2-1 for Iowa? Betfair price, so based on state delegates...

Ha ha - our posts crossed. Yes.

I've had a nibble but am mindful there is rarely free money lying around.
I hope Rcs1000 point about rural voters stacks up.

I`ve also taken a chunk of the New Hampshire Caucus 4 with BF (Buttgieg to win).

rottenborough

Endillion said:

New take: the closer to the NH primary the Iowa results get announced, the more momentum the winner receives. A declaration for (say) Buttigieg over the weekend could tip the balance towards the moderates finally unifying, and allow him to win bigly next Tuesday.

I like your thinking!!!!

ClippP

Casino_Royale said:

ClippP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Is there any evidence Buttigieg has won this, or is it all hearsay and rumour?

If all his precinct captains have reported back to base with reliable figures, I would have thought his team had a pretty good idea about what the final result was going to be.

He could just be ramping.

You mean like Johnson and Trump do? I suppose he could be, but to me he seems more honest than that. We shall no doubt find out in the near future.

TheGreenMachine

MaxPB said:

What the hell is going on in Iowa. It's become a complete joke.

Stick to Irish and British politics, less complications.

wooliedyed

Stocky said:

wooliedyed said:

Had a message checking in on me as I hadn't posted in a while (the dyedwoolie account is now this wooliedyed version). I'm ok, health not great and my mother has been diagnosed with cancer so am spending time looking after her and dad. Not likely to be around much before local elections this spring but am grateful for the concern showed.
P.s. lol @ democrats

Thanks for getting back to us Mr Woolie.

Sorry to hear about your, and your mother`s, health.

I enjoyed your posts and hope that you will become a regular PBer again in future.

I'll be back like that terminator fellow. Take care all

malcolmg

wooliedyed said:

Stocky said:

wooliedyed said:

Had a message checking in on me as I hadn't posted in a while (the dyedwoolie account is now this wooliedyed version). I'm ok, health not great and my mother has been diagnosed with cancer so am spending time looking after her and dad. Not likely to be around much before local elections this spring but am grateful for the concern showed.
P.s. lol @ democrats

Thanks for getting back to us Mr Woolie.

Sorry to hear about your, and your mother`s, health.

I enjoyed your posts and hope that you will become a regular PBer again in future.

I'll be back like that terminator fellow. Take care all

Good luck Woolie, hope you and parents get well soon.

rottenborough

ClippP said:

Casino_Royale said:

ClippP said:

Casino_Royale said:

Is there any evidence Buttigieg has won this, or is it all hearsay and rumour?

If all his precinct captains have reported back to base with reliable figures, I would have thought his team had a pretty good idea about what the final result was going to be.

He could just be ramping.

You mean like Johnson and Trump do? I suppose he could be, but to me he seems more honest than that. We shall no doubt find out in the near future.

Seems very risky to be to be ramping, if your image is about a new generation turning a page on all that.

Stocky

Stocky said:

rkrkrk said:

Stocky said:

rkrkrk said:

Is mayor Pete value at 2-1 for Iowa? Betfair price, so based on state delegates...

Ha ha - our posts crossed. Yes.

I've had a nibble but am mindful there is rarely free money lying around.
I hope Rcs1000 point about rural voters stacks up.

I`ve also taken a chunk of the New Hampshire Caucus 4 with BF (Buttgieg to win).

I should have said New Hampshire Primary (before someone corrects me!).

logical_song

rcs1000 said:

Mysticrose said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump

Why wouldn't Bloomberg have a good chance? I would have a thought that moderate Republians find it much easier to stay at home if it was Bloomberg vs Trump than if it was Sanders vs Trump.

Of course, but MysticRose thinks Trump is unbeatable. Or maybe wants him to be, I haven't worked that out yet.
Besides, Bloomberg is a successful businessman, Trump just hasn't lost all his Dad's money yet.

rottenborough

NYT:

The Iowa Democratic Party plans to release “the majority of results” at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

MaxPB

rcs1000 said:

Mysticrose said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump

Why wouldn't Bloomberg have a good chance? I would have a thought that moderate Republians find it much easier to stay at home if it was Bloomberg vs Trump than if it was Sanders vs Trump.

Might struggle to motivate the Democrat base and black voters. Unionised workers may resent his republican past.

rottenborough

WTF Iowa? 5pm until results.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1224736746195255298?s=20

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1224731934510714881?s=20

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/thatchriswalker/status/1224745515004416002?s=20

Andy_JS

"The BBC and the Evening Standard have come under fire after mixing up three different black female Labour MPs in their coverage.

The first mistake was made by the BBC Parliament channel, which captioned footage of Marsha de Cordova speaking at the Commons with the name of Dawn Butler, her colleague."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/diversity-row-as-bbc-mixes-up-black-female-mps-k8q7s8txw

logical_song

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Mysticrose said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump

Why wouldn't Bloomberg have a good chance? I would have a thought that moderate Republians find it much easier to stay at home if it was Bloomberg vs Trump than if it was Sanders vs Trump.

Might struggle to motivate the Democrat base and black voters. Unionised workers may resent his republican past.

... but look at the alternative. If Bloomberg gets the nomination, then it's him or Trump.

MaxPB

logical_song said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Mysticrose said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump

Why wouldn't Bloomberg have a good chance? I would have a thought that moderate Republians find it much easier to stay at home if it was Bloomberg vs Trump than if it was Sanders vs Trump.

Might struggle to motivate the Democrat base and black voters. Unionised workers may resent his republican past.

... but look at the alternative. If Bloomberg gets the nomination, then it's him or Trump.

I get that and so do you, but the average American voter is pretty fucking lazy.

logical_song

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1224736746195255298?s=20

Or 43.6% (538)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

BigRich

Pete (or any of the others), have had their people phone in the results for most of the caucus sites, why not release the information now? (on a spreadsheet with gapes where now information)

It could get some good publicity, and make there campaigns look a) better then the Democratic party of Iowa, and b) better than all the other campaigns.

Just a thought.

MikeSmithson

Iowa results expected now by 2200 GMT

TheWhiteRabbit

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/thatchriswalker/status/1224745515004416002?s=20

Last night, they were saying they only had 25% of results in from counts, so perhaps that number has not hit 100% yet....!

TheWhiteRabbit

Edit: NVM, I can't read

HYUFD

logical_song said:

MaxPB said:

rcs1000 said:

Mysticrose said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

Bloomberg isn’t far off moving into second favourite position.

I’m struggling to see the justification for that, other than he’s not tarnished by Iowa.

Currently he looks like he could beat Trump.

Not a snowball's chance in hell of beating Trump

Why wouldn't Bloomberg have a good chance? I would have a thought that moderate Republians find it much easier to stay at home if it was Bloomberg vs Trump than if it was Sanders vs Trump.

Might struggle to motivate the Democrat base and black voters. Unionised workers may resent his republican past.

... but look at the alternative. If Bloomberg gets the nomination, then it's him or Trump.

I could vote for Bloomberg over Trump but would vote for Trump over Sanders, however there would be a risk Sanders went 3rd party.

In any case a Sanders nomination remains the likely outcome

rottenborough

MikeSmithson said:

Iowa results expected now by 2200 GMT

Where is the 'unlike' button? It is ridiculous. If there had been no app at what time would they have had results last night?

MikeSmithson

The latest Bloomberg ad
https://youtu.be/PUWKh1b7DAE

Stocky

rottenborough said:

MikeSmithson said:

Iowa results expected now by 2200 GMT

Where is the 'unlike' button? It is ridiculous. If there had been no app at what time would they have had results last night?

Yes they would. Whoever sold them the App needs to be publicly flogged.

FrancisUrquhart

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/mattcorridoni/status/1224719138960093190

Watching MSNBC coverage last night, it seems they are big fans of Mayor Pete, as he is about the only person they talked about for 2hrs.

FrancisUrquhart

MikeSmithson said:

The latest Bloomberg ad
//youtu.be/PUWKh1b7DAE

I think they said last night he has already spent $300 million on ad buys! I hope he gets some nice Christmas prezzies from the tv networks and social media companies.

viewcode

wooliedyed said:

Had a message checking in on me as I hadn't posted in a while (the dyedwoolie account is now this wooliedyed version). I'm ok, health not great and my mother has been diagnosed with cancer so am spending time looking after her and dad. Not likely to be around much before local elections this spring but am grateful for the concern showed.
P.s. lol @ democrats

That's awful, @wooliedyed . I'm really saddened to hear that. I hope you find the strength to endure the upcoming, and come back to us when you can.

TheGreenMachine

ydoethur

TheGreenMachine said:

I thought for a fleeting instant they had used a photo of Jeremy Corbyn to illustrate the point.

FrancisUrquhart

TheGreenMachine said:

I didn't know Billy Connelly was a Sinn Fein supporter....

FrancisUrquhart

Big Dom trying to tell us something?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7965463/No10-aide-Dominic-Cummings-reads-book-Chinese-spies-wake-Huawei-row.html

Luckyguy1983

viewcode said:

wooliedyed said:

Had a message checking in on me as I hadn't posted in a while (the dyedwoolie account is now this wooliedyed version). I'm ok, health not great and my mother has been diagnosed with cancer so am spending time looking after her and dad. Not likely to be around much before local elections this spring but am grateful for the concern showed.
P.s. lol @ democrats

That's awful, @wooliedyed . I'm really saddened to hear that. I hope you find the strength to endure the upcoming, and come back to us when you can.

Sorry to hear that news @wooliedyed. They are doing amazing things with canabbis oil for cancer sufferers. Whichever treatment path you and your mum choose, all the very best for a barnstorming return to rude health for you both.

alex_

TheGreenMachine said:

Didn’t someone say the other day that they haven’t put nearly enough candidates on the ballot to capitalise? So we could end up with a “proportional” system that fails to replicate votes proportionally in seats?

TheGreenMachine

FrancisUrquhart said:

TheGreenMachine said:

I didn't know Billy Connelly was a Sinn Fein supporter....

He's a prominent dissident.

FrancisUrquhart

I see Labour are going to continue their tough on crime, tough on causes of crime approach...

Booo terrible government, why are they letting these people out...so you would keep them locked up, right? Well no, we wouldn't, but the government are shit.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7964347/Boris-Johnson-faces-court-battle-bid-terrorists-prison.html

Nigelb

Andy_JS said:

MaxPB said:

What the hell is going on in Iowa. It's become a complete joke.

The system worked okay in previous years. They shouldn't have changed it unless they were almost 100% sure it would be an improvement.

The tried a new system partly because Sanders & supporters complained so much about how it was reported last time around.....

Which is no kind of excuse, but it is a reason.

TheGreenMachine

alex_ said:

TheGreenMachine said:

Didn’t someone say the other day that they haven’t put nearly enough candidates on the ballot to capitalise? So we could end up with a “proportional” system that fails to replicate votes proportionally in seats?

That's correct but the SF vote might have been split in certain areas if they ran a few.

TheGreenMachine

Fianna Fail will more likely win, but I would advise people to lay them as they're not a true 1-8.

FrancisUrquhart

Seems it isn't just black Labour MPs getting tagged in the wrong picture...if only there was more diversity.

The Times this morning had a story about about a million-a-year trader fired for stealing from the canteen. The picture was of Lee Cain, the Prime Minister’s Director of Communications

https://order-order.com/2020/02/04/times-trying-frame-lee-cain/

Andy_JS

MikeSmithson said:

Iowa results expected now by 2200 GMT

50% of them apparently.

ydoethur

27 balls. 18 runs. Seven wickets in hand.

Even South Africa surely can’t choke from here.