Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Biden now looking doomed Buttigieg looks a value bet to w

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited February 5 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With Biden now looking doomed Buttigieg looks a value bet to win New Hampshire

Biden’s career in politics has been defined by his runs for the presidency which have seen him flop at the first fence in Iowa. In 1988 his bid came to an end in the state following him being ridiculed for plagiarising a Neil Kinnock election PPB in order to make a speech about himself. Two decades later in 2008 he pulled out of the race after failing to get a delegate in the Iowa caucuses and now he’s had another failure in the first state to decide.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,436
    edited February 5
    First - and misread that penultimate paragraph as relating to Bernie (Senator for neighbouring Vermont) rather than Warren (Senator for neighbouring Mass.)
  • phiwphiw Posts: 32
    First, like Pete.
  • phiwphiw Posts: 32
    In other news, the CNN Town Hall format looks to be more interesting tomorrow than tonight:

    Wednesday, February 5:
    Former Vice President Joe Biden
    Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
    Businessman Andrew Yang
    Businessman Tom Steyer

    Thursday, February 6:
    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
    Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
    Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
    Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,139
    phiw said:

    First, like Pete.

    That might be the Freudian slip of the year so far...
  • phiwphiw Posts: 32
    ydoethur said:

    phiw said:

    First, like Pete.

    That might be the Freudian slip of the year so far...
    Yeah.... won't be trying that again!
  • phiwphiw Posts: 32
    Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

    Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 1,292
    ydoethur said:

    phiw said:

    First, like Pete.

    That might be the Freudian slip of the year so far...
    What is your point, Jung man?
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 2,820
    phiw said:

    In other news, the CNN Town Hall format looks to be more interesting tomorrow than tonight:

    Wednesday, February 5:
    Former Vice President Joe Biden
    Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
    Businessman Andrew Yang
    Businessman Tom Steyer

    Thursday, February 6:
    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
    Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
    Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
    Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

    Much as I like Deval Patrick, what's he doing on the stage? Has he ever polled even 5% in a single poll in a single state? He is currently on 46 1st pref votes in Iowa.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,675
    edited February 5
    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

  • phiwphiw Posts: 32
    Quincel said:

    phiw said:

    In other news, the CNN Town Hall format looks to be more interesting tomorrow than tonight:

    Wednesday, February 5:
    Former Vice President Joe Biden
    Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
    Businessman Andrew Yang
    Businessman Tom Steyer

    Thursday, February 6:
    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
    Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
    Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
    Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

    Much as I like Deval Patrick, what's he doing on the stage? Has he ever polled even 5% in a single poll in a single state? He is currently on 46 1st pref votes in Iowa.
    I think these town hall events aren't actually part of the official debate lineup, so CNN can invite whoever they want.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited February 5
    This is worrying:


    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 2,517
    phiw said:

    Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

    Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

    Be a bit embarrassing in his own state! Do you have write-ins in ID though?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,368

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,026
    I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,211
    The most likely New Hampshire result is a Sanders win. But it's far from certain. Sanders is polling something in the 20s, and that's probably where he'll end up. I reckon there's probably a 75% chance that he does it. (It is, after all, one of the most reliably pro-Sanders states in the country.) I think Sanders will get 29% in NH.

    But Buttigieg - even before the Iowa caucuses - had begin to reverse his decline there. The big question is how much of the Biden / Bloomberg / Other Moderate goes his way in NH. My guess is that Buttigieg gets 25%.

    We also shouldn't discount a decent Warren performance. I think she'll also make the 20s - I'd guess 22%.

    And Biden will trail in fourth. Again.

    We next come to Nevada. Now, the latest poll from A- rated Suffolk last month, has Biden 19%, Sanders 18%, Warren 11%, Buttigieg 8%. The question becomes support Biden loses and where it goes. And also, does Buttigieg have a great caucus organisation in Nevada? If he does, he might beat Biden again. Three losses out of three for Biden... would that be terminal?

    Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire to have a shot at the Presidency. But if he does, and it's probably no worse than a one-in-four shot, then he really does have a chance. The Biden campaign is poorly organised and poorly funded. It could easily implode if it fails in both New Hampshire and Nevada.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,211

    I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

    If Buttigieg is clear second, and Biden is fourth, then he still has a chance. But it all depends on Biden continuing to destroy himself.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,211
    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    I don't think that @rottenborough has any influence on the eventual winner.

    However, he forecast Iowa correctly, And you forecast it wrongly. Take it like a man.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,309
    I agree with Mike that Biden may be drifting down and out, but it doesn't follow that Mayor Pete is going to win NH. It's a very different kind of contest than Iowa was, and the polling should be more of a guide. We'll have to see what the polls show in the next couple of days, but at the moment Bernie has quite a big lead. I'd want more than Mike's 4.8 on current polling even if you factor in a bit of Buttigieg bounce.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,242

    I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

    Women won’t vote for Biden, Afro-Americans won’t vote for PB, and moderates won’t vote for Sanders. What a mess the Dems are in. I am glad I am still green on Warren.
  • phiwphiw Posts: 32
    rpjs said:

    phiw said:

    Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

    Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

    Be a bit embarrassing in his own state! Do you have write-ins in ID though?
    We do have write-ins in Indiana, but from what I can tell, not for Primaries:

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Guide.FINAL.pdf

    "A person may not be a write-in candidate during a primary election or for a party office, such as precinct committeeman or state convention delegate." p.4
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 18,082
    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    Golly, I know he's in a hole with Bernie but that reaction would seem excessive.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 30,211

    I agree with Mike that Biden may be drifting down and out, but it doesn't follow that Mayor Pete is going to win NH. It's a very different kind of contest than Iowa was, and the polling should be more of a guide. We'll have to see what the polls show in the next couple of days, but at the moment Bernie has quite a big lead. I'd want more than Mike's 4.8 on current polling even if you factor in a bit of Buttigieg bounce.

    There have been two February only polls in New Hampshire, both A-rated, Suffolk and Emerson.

    One shows Sanders winning by a mile - 32% for Sanders, with second placed Buttigieg on 17%.

    The other shows a closer battle, but again, Sanders first, Buttigieg second: 24% vs 15%.

    There is a lot of moderate vote for Buttigieg to squeeze. Whether it's enough is another matter altogether.
  • phiwphiw Posts: 32
    IanB2 said:

    I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

    Women won’t vote for Biden, Afro-Americans won’t vote for PB, and moderates won’t vote for Sanders. What a mess the Dems are in. I am glad I am still green on Warren.
    Pete just needs to make sure he gets Biden and Klobuchar's endorsements, split Warren's supporters with Bernie, then we'll really be in for a fun time.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,104
    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
    I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,368
    rcs1000 said:

    I agree with Mike that Biden may be drifting down and out, but it doesn't follow that Mayor Pete is going to win NH. It's a very different kind of contest than Iowa was, and the polling should be more of a guide. We'll have to see what the polls show in the next couple of days, but at the moment Bernie has quite a big lead. I'd want more than Mike's 4.8 on current polling even if you factor in a bit of Buttigieg bounce.

    There have been two February only polls in New Hampshire, both A-rated, Suffolk and Emerson.

    One shows Sanders winning by a mile - 32% for Sanders, with second placed Buttigieg on 17%.

    The other shows a closer battle, but again, Sanders first, Buttigieg second: 24% vs 15%.

    There is a lot of moderate vote for Buttigieg to squeeze. Whether it's enough is another matter altogether.
    There is a new Emerson poll out for New Hampshire following the Iowa caucuses

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,141
    edited February 5
    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited February 5

    I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

    First post Iowa poll has Buttigieg getting 8% of Hispanics and 4% of African Am.

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/73jqd6u5mv/econTabReport.pdf

    And we saw in the heavy minority Iowa precincts Sanders scooping the vote but Buttigieg getting none.

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,675
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    I don't think that @rottenborough has any influence on the eventual winner.

    However, he forecast Iowa correctly, And you forecast it wrongly. Take it like a man.
    Thanks!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,368
    edited February 5
    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
    The Foreign Office has previously advised against all but essential travel to China and against all travel to Huabei province, that might turn into advice against all travel to the whole country if that is correct
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,104
    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
    I think the Chinese figures are probably fairly accurate, particularly the fatalities.

    The difficulty in calculating the Case Fatality Rate is the denominator. The median time to death from first symptoms in the original report was 14 days. With the unknown number of mild infections, we do not know the diagnostic rate. The number of cases confirmed and the number of deaths doubling every 4 days, makes the denominator difficult to define.

    I reckon the 2% figure is in the right ballpark.

  • glwglw Posts: 6,012
    HYUFD said:
    Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

    It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

    * And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    Foxy said:

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
    I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.
    Presently the state of play is:

    Bernie can't win the nomination.
    Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
    Biden can't win the nomination.
    Warren can't win the nomination.
    Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
    Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

    No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

    They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.
  • I think this is a mistake Mike. I'll be very surprised if someone other than Sanders or Warren wins NH. They are neighboring state Senators and New Hampshire's 'Live Free or Die' motto ties nicely to Sanders
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 25,242
    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If only posting on PB made such a difference, we wouldn’t be stuck with such a bozo as our PM.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,675
    edited February 5
    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    Well, I am awash with red on the non-Democratic senator from Vermont.

    But he would lose against Trump and lose badly.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,141
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
    I think the Chinese figures are probably fairly accurate, particularly the fatalities.

    The difficulty in calculating the Case Fatality Rate is the denominator. The median time to death from first symptoms in the original report was 14 days. With the unknown number of mild infections, we do not know the diagnostic rate. The number of cases confirmed and the number of deaths doubling every 4 days, makes the denominator difficult to define.

    I reckon the 2% figure is in the right ballpark.
    Let’s all hope you’re right!
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
    The official figures in China is 2%, but from cases outside of China it's 0.5%.
    If the real figure in China is not 2 but 16% that makes it more weird and alarming.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,675
    speedy2 said:

    Foxy said:

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
    I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.
    Presently the state of play is:

    Bernie can't win the nomination.
    Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
    Biden can't win the nomination.
    Warren can't win the nomination.
    Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
    Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

    No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

    They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.
    Well, I'm glad I'm green to varying degrees on all but Bernie. Buttigieg is a big pay day, as is Klobucher.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,104
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
    I think the Chinese figures are probably fairly accurate, particularly the fatalities.

    The difficulty in calculating the Case Fatality Rate is the denominator. The median time to death from first symptoms in the original report was 14 days. With the unknown number of mild infections, we do not know the diagnostic rate. The number of cases confirmed and the number of deaths doubling every 4 days, makes the denominator difficult to define.

    I reckon the 2% figure is in the right ballpark.
    Let’s all hope you’re right!
    I would rather be very pessimistic!

    I think this is going to escape containment over the next months, though slowing this as far as possible is worthwhile. It is a race against time. Improving weather in the Northern hemisphere may help. It will peak at some point, but not showing much sign yet.
  • phiw said:

    Quincel said:

    phiw said:

    In other news, the CNN Town Hall format looks to be more interesting tomorrow than tonight:

    Wednesday, February 5:
    Former Vice President Joe Biden
    Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
    Businessman Andrew Yang
    Businessman Tom Steyer

    Thursday, February 6:
    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders
    Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
    Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar
    Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

    Much as I like Deval Patrick, what's he doing on the stage? Has he ever polled even 5% in a single poll in a single state? He is currently on 46 1st pref votes in Iowa.
    I think these town hall events aren't actually part of the official debate lineup, so CNN can invite whoever they want.
    Deval Patrick is also a former MA Governor - NH is his best chance of getting any traction (I suspect he will come fifth and drop out though)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,104
    edited February 5
    speedy2 said:

    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
    The official figures in China is 2%, but from cases outside of China it's 0.5%.
    If the real figure in China is not 2 but 16% that makes it more weird and alarming.
    It is a fast moving scenario, but yesterday there were 2 fatalities in 146 cases outside China, so greater than 0.5%

    Obviously this is a small sample size subject to random effects, but also those 146 are early in the disease process, there are not yet 144 survivors, not yet at any rate.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,026
    speedy2 said:

    Foxy said:

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
    I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.
    Presently the state of play is:

    Bernie can't win the nomination.
    Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
    Biden can't win the nomination.
    Warren can't win the nomination.
    Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
    Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

    No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

    They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.
    At least three of those can win the nomination. Bernie Sanders looks like the single most likely to me at present, simply because his opponents are divided and look set to remain so.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,211
    glw said:

    HYUFD said:
    Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

    It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

    * And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.
    Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489
    rcs1000 said:

    The most likely New Hampshire result is a Sanders win. But it's far from certain. Sanders is polling something in the 20s, and that's probably where he'll end up. I reckon there's probably a 75% chance that he does it. (It is, after all, one of the most reliably pro-Sanders states in the country.) I think Sanders will get 29% in NH.

    But Buttigieg - even before the Iowa caucuses - had begin to reverse his decline there. The big question is how much of the Biden / Bloomberg / Other Moderate goes his way in NH. My guess is that Buttigieg gets 25%.

    We also shouldn't discount a decent Warren performance. I think she'll also make the 20s - I'd guess 22%.

    And Biden will trail in fourth. Again.

    We next come to Nevada. Now, the latest poll from A- rated Suffolk last month, has Biden 19%, Sanders 18%, Warren 11%, Buttigieg 8%. The question becomes support Biden loses and where it goes. And also, does Buttigieg have a great caucus organisation in Nevada? If he does, he might beat Biden again. Three losses out of three for Biden... would that be terminal?

    Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire to have a shot at the Presidency. But if he does, and it's probably no worse than a one-in-four shot, then he really does have a chance. The Biden campaign is poorly organised and poorly funded. It could easily implode if it fails in both New Hampshire and Nevada.

    I must say, I’ve been very impressed by your analysis of the race. This seems very objective too.

    My sense is that Buttigieg will run Sanders close all the way to the nomination, but that Sanders will get it, and then Trump will beat Sanders.

    I don’t yet know how Bloomberg will feature in that but I’m not currently seeing how he’ll bloom (fnar fnar) out of thin air come Super Tuesday.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,104
    speedy2 said:

    Foxy said:

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
    I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.
    Presently the state of play is:

    Bernie can't win the nomination.
    Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
    Biden can't win the nomination.
    Warren can't win the nomination.
    Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
    Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

    No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

    They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.
    I would disagree. Any of those six can win the nomination, though not all equally likely.

    I reckon it is about 2/1 Bernie, 3/1 Pete, 4/1 Liz, 5/1 other, but the value and momentum is on Pete. I reckon Bernie has a low ceiling and is at it already.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,297
    phiw said:

    rpjs said:

    phiw said:

    Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

    Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

    Be a bit embarrassing in his own state! Do you have write-ins in ID though?
    We do have write-ins in Indiana, but from what I can tell, not for Primaries:

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Guide.FINAL.pdf

    "A person may not be a write-in candidate during a primary election or for a party office, such as precinct committeeman or state convention delegate." p.4
    From Wikipedia, it looks like Indiana, has a lot of candadits not on the ballot yet, I suspect that there dates for getting on the ballot are latter than other states.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Ballot_access
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,139

    speedy2 said:

    Foxy said:

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
    I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.
    Presently the state of play is:

    Bernie can't win the nomination.
    Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
    Biden can't win the nomination.
    Warren can't win the nomination.
    Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
    Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

    No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

    They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.
    At least three of those can win the nomination. Bernie Sanders looks like the single most likely to me at present, simply because his opponents are divided and look set to remain so.
    Three Dems fighting for the nomination have the look of you, I and OGH fighting over who gets first dibs on the hairbrush.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 30,675
    rcs1000 said:

    The most likely New Hampshire result is a Sanders win. But it's far from certain. Sanders is polling something in the 20s, and that's probably where he'll end up. I reckon there's probably a 75% chance that he does it. (It is, after all, one of the most reliably pro-Sanders states in the country.) I think Sanders will get 29% in NH.

    But Buttigieg - even before the Iowa caucuses - had begin to reverse his decline there. The big question is how much of the Biden / Bloomberg / Other Moderate goes his way in NH. My guess is that Buttigieg gets 25%.

    We also shouldn't discount a decent Warren performance. I think she'll also make the 20s - I'd guess 22%.

    And Biden will trail in fourth. Again.

    We next come to Nevada. Now, the latest poll from A- rated Suffolk last month, has Biden 19%, Sanders 18%, Warren 11%, Buttigieg 8%. The question becomes support Biden loses and where it goes. And also, does Buttigieg have a great caucus organisation in Nevada? If he does, he might beat Biden again. Three losses out of three for Biden... would that be terminal?

    Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire to have a shot at the Presidency. But if he does, and it's probably no worse than a one-in-four shot, then he really does have a chance. The Biden campaign is poorly organised and poorly funded. It could easily implode if it fails in both New Hampshire and Nevada.


    Buttigieg's operation in Nevada is ready. Will it matter in 2020?

    "He has twelve offices across the state -- including in rural Fallon and Pahrump -- and 55 organizers and operatives on the ground here. The former mayor has also been on air in the state since December and notched nine total trips to the Silver State, including to the Las Vegas area on Saturday."

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/11/politics/buttigieg-nevada-2020-election/index.html

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489
    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
    I’m not an expert on Chinese culture (obviously) but one thing I consistently hear is the importance of “Face”.

    What does that mean here?

    It probably means that the Chinese Government wants to be seen by the RoW (and, very unsaid, its own citizens) as both competent and in control. There’s also probably a secondary concern there about not bringing its own culture and sanitary standards into disrepute.

    So, could the real death rate and incidence of occurrence possibly be higher than declared?

    Absolutely, but it’s harder and harder to camouflage as the days go by, and particularly as the rest of the world grasps its own data.

    So, my guess would be they probably downplayed it at the beginning, are now tacking toward the truth and focusing on being seen to have a grip on it, hence the widely released media pics of quick new hospitals, and the like.

    They may shortly adopt more ruthless containment methods as it won’t be long before they start to worry principally about China being semi-isolated and its economic growth choked off.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,125
    I wonder if Buttigieg fares better if he:

    a) wins NH, thus picking up much-needed momentum going into Nevada, SC and Super Tuesday; or
    b) finishes comfortably second but waaaaaaay behind Bernie, thus finally jolting the DNC senior bods into action and making Biden and others pull out and endorse him.

    Probably a). Because I don't get the impression that the DNC is anywhere near ruthless or organised enough to make b) a winning strategy.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,104

    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:



    A death rate of 16% for a disease that transmits like the common cold would be devastating for civilization.

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.
    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

    Did anyone seriously thing there were only a few dozen deaths, when they were building a hospital in a week, and using medical incinerators as makeshift crematoria?
    I’m not an expert on Chinese culture (obviously) but one thing I consistently hear is the importance of “Face”.

    What does that mean here?

    It probably means that the Chinese Government wants to be seen by the RoW (and, very unsaid, its own citizens) as both competent and in control. There’s also probably a secondary concern there about not bringing its own culture and sanitary standards into disrepute.

    So, could the real death rate and incidence of occurrence possibly be higher than declared?

    Absolutely, but it’s harder and harder to camouflage as the days go by, and particularly as the rest of the world grasps its own data.

    So, my guess would be they probably downplayed it at the beginning, are now tacking toward the truth and focusing on being seen to have a grip on it, hence the widely released media pics of quick new hospitals, and the like.

    They may shortly adopt more ruthless containment methods as it won’t be long before they start to worry principally about China being semi-isolated and its economic growth choked off.
    I think China has been unusually open and honest about it all, from the notification to the WHO on 31st Dec onwards. Some of their containment methods are a bit draconian, but from a containment perspective, that is probably a good thing.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,991
    speedy2 said:

    Foxy said:

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
    I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.
    Presently the state of play is:

    Bernie can't win the nomination.
    Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
    Biden can't win the nomination.
    Warren can't win the nomination.
    Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
    Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

    No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

    They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.
    Clinton (Bill) was once one of the 7 dwarfs.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,139

    speedy2 said:

    Foxy said:

    speedy2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Great header. May I be permitted to blow my own trumpet briefly and point out that I have been predicting that Buttigieg would be the big surprise in Iowa and generally?

    Yes as you have been pulling your head out trying to stop Bernie getting the nomination for months
    If the requirement was to stop Bernie it succeeded, but at the probable cost of no one being able to be the nominee before the convention, thus Trump probably wins reelection over a weak and divided democratic party.
    I think the wheels fall off Bernie fairly soon. The old guys are simply too old. That is where my money is.
    Presently the state of play is:

    Bernie can't win the nomination.
    Buttigieg can't win the nomination.
    Biden can't win the nomination.
    Warren can't win the nomination.
    Klobuchar can't win the nomination.
    Bloomberg can't win the nomination.

    No one can win the nomination yet someone has to.

    They presently are all like warlords with their tiny factions unable to win a civil war.
    Clinton (Bill) was once one of the 7 dwarfs.
    I’m told he blew his entry.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,309
    edited February 5
    A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

    Fianna Fáil: 53
    Fine Gael: 38
    Sinn Féin: 28
    Labour Party: 8
    Green Party: 14
    Social Democrats: 3
    Sol-PBP: 2
    Others: 14

    80 needed for a majority.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

    [To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,139

    A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

    Fianna Fáil: 53
    Fine Gael: 38
    Sinn Féin: 28
    Labour Party: 8
    Green Party: 14
    Social Democrats: 3
    Sol-PBP: 2
    Others: 14

    80 needed for a majority.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

    [To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

    That Parliament would be better hung than Dirk Diggler. It would surely have to be FF and SF in some sort of pact?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,309
    ydoethur said:

    A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

    Fianna Fáil: 53
    Fine Gael: 38
    Sinn Féin: 28
    Labour Party: 8
    Green Party: 14
    Social Democrats: 3
    Sol-PBP: 2
    Others: 14

    80 needed for a majority.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

    [To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

    That Parliament would be better hung than Dirk Diggler. It would surely have to be FF and SF in some sort of pact?
    More likely FF/Green/Lab plus perhaps an Indy or two, or an FF-led minority government with tacit FG support in some way.

    But yes, this is going to be messy.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,141
    ydoethur said:

    A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

    Fianna Fáil: 53
    Fine Gael: 38
    Sinn Féin: 28
    Labour Party: 8
    Green Party: 14
    Social Democrats: 3
    Sol-PBP: 2
    Others: 14

    80 needed for a majority.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

    [To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

    That Parliament would be better hung than Dirk Diggler. It would surely have to be FF and SF in some sort of pact?
    Or some sort of unity government to shut out the Shinners.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 80,765
    edited February 5
    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.



    Edit - Quite like this take

  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,125
    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    HYUFD said:
    Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

    It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

    * And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.
    Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.
    I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.
  • glwglw Posts: 6,012

    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

    Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,800
    My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,800

    A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

    Fianna Fáil: 53
    Fine Gael: 38
    Sinn Féin: 28
    Labour Party: 8
    Green Party: 14
    Social Democrats: 3
    Sol-PBP: 2
    Others: 14

    80 needed for a majority.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

    [To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

    SF probably don't have enough candidates to take advantage of the polling
  • phiwphiw Posts: 32
    BigRich said:

    phiw said:

    rpjs said:

    phiw said:

    Here in the Great State of Indiana, I noticed that Pete isn't officially on the Primary ballot yet:

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Filings - Feb 4 2020.pdf

    Presumably they're still processing the nomination signatures?

    Be a bit embarrassing in his own state! Do you have write-ins in ID though?
    We do have write-ins in Indiana, but from what I can tell, not for Primaries:

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2020 Candidate Guide.FINAL.pdf

    "A person may not be a write-in candidate during a primary election or for a party office, such as precinct committeeman or state convention delegate." p.4
    From Wikipedia, it looks like Indiana, has a lot of candadits not on the ballot yet, I suspect that there dates for getting on the ballot are latter than other states.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Ballot_access
    I think you're right, maybe we'll know by next week?

    https://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/brochure.pdf

    "Tuesday, January 28, 2020
    DEADLINE, by noon, for a major political party candidate for President to file a petition of nomination with a county voter registration office for verification of petition signatures. "

    "Friday, February 7, 2020
    DEADLINE, by noon, Indianapolis time, for major party candidate for President or Governor to file a declaration of candidacy and petitions for placement on the primary election ballot with the election division following certification of petition signatures by county voter registration offices."
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489
    Pulpstar said:

    My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

    What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,139
    glw said:

    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

    Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.
    I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 25,309
    Pulpstar said:

    SF probably don't have enough candidates to take advantage of the polling

    No they don't (they are fielding 42 candidates in all), but even allowing for that, an extra 5 on 2016 looks meagre for a vote-share increase from 13.8% last time to the 20% to 25% shown in the last three polls.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690
    edited February 5
    Endillion said:

    I wonder if Buttigieg fares better if he:

    a) wins NH, thus picking up much-needed momentum going into Nevada, SC and Super Tuesday; or
    b) finishes comfortably second but waaaaaaay behind Bernie, thus finally jolting the DNC senior bods into action and making Biden and others pull out and endorse him.

    Probably a). Because I don't get the impression that the DNC is anywhere near ruthless or organised enough to make b) a winning strategy.

    The DNC will be mindful that thus far, for all their failings, both Biden and Sanders have been consistently polling better in a presidential election v Trump than has Buttigieg.
  • ydoethur said:

    glw said:

    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

    Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.
    I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.
    I reckon it was a bet gone wrong.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,141
    edited February 5


    Amazingly no fatalities reported so far. They were bloody lucky. Two planes before them went around due to gusting winds, it looks like these guys landed 2/3 of the way down the wet runway and overran.

    Second accident in a month for Pagasus, and third in a year for the airline at Istanbul, commentators on the pilot forum suggesting the airline don’t deserve to have an operating licence!
    https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/629449-pegasus-accident-saw-just-reported-3.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,139

    ydoethur said:

    glw said:

    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

    Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.
    I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.
    I reckon it was a bet gone wrong.
    What - as in, Gonville and Caius say:
    ‘I bet you can’t find anyone thicker than that retard we’ve got doing a Philosphy MPhil.’

    And St John’s reply:
    ‘Hold my beer.’
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,331
    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    HYUFD said:
    Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

    It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

    * And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.
    Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.
    I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.
    I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 80,765
    edited February 5
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    glw said:

    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

    Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.
    I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.
    I reckon it was a bet gone wrong.
    What - as in, Gonville and Caius say:
    ‘I bet you can’t find anyone thicker than that retard we’ve got doing a Philosphy MPhil.’

    And St John’s reply:
    ‘Hold my beer.’
    There have been stories that colleges like to play Professor Higgins to educational Eliza Doolittles with one candidate every so often.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489
    This could be politically significant (albeit it depends on how the rest of this year plays out) - Brexit has decreased significantly in salience, and the perception of the Government’s handling of it has improved too:

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 7,991

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    HYUFD said:
    Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

    It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

    * And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.
    Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.
    I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.
    I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.
    But if that wasn't on offer and you had to choose?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,770
    rcs1000 said:

    I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

    If Buttigieg is clear second, and Biden is fourth, then he still has a chance. But it all depends on Biden continuing to destroy himself.
    Does Biden even properly understand what he’s doing. There are flashes of lucidity but he appears to be operating a lower level than he previously did (which I never felt was great).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 25,141
    A couple of tech blog discussions on Iowa’s Democrats, and their crap app:

    https://politics.slashdot.org/story/20/02/05/1343254/how-a-bad-app-plunged-iowa-into-chaos

    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/04/iowa_caucus_software/

    Apparently Nevada were due to use the same app, but have now cancelled the contract with the company, who are rather weirdly called Shadow - and unsurprisingly have lots of contacts among senior Democrats.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,139

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    glw said:

    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

    Amazing, that's even dumber than anything Corbyn was proposing just two months ago.
    I still cannot understand how he got into Cambridge.
    I reckon it was a bet gone wrong.
    What - as in, Gonville and Caius say:
    ‘I bet you can’t find anyone thicker than that retard we’ve got doing a Philosphy MPhil.’

    And St John’s reply:
    ‘Hold my beer.’
    There have been stories that colleges like to play Professor Higgins to educational Eliza Doolittles with one candidate every so often.
    Eliza Doolittle at least spoke English! In what parallel universe would anyone ever hope to be Pygmalion to Burgon’s Galatea?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 4,176
    edited February 5
    Pulpstar said:

    A detailed forecast for the Irish GE by the Political Editor of the Irish Times:

    Fianna Fáil: 53
    Fine Gael: 38
    Sinn Féin: 28
    Labour Party: 8
    Green Party: 14
    Social Democrats: 3
    Sol-PBP: 2
    Others: 14

    80 needed for a majority.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/harry-mcgee-s-final-seat-prediction-for-election-2020-1.4139708

    [To my inexpert eye he has FF and the Greens a bit high and SF a bit low, but he knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do!]

    SF probably don't have enough candidates to take advantage of the polling
    True. But they have 46 candidates, so if the polling is right, you'd expect SF to be above ~ 30.

    FF looks high -- I don't think they have been forgiven (at least not by former FF voters I know).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,800

    Pulpstar said:

    My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

    What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?
    Hah I'm probably the wrong person to ask on that as I maxed on him way higher :p
    I think they overstate his chance but I could be wrong.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

    What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?
    Hah I'm probably the wrong person to ask on that as I maxed on him way higher :p
    I think they overstate his chance but I could be wrong.
    Help me out here mate 😰
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    HYUFD said:
    Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

    It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

    * And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.
    Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.
    I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.
    I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.
    Tough call!

    I’ve had (mild) pneumonia before and it’s very very nasty.

    I understand coronavirus also attacks the lungs, and I’d be worried that it might swipe off my youngest as well as my elderly folks.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489
    I think the BBC have this wrong: I’m not sure eating garlic won’t help prevent catching coronavirus.

    I’d have thought it’d help keep other people at least a metre away:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51386894
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,800

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

    What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?
    Hah I'm probably the wrong person to ask on that as I maxed on him way higher :p
    I think they overstate his chance but I could be wrong.
    Help me out here mate 😰
    I'm a few thousand in a hole with him, I'll start sweating if he wins California.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 2,690

    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

    How long have we got to decide? When will the NEC publish the procedural rules applying? We'll need at least 3 months based on the pace of the process currently under way to make a much simpler decision. Will the location of the special conference be kept secret in order to avoid the location becoming a target, and if so will a quorum of 6 in a nuclear bunker suffice? Or can we fast track the process within a month under a process of tabling emergency resolutions to CLP meetings perhaps? Even better, can affiliation to the Stop the War Coalition be treated as a proxy for opposing all military interventions, anywhere, other than those initiated from the Kremlin (cf. Syria), in which case the decision can be taken before the potential for conflict has even emerged?

    Nonetheless, we shouldn't let the petty detail get in the way of recognising the genius of Burgon's idea.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 1,292

    I think the BBC have this wrong: I’m not sure eating garlic won’t help prevent catching coronavirus.

    I’d have thought it’d help keep other people at least a metre away:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51386894

    I don't believe anyone believes any of those "myths" in the first place. They should fabricate something more interesting, like that having voted Leave confers immunity.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    My sense is Bernie should be around even money at this point but I'm going to leave my book for now

    What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?
    Hah I'm probably the wrong person to ask on that as I maxed on him way higher :p
    I think they overstate his chance but I could be wrong.
    Help me out here mate 😰
    I'm a few thousand in a hole with him, I'll start sweating if he wins California.
    Me too.

    We die together, Mr. Bond!
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,162
    HYUFD said:
    FWIW, CNN interviewed numerous people at one of the caucuses, and was unable to find anyone who didn't say they'd be willing to vote for whoever the nominee was. Twitter magnifies the extremists, and then journalists pick them out because they're a better story..
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,522

    Brilliant idea by Burgon, the man is a visionary.

    How long have we got to decide? When will the NEC publish the procedural rules applying? We'll need at least 3 months based on the pace of the process currently under way to make a much simpler decision. Will the location of the special conference be kept secret in order to avoid the location becoming a target, and if so will a quorum of 6 in a nuclear bunker suffice? Or can we fast track the process within a month under a process of tabling emergency resolutions to CLP meetings perhaps? Even better, can affiliation to the Stop the War Coalition be treated as a proxy for opposing all military interventions, anywhere, other than those initiated from the Kremlin (cf. Syria), in which case the decision can be taken before the potential for conflict has even emerged?

    Nonetheless, we shouldn't let the petty detail get in the way of recognising the genius of Burgon's idea.
    He truly is an embarrassment. Perhaps we should start a campaign to investigate how he got a degree... Cambridge have some questions to answer. Affirmative action clearly went too far with letting him study there.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,489
    IshmaelZ said:

    I think the BBC have this wrong: I’m not sure eating garlic won’t help prevent catching coronavirus.

    I’d have thought it’d help keep other people at least a metre away:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51386894

    I don't believe anyone believes any of those "myths" in the first place. They should fabricate something more interesting, like that having voted Leave confers immunity.
    It was a joke.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,331

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    HYUFD said:
    Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

    It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

    * And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.
    Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.
    I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.
    I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.
    But if that wasn't on offer and you had to choose?
    It depends upon my mood at the time. I wrote woops.....my wife caught me not working.....awky mo mo xxxxx
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 26,139

    Nonetheless, we shouldn't let the petty detail get in the way of recognising the genius of Burgon's idea.

    Well yes, it is an idea of pure genius.

    You wonder which of his Tory handlers came up with it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 30,331

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

    HYUFD said:
    Exactly what I was talking about on the previous thread. We saw the same thing in 2016 with Sanders supporters regarding Clinton. So we have Democrats already saying "I won't vote for him or her", although that said I do think many of these proclamations are made in bad faith by people who were going to vote Trump anyway.

    It costs practically nothing to amplify these divisive arguments between party faithful, and when it is essentially consequence free why wouldn't the Russians* do it?

    * And not just the Russians, when you can mess with US democracy for peanuts and without fear a lot of states might want in on the action.
    Had I a vote, if the Democrats picked a ham sandwich, it would get it.
    I would vote for the ham sandwich over Trump, but Trump over Sanders.
    I'd rather get coronavirus than a Trump or Sanders Presidency.
    But if that wasn't on offer and you had to choose?
    It depends upon my mood. I wrote previously on another site my order of preference:

    Mayor Pete
    Anyone but Warren/Sanders
    Anyone primary-challenging Trump
    Asteroid Strike
    Warren/Sanders
    Alien Attack
    Trump


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,510

    I don't think Pete Buttigieg needs to win New Hampshire. He does, however, need to establish himself as the clear leading moderate. For all the reasons Mike gives, he has a good chance of doing just that. He may be a better bet at current prices for the Democrat nomination than to win New Hampshire.

    Focus groups and polling says that Black voters have concerns about Mayor Peter's electabilty due to being gay.

    As in, they are not voting against him because he is gay but but because they are worried the rest of America won't vote for him because he is gay.

    Andidate Electabilty seems to be the primary concern of African American primary voters.
This discussion has been closed.