Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

24

Comments

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    HYUFD said:
    FWIW, CNN interviewed numerous people at one of the caucuses, and was unable to find anyone who didn't say they'd be willing to vote for whoever the nominee was. Twitter magnifies the extremists, and then journalists pick them out because they're a better story..
    Polling says 16% of Sanders supporters won't vote for another candidate and a whopping 31% say 'it depends'.
  • Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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

    I understand coronavirus also attacks the lungs, and I’d be worried that it might swipe off my youngest as well as my elderly folks.
    Ah yeah - I meant me personally not any relatives or loved ones!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Just backed Sanders at 2.92 means Joe would be my only big loss. I mean he's still at 6.4, shorter than Pete.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    edited February 2020

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
    Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    I am sure Putin will be only too happy to wait for Labour to finish consulting Labour Party members on any response once Russian troops are in central London
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited February 2020
    Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    edited February 2020
    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?
  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    edited February 2020
    HYUFD said:

    Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve
    With a bit of David Davis' late-life crisis
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    No he isn't, he is Ed Miliband Labour at best, John McDonnell Labour at worst
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    HYUFD said:

    Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
    I like Romney.

    Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    HYUFD said:

    Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
    Yes, imagine looking at the evidence of Trump admitting to a crime and then convicting him of that crime.
  • rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
    Bill Clinton was a Tory by British standards.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

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

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

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

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

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

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1224916061994278913?s=20
    Work Feb 2-4, so only one third of that was after the results were annoucned
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
    I like Romney.

    Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
    Maybe, but I think he's expecting at some point for Trump to be unmasked incontrovertibly as a bad 'un and then can claim to be the only Republican that saw through him.
  • rpjs said:

    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
    Bill Clinton was a Tory by British standards.
    Well he certainly had his fair share of sex scandals.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    That's not accurate.

    This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)

    This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    rpjs said:

    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
    I like Romney.

    Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
    Maybe, but I think he's expecting at some point for Trump to be unmasked incontrovertibly as a bad 'un and then can claim to be the only Republican that saw through him.
    Then run again himself in 2024, plus Utah is about the only state where Republicans hate Trump so he can probably get away with it and stay Senator
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    rpjs said:

    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
    Bill Clinton was a Tory by British standards.
    Bill Clinton was New Labour
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401
    BigRich said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
    Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
    Hornberger sounds like another name for a tit wank.

  • rpjs said:

    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    You could say that about Bill Clinton, not Sanders.
    Bill Clinton was a Tory by British standards.
    Bill Clinton was like Tony Blair by British standards.

    Still my second-favourite US President of my lifetime (after Reagan)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Endillion said:

    I wonder if Buttigieg fares better if he:

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

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

    The DNC will be mindful that thus far, for all their failings, both Biden and Sanders have been consistently polling better in a presidential election v Trump than has Buttigieg.
    There's an excellent article on Slate on his chances in the General here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12/political-case-for-mayor-pete-buttigieg.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:

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

    If Buttigieg is clear second, and Biden is fourth, then he still has a chance. But it all depends on Biden continuing to destroy himself.
    Does Biden even properly understand what he’s doing. There are flashes of lucidity but he appears to be operating a lower level than he previously did (which I never felt was great).
    Ah, but don't you think he has charisma?
  • CNN now saying 75% precincts reported. Have they started results again?
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960
    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    Context matters. I'd rather not have Sanders tank the US economy over the next four to eight years, thanks. Even if he was somewhere around Oliver Letwin or John Mann, which he emphatically isn't.
  • BigRich said:

    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    That's not accurate.

    This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)

    This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/

    Indeed, traditionally the US Democrats were to the right of Labour but the left of the Tories, but Sanders isn't a Democrat let alone a traditional one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    BigRich said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
    Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
    What about likely Libertarian nominee John McAfee?
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    matt said:

    rcs1000 said:

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

    If Buttigieg is clear second, and Biden is fourth, then he still has a chance. But it all depends on Biden continuing to destroy himself.
    Does Biden even properly understand what he’s doing. There are flashes of lucidity but he appears to be operating a lower level than he previously did (which I never felt was great).
    Ah, but don't you think he has charisma?
    As much as a Mitsubishi Carisma.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Nevada is largely irrelevant, Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina are the key early states.

    You must win at least one of those to remain a viable contender for the nomination
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    BigRich said:

    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    That's not accurate.

    This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)

    This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/

    Indeed, traditionally the US Democrats were to the right of Labour but the left of the Tories, but Sanders isn't a Democrat let alone a traditional one.
    Look at the people in the U.K. who seem attracted to him. That’s where he sits.
  • rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
    Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
    What about likely Libertarian nominee John McAfee?
    Isn't he completely crazy?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
    Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
    What about likely Libertarian nominee John McAfee?
    *That* John McAfee? He’s completely bonkers!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    The Democrats saying no to Biden is like Labour ditching David Miliband in 2010.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    CNN now saying 75% precincts reported. Have they started results again?

    The Buttigieg lead has increased 0.1% since it was 71% reported.

    It's all over. Buttigieg has won Iowa.
  • matt said:

    BigRich said:

    rpjs said:

    I'm surprised at all the PB Tories saying they'd rather have coronavirus than a Sanders presidency. You do realize that in British terms he's somewhere between the right-wing of the Labour party and left-wing of the Tories don't you?

    That's not accurate.

    This is the person who took his honeymoon in the USSR, thought Venizwala was amazing. he is also promising to spend money at a rediculase rate, (to be fare so are some of the other democrats)

    This will give you some idea of the amounts of money that candadits are promising to spend, hint its a lot!

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/

    Indeed, traditionally the US Democrats were to the right of Labour but the left of the Tories, but Sanders isn't a Democrat let alone a traditional one.
    Look at the people in the U.K. who seem attracted to him. That’s where he sits.
    And look at who in the UK he is attracted to too. He was a fan of Jeremy Corbyn.
  • Pulpstar said:

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

    What do you think of Bloomberg’s odds?
    Bloomberg 9/2 for Democratic nominee with Ladbrokes (better than Biden or Mayor Pete but not as good as Bernie)
    8/1 for President - better than Biden but not as good as Bernie or Trump.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286
    Popular vote, Iowa Caucus:

    Sanders 32,638
    Buttigieg 28,825
    Warren 25,025
    Biden 19,878
    Klobuchar 17,050
    Yang 7,011

    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549
    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES



  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
    Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
    What about likely Libertarian nominee John McAfee?
    Isn't he completely crazy?
    I don't believe that's a disqualifying factor.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Nevada is largely irrelevant, Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina are the key early states.

    You must win at least one of those to remain a viable contender for the nomination
    Just so I'm sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that if Buttigieg wins Nevada, it is of absolutely no importance whatsoever, right?
  • Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
    Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
    What about likely Libertarian nominee John McAfee?
    *That* John McAfee? He’s completely bonkers!
    He would have made a better job of the Iowa caucus app, though.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    rcs1000 said:

    CNN now saying 75% precincts reported. Have they started results again?

    The Buttigieg lead has increased 0.1% since it was 71% reported.

    It's all over. Buttigieg has won Iowa.
    I know I called it this morning.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Nevada is largely irrelevant, Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina are the key early states.

    You must win at least one of those to remain a viable contender for the nomination
    Just so I'm sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that if Buttigieg wins Nevada, it is of absolutely no importance whatsoever, right?
    Pretty much, it was his winning most delegates in Iowa that was important to get him at least through to Super Tuesday.

    No candidate has won Nevada alone without winning one of Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina and been nominee or even in the final 2 and it has few delegates compared to say California, Florida, Texas, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania etc
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited February 2020
    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Andy_JS said:

    Popular vote, Iowa Caucus:

    Sanders 32,638
    Buttigieg 28,825
    Warren 25,025
    Biden 19,878
    Klobuchar 17,050
    Yang 7,011

    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D

    Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
  • Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited February 2020
    rpjs said:

    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
    I like Romney.

    Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
    Maybe, but I think he's expecting at some point for Trump to be unmasked incontrovertibly as a bad 'un and then can claim to be the only Republican that saw through him.
    He's just a Mormon.
    Opposition to Trump is a religious thing for Mormons.

    The only reason Romney ran for the Senate was to deprive the Republicans of a Senate seat for the duration of Trump's presidency since his term expires in 2024.

    It's not complicated, just look at the other Mormons.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
    I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.

    Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.

    White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.

    A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.

    The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:
    https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

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

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

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

    What does that mean here?

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

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

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

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

    They may shortly adopt more ruthless containment methods as it won’t be long before they start to worry principally about China being semi-isolated and its economic growth choked off.
    I think China has been unusually open and honest about it all, from the notification to the WHO on 31st Dec onwards. Some of their containment methods are a bit draconian, but from a containment perspective, that is probably a good thing.
    Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.

    If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible

    I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited February 2020
    speedy2 said:

    rpjs said:

    BigRich said:

    HYUFD said:

    Romney is turning into a Republican Dominic Grieve or George Osborne
    I like Romney.

    Is it possible he is lining himself up to run as an Independent?
    Maybe, but I think he's expecting at some point for Trump to be unmasked incontrovertibly as a bad 'un and then can claim to be the only Republican that saw through him.
    He's just a Mormon.
    Opposition to Trump is a religious thing for Mormons.

    The only reason Romney ran for the Senate was to deprive the Republicans of a Senate seat for the duration of Trump's presidency since his term expires in 2024.

    It's not complicated, just look at the other Mormons.
    Indeed, Romney got 72% against Obama in Utah in 2012, well above his national share, Trump got just 45% in 2016 in Utah against Hillary, no different to his national share.

    Trump has almost made normally rock solid GOP Utah a swing state
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Popular vote, Iowa Caucus:

    Sanders 32,638
    Buttigieg 28,825
    Warren 25,025
    Biden 19,878
    Klobuchar 17,050
    Yang 7,011

    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D

    Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
    Never underestimate my girl.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
    I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.

    Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.

    White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.

    A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.

    The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
    Does Buttigieg have a similar (ie percieved) problem with other non-whites?
  • Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    In the noughties his sexuality would have been a disqualifying factor.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
    I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.

    Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.

    White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.

    A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.

    The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
    All this is true.
    And also the habit of treating “the black vote” as a single block is a really bad one.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 549
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    I am a vintage wine collector in Highgate village, with a personal net wealth of £30m. So fuck you, whoever you are. "Topping" my arse, you couldn't top a DDLG Scouse sub on heroin
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Popular vote, Iowa Caucus:

    Sanders 32,638
    Buttigieg 28,825
    Warren 25,025
    Biden 19,878
    Klobuchar 17,050
    Yang 7,011

    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D

    Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
    Never underestimate my girl.
    I will repeat what my savvy New York friend said a couple of months ago: the Dems will faff around a bit and then pick Warren.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    Oooh!
    [sarcasm on]
    Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob.
    [/sarcasm off]
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    BigRich said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    glw said:

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

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

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

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


    I think I was generous to Warren/Sanders there then though.
    Jacob Hornberger one of the Libertarian Party hopefuls is my preferred chose at the moment. but i suspect if there was a market for him it would be 1,000,000 to 1 at least on a good day.

    https://jacobforliberty.com/about-jacob-hornberger/
    What about likely Libertarian nominee John McAfee?
    *That* John McAfee? He’s completely bonkers!
    He would have made a better job of the Iowa caucus app, though.
    Apart from the repeated pop-ups advising you to buy the real thing.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    SeanT said:



    Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.

    If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible

    I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.

    Good, welcome back. We'd have missed you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    SeanT said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    I am a vintage wine collector in Highgate village, with a personal net wealth of £30m. So fuck you, whoever you are. "Topping" my arse, you couldn't top a DDLG Scouse sub on heroin
    Nah. You know fuck all about wine. Or food. But you write about them both very entertainingly.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
    If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.

    And yet, they love him now.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    Oooh!
    [sarcasm on]
    Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob.
    [/sarcasm off]
    Twat.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
    I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.

    Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.

    White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.

    A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.

    The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
    There was tons of evidence from the primaries and the opinion polls at the time that Trump was popular enough with evangelicals and the alliance with Pence solidified that block.

    Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.

    Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions.
    They all get low single digits :

    Buttigieg with minorities.
    Sanders with old people.
    Biden with young people.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

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

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

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

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

    Until that changes Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination are none.
    His only function is to deny the nomination for others.
    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.
    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
    I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.

    Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.

    White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.

    A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.

    The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
    Yep this might right but we don't know, which is why these contests are the real tests of his electability.
    matt said:


    Does Buttigieg have a similar (ie percieved) problem with other non-whites?

    Doesn't poll much better with Hispanics at the moment.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
    Yep the obvious big question is is the US ready for a gay Dem nominee and/or president.

    I have no clue about the answer. Does/can anyone have such an overview?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    TOPPING said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Popular vote, Iowa Caucus:

    Sanders 32,638
    Buttigieg 28,825
    Warren 25,025
    Biden 19,878
    Klobuchar 17,050
    Yang 7,011

    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D

    Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
    Never underestimate my girl.
    I will repeat what my savvy New York friend said a couple of months ago: the Dems will faff around a bit and then pick Warren.
    She's quite possible.

    But she probably needs to start, you know, winning caucuses and primaries.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Popular vote, Iowa Caucus:

    Sanders 32,638
    Buttigieg 28,825
    Warren 25,025
    Biden 19,878
    Klobuchar 17,050
    Yang 7,011

    https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/state/iowa?xid=crm_20200203_IA_D

    Yes, Sanders won the first round pretty easily, but did fairly poorly on transfers. He was a bit unlucky that Warren had a bit of a late surge. If she hadn't, he'd probably have won.
    Never underestimate my girl.
    I will repeat what my savvy New York friend said a couple of months ago: the Dems will faff around a bit and then pick Warren.
    She's quite possible.

    But she probably needs to start, you know, winning caucuses and primaries.
    Yes there is that.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    Oooh!
    [sarcasm on]
    Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob.
    [/sarcasm off]
    Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *

    *Though really wine is very nice too of course.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.

    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
    I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.

    Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.

    White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.

    A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.

    The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
    There was tons of evidence from the primaries and the opinion polls at the time that Trump was popular enough with evangelicals and the alliance with Pence solidified that block.

    Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.

    Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions.
    They all get low single digits :

    Buttigieg with minorities.
    Sanders with old people.
    Biden with young people.
    Buttigieg was elected Mayor with massive vote shares of a City that was much more AA than the country as a whole. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

    Let's see how he does in Nevada. That's a much more diverse place than Iowa or NH. If he's top tier (or wins) there, then he clearly can get votes from minorities.

    Just because he doesn't get minority votes now, doesn't mean he can't get them in the future.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    Oooh!
    [sarcasm on]
    Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob.
    [/sarcasm off]
    Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *

    *Though really wine is very nice too of course.
    Their non-alcoholic beer is rubbish.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    SeanT said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:
    https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

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

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

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

    What does that mean here?

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

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

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

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

    They may shortly adopt more ruthless containment methods as it won’t be long before they start to worry principally about China being semi-isolated and its economic growth choked off.
    I think China has been unusually open and honest about it all, from the notification to the WHO on 31st Dec onwards. Some of their containment methods are a bit draconian, but from a containment perspective, that is probably a good thing.
    Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.

    If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible

    I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
    You might just be one of the lucky ones for whom it’s not serious...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    eadric said:

    I'm afraid, as a humble part-owner of a vineyard in Tuscany, I will have to agree with SeanT

    Tikves Barovo wine is phenomenal.

    https://www.vivino.com/tikves-barovo-red/w/1224916?year=2016&

    https://winelibrary.com/wines/kratosija/2015-tikves-barovo-110902

    Yeah I couldn't be bothered to point out that it was Eadric the Sober who had had to self isolate.

    Actually auto correct said self idolate which is altogether more accurate.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
    Yep the obvious big question is is the US ready for a gay Dem nominee and/or president.

    I have no clue about the answer. Does/can anyone have such an overview?
    https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1224690833548611586?s=19
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    SeanT said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:
    https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

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

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

    Would anyone be surprised, if it turned out that the real data were an awful lot more serious than the official figures coming out of China?

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

    What does that mean here?

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

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

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

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

    They may shortly adopt more ruthless containment methods as it won’t be long before they start to worry principally about China being semi-isolated and its economic growth choked off.
    I think China has been unusually open and honest about it all, from the notification to the WHO on 31st Dec onwards. Some of their containment methods are a bit draconian, but from a containment perspective, that is probably a good thing.
    Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.

    If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible

    I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.
    That's something I've been wondering.

    It transmits like the common cold, and most of it's symptoms are like the common cold.
    So most people and doctors would think you've got the common cold and not treat it or even count you as a victim if you died from it.

    So the stastistics are bound to be flawed.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184

    SeanT said:



    Public Health England finally decided late yesterday that, even if I had coronavirus, I was recovering, and no longer contagious, so I could de-self-isolate.

    If they'd only tested me when I was sent into UCLH on Sunday Evening, as an emergency, they would now know whether I had that strain of flu or not. They are so chaotic they didn't test me, and now I am forever a Possible

    I wonder how many cases of this flu are going unnoticed. If I had it, this flu isn't that bad, just odd and creepy.

    Good, welcome back. We'd have missed you.
    Happy Birthday, Nick!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    Oooh!
    [sarcasm on]
    Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob.
    [/sarcasm off]
    Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *

    *Though really wine is very nice too of course.
    Their non-alcoholic beer is rubbish.
    Peroni non alcoholic beer is excellent (zero alcohol that is, not the 0.5% stuff).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    Oooh!
    [sarcasm on]
    Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob.
    [/sarcasm off]
    Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *

    *Though really wine is very nice too of course.
    Their non-alcoholic beer is rubbish.
    Peroni non alcoholic beer is excellent (zero alcohol that is, not the 0.5% stuff).
    There are some fabulous non-alcoholic IPAs out there.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    rcs1000 said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    TOPPING said:

    SeanT said:

    Jesus. Tikves Barovo wine from Macedonia. Who knew?

    Is this the best value wine in the world? YES

    You know nothing about the relative quality or value of wines so this must rank as one of the more meaningless comments of the day.
    Oooh!
    [sarcasm on]
    Yeah, Sean, how dare you venture an opinion. Opinions on wine are only valid if they come from a properly badged wine snob.
    [/sarcasm off]
    Anyway, tangentially related to wine snobbery, I went to a beer-and-cheese tasting event at one of Brewdog's pubs last weekend. Obviously the beer was all Brewdog. Fair enough. But the cheese! Punk IPA (or any malty IPA) with Garstang Blue (or any British blue cheese)! List Lager (or any authentic German lager) with goats' cheese! I was astonished it worked so well. Wine can, quite frankly, fuck off. *

    *Though really wine is very nice too of course.
    Their non-alcoholic beer is rubbish.
    Peroni non alcoholic beer is excellent (zero alcohol that is, not the 0.5% stuff).
    There are some fabulous non-alcoholic IPAs out there.
    I think there needs to be some kind of scale production before non alcoholic beer tastes nice which sadly rules out a lot of producers. Heineken is ok but Peroni knocks it out of the park.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Alistair said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
    Yep the obvious big question is is the US ready for a gay Dem nominee and/or president.

    I have no clue about the answer. Does/can anyone have such an overview?
    https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1224690833548611586?s=19
    Interesting. Thanks.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
    If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.

    And yet, they love him now.
    As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.

    The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    edited February 2020
    Just Googled Tikves Barovo.
    I'm sure it's very nice - but £20 a bottle? Not THAT good value.
    I don't think I know anyone who would pay £20 for a bottle of wine. I'm in my forties and firmly wedged in the middle classes - but that's just not how people I know soend their money.
    This isn't a criticism of those who do, just a reflection that expensive wine must be quite a minority pursuit.
    I know plenty of people who would pay over £4 frima specialist for a really good bottle of beer, or £30 or £40 plus for a bottle of whiskey, but expensive wine seldom appears on the radar.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TOPPING said:

    Alistair said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
    Yep the obvious big question is is the US ready for a gay Dem nominee and/or president.

    I have no clue about the answer. Does/can anyone have such an overview?
    https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1224690833548611586?s=19
    Interesting. Thanks.
    It's not 100% what he's saying here so I have asked for clarification.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited February 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.

    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
    I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.

    Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.

    White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.

    A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.

    The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
    There was tons of evidence from the primaries and the opinion polls at the time that Trump was popular enough with evangelicals and the alliance with Pence solidified that block.

    Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.

    Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions.
    They all get low single digits :

    Buttigieg with minorities.
    Sanders with old people.
    Biden with young people.
    Buttigieg was elected Mayor with massive vote shares of a City that was much more AA than the country as a whole. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.
    We've already established South Bend does not have an especially large AA community by US standards.

    More to the point he was voted in on a turnout of just over 20% the first time round, even fewer on re-election. In his re-election he performed worst in the minority districts, doing better in traditionally Republican-voting areas. Turnout was much higher in white districts, that's why he won.

  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469
    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:
    https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

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

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

    So what is what on that graph
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Romeny's guilty vote has absolutely blown the White House up. They've leaned so totally on "partisan impeachment" that to make it bi partisan is huuuuuge.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    rcs1000 said:

    speedy2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The big early tests for Buttigieg going deep into the primaries are South Carolina and, to a lesser extent, Nevada. I can't see any of the main contenders dropping out before then, and there's a big chance the wheels will quickly come off after those contests.

    Buttigieg could easily do very well in Nevada because it's a caucus state, and he (like Obama in '08) has invested a tonne of time and organisation.

    If everyone is still in (as in Warren-Sander-Buttigieg-Biden-Klobuchar-Steyer-maybeevenBloomberg), then the winning total could be as low at 25%.

    A well organised candidate who was on 15% going into the caucus (especially one who's transfer friendly) can easily win.
    Yeah that's why I said to a lesser extent. But being organised doesn't matter if people still won't vote for you. The votes for "moderates" are not necessarily interchangeable.
    I don't buy this "won't vote for..." meme.

    Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion, they said.

    White suburban woment wouldn't vote for a black President, they said.

    A lot of this is about perceived electability. A lot of Democratic Black voters won't vote Buttigieg because they don't think he can win. If they think he can win, that changes.

    The other thing to remember is that - so long as the field remains as split as it is now - then the winner in South Carolina could be on as little as 25-28%.
    There was tons of evidence from the primaries and the opinion polls at the time that Trump was popular enough with evangelicals and the alliance with Pence solidified that block.

    Obama too had showed plenty of evidence of support even within his weakest groups.

    Buttigieg, Biden and Sanders show no support outside their factions.
    They all get low single digits :

    Buttigieg with minorities.
    Sanders with old people.
    Biden with young people.
    Buttigieg was elected Mayor with massive vote shares of a City that was much more AA than the country as a whole. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

    Let's see how he does in Nevada. That's a much more diverse place than Iowa or NH. If he's top tier (or wins) there, then he clearly can get votes from minorities.

    Just because he doesn't get minority votes now, doesn't mean he can't get them in the future.
    The same was said about Biden and White voters and look at him now.

    It's a weakness in the process, the Democratic Primary is PR not Winner Take All like the Republican Primary.
    A purely factional candidate can't win a majority under PR.

    That's why right now no one wins.
  • @SeanT should explore more of central and east Europe’s wines. There are some great wines that never leave the countries in which they are made, and western European consumers aren’t ready to seek them out yet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
    If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.

    And yet, they love him now.
    As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.

    The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
    Ideologically Buttigieg is an economic centrist and social liberal, much like Hillary was and if that did not beat Trump in 2016 not clear why it should in 2020 either
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,328
    timmo said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:
    https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

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

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

    So what is what on that graph
    Can't tell, but the way that others are collecting the data, I guess the last two are deaths and recovered. So one of the first two is likely to be confirmed infections.

    For comparison, official figures stand at 24,631 infections, 494 deaths, and 1029 recovered globally, the vast bulk of which are in mainland China
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    timmo said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:
    https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

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

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

    So what is what on that graph
    According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.

    I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Toms said:

    I guess the pluses for Buttigieg are his youth, his centrism, and that he's not a Republican. And probably lots more. I look forward to learning more about him.

    The negatives may include the pronunciation and spelling of his name, in the great melting pot that is the US.

    And I look forward too, and with a degree of envy, to watching Michael Bloomberg needling the great tubby ape.

    My fear is that Buttigieg would have been an amazing candidate in the noughties, but isn't anything like rousing enough for the politically polarised environment of the '20s.
    I think Buttigieg's strength is that he minimises the anti-Democrat vote.

    He's not scary. He's hard to demonise. He's fought for his country. He's religious.

    Now, he's gay.

    But interestingly, the one area where young evangelicals and old evangelicals disagree is homosexuality. I think he minimises the anti-Democrat vote, and I think that's probably enough, if he's the nominee.
    He does on the coasts, in between not so sure

    https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1224733549506564097?s=20
    If you asked a white evangelical in 2015 if they'd vote for a man who'd paid his mistress to have an abortion for President, they'd have said no.

    And yet, they love him now.
    As Trump addresses March for Life and has restricted abortion, Buttigieg is not going to be anything other than a pro gay marriage President.

    The evangelical vote will be heavily for Trump again especially in the rustbelt swing states and hard to see Butttigieg making many inroads with evangelicals, tolerance may be one thing, a married gay President another. I could see Buttigieg winning the popular vote but the electoral college will be harder
    Whoosh.

    My point was about hypotheticals. If you had asked an evangelical voter in 2015 whether they'd vote for a man who paid his mistress to have an abortion, they'd have said no.

    Yet, they now love him.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    You guys picked up the news that Romney is going to vote to convict Trump? I`ve wondered whether Reps may go down this line in order to get rid of him.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    edited February 2020
    timmo said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:
    https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

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

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

    So what is what on that graph
    Probably lies and misinformation. But hey, posting stuff from Twitter is good, ok.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    edited February 2020
    speedy2 said:

    timmo said:

    speedy2 said:

    This is worrying:
    https://twitter.com/TaiwanNews886/status/1225011679592771589

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

    But the official death rate outside of China is only 0.5% so far.

    So what is what on that graph
    According to the translation the red figure is Confirmed cases, orange is Suspected cases, green Cured, grey Dead.

    I'm scratching my head because in non-Chinese cases the death rate is 0.5% and under those figures in China it's 16%.
    The mortality rate is not 0.5%. As has been mentioned you must compare deaths to the number of recovered, not number of infected. The number of recovered outside China is still very low.

    Besides the mortality is likely to be inflated in Wuhan because the hospitals are overwhelmed.
This discussion has been closed.