Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whoever ends up winning Iowa the WH2020 Dem nomination battle

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whoever ends up winning Iowa the WH2020 Dem nomination battle is now framed as between Bernie and Buttigieg

Although the Iowa result has not yet been finalised and it might be a few days before we know, there’s little doubt that what happened on Monday will have a major impact on the race from here. We are already seeing this in polls for the New Hampshire Primary which takes place next Tuesday.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    First, by dint of leaving the page and having to come back to it!
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,667
    Second then!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,093
    edited February 2020
    Turd.

    Ooops third.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    I think they should go for Un Decided, a great candidate.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    No, no, no.

    It's Nevada after New Hampshire. And then South Carolina last of all.

    There's eleven days between New Hampshire on the 11th and Nevada on the 22nd. Then South Carolina is on the 29th. Super Tuesday follows on March 3.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Anyone but Bloomberg thanks
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Yesterday there were Suffolk, Emerson and Monmouth polls. They showed Sanders leads over Buttigieg of between one point and nine points.

    However, it is worth noting that some of the Monmouth poll was carried out prior to Iowa results.

    In many ways, this Iowa thing is turning out to Buttigieg's advantage (hard though that is to believe). Simply, Iowa is being recast as a tie between Sanders and Buttigieg, and that's making the choice of Democrats stark. It's the old grumpy Socialist, or the young gay guy.

    Biden is fading everywhere. Two of the New Hampshire polls yesterday had him at just 11%. If he were to drop into single figures on Tuesday, then can he hold on in South Carolina? If he cannot, then his race is over.
  • isam said:

    isam said:

    I’m shocked. Philip Schofield comes out as gay.

    As I watched the announcement I was wondering who would be first to say they knew all along on here

    At midday it’s going to be Phil’s spit roast!



    Without thinking too much about it, I'd actually assumed Schofied was gay all along until I saw some Hello style front page featuring Phil & his lovely wife/kids/home. I literally said to myself 'you never can tell, set aside your prejudices and don't make assumptions'.
    Trust your instincts!
    My instincts with guys are usually right.

    My Lady Gadar is rubbish.
    Surely you mean your dyketector?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The only winner this week was Trump.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Should the thread header say Bloomberg is spending $200m, not $200k?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited February 2020
    11th - like Michael Bennet!
  • Pulpstar said:

    Anyone but Bloomberg thanks

    Why not Bloomberg?
    ... and does 'anyone' include Trump?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    Anyone but Bloomberg thanks

    Why not Bloomberg?
    ... and does 'anyone' include Trump?
    Does this really need further explanation on a betting website ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
  • Gabs3Gabs3 Posts: 836
    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    How is Warren flat? She has won every public office she has gone for.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    How is Warren flat? She has won every public office she has gone for.
    This is winners and losers in the last week.

    Warren is flat. If she'd been second in Iowa, she would have been a winner.
  • "Republicans used the pretense that they cared about fiscal responsibility to engage in de facto economic sabotage as long as a Democrat was in the White House. Then they abandoned the pretense and opened up the spending taps as soon as one of their own was in power."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/opinion/economy-republicans-deficit.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    isam said:

    isam said:

    I’m shocked. Philip Schofield comes out as gay.

    As I watched the announcement I was wondering who would be first to say they knew all along on here

    At midday it’s going to be Phil’s spit roast!



    Without thinking too much about it, I'd actually assumed Schofied was gay all along until I saw some Hello style front page featuring Phil & his lovely wife/kids/home. I literally said to myself 'you never can tell, set aside your prejudices and don't make assumptions'.
    Trust your instincts!
    My instincts with guys are usually right.

    My Lady Gadar is rubbish.
    Surely you mean your dyketector?
    My Lady Gadar is gaga....
  • Buttigieg:

    "In the exit polls, the fresh-faced mayor who was promising a more positive politics showed strength across rural, urban and suburban areas, as well as the 31 "pivot counties" that voted for Obama and then flipped to Trump. "

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/pete-buttigieg-iowa/index.html
  • rcs1000 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    How is Warren flat? She has won every public office she has gone for.
    This is winners and losers in the last week.

    Warren is flat. If she'd been second in Iowa, she would have been a winner.
    She has a plan for that.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    "counter terrorism" ⚠ 😣

    the room next door - Priti Patel pic.twitter.com/kwgEdJKGLr

    — Michael Spicer (@MrMichaelSpicer) February 4, 2020
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    kinabalu said:

    "counter terrorism" ⚠ 😣

    the room next door - Priti Patel pic.twitter.com/kwgEdJKGLr

    — Michael Spicer (@MrMichaelSpicer) February 4, 2020
    A nice concept, and I found it funny the first time I saw him do it... but it’s just the same joke every time isn’t it?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    How is Warren flat? She has won every public office she has gone for.
    This is winners and losers in the last week.

    Warren is flat. If she'd been second in Iowa, she would have been a winner.
    She's marginally a winner, I think, because:

    1. Her vote / SDE shares were a little better than expected, but more importantly,
    2. Sanders didn't have a clear win and because Buttigieg is surging, looks to be going backwards as against FPTP expectations in NH.

    Put simply, if Sanders is less the clear liberal / socialist candidate in the race than he was before, that leaves Warren more space.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    Bloomberg is also a winner, of sorts.

    Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
  • "What Romney did in his singular act of defiance was make clear that being a Republican means more than the current cult of personality would have you believe."

    https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/06/politics/mitt-romney-new-old-gop/index.html

    Romney 2024?
  • rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    Bloomberg is also a winner, of sorts.

    Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
    Or, a new generation is about to attempt to take the country back from Trump.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    Gabs3 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    How is Warren flat? She has won every public office she has gone for.
    This is winners and losers in the last week.

    Warren is flat. If she'd been second in Iowa, she would have been a winner.
    She's marginally a winner, I think, because:

    1. Her vote / SDE shares were a little better than expected, but more importantly,
    2. Sanders didn't have a clear win and because Buttigieg is surging, looks to be going backwards as against FPTP expectations in NH.

    Put simply, if Sanders is less the clear liberal / socialist candidate in the race than he was before, that leaves Warren more space.
    I think that's probably right. She was clear third. She won actual delegates (unlike Biden or Klobuchar).

    She's also the clear (viable) compromise candidate between Socialist Bernie and Bloomberg/Buttigieg.

    But she also has to perform in New Hampshire. If she ends up in the teens, ten points behind Sanders and Buttigieg, then she's not really gaining momentum, she's just treading water. Add to that, her Nevada operation is apparently imploding, and South Carolina is unlikely to be her state.

    So, yes, she performed better than expectations in Iowa. But her path the nomination is no easier than it was before Iowa. Flat is right.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    Bloomberg is also a winner, of sorts.

    Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
    Bloomberg is a maybe winner. His ideal result would be for the three moderates (Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar) to all end up much of a muchness in the mid-teens. What he doesn't want is a clear moderate choice emerging before Super Tuesday. And right now, Buttigieg is looking like he could be that.

    Bloomberg needs Buttigieg to perform less than brilliantly in NH. He needs him to be in the high teens, and few points above Biden. He needs the moderate vote to remain split. And right now, that's not looking very likely.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    edited February 2020
    "It’s also clear that Buttigieg’s success in Iowa has gotten him second looks up here [NH]. An event on Thursday at an American Legion hall in Merrimack was at capacity, and Buttigieg organizers had to shoo away those of us shivering in the gloomy, wet weather who were waiting to get in."


    "So, when will we know who’s going to win the nomination? Here’s my advice. Accept that this is the most unpredictable and unconventional primary campaign that we’ve seen in years (if not in memory). That means we need to stop trying to make it fit into a traditional box."

    https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/so-now-what
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    Bloomberg is also a winner, of sorts.

    Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
    Bloomberg is a maybe winner. His ideal result would be for the three moderates (Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar) to all end up much of a muchness in the mid-teens. What he doesn't want is a clear moderate choice emerging before Super Tuesday. And right now, Buttigieg is looking like he could be that.

    Bloomberg needs Buttigieg to perform less than brilliantly in NH. He needs him to be in the high teens, and few points above Biden. He needs the moderate vote to remain split. And right now, that's not looking very likely.
    Gets a bit more complicated when/if Biden cleans up in SC.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.
  • "It’s also clear that Buttigieg’s success in Iowa has gotten him second looks up here [NH]. An event on Thursday at an American Legion hall in Merrimack was at capacity, and Buttigieg organizers had to shoo away those of us shivering in the gloomy, wet weather who were waiting to get in."


    "So, when will we know who’s going to win the nomination? Here’s my advice. Accept that this is the most unpredictable and unconventional primary campaign that we’ve seen in years (if not in memory). That means we need to stop trying to make it fit into a traditional box."

    https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/so-now-what

    That's a lot of words to say: "I don't know".
  • "It’s also clear that Buttigieg’s success in Iowa has gotten him second looks up here [NH]. An event on Thursday at an American Legion hall in Merrimack was at capacity, and Buttigieg organizers had to shoo away those of us shivering in the gloomy, wet weather who were waiting to get in."


    "So, when will we know who’s going to win the nomination? Here’s my advice. Accept that this is the most unpredictable and unconventional primary campaign that we’ve seen in years (if not in memory). That means we need to stop trying to make it fit into a traditional box."

    https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/so-now-what

    That's a lot of words to say: "I don't know".
    To be fair, it's "I don't know and nor does anyone else".
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    Bloomberg is also a winner, of sorts.

    Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
    Bloomberg is a maybe winner. His ideal result would be for the three moderates (Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar) to all end up much of a muchness in the mid-teens. What he doesn't want is a clear moderate choice emerging before Super Tuesday. And right now, Buttigieg is looking like he could be that.

    Bloomberg needs Buttigieg to perform less than brilliantly in NH. He needs him to be in the high teens, and few points above Biden. He needs the moderate vote to remain split. And right now, that's not looking very likely.
    Yes, I'd agree with that.

    What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    How long will it be the EU for? Doesn’t Verhofstadt want to reorganise it into a European Empire (presumably for a safe and secure society)? ;)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    Bloomberg is also a winner, of sorts.

    Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
    Bloomberg is a maybe winner. His ideal result would be for the three moderates (Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar) to all end up much of a muchness in the mid-teens. What he doesn't want is a clear moderate choice emerging before Super Tuesday. And right now, Buttigieg is looking like he could be that.

    Bloomberg needs Buttigieg to perform less than brilliantly in NH. He needs him to be in the high teens, and few points above Biden. He needs the moderate vote to remain split. And right now, that's not looking very likely.
    Yes, I'd agree with that.

    What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?
    I wonder when..... if...... Trump starts talking about Buttigeig the subject of military service will come up.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited February 2020
    isam said:

    A nice concept, and I found it funny the first time I saw him do it... but it’s just the same joke every time isn’t it?

    Yes I'm bored with it and wouldn't normally trouble people. But I thought this was a good one. Funny but also very relatable in how somebody when out of their depth will often cling desperately to a phrase and keep using it however inappropriate. We've all done it, I would imagine. Certainly I have. Poor Priti. Imagine if it had been Diane Abbott. It would have broke the Net! 😅
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    Remainers still not accepting reality.

    We're not going back, guys......
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    Bold call - when you have no idea who the Dem candidate will be.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited February 2020
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited February 2020

    Remainers still not accepting reality.

    We're not going back, guys......
    Being a rejoiner is a different beast to merely being a remainer - given that it would likely involve joining with no rebate and abandoning the pound.

    In my opinion the Lib Dems need to be very thoughtful about how to contain their EU enthusiasms going forward.
  • rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    The midterms weren't a "Dem wave" though. The House of Representatives went against the White House following almost all modern precedence. Almost unprecedentedly the Dems went backwards in the Senate though.

    2018 was frankly not that good for the Dems. It was no miraculous Dem wave.
  • Stocky said:

    Remainers still not accepting reality.

    We're not going back, guys......
    Being a rejoiner is a different beast to merely being a remainer - given that it would likely involve joining with no rebate and abandoning the pound.

    In my opinion the Lib Dems need to be very thoughtful about how to contain their EU enthusiasms going forward.
    Euroenthusiasts now need to pivot to rejoining the EEA. The EU is simply not happening but the EEA is achievable for them.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    edited February 2020
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A nice concept, and I found it funny the first time I saw him do it... but it’s just the same joke every time isn’t it?

    Yes I'm bored with it and wouldn't normally trouble people. But I thought this was a good one. Funny but also very relatable in how somebody when out of their depth will often cling desperately to a phrase and keep using it however inappropriate. We've all done it, I would imagine. Certainly I have. Poor Priti. Imagine if it had been Diane Abbott. It would have broke the Net! 😅
    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXxjQpEYqM
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?

    We don't know.

    He has claws, we know that. His response to Warren over the wine dinner affair was brutal and brilliant. It lost him votes, sure, but it also made it clear that he would strike back. (Warren undoubtedly lost as much, if not more, than him from the exchange.)

    But he's also wonderfully clean cut, and wholesome, and really not that threatening to moderate Republicans. He's a veteran, who's at home talking about his faith, and who isn't going to take away your healthcare.

    On the debate stage, he hasn't frozen up: he's been calm and collected and articulate. And he's steadily climbed in the "could you vote for this man" stakes as the contest has lengthened.

    But he's still a long way from the nomination. He needs Klobuchar to drop out after New Hampshire, and ideally endorse him. He needs Biden to flop in both NH and then in Nevada, and for the Biden funding taps to dry up. He ideally needs to start eating into Bloomberg's 10+% national poll shares.

    He could win. He's certainly better value than 1-in-10. But he's far from certain.
  • We are now starting to see the delta opening up between Remainers (45-50%) and Rejoiners (25-30%).

    Of course, the stability of those percentages depends on an orderly implementation of a UK-EU FTA that leads to pan-European stability with no significant impact on people’s day to day lives in the short-medium term.

    The rejoin argument will get harder to make in the longer term because it will become a political one, rather than a political and economic one, so it would depend on a mass shift in values amongst the electorate at large.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    Bloomberg is also a winner, of sorts.

    Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
    Bloomberg is a maybe winner. His ideal result would be for the three moderates (Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar) to all end up much of a muchness in the mid-teens. What he doesn't want is a clear moderate choice emerging before Super Tuesday. And right now, Buttigieg is looking like he could be that.

    Bloomberg needs Buttigieg to perform less than brilliantly in NH. He needs him to be in the high teens, and few points above Biden. He needs the moderate vote to remain split. And right now, that's not looking very likely.
    Gets a bit more complicated when/if Biden cleans up in SC.
    That’s the big unknown for me.

    SC can perform very differently so I’m keeping (just) onside of Biden at the moment.
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
  • isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A nice concept, and I found it funny the first time I saw him do it... but it’s just the same joke every time isn’t it?

    Yes I'm bored with it and wouldn't normally trouble people. But I thought this was a good one. Funny but also very relatable in how somebody when out of their depth will often cling desperately to a phrase and keep using it however inappropriate. We've all done it, I would imagine. Certainly I have. Poor Priti. Imagine if it had been Diane Abbott. It would have broke the Net! 😅
    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXxjQpEYqM
    Is that Nicola Murray?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    The midterms weren't a "Dem wave" though. The House of Representatives went against the White House following almost all modern precedence. Almost unprecedentedly the Dems went backwards in the Senate though.

    2018 was frankly not that good for the Dems. It was no miraculous Dem wave.
    While that's true, they also had an incredibly difficult set of Senate elections to defend.

    West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and North Dakota were all Democrat held states that Trump had carried two years earlier. To hold two of these, and to win Arizona (which also voted Trump) was objectively a good performance.

    In absolute number of votes, the Dems got almost 20 percent more than that previous mid-term record. That's pretty extraordinary.
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Because you will never be the political insurgents. All you can so is stage impotent marches in London. Personally, I think it's not fair to deny 48% a voice in government, but the calculation has been made that your bark is worse than your bite.
  • Stocky said:

    Remainers still not accepting reality.

    We're not going back, guys......
    Being a rejoiner is a different beast to merely being a remainer - given that it would likely involve joining with no rebate and abandoning the pound.

    In my opinion the Lib Dems need to be very thoughtful about how to contain their EU enthusiasms going forward.
    The Liberal Democrats have tried two elections being the most europhile party in town.

    It hasn’t worked for them.

    I’m not sure I see much evidence they won’t try it a third time. They’d be better working on their unique USP for liberalism.

    There’s plenty of material for them to work on.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    The midterms weren't a "Dem wave" though. The House of Representatives went against the White House following almost all modern precedence. Almost unprecedentedly the Dems went backwards in the Senate though.

    2018 was frankly not that good for the Dems. It was no miraculous Dem wave.
    While that's true, they also had an incredibly difficult set of Senate elections to defend.

    West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and North Dakota were all Democrat held states that Trump had carried two years earlier. To hold two of these, and to win Arizona (which also voted Trump) was objectively a good performance.

    In absolute number of votes, the Dems got almost 20 percent more than that previous mid-term record. That's pretty extraordinary.
    Not that extraordinary necessarily. Trump gained those states from opposition but the GOP were then defending them in office. The tradition is for the WH opposition party to do well in midterms etc so I don't think it was that objectively a good performance. They could have at least stayed still if not made a gain or two.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    What about the minority who think that? Don't they deserve representation too?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Jonathan said:

    The only winner this week was Trump.

    Trump is a winner.

    Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.

    Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.

    Buttigieg is a winner.

    And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
    Bloomberg is also a winner, of sorts.

    Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
    Bloomberg is a maybe winner. His ideal result would be for the three moderates (Buttigieg, Biden and Klobuchar) to all end up much of a muchness in the mid-teens. What he doesn't want is a clear moderate choice emerging before Super Tuesday. And right now, Buttigieg is looking like he could be that.

    Bloomberg needs Buttigieg to perform less than brilliantly in NH. He needs him to be in the high teens, and few points above Biden. He needs the moderate vote to remain split. And right now, that's not looking very likely.
    Gets a bit more complicated when/if Biden cleans up in SC.
    If Biden is fourth in New Hampshire, and gets no delegates.
    And is fourth in Nevada, and gets no delegates.

    Then will he really clean up in South Carolina?

    He's already behind in the money race, where Sanders leads Buttigieg, who's ahead of Warren... and then there's a long, long gap down to Biden.

    Biden ended December with less than $9m on hand. If he's not getting much in the way of new donations, then he's going to run out before South Carolina.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A nice concept, and I found it funny the first time I saw him do it... but it’s just the same joke every time isn’t it?

    Yes I'm bored with it and wouldn't normally trouble people. But I thought this was a good one. Funny but also very relatable in how somebody when out of their depth will often cling desperately to a phrase and keep using it however inappropriate. We've all done it, I would imagine. Certainly I have. Poor Priti. Imagine if it had been Diane Abbott. It would have broke the Net! 😅
    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXxjQpEYqM
    Is that Nicola Murray?
    Rebecca Front... she does play Nicola Murray, yes.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited February 2020

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Well - I`m not sure that leavers are that worried to be honest.

    I was a 55% Remain voter - and disliked being regarded as a "remainer" as the decision was a fine one for me - but am unlikely ever to be a "rejoiner".

    As a LibDem supporter I feel that their recovery will be hampered by going down a rabbit hole on this. Being an internationalist party does not require EU membership after all.
  • Stocky said:

    Remainers still not accepting reality.

    We're not going back, guys......
    Being a rejoiner is a different beast to merely being a remainer - given that it would likely involve joining with no rebate and abandoning the pound.

    In my opinion the Lib Dems need to be very thoughtful about how to contain their EU enthusiasms going forward.
    Euroenthusiasts now need to pivot to rejoining the EEA. The EU is simply not happening but the EEA is achievable for them.
    That’s probably correct.

    I think it’s even more likely that a future Lab/Lab-SNP or Lab-LD-SNP simply sign us up to more EU programmes, with associated contributions, and align our regulations/laws domestically more closely with theirs.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    Bold call - when you have no idea who the Dem candidate will be.
    Indeed. Her take is that with the exception of Biden, she doesn't think it matters who the Dems nominate. She reckons Biden is risky as he is the most "status quo" compared to Trump's insurgency.
  • MaxPB said:

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Because you will never be the political insurgents. All you can so is stage impotent marches in London. Personally, I think it's not fair to deny 48% a voice in government, but the calculation has been made that your bark is worse than your bite.
    Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    The midterms weren't a "Dem wave" though. The House of Representatives went against the White House following almost all modern precedence. Almost unprecedentedly the Dems went backwards in the Senate though.

    2018 was frankly not that good for the Dems. It was no miraculous Dem wave.
    While that's true, they also had an incredibly difficult set of Senate elections to defend.

    West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and North Dakota were all Democrat held states that Trump had carried two years earlier. To hold two of these, and to win Arizona (which also voted Trump) was objectively a good performance.

    In absolute number of votes, the Dems got almost 20 percent more than that previous mid-term record. That's pretty extraordinary.
    Not that extraordinary necessarily. Trump gained those states from opposition but the GOP were then defending them in office. The tradition is for the WH opposition party to do well in midterms etc so I don't think it was that objectively a good performance. They could have at least stayed still if not made a gain or two.
    The Florida performance for the Republicans was excellent.

    But Indiana and North Dakota? Those are like Republicans holding Hawaii or Oregon.

    I would take a step back and look at the absolute number of House votes cast for the Democrats against every other mid-term in history. It was twenty percent higher. That's pretty amazing.

    I think this video is an excellent explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfKhhBXJkQo
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    Because continuing to advocate EU membership is is a very minority pursuit doomed to be unpopular not because we think it will work.
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.

    Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    You obviously don't realise just how scared we were when Prime Minister Swinson was promising to cancel Brexit. It would be far too stressful to relive that under Prime Minister Moran.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    isam said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    A nice concept, and I found it funny the first time I saw him do it... but it’s just the same joke every time isn’t it?

    Yes I'm bored with it and wouldn't normally trouble people. But I thought this was a good one. Funny but also very relatable in how somebody when out of their depth will often cling desperately to a phrase and keep using it however inappropriate. We've all done it, I would imagine. Certainly I have. Poor Priti. Imagine if it had been Diane Abbott. It would have broke the Net! 😅
    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXxjQpEYqM
    Is that Nicola Murray?
    Rebecca Front... she does play Nicola Murray, yes.
    Rebecca Front is one of Armando Iannucci`s regulars.
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    Because continuing to advocate EU membership is is a very minority pursuit doomed to be unpopular not because we think it will work.
    The public on balance thinks the whole Brexit thing was a mistake. You may wish otherwise but your wishes don't come true.

    You can have your own views, even if your views are as nutty as squirrel shit. You don't get to tell your opponents what their views should be.
  • MaxPB said:

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Because you will never be the political insurgents. All you can so is stage impotent marches in London. Personally, I think it's not fair to deny 48% a voice in government, but the calculation has been made that your bark is worse than your bite.
    I have no problem with the Liberal Democrats fishing in the 25% pool of rejoiners, and Labour fishing in that same pool and the 25% pool on top who were ex-Remainers.

    I just don’t think it’s going to be very successful for them in garnering extra votes. I suspect they’d get about 15%, as Labour would squeeze it in a general and get 35%+.

    But, it’s no skin off my nose. I’ve little personal interest in the electoral success of the Liberal Democrats.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    Oh yes. Now we're talking. She sounds like the bees knees.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    Because continuing to advocate EU membership is is a very minority pursuit doomed to be unpopular not because we think it will work.
    The public on balance thinks the whole Brexit thing was a mistake. You may wish otherwise but your wishes don't come true.

    You can have your own views, even if your views are as nutty as squirrel shit. You don't get to tell your opponents what their views should be.
    That sounds awfully like "We won the argument"
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    Because continuing to advocate EU membership is is a very minority pursuit doomed to be unpopular not because we think it will work.
    The public on balance thinks the whole Brexit thing was a mistake. You may wish otherwise but your wishes don't come true.

    You can have your own views, even if your views are as nutty as squirrel shit. You don't get to tell your opponents what their views should be.
    Haven't you spent most of the last 3½ years telling leavers that their views are wrong?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    rcs1000 said:

    What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?

    We don't know.

    He has claws, we know that. His response to Warren over the wine dinner affair was brutal and brilliant. It lost him votes, sure, but it also made it clear that he would strike back. (Warren undoubtedly lost as much, if not more, than him from the exchange.)

    But he's also wonderfully clean cut, and wholesome, and really not that threatening to moderate Republicans. He's a veteran, who's at home talking about his faith, and who isn't going to take away your healthcare.

    On the debate stage, he hasn't frozen up: he's been calm and collected and articulate. And he's steadily climbed in the "could you vote for this man" stakes as the contest has lengthened.

    But he's still a long way from the nomination. He needs Klobuchar to drop out after New Hampshire, and ideally endorse him. He needs Biden to flop in both NH and then in Nevada, and for the Biden funding taps to dry up. He ideally needs to start eating into Bloomberg's 10+% national poll shares.

    He could win. He's certainly better value than 1-in-10. But he's far from certain.
    Is there an issue re the bigoted vote if he becomes the candidate. With Obama the bigoted vote could be cancelled by an increase in the black vote (was it? I don't know the stats) whereas there could be an anti gay vote, particularly from some of the fundamentalist Christians, without an upside. Or are we assuming this vote is almost all lost anyway to Trump regardless and the example the other day on the TV at the caucus is a very small minority.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    Because continuing to advocate EU membership is is a very minority pursuit doomed to be unpopular not because we think it will work.
    You don't get to tell your opponents what their views should be.
    Isn't that precisely what everyone in politics does do? 'You should be doing X/You should not believe Y/leavers should reach out to remainers/remainers should give up'. Who among us has not done that? Not you or me for starters.
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.

    Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
    The Lib Dems are in a far better position strategically at the next election than at the last two. When I get time, I'll do a thread header on this.

    They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the next Labour leader is likely to be much less polarising than the current one. That means that the Tories shouting about the risk of letting Labour in is likely to be much less effective than it was last time around.

    Right now the Conservatives have the field to themselves as both the Lib Dems and Labour regroup. My advice to both of those parties would be to hold their nerve and to be true to their values.

    Rank and file Conservatives are drawing exactly the wrong lesson from the last election. They are mistaking hatred of Jeremy Corbyn for adoration of Brexit. If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.

  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited February 2020

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    Because continuing to advocate EU membership is is a very minority pursuit doomed to be unpopular not because we think it will work.
    The public on balance thinks the whole Brexit thing was a mistake. You may wish otherwise but your wishes don't come true.

    You can have your own views, even if your views are as nutty as squirrel shit. You don't get to tell your opponents what their views should be.
    I too suspect that the majority were against leaving (mostly on pragmatic grounds). But this can`t be evidenced anywhere near as decisively as the evidence provided by the referendum (which IMO should never have happened) - and you can`t extend these (our) suspicions to argue that a majority would vote to rejoin now that we have left.

    The percentage that would want to rejoin with no rebate and by abandoning our currency would be very small indeed and would be castigated as being even more unpatriotic than remainers were (perhaps with more justification this time).

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    Because continuing to advocate EU membership is is a very minority pursuit doomed to be unpopular not because we think it will work.
    The public on balance thinks the whole Brexit thing was a mistake. You may wish otherwise but your wishes don't come true.

    You can have your own views, even if your views are as nutty as squirrel shit. You don't get to tell your opponents what their views should be.
    We need polling on rejoin though. Personally I think leaving then rejoining is more 'honest' than remaining after a vote to leave but as @Stocky points out it is fundamentally a bigger step than remaining ever was.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?

    We don't know.

    He has claws, we know that. His response to Warren over the wine dinner affair was brutal and brilliant. It lost him votes, sure, but it also made it clear that he would strike back. (Warren undoubtedly lost as much, if not more, than him from the exchange.)

    But he's also wonderfully clean cut, and wholesome, and really not that threatening to moderate Republicans. He's a veteran, who's at home talking about his faith, and who isn't going to take away your healthcare.

    On the debate stage, he hasn't frozen up: he's been calm and collected and articulate. And he's steadily climbed in the "could you vote for this man" stakes as the contest has lengthened.

    But he's still a long way from the nomination. He needs Klobuchar to drop out after New Hampshire, and ideally endorse him. He needs Biden to flop in both NH and then in Nevada, and for the Biden funding taps to dry up. He ideally needs to start eating into Bloomberg's 10+% national poll shares.

    He could win. He's certainly better value than 1-in-10. But he's far from certain.
    Is there an issue re the bigoted vote if he becomes the candidate. With Obama the bigoted vote could be cancelled by an increase in the black vote (was it? I don't know the stats) whereas there could be an anti gay vote, particularly from some of the fundamentalist Christians, without an upside. Or are we assuming this vote is almost all lost anyway to Trump regardless and the example the other day on the TV at the caucus is a very small minority.
    The lesson I have learned from Trump is that someone can have all the characteristics to despise, yet you'll support him because you believe he will give you something.

    Evangelicals support Trump because he's doing things that restrict the availability of abortion. And for this, they forgive him for being an adulterer who's (allegedly) paid for a mistress to have an abortion.

    People vote for those who they think will bring them baubles.
  • The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.

    Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
    The Lib Dems are in a far better position strategically at the next election than at the last two. When I get time, I'll do a thread header on this.

    They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the next Labour leader is likely to be much less polarising than the current one. That means that the Tories shouting about the risk of letting Labour in is likely to be much less effective than it was last time around.

    Right now the Conservatives have the field to themselves as both the Lib Dems and Labour regroup. My advice to both of those parties would be to hold their nerve and to be true to their values.

    Rank and file Conservatives are drawing exactly the wrong lesson from the last election. They are mistaking hatred of Jeremy Corbyn for adoration of Brexit. If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.

    I might just make a couple of points on that.

    (1) I agree that Jeremy Corbyn was a huge driver of Boris’s victory. But success for a Labour next time isn’t solely a function of ditching him. They’ll lose his foreign policy baggage but they also need a domestic policy platform that won’t frighten the horses, and it has to be credible. The more radical Starmer goes on raising taxes and deficit borrowing the easier a traditional Tory attack on Labour’s economic policy becomes, helping retain soft Tories.

    (2) Whilst the Liberal Democrats achieved a lot of good second places it remains to be seen if these were fuelled by a desire to stop/inhibit a No Deal Brexit (our own Richard Nabavi being one) and were thus wavering soft Tories who defected, or a permanent shift.

    So, yes, maybe, but not certainly and there many other counter-vectors at play there too.

    I look forward to reading your thread.
  • kle4 said:

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    Because continuing to advocate EU membership is is a very minority pursuit doomed to be unpopular not because we think it will work.
    You don't get to tell your opponents what their views should be.
    Isn't that precisely what everyone in politics does do? 'You should be doing X/You should not believe Y/leavers should reach out to remainers/remainers should give up'. Who among us has not done that? Not you or me for starters.
    I certainly have.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.

    Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
    It would be a start if the LibDems put forward what liberalism actually is. It isn`t difficult. It wouldn`t frighten the horses.

    Their drift into collectivist ideology is very disconcerting indeed.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    edited February 2020
    isam said:

    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.

    That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.

    I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.

    Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?

    It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -

    (i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and

    (ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
  • Stocky said:

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.

    Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
    It would be a start if the LibDems put forward what liberalism actually is. It isn`t difficult. It wouldn`t frighten the horses.

    Their drift into collectivist ideology is very disconcerting indeed.
    They could take a sensible middle ground on identity politics, similar to what Barack Obama has recently tried to do.

    This is probably going to be the defining political dividing line of the 2020s, and it’s arguably what underlay Brexit itself.

    If I were them I’d put their best thinkers on it.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited February 2020
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.

    That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.

    I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.

    Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?

    It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -

    (i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and

    (ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
    For me, I`d say that I am not (yet) convinced that Patel IS out of her depth whereas I`m totally convinced that Abbott is.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,391
    rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    So someone who overstated the Dems in the mid-terms is now ramping them for the next cycle too. Shocking news.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB said:

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Because you will never be the political insurgents. All you can so is stage impotent marches in London. Personally, I think it's not fair to deny 48% a voice in government, but the calculation has been made that your bark is worse than your bite.
    Leavers aren't prepared even to let Remainers have a voice in opposition.
    Says who?
  • kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.

    That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.

    I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.

    Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?

    It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -

    (i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and

    (ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
    If you think Patel gets off lightly you should look at #PritiPatel on twitter

    Even Warsi is taking the piss out of Patel..
    https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/1225136863452766210?s=20

  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,458
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?

    We don't know.

    He has claws, we know that. His response to Warren over the wine dinner affair was brutal and brilliant. It lost him votes, sure, but it also made it clear that he would strike back. (Warren undoubtedly lost as much, if not more, than him from the exchange.)

    But he's also wonderfully clean cut, and wholesome, and really not that threatening to moderate Republicans. He's a veteran, who's at home talking about his faith, and who isn't going to take away your healthcare.

    On the debate stage, he hasn't frozen up: he's been calm and collected and articulate. And he's steadily climbed in the "could you vote for this man" stakes as the contest has lengthened.

    But he's still a long way from the nomination. He needs Klobuchar to drop out after New Hampshire, and ideally endorse him. He needs Biden to flop in both NH and then in Nevada, and for the Biden funding taps to dry up. He ideally needs to start eating into Bloomberg's 10+% national poll shares.

    He could win. He's certainly better value than 1-in-10. But he's far from certain.
    Is there an issue re the bigoted vote if he becomes the candidate. With Obama the bigoted vote could be cancelled by an increase in the black vote (was it? I don't know the stats) whereas there could be an anti gay vote, particularly from some of the fundamentalist Christians, without an upside. Or are we assuming this vote is almost all lost anyway to Trump regardless and the example the other day on the TV at the caucus is a very small minority.
    The lesson I have learned from Trump is that someone can have all the characteristics to despise, yet you'll support him because you believe he will give you something.

    Evangelicals support Trump because he's doing things that restrict the availability of abortion. And for this, they forgive him for being an adulterer who's (allegedly) paid for a mistress to have an abortion.

    People vote for those who they think will bring them baubles.
    So you think there isn't a downside? Democrats that have religious (or other views) against gays will vote for him anyway because of other overriding views and in addition he has the ability to attract moderate republicans?

    The test I guess is what would that lady who wanted to reallocate her vote to another democrat the other day because of what the bible says do when the option is a gay democrat or trump?
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.

    That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.

    I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.

    Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?

    It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -

    (i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and

    (ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
    I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    isam said:

    Yes, obvious racism and sexism to pick on DA not PP...

    I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge.

    That is a very funny sketch. I remember it from when it first aired.

    I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.

    Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?

    It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -

    (i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and

    (ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
    I think it is because Diane Abbott is a lot more famous, having been on This Week for so long, so her gaffes (which are also more comical and easier to ridicule that Priti Patel's in my opinion) have gotten more airtime. She is also easy to do an impression of (Jan Ravens does her well).
    Also, Priti Patel is in a position of power.
  • rcs1000 said:

    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?

    We don't know.

    He has claws, we know that. His response to Warren over the wine dinner affair was brutal and brilliant. It lost him votes, sure, but it also made it clear that he would strike back. (Warren undoubtedly lost as much, if not more, than him from the exchange.)

    But he's also wonderfully clean cut, and wholesome, and really not that threatening to moderate Republicans. He's a veteran, who's at home talking about his faith, and who isn't going to take away your healthcare.

    On the debate stage, he hasn't frozen up: he's been calm and collected and articulate. And he's steadily climbed in the "could you vote for this man" stakes as the contest has lengthened.

    But he's still a long way from the nomination. He needs Klobuchar to drop out after New Hampshire, and ideally endorse him. He needs Biden to flop in both NH and then in Nevada, and for the Biden funding taps to dry up. He ideally needs to start eating into Bloomberg's 10+% national poll shares.

    He could win. He's certainly better value than 1-in-10. But he's far from certain.
    Is there an issue re the bigoted vote if he becomes the candidate. With Obama the bigoted vote could be cancelled by an increase in the black vote (was it? I don't know the stats) whereas there could be an anti gay vote, particularly from some of the fundamentalist Christians, without an upside. Or are we assuming this vote is almost all lost anyway to Trump regardless and the example the other day on the TV at the caucus is a very small minority.
    The lesson I have learned from Trump is that someone can have all the characteristics to despise, yet you'll support him because you believe he will give you something.

    Evangelicals support Trump because he's doing things that restrict the availability of abortion. And for this, they forgive him for being an adulterer who's (allegedly) paid for a mistress to have an abortion.

    People vote for those who they think will bring them baubles.
    There's a left-right asymmetry. Those on the left are more concerned about unsuitability.

    The phenomenon can be seen in Britain. Before July there was no shortage of Conservatives who regarded Boris Johnson as wholly unfit to be Prime Minister. He then proceeded to try to suspend democracy.

    Come December, he won a thumping majority, because those same Conservatives decided that electing a leader who made a full-frontal assault on democracy was ok so long as Brexit was secured.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    rpjs said:

    This is an interesting article. The new-on-the-block psephologist who called the last mid-terms as a Dem wave back in July 2018 thinks that the conventional wisdom about swing voters is wrong and that turnout is key:

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944

    She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.

    If that happens I hope the TV cameras are able to show Trump's reactions on Election Night.
  • Apparently there's set to be a reshuffle on Thursday. Is there any betting anywhere on who might be in/out of the cabinet?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    The desperation of Leavers to stop any political representation for the majority who think leaving the EU is a mistake is remarkable.

    Can you explain what you mean by that please?
    Look upthread, where Leavers are queuing up to push the Lib Dems not to continue to advocate EU membership.
    My point was that putting it front and centre of their electoral pitch hasn’t worked, twice, and they’d be better off focusing on defining their USP for liberalism more clearly, or they risk getting squeezed by Labour again.

    Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
    The Lib Dems are in a far better position strategically at the next election than at the last two. When I get time, I'll do a thread header on this.

    They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the next Labour leader is likely to be much less polarising than the current one. That means that the Tories shouting about the risk of letting Labour in is likely to be much less effective than it was last time around.

    Right now the Conservatives have the field to themselves as both the Lib Dems and Labour regroup. My advice to both of those parties would be to hold their nerve and to be true to their values.

    Rank and file Conservatives are drawing exactly the wrong lesson from the last election. They are mistaking hatred of Jeremy Corbyn for adoration of Brexit. If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.

    To some extent I agree.

    While the last election was between Boris and Corbyn and getting Brexit done or further delay, the next general election is likely to be between Boris and Starmer and hard Brexit and WTO+ trade deal with Boris or soft Brexit and back to the single market with Starmer
This discussion has been closed.