Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It looks as though third favourite, Bernie, will struggle to g

SystemSystem Posts: 11,690
edited October 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It looks as though third favourite, Bernie, will struggle to get into the 2020 race

Even though the next US presidential election is more than two years away potential contenders, particularly on the Democratic side, are already going through the machinations of preparing for a run – first for the party nomination then for the Presidency itself.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,502
    edited October 2018
    I've been laying Bernie for a while because of his age.
  • Options
    Oh and get your minds out of the gutter.
  • Options
    Turd
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    edited October 2018
    Second after TSE is disqualified for being a cheat.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,987
    Agree. He's too old to be a serious contender. The Dems will be in a bad way if he is.
    Really good slogan on the t shirt though.
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    First after TSE is disqualified for being a cheat.

    Agreed in part....
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,850

    Oh and get your minds out of the gutter.

    We're simply taking you at your word.
  • Options
    tlg86 said:

    Second after TSE is disqualified for being a cheat.

    I'm not cheating, I'm writing a piece for Sunday and uploading some other pieces as well.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Is the native american Dem woman not standing ?
  • Options
    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
    Pocahontas 2020
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    cf. Labour
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited October 2018

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    If the party had wanted to win they wouldn't have picked Hilary last time out.

    Cortez's zany Corbynite politics will see her smashed out of the race pretty early.

  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    At 79 on election day, surely Bernie is too old.

    His endorsement though, particularly if made early, has the potential to push a lesser-known left winger into the limelight.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.

    Anyway, Sanders isn't going to get it.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668
    It will either be Harris, or ... the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.
    ,,,
    The trouble is that they risk repeating the same mistake, of assuming that just because everyone they know in Massachusetts and California is absolutely horrified by Trump, that therefore they just need to choose some right-on liberal and that will be enough. It might indeed be enough to win the popular vote, but not enough to win the key states they need (as Southam was suggesting a couple of days ago, from talking to people in Boston).
  • Options

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    cf. Labour
    Yep. And unfortunately maybe cf Conservatives too, soon.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,335
    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Consult, not negotiate.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,172
    edited October 2018
    Has this been done? I think I can hear Bobby's silent primal scream.

    https://twitter.com/UKDemockery/status/1053091402794573825
  • Options
    Borrowing now lower than the boom years under Labour (year to date)
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,988
    Mr. Rabbit, but servicing the debt costs an absolute fortune.
  • Options

    Mr. Rabbit, but servicing the debt costs an absolute fortune.

    £26.5bn so far this year...
  • Options
    ToryJimToryJim Posts: 3,422

    Nigelb said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.
    ,,,
    The trouble is that they risk repeating the same mistake, of assuming that just because everyone they know in Massachusetts and California is absolutely horrified by Trump, that therefore they just need to choose some right-on liberal and that will be enough. It might indeed be enough to win the popular vote, but not enough to win the key states they need (as Southam was suggesting a couple of days ago, from talking to people in Boston).
    Agree. I'm not sure how the Dem race pans out. Will it be a free for all because everyone wants to be the one to take down Trump, or will there be fewer candidates than imagined because certain people don't want to end their career prematurely?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,266
    ToryJim said:

    Nigelb said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.
    ,,,
    The trouble is that they risk repeating the same mistake, of assuming that just because everyone they know in Massachusetts and California is absolutely horrified by Trump, that therefore they just need to choose some right-on liberal and that will be enough. It might indeed be enough to win the popular vote, but not enough to win the key states they need (as Southam was suggesting a couple of days ago, from talking to people in Boston).
    Agree. I'm not sure how the Dem race pans out. Will it be a free for all because everyone wants to be the one to take down Trump, or will there be fewer candidates than imagined because certain people don't want to end their career prematurely?
    It is essential the Dems understand why Trump won.

    From a distance, I'm not convinced they have a clue as yet.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    They must have caught Bobby in a rare moment of lucidity. They did well to find someone who makes John McDonnell look right wing mind you.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610

    Mr. Rabbit, but servicing the debt costs an absolute fortune.

    £26.5bn so far this year...
    Down by £3bn as well.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Rabbit, but servicing the debt costs an absolute fortune.

    £26.5bn so far this year...
    Down by £3bn as well.
    How's that happened? Surely it should be higher as the debt is that much bigger than the same period last year. Or are we paying a lower rate of interest?
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908

    Nigelb said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.
    ,,,
    The trouble is that they risk repeating the same mistake, of assuming that just because everyone they know in Massachusetts and California is absolutely horrified by Trump, that therefore they just need to choose some right-on liberal and that will be enough. It might indeed be enough to win the popular vote, but not enough to win the key states they need (as Southam was suggesting a couple of days ago, from talking to people in Boston).
    Do you think Hilary Clinton was more liberal than Obama? And yet he crushed it in 2008 and 2012.

    Ultimately Clinton was a flawed candidate with too much baggage. She was misadvised in the campaign and didn't have a positive enough message.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Consult, not negotiate.
    Maybe get her story straight first?
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Consult, not negotiate.
    FPT - you don't think that happened? The point is the EU were unwilling to engage on our agenda (the whole sequencing thing) because they didn't need to given the time-limited nature of Article 50.
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721
    Nigelb said:

    It will either be Harris, or ... the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice.

    Ah,
    Mr Biden.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,987
    It is important to remember that the 3 Democrats elected in the past 50 years were not particularly well known at this stage of the process. They came out of the pack. 2 were Governors of pretty minor States, one a relatively junior Congressman.
    Perhaps the winning Democrat if there is to be one is someone relatively obscure.
  • Options
    He didnt play up to the stereotype of Rich Scottish leftie who lives in Islington one bit
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,721
    TGOHF said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    If the party had wanted to win they wouldn't have picked Hilary last time out.

    Cortez's zany Corbynite politics will see her smashed out of the race pretty early.

    To be fair, nobody thought Trump would win - and that includes Trump.
  • Options
    grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited October 2018
    I can't believe that we're talking about it being 2020 soon. THE DISTANT FUTURE.

    When I were a lad we thought the future wasn't going to be a bucket of cold sick.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Rabbit, but servicing the debt costs an absolute fortune.

    £26.5bn so far this year...
    Down by £3bn as well.
    How's that happened? Surely it should be higher as the debt is that much bigger than the same period last year. Or are we paying a lower rate of interest?
    Lower inflation, about 40% of gilts are indexed.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    dixiedean said:

    It is important to remember that the 3 Democrats elected in the past 50 years were not particularly well known at this stage of the process. They came out of the pack. 2 were Governors of pretty minor States, one a relatively junior Congressman.
    Perhaps the winning Democrat if there is to be one is someone relatively obscure.

    I think Julian Castro is an interesting candidate. Could be the first serious latino candidate. Maybe puts Texas in play? Trump's ratings there aren't great...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    Nigelb said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.
    ,,,
    The trouble is that they risk repeating the same mistake, of assuming that just because everyone they know in Massachusetts and California is absolutely horrified by Trump, that therefore they just need to choose some right-on liberal and that will be enough. It might indeed be enough to win the popular vote, but not enough to win the key states they need (as Southam was suggesting a couple of days ago, from talking to people in Boston).
    With all due respect, I think you might be projecting, Richard, in looking for a candidate who appeals to you ?

    There is a genuine debate to be had about whether the Democrats are best pursuing the undecided middle, or concentrate on better turning out their base. (Of course the two things aren't entirely incompatible - health care concerns, for example, cut across the political divide.)
    The former strategy might show better results in the swing states in the 'South' (Georgia, Florida and North Carolina) and the latter in the MidWest (Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin).
    In terms of total electoral college votes, the Southern strategy wins.

    But there is no reason a candidate like Harris can't compete in both sets of states.
  • Options
    grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    edited October 2018
    MaxPB said:


    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.

    Turns out that simply wanking Paul Dacre into a cup wasn't enough to bring about Brextopia after all.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Mr. Rabbit, but servicing the debt costs an absolute fortune.

    £26.5bn so far this year...
    Down by £3bn as well.
    How's that happened? Surely it should be higher as the debt is that much bigger than the same period last year. Or are we paying a lower rate of interest?
    Lower inflation, about 40% of gilts are indexed.
    Interesting, thank you.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    Nigelb said:

    It will either be Harris, or ... the Benjamin Franklin Professor of Presidential Practice.

    Ah,
    Mr Biden.
    It's a great title.
    :smile:
  • Options
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
    But she listened to all those Leavers that said no deal/WTO was just Project Fear.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
    But she listened to all those Leavers that said no deal/WTO was just Project Fear.
    She's useless - get rid.
  • Options
    grabcocquegrabcocque Posts: 4,234
    The Democrats need one wedge issue, and to run with it. The obvious one is always healthcare. Some big eye catching initiative. Doesn't have to be universal healthcare, just something that reminds people that the GOP are generally pro-people going bankrupt after every hospital visit and anti-stopping poor people dying unnecessarily.
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited October 2018
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.
    ,,,
    The trouble is that they risk repeating the same mistake, of assuming that just because everyone they know in Massachusetts and California is absolutely horrified by Trump, that therefore they just need to choose some right-on liberal and that will be enough. It might indeed be enough to win the popular vote, but not enough to win the key states they need (as Southam was suggesting a couple of days ago, from talking to people in Boston).
    With all due respect, I think you might be projecting, Richard, in looking for a candidate who appeals to you ?

    There is a genuine debate to be had about whether the Democrats are best pursuing the undecided middle, or concentrate on better turning out their base. (Of course the two things aren't entirely incompatible - health care concerns, for example, cut across the political divide.)
    The former strategy might show better results in the swing states in the 'South' (Georgia, Florida and North Carolina) and the latter in the MidWest (Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin).
    In terms of total electoral college votes, the Southern strategy wins.

    But there is no reason a candidate like Harris can't compete in both sets of states.
    Beto's result in Texas will be very interesting to that end. He's running as an unabashed liberal progressive.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.
    ,,,
    The trouble is that they risk repeating the same mistake, of assuming that just because everyone they know in Massachusetts and California is absolutely horrified by Trump, that therefore they just need to choose some right-on liberal and that will be enough. It might indeed be enough to win the popular vote, but not enough to win the key states they need (as Southam was suggesting a couple of days ago, from talking to people in Boston).
    With all due respect, I think you might be projecting, Richard, in looking for a candidate who appeals to you ?

    There is a genuine debate to be had about whether the Democrats are best pursuing the undecided middle, or concentrate on better turning out their base. (Of course the two things aren't entirely incompatible - health care concerns, for example, cut across the political divide.)
    The former strategy might show better results in the swing states in the 'South' (Georgia, Florida and North Carolina) and the latter in the MidWest (Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin).
    In terms of total electoral college votes, the Southern strategy wins.

    But there is no reason a candidate like Harris can't compete in both sets of states.
    Beto's result in Texas will be very interesting to that end. He's running as an unabashed liberal progressive.
    Yes, the midterms ought to provide some interesting clues.
  • Options
    TGOHF said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
    But she listened to all those Leavers that said no deal/WTO was just Project Fear.
    She's useless - get rid.
    To be replaced with whom?
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited October 2018
    Nigelb said:

    With all due respect, I think you might be projecting, Richard, in looking for a candidate who appeals to you ?

    No. One of the reasons I like betting on US politics (and find it especially profitable) is that the distance and the fact that the whole system is so different from UK politics make it easier to be completely objective, even though I have a lot of American ex-pat friends some of whom are staunch Democrats and who did a lot for the Hillary campaign.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,009



    To be replaced with whom?

    Jeremy Wright. His expenses "mistakes" weren't even that bad. Safe pair of hands.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    TGOHF said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
    But she listened to all those Leavers that said no deal/WTO was just Project Fear.
    She's useless - get rid.
    To be replaced with whom?
    Somebody not useless, somebody who can take decisions, somebody who is not utterly useless in debate situations, somebody who will let people get on with the tasks they are assigned, someone who will not still themselves micro-manage those tasks - and someone who can surround themselves with something other than a clown troupe.

    That still leaves the field wide open.
  • Options
    currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
    But she listened to all those Leavers that said no deal/WTO was just Project Fear.
    What about all those remainers who claimed that by now the economy would have crashed, do you remember Osborne's emergency budget threat?? The truth is no one knew what was going to and what will happen as this situation has never happened before. (I voted remain)
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,335

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Consult, not negotiate.
    FPT - you don't think that happened? The point is the EU were unwilling to engage on our agenda (the whole sequencing thing) because they didn't need to given the time-limited nature of Article 50.
    You know this?

    What you are saying is that she was gamed while consulting, little wonder the actual negotiations have turned out as they have done.
  • Options

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
    But she listened to all those Leavers that said no deal/WTO was just Project Fear.
    The pompous dismissal of Remainers' legitimate and considered concerns as 'Project Fear' was one of the most irresponsible campaigns I've witnessed in British politics. Among other things it was highly undemocratic - blinding the public to real dangers they had the right to know about as they made their deliberations. The phrase will be rightly chiselled on the gravestone of many a political career, have no doubt.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125
    Nigelb said:
    Did Trump endorse cutting the journalists fingers off with bolt cutters, before dismembering him whilst still alive? I must have missed that.....
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,125

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
    But she listened to all those Leavers that said no deal/WTO was just Project Fear.
    The pompous dismissal of Remainers' legitimate and considered concerns as 'Project Fear' was one of the most irresponsible campaigns I've witnessed in British politics. Among other things it was highly undemocratic - blinding the public to real dangers they had the right to know about as they made their deliberations. The phrase will be rightly chiselled on the gravestone of many a political career, have no doubt.
    George Osbourne's for starters.....
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    My reading of the 2020 nomination race is that beating Trump is by far and away the main priority in the choice of candidate. The party wants the White House back.

    I wonder if that's really true. Or rather, the party itself certainly wants the White House back, but it's the primaries which will determine the candidate, and getting primary voters to vote in a hard-headed way isn't easy.

    I don't think in practice that it will matter - and at the end of the day, appealing to voters emotions is going to be rather important in taking down Trump.
    ,,,
    The trouble is that they risk repeating the same mistake, of assuming that just because everyone they know in Massachusetts and California is absolutely horrified by Trump, that therefore they just need to choose some right-on liberal and that will be enough. It might indeed be enough to win the popular vote, but not enough to win the key states they need (as Southam was suggesting a couple of days ago, from talking to people in Boston).
    With all due respect, I think you might be projecting, Richard, in looking for a candidate who appeals to you ?

    There is a genuine debate to be had about whether the Democrats are best pursuing the undecided middle, or concentrate on better turning out their base. (Of course the two things aren't entirely incompatible - health care concerns, for example, cut across the political divide.)
    The former strategy might show better results in the swing states in the 'South' (Georgia, Florida and North Carolina) and the latter in the MidWest (Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin).
    In terms of total electoral college votes, the Southern strategy wins.

    But there is no reason a candidate like Harris can't compete in both sets of states.
    Beto's result in Texas will be very interesting to that end. He's running as an unabashed liberal progressive.
    Yes, the midterms ought to provide some interesting clues.
    Providentially, this just got retweeted into my timeline: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/10/02/feature/will-the-democrats-wake-up-before-2020/
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930

    Nigelb said:
    Did Trump endorse cutting the journalists fingers off with bolt cutters, before dismembering him whilst still alive? I must have missed that.....
    Doubtful, though he did emphasise just how much Saudi Arabia buys off the USA the other day - no beating around the bush like our politicians/government about trying to 'influence' them, just a straight up "they buy alot of our things !"
  • Options
    rkrkrk said:

    Do you think Hilary Clinton was more liberal than Obama? And yet he crushed it in 2008 and 2012.

    Ultimately Clinton was a flawed candidate with too much baggage. She was misadvised in the campaign and didn't have a positive enough message.

    Obama wasn't running against Donald Trump.

    I agree with your second paragraph.

    The point I was making is very simple. The election will be decided in a few states, probably the usual ones: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. If they want to win, the Dems need a clear focus on what policies, and which candidate, will appeal in those states, and especially to white 'middle-class' (in UK terms, working-class and white-van man) male voters in those states. Everyone else they need to win is already on board,
  • Options
    Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Consult, not negotiate.
    FPT - you don't think that happened? The point is the EU were unwilling to engage on our agenda (the whole sequencing thing) because they didn't need to given the time-limited nature of Article 50.
    You know this?

    What you are saying is that she was gamed while consulting, little wonder the actual negotiations have turned out as they have done.
    No, I don't know what happened privately, but any government would have been consulting. But the idea that we didn't do our prep has clearly taken hold: it's far easier (and a better story) to assume incompetence rather than a structural reason for the difficulties of negotiation.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    Nigelb said:

    With all due respect, I think you might be projecting, Richard, in looking for a candidate who appeals to you ?

    No. One of the reasons I like betting on US politics (and find it especially profitable) is that the distance and the fact that the whole system is so different from UK politics make it easier to be completely objective, even though I have a lot of American ex-pat friends some of whom are staunch Democrats and who did a lot for the Hillary campaign.
    Fair enough.
    In any event, I think you're likely wrong on this, though I'll concede there is a smallish risk that the Democrats pick an out and out radical.

    What do you think of Harris' middle class tax credit proposal ?
    (in electoral terms.)
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    rkrkrk said:

    Do you think Hilary Clinton was more liberal than Obama? And yet he crushed it in 2008 and 2012.

    Ultimately Clinton was a flawed candidate with too much baggage. She was misadvised in the campaign and didn't have a positive enough message.

    Obama wasn't running against Donald Trump.

    I agree with your second paragraph.

    The point I was making is very simple. The election will be decided in a few states, probably the usual ones: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. If they want to win, the Dems need a clear focus on what policies, and which candidate, will appeal in those states, and especially to white 'middle-class' (in UK terms, working-class and white-van man) male voters in those states. Everyone else they need to win is already on board,
    They really, truly don't need to concentrate everything on the white middle class male voter.
    Particularly if that inhibits everyone else turning out.
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    The Democrats need one wedge issue, and to run with it. The obvious one is always healthcare. Some big eye catching initiative. Doesn't have to be universal healthcare, just something that reminds people that the GOP are generally pro-people going bankrupt after every hospital visit and anti-stopping poor people dying unnecessarily.

    Healthcare, specifically protecting coverage for pre-existing conditions, is a major feature
    of Democratic advertising for the competitive seats in the New York tri-state area right now.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    ...
    What do you think of Harris' middle class tax credit proposal ?
    (in electoral terms.)

    As bribes go, it looks a bit naked, but maybe that's not a problem for the target market.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Do you think Hilary Clinton was more liberal than Obama? And yet he crushed it in 2008 and 2012.

    Ultimately Clinton was a flawed candidate with too much baggage. She was misadvised in the campaign and didn't have a positive enough message.

    Obama wasn't running against Donald Trump.

    I agree with your second paragraph.

    The point I was making is very simple. The election will be decided in a few states, probably the usual ones: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. If they want to win, the Dems need a clear focus on what policies, and which candidate, will appeal in those states, and especially to white 'middle-class' (in UK terms, working-class and white-van man) male voters in those states. Everyone else they need to win is already on board,
    They really, truly don't need to concentrate everything on the white middle class male voter.
    Particularly if that inhibits everyone else turning out.
    Where else are they going to get the extra votes they need in those key states from? Of course they need also to retain the rest of their coalition, but that is the segment they've neglected (and in Hillary's case, insulted), and they need to win at least some of them back.
  • Options
    What say you lads (and any lasses that may be lurking), acceptable or unacceptable face of capitalism? Since the face tried to slither off camera asap, he apparently may have a view on that himself.

    https://twitter.com/spencerstokestv/status/1052981336288432128

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    edited October 2018
    So I think you have to distinguish a couple of different things: Left-wingery, and feistiness.

    On the left-right axis, apparently the Sanders wing hasn't been performing particularly strongly in primaries, and his polling seems a bit weak given how high his name recognition is. I think Mike's right that the primary voters are going to want someone they think will win. If they're going to be left-wing, they shouldn't be off-putting-sounding-to-moderates left-wing.

    But you also have to look at the feistiness axis, and I think the reality of campaigns in the social media age is that candidates need to be a little bit spikey and audacious. So I'm a bit skeptical that a paint-by-the-numbers generic democrat can make it through the primaries, particularly Kamala Harris, who has far and away the world's dullest twitter feed. A also think this applies to the general: In every election since at least 1980 and possibly earlier, the more audacious candidate has won.

    The obvious candidates who are left after that are Elizabeth Warren and, if creepy photos with women don't do for him, Joe Biden. But I'd also keep an eye on Kirsten Gillibrand, who had always run as a moderate but seems edgy and ambitious.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    Nigelb said:

    ...
    What do you think of Harris' middle class tax credit proposal ?
    (in electoral terms.)

    As bribes go, it looks a bit naked, but maybe that's not a problem for the target market.
    As an alternative to the Trump tax bribe, it seems rather more broadly targeted - and it neatly leaves him unable to complain about its effects on the deficit.

    (And the target market is more or less the demographic you suggest the Democrats go for.)
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151

    One of the reasons I like betting on US politics (and find it especially profitable) is that the distance and the fact that the whole system is so different from UK politics make it easier to be completely objective

    Also why the pb threads are so great.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908



    No, I don't know what happened privately, but any government would have been consulting. But the idea that we didn't do our prep has clearly taken hold: it's far easier (and a better story) to assume incompetence rather than a structural reason for the difficulties of negotiation.

    To be fair, Theresa based her planning on having a majority in the House of Commons. We'd have agreed that backstop thing by now if it weren't for the DUP.

    That said - I don't think she had fully understood the implications of all of her red lines - particularly on the ECJ.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    Nigelb said:
    Did Trump endorse cutting the journalists fingers off with bolt cutters, before dismembering him whilst still alive? I must have missed that.....
    I was referring to this:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/18/trump-gianforte-body-slam-praise-915047

    But he has studiously avoided acknowledging the brutal murder.
  • Options
    FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Scott_P said:
    Hope Faisal checked his facts this time - he has made some howlers over brexit claims recently.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,748

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    It seems to have become a truth universally acknowledged that Theresa May triggered Article 50 without a clear plan and without laying out her negotiation strategy.

    Like many such universally-acknowledged truths, it's completely false. Article 50 was triggered on the 29th March 2017. She set out her negotiating strategy and plan on the 17th January 2017:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech

    It is another truth universally acknowledged, which appears actually truthful, that when it concerns the EU, any speech on anything at any time delivered anywhere without pre-consultation with the EU is tantamount to having given no speech at all.
    Well, the EU wouldn't negotiate before notification. I'm not clear what people think May should have done instead. (Other than come out for Remain, which is ultimately what many of them seem to think!)
    Prepared for No Deal a lot better, get our WTO ducks in a row. Get the US on board with extending the existing open skies agreement etc...

    There was a lot to be done before serving A50, but he government rushed into it.
    But she listened to all those Leavers that said no deal/WTO was just Project Fear.
    The pompous dismissal of Remainers' legitimate and considered concerns as 'Project Fear' was one of the most irresponsible campaigns I've witnessed in British politics. Among other things it was highly undemocratic - blinding the public to real dangers they had the right to know about as they made their deliberations. The phrase will be rightly chiselled on the gravestone of many a political career, have no doubt.
    The purpose of the Project Fear meme is to shut down debate. We won't engage with you on the substance of your arguments so we'll call them Project Fear.

    Not al Brexit specific comment
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,610
    Floater said:
    As I said on the previous thread there was a bit about this buried in The Times article about the BNP Paribas redundancies - "Despite the uncertainty caused by the decision to leave the European Union, none of the job losses are said to be related to Brexit. The bank’s British operations could even increase in size as it will be forced to change its status in the UK from a branch to that of a full subsidiary."

    I expect there to be a lot more of this than the reverse, especially in the short term as banks grapple with unserviceable derivatives without a full subsidiary in London.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,190
  • Options
    StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Do you think Hilary Clinton was more liberal than Obama? And yet he crushed it in 2008 and 2012.

    Ultimately Clinton was a flawed candidate with too much baggage. She was misadvised in the campaign and didn't have a positive enough message.

    Obama wasn't running against Donald Trump.

    I agree with your second paragraph.

    The point I was making is very simple. The election will be decided in a few states, probably the usual ones: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. If they want to win, the Dems need a clear focus on what policies, and which candidate, will appeal in those states, and especially to white 'middle-class' (in UK terms, working-class and white-van man) male voters in those states. Everyone else they need to win is already on board,
    They really, truly don't need to concentrate everything on the white middle class male voter.
    Particularly if that inhibits everyone else turning out.
    Where else are they going to get the extra votes they need in those key states from? Of course they need also to retain the rest of their coalition, but that is the segment they've neglected (and in Hillary's case, insulted), and they need to win at least some of them back.
    Hillary lost more ethnic minority voters compared to Obama than she did white voters.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668

    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Do you think Hilary Clinton was more liberal than Obama? And yet he crushed it in 2008 and 2012.

    Ultimately Clinton was a flawed candidate with too much baggage. She was misadvised in the campaign and didn't have a positive enough message.

    Obama wasn't running against Donald Trump.

    I agree with your second paragraph.

    The point I was making is very simple. The election will be decided in a few states, probably the usual ones: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. If they want to win, the Dems need a clear focus on what policies, and which candidate, will appeal in those states, and especially to white 'middle-class' (in UK terms, working-class and white-van man) male voters in those states. Everyone else they need to win is already on board,
    They really, truly don't need to concentrate everything on the white middle class male voter.
    Particularly if that inhibits everyone else turning out.
    Where else are they going to get the extra votes they need in those key states from? Of course they need also to retain the rest of their coalition, but that is the segment they've neglected (and in Hillary's case, insulted), and they need to win at least some of them back.
    Probably not white males in Florida and Georgia...
    One of the reasons Clinton lost was that the 'rest of the coalition' didn't turn out for her in sufficient numbers.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,030
    edited October 2018
    Of the top 4 candidates in the CNN nomination poll for the Democrats this month first is Biden and then comes Sanders, Harris and Warren. The last 3 are all left liberal populists. No other candidate gets over 5%.

    Biden would be the best general election candidate but the signs are the Democrats will not accept another establishment centrist but may well go all out for a populist candidate they believe in.

    Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her primary race so no surprise she has not yet endorsed him

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/14/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-bernie-sanders-2020/index.html
  • Options
    Scott_P said:
    Hasn't it been clearly established by the Bucanneers that car manufacturers know nothing about the car manufacturing business?

  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,030
    HYUFD said:

    Of the top 4 candidates in the CNN nomination poll for the Democrats this month first is Biden and then comes Sanders, Harris and Warren. The last 3 are all left liberal populists. No other candidate gets over 5%.

    Biden would be the best general election candidate but the signs are the Democrats will not accept another establishment centrist but may well go all out for a populist candidate they believe in.

    Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her primary race so no surprise she has not yet endorsed him

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/14/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-bernie-sanders-2020/index.html

    San Antonio Mayor and former Obama official Julian Castro has also said he is likely to challenge Trump in 2020

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/16/politics/julian-castro-interview-2020-bid-likely/index.html
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908

    rkrkrk said:

    Do you think Hilary Clinton was more liberal than Obama? And yet he crushed it in 2008 and 2012.

    Ultimately Clinton was a flawed candidate with too much baggage. She was misadvised in the campaign and didn't have a positive enough message.

    Obama wasn't running against Donald Trump.

    I agree with your second paragraph.

    The point I was making is very simple. The election will be decided in a few states, probably the usual ones: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. If they want to win, the Dems need a clear focus on what policies, and which candidate, will appeal in those states, and especially to white 'middle-class' (in UK terms, working-class and white-van man) male voters in those states. Everyone else they need to win is already on board,
    They have many paths to victory, doing better with that not brilliantly defined group is only one of the possible options.

    Hilary Clinton struggled to get black voters out for instance. Latino turnout was flat when it should have been engaged.

    Alternatively Hilary Clinton did much worse in rural areas. Trump is vulnerable there with his daft tariffs, his reversal of protections for family farms, his undermining of Obamacare...
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Of the top 4 candidates in the CNN nomination poll for the Democrats this month first is Biden and then comes Sanders, Harris and Warren. The last 3 are all left liberal populists. No other candidate gets over 5%.

    Biden would be the best general election candidate but the signs are the Democrats will not accept another establishment centrist but may well go all out for a populist candidate they believe in.

    Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her primary race so no surprise she has not yet endorsed him

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/14/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-bernie-sanders-2020/index.html

    San Antonio Mayor and former Obama official Julian Castro has also said he is likely to challenge Trump in 2020

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/16/politics/julian-castro-interview-2020-bid-likely/index.html
    I just bought him up at excellent odds on the exchange. Very much on the Castro bandwagon!
  • Options
    rkrkrk said:


    They have many paths to victory, doing better with that not brilliantly defined group is only one of the possible options.

    Hilary Clinton struggled to get black voters out for instance. Latino turnout was flat when it should have been engaged.

    Alternatively Hilary Clinton did much worse in rural areas. Trump is vulnerable there with his daft tariffs, his reversal of protections for family farms, his undermining of Obamacare...

    Sure, I was simplifying, but the core point is that the Dems have lost a lot of support in a key segment which used to be good for them.

    On the point about Hillary struggling to get black voters out, that was always going to be difficult compared with the inspiration of having Obama on the ballot-paper. I'm not sure that that particular problem should be regarded as a failure on her part, except as a subset of her general failure of being seen as remote and in the pockets of (and even more important most at ease in the culture of) the rich elite.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,668
    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Of the top 4 candidates in the CNN nomination poll for the Democrats this month first is Biden and then comes Sanders, Harris and Warren. The last 3 are all left liberal populists. No other candidate gets over 5%.

    Biden would be the best general election candidate but the signs are the Democrats will not accept another establishment centrist but may well go all out for a populist candidate they believe in.

    Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her primary race so no surprise she has not yet endorsed him

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/14/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-bernie-sanders-2020/index.html

    San Antonio Mayor and former Obama official Julian Castro has also said he is likely to challenge Trump in 2020

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/16/politics/julian-castro-interview-2020-bid-likely/index.html
    I just bought him up at excellent odds on the exchange. Very much on the Castro bandwagon!
    Might be a negative in Florida...
    :smile:

    In any event, if whoever it is can manage to refrain from attacking Republican voters, as opposed to Republican politicians, it ought to be worth a net million or so more votes over what Clinton managed.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,930
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Hasn't it been clearly established by the Bucanneers that car manufacturers know nothing about the car manufacturing business?

    the car manufacturers just need to believe in brexit that bit harder....
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:
    Utterly bonkers. They will only embarrass themselves.
  • Options
    Top appointment.

    In the rejoin referendum there'll be no Russian interference and lots of pro EU content thanks to Nick.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,030
    Nigelb said:

    rkrkrk said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Of the top 4 candidates in the CNN nomination poll for the Democrats this month first is Biden and then comes Sanders, Harris and Warren. The last 3 are all left liberal populists. No other candidate gets over 5%.

    Biden would be the best general election candidate but the signs are the Democrats will not accept another establishment centrist but may well go all out for a populist candidate they believe in.

    Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her primary race so no surprise she has not yet endorsed him

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/14/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-bernie-sanders-2020/index.html

    San Antonio Mayor and former Obama official Julian Castro has also said he is likely to challenge Trump in 2020

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/16/politics/julian-castro-interview-2020-bid-likely/index.html
    I just bought him up at excellent odds on the exchange. Very much on the Castro bandwagon!
    Might be a negative in Florida...
    :smile:

    In any event, if whoever it is can manage to refrain from attacking Republican voters, as opposed to Republican politicians, it ought to be worth a net million or so more votes over what Clinton managed.
    Florida leans Trump.

    If the Democrats win Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan and hold the Hillary states they win the Presidency and those states had narrower Trump victory margins than Florida
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    Clearly Clegg is readying himself for a 2024 Presidential run.

    /s
  • Options
    Well if Robert can get one, I'm sure Nick Clegg will be able to get one.
This discussion has been closed.