Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whoever ends up winning Iowa the WH2020 Dem nomination battle
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whoever ends up winning Iowa the WH2020 Dem nomination battle is now framed as between Bernie and Buttigieg
Although the Iowa result has not yet been finalised and it might be a few days before we know, there’s little doubt that what happened on Monday will have a major impact on the race from here. We are already seeing this in polls for the New Hampshire Primary which takes place next Tuesday.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Ooops third.
It's Nevada after New Hampshire. And then South Carolina last of all.
There's eleven days between New Hampshire on the 11th and Nevada on the 22nd. Then South Carolina is on the 29th. Super Tuesday follows on March 3.
However, it is worth noting that some of the Monmouth poll was carried out prior to Iowa results.
In many ways, this Iowa thing is turning out to Buttigieg's advantage (hard though that is to believe). Simply, Iowa is being recast as a tie between Sanders and Buttigieg, and that's making the choice of Democrats stark. It's the old grumpy Socialist, or the young gay guy.
Biden is fading everywhere. Two of the New Hampshire polls yesterday had him at just 11%. If he were to drop into single figures on Tuesday, then can he hold on in South Carolina? If he cannot, then his race is over.
... and does 'anyone' include Trump?
Biden is a loser. Yang is a loser. Klobuchar is probably a loser too.
Sanders is about flat. As is Warren.
Buttigieg is a winner.
And you must admit, Buttigieg vs Trump would generate by far the most interesting debates.
Warren is flat. If she'd been second in Iowa, she would have been a winner.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/opinion/economy-republicans-deficit.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
"In the exit polls, the fresh-faced mayor who was promising a more positive politics showed strength across rural, urban and suburban areas, as well as the 31 "pivot counties" that voted for Obama and then flipped to Trump. "
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/pete-buttigieg-iowa/index.html
1. Her vote / SDE shares were a little better than expected, but more importantly,
2. Sanders didn't have a clear win and because Buttigieg is surging, looks to be going backwards as against FPTP expectations in NH.
Put simply, if Sanders is less the clear liberal / socialist candidate in the race than he was before, that leaves Warren more space.
Had Bernie won Iowa by a decent margin and then followed it up with a comfortable win in NH (as polls up to this week suggested), and then a third win in Nevada - as would have been quite likely - then the race would have been over before Bloomberg even joined it. Instead, there's no clear leader and an gap opening up for an alternative geriatric moderate.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/06/politics/mitt-romney-new-old-gop/index.html
Romney 2024?
She's also the clear (viable) compromise candidate between Socialist Bernie and Bloomberg/Buttigieg.
But she also has to perform in New Hampshire. If she ends up in the teens, ten points behind Sanders and Buttigieg, then she's not really gaining momentum, she's just treading water. Add to that, her Nevada operation is apparently imploding, and South Carolina is unlikely to be her state.
So, yes, she performed better than expectations in Iowa. But her path the nomination is no easier than it was before Iowa. Flat is right.
Bloomberg needs Buttigieg to perform less than brilliantly in NH. He needs him to be in the high teens, and few points above Biden. He needs the moderate vote to remain split. And right now, that's not looking very likely.
"So, when will we know who’s going to win the nomination? Here’s my advice. Accept that this is the most unpredictable and unconventional primary campaign that we’ve seen in years (if not in memory). That means we need to stop trying to make it fit into a traditional box."
https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/so-now-what
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944
She reckons that for November the Dems are a near lock for the WH, will increase their House seats and have a good chance of taking the Senate.
What will be different now though is that Buttigieg will have the spotlight shone on him as he hasn't had before - not just by the media but by other candidates. How will he and the voting public respond to that?
We're not going back, guys......
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1225819280945635328?s=20
But there are differences too. For example, while Buttigieg is openly gay, Macron is not openly gay.
In my opinion the Lib Dems need to be very thoughtful about how to contain their EU enthusiasms going forward.
2018 was frankly not that good for the Dems. It was no miraculous Dem wave.
I did notice on This Morning the other day that PP just kept saying the same line time and again... Coogan, Iannucci et al really did nail the politicians trick in the first, and by far the funniest IMO, series of Partridge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXxjQpEYqM
He has claws, we know that. His response to Warren over the wine dinner affair was brutal and brilliant. It lost him votes, sure, but it also made it clear that he would strike back. (Warren undoubtedly lost as much, if not more, than him from the exchange.)
But he's also wonderfully clean cut, and wholesome, and really not that threatening to moderate Republicans. He's a veteran, who's at home talking about his faith, and who isn't going to take away your healthcare.
On the debate stage, he hasn't frozen up: he's been calm and collected and articulate. And he's steadily climbed in the "could you vote for this man" stakes as the contest has lengthened.
But he's still a long way from the nomination. He needs Klobuchar to drop out after New Hampshire, and ideally endorse him. He needs Biden to flop in both NH and then in Nevada, and for the Biden funding taps to dry up. He ideally needs to start eating into Bloomberg's 10+% national poll shares.
He could win. He's certainly better value than 1-in-10. But he's far from certain.
Of course, the stability of those percentages depends on an orderly implementation of a UK-EU FTA that leads to pan-European stability with no significant impact on people’s day to day lives in the short-medium term.
The rejoin argument will get harder to make in the longer term because it will become a political one, rather than a political and economic one, so it would depend on a mass shift in values amongst the electorate at large.
SC can perform very differently so I’m keeping (just) onside of Biden at the moment.
West Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, and North Dakota were all Democrat held states that Trump had carried two years earlier. To hold two of these, and to win Arizona (which also voted Trump) was objectively a good performance.
In absolute number of votes, the Dems got almost 20 percent more than that previous mid-term record. That's pretty extraordinary.
It hasn’t worked for them.
I’m not sure I see much evidence they won’t try it a third time. They’d be better working on their unique USP for liberalism.
There’s plenty of material for them to work on.
And is fourth in Nevada, and gets no delegates.
Then will he really clean up in South Carolina?
He's already behind in the money race, where Sanders leads Buttigieg, who's ahead of Warren... and then there's a long, long gap down to Biden.
Biden ended December with less than $9m on hand. If he's not getting much in the way of new donations, then he's going to run out before South Carolina.
I was a 55% Remain voter - and disliked being regarded as a "remainer" as the decision was a fine one for me - but am unlikely ever to be a "rejoiner".
As a LibDem supporter I feel that their recovery will be hampered by going down a rabbit hole on this. Being an internationalist party does not require EU membership after all.
I think it’s even more likely that a future Lab/Lab-SNP or Lab-LD-SNP simply sign us up to more EU programmes, with associated contributions, and align our regulations/laws domestically more closely with theirs.
But Indiana and North Dakota? Those are like Republicans holding Hawaii or Oregon.
I would take a step back and look at the absolute number of House votes cast for the Democrats against every other mid-term in history. It was twenty percent higher. That's pretty amazing.
I think this video is an excellent explainer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfKhhBXJkQo
Do you think it’s going to be third time lucky for them?
You can have your own views, even if your views are as nutty as squirrel shit. You don't get to tell your opponents what their views should be.
I just don’t think it’s going to be very successful for them in garnering extra votes. I suspect they’d get about 15%, as Labour would squeeze it in a general and get 35%+.
But, it’s no skin off my nose. I’ve little personal interest in the electoral success of the Liberal Democrats.
They also have the advantage (and it is an advantage) that the next Labour leader is likely to be much less polarising than the current one. That means that the Tories shouting about the risk of letting Labour in is likely to be much less effective than it was last time around.
Right now the Conservatives have the field to themselves as both the Lib Dems and Labour regroup. My advice to both of those parties would be to hold their nerve and to be true to their values.
Rank and file Conservatives are drawing exactly the wrong lesson from the last election. They are mistaking hatred of Jeremy Corbyn for adoration of Brexit. If the Conservative leadership make the same mistake, they are going to be very out of tune at the next election.
The percentage that would want to rejoin with no rebate and by abandoning our currency would be very small indeed and would be castigated as being even more unpatriotic than remainers were (perhaps with more justification this time).
Evangelicals support Trump because he's doing things that restrict the availability of abortion. And for this, they forgive him for being an adulterer who's (allegedly) paid for a mistress to have an abortion.
People vote for those who they think will bring them baubles.
(1) I agree that Jeremy Corbyn was a huge driver of Boris’s victory. But success for a Labour next time isn’t solely a function of ditching him. They’ll lose his foreign policy baggage but they also need a domestic policy platform that won’t frighten the horses, and it has to be credible. The more radical Starmer goes on raising taxes and deficit borrowing the easier a traditional Tory attack on Labour’s economic policy becomes, helping retain soft Tories.
(2) Whilst the Liberal Democrats achieved a lot of good second places it remains to be seen if these were fuelled by a desire to stop/inhibit a No Deal Brexit (our own Richard Nabavi being one) and were thus wavering soft Tories who defected, or a permanent shift.
So, yes, maybe, but not certainly and there many other counter-vectors at play there too.
I look forward to reading your thread.
Their drift into collectivist ideology is very disconcerting indeed.
I now need to say something to you which you may instinctively bridle at, but which when you ruminate a little you will agree is undeniably true.
Why does Patel get ridiculed far less for her obvious "out of depthness" than Abbott even though (as you allude to) they are both BAME and female?
It's because Patel being Right is a target of the Left whereas Abbott being Left is a target of the Right, and people on the Right are on the whole and on balance, without smearing any particular individuals -
(i) more racist and sexist than people on the Left, and
(ii) less concerned about being seen to be such than those on the Left.
This is probably going to be the defining political dividing line of the 2020s, and it’s arguably what underlay Brexit itself.
If I were them I’d put their best thinkers on it.
Even Warsi is taking the piss out of Patel..
https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/1225136863452766210?s=20
The test I guess is what would that lady who wanted to reallocate her vote to another democrat the other day because of what the bible says do when the option is a gay democrat or trump?
The phenomenon can be seen in Britain. Before July there was no shortage of Conservatives who regarded Boris Johnson as wholly unfit to be Prime Minister. He then proceeded to try to suspend democracy.
Come December, he won a thumping majority, because those same Conservatives decided that electing a leader who made a full-frontal assault on democracy was ok so long as Brexit was secured.
While the last election was between Boris and Corbyn and getting Brexit done or further delay, the next general election is likely to be between Boris and Starmer and hard Brexit and WTO+ trade deal with Boris or soft Brexit and back to the single market with Starmer