You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
Slightly over dramatic. As my SNYF says, people despise him personally for all kinds of valid reasons, but he has not been bad for the American economy.
Well he's chucked a mega deficit at it. But I guess people don't worry about that until it goes pop.
When your central bank happens to be the one that prints dollars you are ok for quite some time. cf UK borrowing rates over the past decade or so.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Too generic for official use, SARS and MERS were also Corona viruses. I expect the general public will still call it Coronavirus.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
Just because the name is used in the popular press does not mean it is used in the scientific literature. It's known colloquially as coronavirus, nothing more.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
The Dem race ending up with Sanders and Bloomberg will play massively into Trump’s hands.
It will split the electorate 50-25-25, with neither of the two remaining Dem candidates able to bring their supporters out for the other against Trump at the actual election. Orange man will get a landslide.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
Wasn't he saying that Warren was a cert weeks ago?
Yep. He didn't like her "lack of clarity" on, say, Healthcare. Bernie says it will be paid for by taxes and people should understand that; she says that it will be the "billionaires" who pay. But of course there aren't enough billionaires for this to be anything other than economical with the truth.
Unless the billionaires were Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, and she is planning a digital tax.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
The government really needs to get a grip of homelessness. The sight of someone high profile, only recently and prominently made unemployed, having to beg on Twitter for different homes to sleep in with a sleeping bag is rather tragic.
Every time I come on this site, you are here commenting. Isn't it time you asked OGH to ban you again, before you find yourself homeless?
Oh the irony, from a guy who says he used to be somebody of importance in the Tory Party.....
When viewed as an incentive to save, though, tax relief clearly makes no sense to most people. Research by the pension scheme B&CE in 2015 showed that of people actually in a pension, 74 per cent either didn’t know how tax relief worked or weren’t even aware it existed. The Government is spending tens of billions of pounds a year (roughly £30 billion to £50 billion, depending on how you want to measure it), on a scheme which is largely unappreciated by the population.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.
That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
I agree about the polarisation - That one really even more of a Brexit election, with the Lib Dems not having recovered from the coalition, and UKIP ruderless after Farage.
"Not wanting to give May a landslide" surely has no basis in reality though. There's no way voters have enough information to decide to vote for a party they want to lose, in order to keep the party they want to win grounded.
It's the kind of thing a minister says in the election studio when they didn't do as well as they'd hoped
I think there were people who could have voted Lib Dem in 2017 but didn't because they didn't want May to get a landslide, then did do so in 2019.
It certainly looked that way. Everyone was convinced that May would win big and enough didn't want that to vote Labour in larger than expected numbers.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
Wasn't he saying that Warren was a cert weeks ago?
Yep. He didn't like her "lack of clarity" on, say, Healthcare. Bernie says it will be paid for by taxes and people should understand that; she says that it will be the "billionaires" who pay. But of course there aren't enough billionaires for this to be anything other than economical with the truth.
Unless the billionaires were Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, and she is planning a digital tax.
Medicare spending is estimated to rise to $1.2trn by 2026 says my mate Wiki. I think even the Zuckmeister might be outgunned at that level.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
The Dem race ending up with Sanders and Bloomberg will play massively into Trump’s hands.
It will split the electorate 50-25-25, with neither of the two remaining Dem candidates able to bring their supporters out for the other against Trump at the actual election. Orange man will get a landslide.
I hadn't properly clocked the Sanders history - honeymoon in Moscow, saying that the US embassy in Iran was full of spooks, etc...
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
The Dem race ending up with Sanders and Bloomberg will play massively into Trump’s hands.
It will split the electorate 50-25-25, with neither of the two remaining Dem candidates able to bring their supporters out for the other against Trump at the actual election. Orange man will get a landslide.
I hadn't properly clocked the Sanders history - honeymoon in Moscow, saying that the US embassy in Iran was full of spooks, etc...
And his policy platform is about as well costed as Labour's. And any questioning of it is basically met with we can't afford not to. He wouldn't last an Andrew Neil grilling.
When your central bank happens to be the one that prints dollars you are ok for quite some time. cf UK borrowing rates over the past decade or so.
Oh yes, they can float along on huge indebtedness and money printing for longer than most. Wouldn't mind seeing a return to "sound money" principles, though, myself. Or at least spend it on universal healthcare rather than tax cuts and the military.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
And his policy platform is about as well costed as Labour's. And any questioning of it is basically met with we can't afford not to. He wouldn't last an Andrew Neil grilling.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
Wasn't he saying that Warren was a cert weeks ago?
Yep. He didn't like her "lack of clarity" on, say, Healthcare. Bernie says it will be paid for by taxes and people should understand that; she says that it will be the "billionaires" who pay. But of course there aren't enough billionaires for this to be anything other than economical with the truth.
Unless the billionaires were Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, and she is planning a digital tax.
Medicare spending is estimated to rise to $1.2trn by 2026 says my mate Wiki. I think even the Zuckmeister might be outgunned at that level.
Only in the US, would there be a legal ban on publicly funded healthcare’s ability to negotiate with drug companies.
The problem is that that everyone with a voice loves the status quo, from the senators and congressmen funded by the drug companies, to the media companies running 20 minutes of ads an hour for prescription-only medications.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Edit - a quarter, not a half. Edit #2 - and what will be the geographical spread of infection? Much worse in China, or basically just worldwide?
As others have pointed out Coronavirus is the name for a family of viruses so it's not ideal to name this one specific variant the same. But I suspect it's going to be known as that anyway.
I think the more worring thing is how it could potentially put a massive strain on the healthcare system. Even if the virus is not the most deadly it seems like it can take a while to recover, if uncontrolled it could see unecessary deaths due to lack of care as demonstrated by the problems in Wuhan.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
The problem that Bloomberg has is that getting (say) 20% on Super Tuesday, and then getting the Big Mo still doesn't get him anywhere near a majority of delegates.
By the end of Tuesday 4 March, approximately 40% of the delegates will have been elected. So, having 20% of 40% leaves Bloomberg with an essentially insurmountable task in the post Super Tuesday world.
Now... could he get to "first" in delegates? If the field remains split, yes. But getting anywhere near a majority is close to impossible.
And then you have Bloomberg's problem: he's not very popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Indeed, the only person less popular than him is probably Sanders.
At a brokered convention, could either of them get enough delegates to get over the line? Well, if Sanders had 40% of the delegates, and the closest other candidate had 20%, then he'd probably end up with the nomination. Likewise for Bloomberg. But that's not looking very likely right now.
And so... I find it hard to see the path to the nomination for any of the major players. Sanders can win if the moderate lane remains crowded. But it seems to me that the value at this point is Warren (who might well win Nevada) and Klobuchar (because she's been surging in NH, and is acceptable to every part of the Democratic party).
Of course, if Pete Buttigieg wins tonight, which is far from impossible, then everything changes again.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
Wasn't he saying that Warren was a cert weeks ago?
Yep. He didn't like her "lack of clarity" on, say, Healthcare. Bernie says it will be paid for by taxes and people should understand that; she says that it will be the "billionaires" who pay. But of course there aren't enough billionaires for this to be anything other than economical with the truth.
Unless the billionaires were Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, and she is planning a digital tax.
Medicare spending is estimated to rise to $1.2trn by 2026 says my mate Wiki. I think even the Zuckmeister might be outgunned at that level.
The USA has by far the worst healthcare system of any comparable developed nation I reckon. Their spending per capita is twice ours iirc.
When your central bank happens to be the one that prints dollars you are ok for quite some time. cf UK borrowing rates over the past decade or so.
Oh yes, they can float along on huge indebtedness and money printing for longer than most. Wouldn't mind seeing a return to "sound money" principles, though, myself. Or at least spend it on universal healthcare rather than tax cuts and the military.
is what the US public will be deciding shortly. Ain't democracy a thing.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
This is very significant, by S.C the Sanders campaign could have the feel of a runaway freight train. Choo choo!
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
Maybe, maybe not. We all say "SARS" and not "bird-flu", which demonstrates that they do have the ability to change popular usage of language. If media outlets switch terms, then everyone else will follow within a few weeks.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
The problem that Bloomberg has is that getting (say) 20% on Super Tuesday, and then getting the Big Mo still doesn't get him anywhere near a majority of delegates.
By the end of Tuesday 4 March, approximately 40% of the delegates will have been elected. So, having 20% of 40% leaves Bloomberg with an essentially insurmountable task in the post Super Tuesday world.
Now... could he get to "first" in delegates? If the field remains split, yes. But getting anywhere near a majority is close to impossible.
And then you have Bloomberg's problem: he's not very popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Indeed, the only person less popular than him is probably Sanders.
At a brokered convention, could either of them get enough delegates to get over the line? Well, if Sanders had 40% of the delegates, and the closest other candidate had 20%, then he'd probably end up with the nomination. Likewise for Bloomberg. But that's not looking very likely right now.
And so... I find it hard to see the path to the nomination for any of the major players. Sanders can win if the moderate lane remains crowded. But it seems to me that the value at this point is Warren (who might well win Nevada) and Klobuchar (because she's been surging in NH, and is acceptable to every part of the Democratic party).
Of course, if Pete Buttigieg wins tonight, which is far from impossible, then everything changes again.
I am struggling to see a way for any of them to get past Trump. Obama's previous senatorial status notwithstanding, to have been elected by no more than 8,000 people does not necessarily prepare you for the relentlessness of your opponent pointing it out the whole time, for example.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
The problem that Bloomberg has is that getting (say) 20% on Super Tuesday, and then getting the Big Mo still doesn't get him anywhere near a majority of delegates.
By the end of Tuesday 4 March, approximately 40% of the delegates will have been elected. So, having 20% of 40% leaves Bloomberg with an essentially insurmountable task in the post Super Tuesday world.
Now... could he get to "first" in delegates? If the field remains split, yes. But getting anywhere near a majority is close to impossible.
And then you have Bloomberg's problem: he's not very popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Indeed, the only person less popular than him is probably Sanders.
At a brokered convention, could either of them get enough delegates to get over the line? Well, if Sanders had 40% of the delegates, and the closest other candidate had 20%, then he'd probably end up with the nomination. Likewise for Bloomberg. But that's not looking very likely right now.
And so... I find it hard to see the path to the nomination for any of the major players. Sanders can win if the moderate lane remains crowded. But it seems to me that the value at this point is Warren (who might well win Nevada) and Klobuchar (because she's been surging in NH, and is acceptable to every part of the Democratic party).
Of course, if Pete Buttigieg wins tonight, which is far from impossible, then everything changes again.
Go Pete!
But generally, what a mess. Trump might be laughing so hard the face paint comes off.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
The Dem race ending up with Sanders and Bloomberg will play massively into Trump’s hands.
It will split the electorate 50-25-25, with neither of the two remaining Dem candidates able to bring their supporters out for the other against Trump at the actual election. Orange man will get a landslide.
I hadn't properly clocked the Sanders history - honeymoon in Moscow, saying that the US embassy in Iran was full of spooks, etc...
Yep, he is a disaster of Corbyn levels I reckon. Dems are fools.
When viewed as an incentive to save, though, tax relief clearly makes no sense to most people. Research by the pension scheme B&CE in 2015 showed that of people actually in a pension, 74 per cent either didn’t know how tax relief worked or weren’t even aware it existed. The Government is spending tens of billions of pounds a year (roughly £30 billion to £50 billion, depending on how you want to measure it), on a scheme which is largely unappreciated by the population.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
Maybe, maybe not. We all say "SARS" and not "bird-flu", which demonstrates that they do have the ability to change popular usage of language. If media outlets switch terms, then everyone else will follow within a few weeks.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
This is very significant, by S.C the Sanders campaign could have the feel of a runaway freight train. Choo choo!
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
Biden: 20%
Bloomberg: 12%
Warren: 11% (-) Buttigieg: 8%
Yang: 8%
Klobuchar: 1%
Gabbard: 1%
Biden really should pack it in. He is embarrassing himself and much more importantly he is blocking the development of more moderate candidates to challenge Sanders.
He doesn't think Warren will take it any more, that Biden has blown it, and that Mayor Pete is too wet behind the ears. As such, and as reflects the betting markets, he thinks it will be between Bernie and Bloomberg. He is edging towards Bernie because he is the only one who is focused on the job at hand, and has the popular following to bring the numbers. He would like to hear Mike BBG go head to head with Trump ("unsuccessful businessman") and thinks that in Trump vs Sanders Trump will murder Sanders on his historic left wingery.
The Dem race ending up with Sanders and Bloomberg will play massively into Trump’s hands.
It will split the electorate 50-25-25, with neither of the two remaining Dem candidates able to bring their supporters out for the other against Trump at the actual election. Orange man will get a landslide.
I hadn't properly clocked the Sanders history - honeymoon in Moscow, saying that the US embassy in Iran was full of spooks, etc...
Yep, he is a disaster of Corbyn levels I reckon. Dems are fools.
I might be talking my book here but going for Bloomberg would make the Dems the laughing stock of the centre-left political world. Between Sanders, Trump and lil Mike this isn't a particularly hard choice to make for me.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
That poll epitomises Sanders problem: as moderate candidates fall, he benefits only modestly.
He can easily win a plurality of delegates, simply because there are so many moderates (and they seem determined to stay in). But getting 50%+1 is a tough, tough ask.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Edit - a quarter, not a half. Edit #2 - and what will be the geographical spread of infection? Much worse in China, or basically just worldwide?
Someone in Corona beer's owners have been spending a lot of money to.get a new name created.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
It's a bit like the Tsunami.
There have been thousands of tsunamis in human history, but when people say "the tsunami" they almost always mean the Boxing Day Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004.
I recall my Vietnamese PhD student referring to "the war" to me in conversation, and it taking me about five seconds to realise that she wasn't talking about the Second World War...
I guess we would have a similar issue talking to someone from Fukushima.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
Maybe, maybe not. We all say "SARS" and not "bird-flu", which demonstrates that they do have the ability to change popular usage of language. If media outlets switch terms, then everyone else will follow within a few weeks.
... SARS is not bird flu.
Exactly. But yet it was popularly called that at first.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
This is very significant, by S.C the Sanders campaign could have the feel of a runaway freight train. Choo choo!
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
Biden: 20%
Bloomberg: 12%
Warren: 11% (-) Buttigieg: 8%
Yang: 8%
Klobuchar: 1%
Gabbard: 1%
Biden really should pack it in. He is embarrassing himself and much more importantly he is blocking the development of more moderate candidates to challenge Sanders.
I have to say these numbers see odd to me. Biden has dropped 14 points in a month? Pretty sure most voters not in an actual primary seat taking place this week or last week will not be that focused on politics to be saying - 'yep, looking at Biden again, he's too old etc etc
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
At this stage in the Republican primaries last time we had Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina (remember them?) just pulling out and we still had going forwards as well as Trump: Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Carson and Jeb Bush. And a lot of talk about a contested convention.
Yang's campaign is clearly doomed. Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Warren are all below the 15% threshold required to get delegates according to your link with Biden only just above it too, though its determined on a state level of course.
By this time next month some at least of the candidates will pull out and start to endorse other candidates remaining. Before long we'll be down to 2-3 serious candidates left and at that point a contested convention becomes remote.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
This is very significant, by S.C the Sanders campaign could have the feel of a runaway freight train. Choo choo!
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
Biden: 20%
Bloomberg: 12%
Warren: 11% (-) Buttigieg: 8%
Yang: 8%
Klobuchar: 1%
Gabbard: 1%
Biden really should pack it in. He is embarrassing himself and much more importantly he is blocking the development of more moderate candidates to challenge Sanders.
It's too late now! Say he packs it in after NH tonight we go to Nevada. Right where do his moderate voters go? Not to Pete who has 0 traction with PoC, to Klobuchar? Hmmm......the moderates have messed up trying so hard to stop Bernie they forgot to rally round someone. Stupid, stupid Dems.
Point us to a Guardian article which is clearly "superior" in quality to an equivalent Daily Mail piece.
It's much harder than you think
Both papers publish some rather good stuff, amidst a larger sea of clickbating bilge.
C'mon! I haven't read either for a year but unless that year has seen the most remarkable uplift in one and deterioration in the other, I could just stick a pin and satisfy that request.
But, let me see, thinking back, what about that thing in the G, the "Long Read" that you get on a Saturday? Let's assume it's still going. So sometimes that would be delving into gene theory, say, or deep background on a conflict somewhere in the developing world, or something on the Chinese approach to public debt, all sorts of top drawer eclectic stuff like that. The Mail equivalent to this? Well, it would be something shallow and exploitative, wouldn't it?
Elisabeth Murdoch has made clear she has no interest in becoming director general of the BBC, after bookmakers made her the favourite for the role following a string of speculative stories.
Murdoch, the daughter of Rupert and a successful media entrepreneur in her own right, was said to be the “surprise contender to become the BBC’s new director general” in an article in the i newspaper, which claimed the appointment would fit with Downing Street’s intentions for the role.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
This is very significant, by S.C the Sanders campaign could have the feel of a runaway freight train. Choo choo!
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
Biden: 20%
Bloomberg: 12%
Warren: 11% (-) Buttigieg: 8%
Yang: 8%
Klobuchar: 1%
Gabbard: 1%
Biden really should pack it in. He is embarrassing himself and much more importantly he is blocking the development of more moderate candidates to challenge Sanders.
It's too late now! Say he packs it in after NH tonight we go to Nevada. Right where do his moderate voters go? Not to Pete who has 0 traction with PoC, to Klobuchar? Hmmm......the moderates have messed up trying so hard to stop Bernie they forgot to rally round someone. Stupid, stupid Dems.
I really hope you are wrong, but I fear greatly you are right.
Why on earth did they let him into the primary at all. He's not a Democrat.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
This is very significant, by S.C the Sanders campaign could have the feel of a runaway freight train. Choo choo!
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
Biden: 20%
Bloomberg: 12%
Warren: 11% (-) Buttigieg: 8%
Yang: 8%
Klobuchar: 1%
Gabbard: 1%
Biden really should pack it in. He is embarrassing himself and much more importantly he is blocking the development of more moderate candidates to challenge Sanders.
It's too late now! Say he packs it in after NH tonight we go to Nevada. Right where do his moderate voters go? Not to Pete who has 0 traction with PoC, to Klobuchar? Hmmm......the moderates have messed up trying so hard to stop Bernie they forgot to rally round someone. Stupid, stupid Dems.
I doubt you're right, its very still early. Pete may get traction as could Klobuchar, especially if Biden endorsed either.
Here's the really interesting question for New Hampshire:
Who, if anyone, drops out after the Primary?
My personal view is that Biden's candidacy is the one most likely to fold. He has the least money (by a substantial margin) of any of the major campaigns. And a fourth or fifth placed position today is going to see the money taps close. No money, means no staff, means no advertisments, and no ability to pay volunteers' expenses.
I know he'll want to hang on to South Carolina, but it's one thing to hang on when you're getting seconds and thirds. It's another if you're coming fourth or fifth, three contests in a row.
The problem that Bloomberg has is that getting (say) 20% on Super Tuesday, and then getting the Big Mo still doesn't get him anywhere near a majority of delegates.
By the end of Tuesday 4 March, approximately 40% of the delegates will have been elected. So, having 20% of 40% leaves Bloomberg with an essentially insurmountable task in the post Super Tuesday world.
Now... could he get to "first" in delegates? If the field remains split, yes. But getting anywhere near a majority is close to impossible.
And then you have Bloomberg's problem: he's not very popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Indeed, the only person less popular than him is probably Sanders.
At a brokered convention, could either of them get enough delegates to get over the line? Well, if Sanders had 40% of the delegates, and the closest other candidate had 20%, then he'd probably end up with the nomination. Likewise for Bloomberg. But that's not looking very likely right now.
And so... I find it hard to see the path to the nomination for any of the major players. Sanders can win if the moderate lane remains crowded. But it seems to me that the value at this point is Warren (who might well win Nevada) and Klobuchar (because she's been surging in NH, and is acceptable to every part of the Democratic party).
Of course, if Pete Buttigieg wins tonight, which is far from impossible, then everything changes again.
Doing the old "price versus IMO chance" value assessment, as of right now I think Warren is a standout long odds bet for the Nom.
Here's the really interesting question for New Hampshire:
Who, if anyone, drops out after the Primary?
My personal view is that Biden's candidacy is the one most likely to fold. He has the least money (by a substantial margin) of any of the major campaigns. And a fourth or fifth placed position today is going to see the money taps close. No money, means no staff, means no advertisments, and no ability to pay volunteers' expenses.
I know he'll want to hang on to South Carolina, but it's one thing to hang on when you're getting seconds and thirds. It's another if you're coming fourth or fifth, three contests in a row.
I hope you're right. He's like Jeb Bush last time - an early favourite but getting no traction when it comes to real votes. What's his USP?
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
But not really supported by the big jump in Labour's vote share in 2017! Even in 2019 , Labour polled a fair bit higher than in 1983 - 1987- 2010 - and 2015. Moreover , in those earlier elections - 2015 excepted - Labour's GB vote share was boosted by circa 2% on account of its strong performance in Scotland.When allowance is made for the Scotland collapse , Labour's 2019 GB vote share of 33.1% is pretty similar - outside Scotland - to the 35.2% obtained in 1992.
2017 was evidence of polarisation of the public and not wanting to give May a landslide, not the popularity of Labour.
That's the problem, Labour members took it as vindication of their strategy.
I agree about the polarisation - That one really even more of a Brexit election, with the Lib Dems not having recovered from the coalition, and UKIP ruderless after Farage.
"Not wanting to give May a landslide" surely has no basis in reality though. There's no way voters have enough information to decide to vote for a party they want to lose, in order to keep the party they want to win grounded.
It's the kind of thing a minister says in the election studio when they didn't do as well as they'd hoped
I think there were people who could have voted Lib Dem in 2017 but didn't because they didn't want May to get a landslide, then did do so in 2019.
It certainly looked that way. Everyone was convinced that May would win big and enough didn't want that to vote Labour in larger than expected numbers.
Not by the last week or so of the 2017 campaign. Several polls were suggesting that a Hung Parliament was quite likely.
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
This is very significant, by S.C the Sanders campaign could have the feel of a runaway freight train. Choo choo!
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
Biden: 20%
Bloomberg: 12%
Warren: 11% (-) Buttigieg: 8%
Yang: 8%
Klobuchar: 1%
Gabbard: 1%
Biden really should pack it in. He is embarrassing himself and much more importantly he is blocking the development of more moderate candidates to challenge Sanders.
It's too late now! Say he packs it in after NH tonight we go to Nevada. Right where do his moderate voters go? Not to Pete who has 0 traction with PoC, to Klobuchar? Hmmm......the moderates have messed up trying so hard to stop Bernie they forgot to rally round someone. Stupid, stupid Dems.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
At this stage in the Republican primaries last time we had Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina (remember them?) just pulling out and we still had going forwards as well as Trump: Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Carson and Jeb Bush. And a lot of talk about a contested convention.
Yang's campaign is clearly doomed. Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Warren are all below the 15% threshold required to get delegates according to your link with Biden only just above it too, though its determined on a state level of course.
By this time next month some at least of the candidates will pull out and start to endorse other candidates remaining. Before long we'll be down to 2-3 serious candidates left and at that point a contested convention becomes remote.
Lots of Rep states are winner takes all (Florida is a good example) whereas all Dem primaries are more-or-less proportional.
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
I thought Sarah Smith was going to punch him, she was absolutely raging.
The problem that Bloomberg has is that getting (say) 20% on Super Tuesday, and then getting the Big Mo still doesn't get him anywhere near a majority of delegates.
By the end of Tuesday 4 March, approximately 40% of the delegates will have been elected. So, having 20% of 40% leaves Bloomberg with an essentially insurmountable task in the post Super Tuesday world.
Now... could he get to "first" in delegates? If the field remains split, yes. But getting anywhere near a majority is close to impossible.
And then you have Bloomberg's problem: he's not very popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Indeed, the only person less popular than him is probably Sanders.
At a brokered convention, could either of them get enough delegates to get over the line? Well, if Sanders had 40% of the delegates, and the closest other candidate had 20%, then he'd probably end up with the nomination. Likewise for Bloomberg. But that's not looking very likely right now.
And so... I find it hard to see the path to the nomination for any of the major players. Sanders can win if the moderate lane remains crowded. But it seems to me that the value at this point is Warren (who might well win Nevada) and Klobuchar (because she's been surging in NH, and is acceptable to every part of the Democratic party).
Of course, if Pete Buttigieg wins tonight, which is far from impossible, then everything changes again.
Doing the old "price versus IMO chance" value assessment, as of right now I think Warren is a standout long odds bet for the Nom.
Why? Where's she going to get support from?
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
much more importantly he is blocking the development of more moderate candidates to challenge Sanders.
That could be an important job for us Bloomberg layers to be fair.
Indeed. And it just might be important to ensure that Buttigeig or Klobuchar don't get too much momentum allowing Bloomberg to catch them as the field winnows.
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
I thought Sarah Smith was going to punch him, she was absolutely raging.
It was pretty close to Cathy Newman vs Jordan Peterson.
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
At this stage in the Republican primaries last time we had Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina (remember them?) just pulling out and we still had going forwards as well as Trump: Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Carson and Jeb Bush. And a lot of talk about a contested convention.
Yang's campaign is clearly doomed. Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Warren are all below the 15% threshold required to get delegates according to your link with Biden only just above it too, though its determined on a state level of course.
By this time next month some at least of the candidates will pull out and start to endorse other candidates remaining. Before long we'll be down to 2-3 serious candidates left and at that point a contested convention becomes remote.
Money.
Sanders, Buttigieg and (to a lesser extent) Warren have it, Biden and Klobuchar do not.
If Klobuchar cannot overtake Buttigieg this evening (and I don't think she will), then she's facing two states where she has little organisation and little likelihood of success. Can she continue?
If Biden is fourth or fifth today, and faces another terrible result in Nevada in ten days time, then how will he keep paying the bills?
If Buttigieg wins tonight or runs Sanders a close second, and Biden and Klobuchar do poorly, then I struggle to see how he doesn't end up continuing to attract moderate votes. (That he has a good operation in Nevada, and could win there, also suggests he could get it.)
@rcs1000 Biden has pretty much ceded New Hampshire already, moving onto South Carolina already. If you don't (seriously) contest an event then you can't actually lose it right * ?
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
Maybe, maybe not. We all say "SARS" and not "bird-flu", which demonstrates that they do have the ability to change popular usage of language. If media outlets switch terms, then everyone else will follow within a few weeks.
... SARS is not bird flu.
Exactly. But yet it was popularly called that at first.
No it was called SARS early on, it just took ages to identify the precise cause. It was never called bird flu.
It was a year later that bird flu re-emerged after a long absence, before that the term bird flu was not really in the public counciousness. The internet and China's growing influence changed that in the 2004 outbreak.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
That's his whole brand. If he didn't do that, he'd not have been invited back five times or whatever.
And the world is jam packed with people "standing up to the woke". It's just in the victim culture of the right that people claim "you can't even say X any more", apparently oblivious to the fact that everyone from the leader of the free world to, well, them, is shrieking "X" at the top of their voices at every opportunity.
Here's the really interesting question for New Hampshire:
Who, if anyone, drops out after the Primary?
My personal view is that Biden's candidacy is the one most likely to fold. He has the least money (by a substantial margin) of any of the major campaigns. And a fourth or fifth placed position today is going to see the money taps close. No money, means no staff, means no advertisments, and no ability to pay volunteers' expenses.
I know he'll want to hang on to South Carolina, but it's one thing to hang on when you're getting seconds and thirds. It's another if you're coming fourth or fifth, three contests in a row.
Presumably the also-rans (Yang, Gabbard etc.) start to drop out pretty soon - I don't see under normal circumstances why they would actively continue any further from here. Steyer is self-funding so less pressure for him but even then what's the point in carrying on.
For Biden - it's presumably possible that the money dries up and he just coasts to South Carolina hoping to get a kick-start again rather than actively suspending his campaign.
The other thing is that (unusually compared to previously) there is an incentive to hang on past South Carolina so that you can at least say that you were there until Super Tuesday and potentially hope to get a random delegate from somewhere to give you a (minor) say at a prospective contested convention.
This seems to me to be an odd incentive - the higher the change of a contested convention - the greater the incentive to stay in the race even if performing poorly - which in turn has the effect of increasing the chances of a contested convention - so I think that we might see all the big players stay until Super Tuesday at least...
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
At this stage in the Republican primaries last time we had Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina (remember them?) just pulling out and we still had going forwards as well as Trump: Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Carson and Jeb Bush. And a lot of talk about a contested convention.
Yang's campaign is clearly doomed. Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Warren are all below the 15% threshold required to get delegates according to your link with Biden only just above it too, though its determined on a state level of course.
By this time next month some at least of the candidates will pull out and start to endorse other candidates remaining. Before long we'll be down to 2-3 serious candidates left and at that point a contested convention becomes remote.
Money.
Sanders, Buttigieg and (to a lesser extent) Warren have it, Biden and Klobuchar do not.
If Klobuchar cannot overtake Buttigieg this evening (and I don't think she will), then she's facing two states where she has little organisation and little likelihood of success. Can she continue?
If Biden is fourth or fifth today, and faces another terrible result in Nevada in ten days time, then how will he keep paying the bills?
If Buttigieg wins tonight or runs Sanders a close second, and Biden and Klobuchar do poorly, then I struggle to see how he doesn't end up continuing to attract moderate votes. (That he has a good operation in Nevada, and could win there, also suggests he could get it.)
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
Shame you dislike Gervais. He`s put together a stunning portfolio: The Office, Extras and After Life are all suberb. The only rival in terms of quality of portfolio in my opinion is Iannucci.
Comment I spotted on the clp nominations twitter thread: The reason Starmer appears to be winning is that Corbyn supporters are so hurting inside that they can't bear to drag themselves along to the clp meetings but when it comes to the actual vote, they will come out to vote for R L-B.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
EU will completely tank within access to London's financial markets
Why? What service is offered in London that is completely impossible to get outside the UK?
(I'm not saying that the London doesn't do things better. But it's not like there aren't alternative financial centres around the world. And ultimately finance is just people. You don't need factories.)
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That’s answering a different question though. Will he, not does he have the tools to try. You implicitly suggest he will but, perhaps innocently, you noticeably steer clear from falling off the fence.
Here's the really interesting question for New Hampshire:
Who, if anyone, drops out after the Primary?
My personal view is that Biden's candidacy is the one most likely to fold. He has the least money (by a substantial margin) of any of the major campaigns. And a fourth or fifth placed position today is going to see the money taps close. No money, means no staff, means no advertisments, and no ability to pay volunteers' expenses.
I know he'll want to hang on to South Carolina, but it's one thing to hang on when you're getting seconds and thirds. It's another if you're coming fourth or fifth, three contests in a row.
I hope you're right. He's like Jeb Bush last time - an early favourite but getting no traction when it comes to real votes. What's his USP?
He's the only candidate on the Democratic side of the race who doesn't remember how a sentence started when he gets to the end of it. That's pretty unique for a candidate.
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
That's his whole brand. If he didn't do that, he'd not have been invited back five times or whatever.
And the world is jam packed with people "standing up to the woke". It's just in the victim culture of the right that people claim "you can't even say X any more", apparently oblivious to the fact that everyone from the leader of the free world to, well, them, is shrieking "X" at the top of their voices at every opportunity.
No. Non-famous people making the same point about children being used for medical experiments are being subject to Scientology-level harassment by trans ‘activists’. Many have been fired from their jobs or forced to quit, and don’t have the platform or resources of people like Graham Linehan or Ricky Gervais, who don’t have to worry about ever needing to work again.
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
My view is that Labour are stuffed regardless of who they choose. The spell is broken – so many people have at last rumbled that they have been voting for the wrong party all these years. Labour has lived on votes from people who do not share the ideological ground that the Labour Party represents, who voted through habit based on what their parents and grandparents did and what their union told them to do. The spell is broken now, it will be so much easier for them to tick the Tory box in future having done it once. So many of these voters are ideologically conservative. They have, through Corbyn mainly, seen that Labour does not stand for national pride (is unpatriotic even). This is extremely damaging.
I`m hoping that LibDems will become the challenger party. But this is perhaps more hope than expectation.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
What is most amazing about the Ashcroft focus groups, which are absolutely brutal for Labour and especially for Corbyn, is that this was all so entirely predictable, right back to the 2015 leadership contest.
We did warn ya.
It will be interesting to see the extent to which Starmer can row the party back from here.
Is your view that Starmer has the steel to do this? My impression of his behavior over the last 3 years is that he is malleable, led not leader. But that’s only an impression and in any event the past is a fallible guide to the future.
If he wins, the hard left has made it much easier for Starmer to take them on. The EHRC report will also do a lot of heavy lifting.
That's assuming Starmer takes on the hard left. So far he never has done and he's not campaigning on doing so either. This is someone happy to serve with RLB and Burgon under Corbyn and to argue for Corbyn to be PM.
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
A contested convention is one of those things often spoken about, in the media and on shows like the West Wing, in large part because it makes for good drama. But the reality is it almost never happens. Having the States spreading their results out over months sees the minnows get eliminated sooner and then the leader typically securing the nomination prior to the convention proper.
A contested convention is theoretically possible, but not very likely. A bit like the Premier League being determined by goal difference. Albeit probably not compare the odds of those two this year!
This is very significant, by S.C the Sanders campaign could have the feel of a runaway freight train. Choo choo!
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
Biden: 20%
Bloomberg: 12%
Warren: 11% (-) Buttigieg: 8%
Yang: 8%
Klobuchar: 1%
Gabbard: 1%
Biden really should pack it in. He is embarrassing himself and much more importantly he is blocking the development of more moderate candidates to challenge Sanders.
It's too late now! Say he packs it in after NH tonight we go to Nevada. Right where do his moderate voters go? Not to Pete who has 0 traction with PoC, to Klobuchar? Hmmm......the moderates have messed up trying so hard to stop Bernie they forgot to rally round someone. Stupid, stupid Dems.
Buttigieg was second with PoC in Iowa, on 15%.
Nevada is coming up, and that is a heavily Hispanic state. If he wins there, then he clearly isn't such a repellent to PoC.
The problem that Bloomberg has is that getting (say) 20% on Super Tuesday, and then getting the Big Mo still doesn't get him anywhere near a majority of delegates.
By the end of Tuesday 4 March, approximately 40% of the delegates will have been elected. So, having 20% of 40% leaves Bloomberg with an essentially insurmountable task in the post Super Tuesday world.
Now... could he get to "first" in delegates? If the field remains split, yes. But getting anywhere near a majority is close to impossible.
And then you have Bloomberg's problem: he's not very popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Indeed, the only person less popular than him is probably Sanders.
At a brokered convention, could either of them get enough delegates to get over the line? Well, if Sanders had 40% of the delegates, and the closest other candidate had 20%, then he'd probably end up with the nomination. Likewise for Bloomberg. But that's not looking very likely right now.
And so... I find it hard to see the path to the nomination for any of the major players. Sanders can win if the moderate lane remains crowded. But it seems to me that the value at this point is Warren (who might well win Nevada) and Klobuchar (because she's been surging in NH, and is acceptable to every part of the Democratic party).
Of course, if Pete Buttigieg wins tonight, which is far from impossible, then everything changes again.
Doing the old "price versus IMO chance" value assessment, as of right now I think Warren is a standout long odds bet for the Nom.
Why? Where's she going to get support from?
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
I think if Klobuchar dropped out, then her vote would split almost equally between Mayor Pete and Warren.
I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.
Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.
I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
First name I google "Junior Kerr"...7 years GBH for stabbing somebody.
To get seven years for GBH you've damn nearly killed someone, almost certainly left them with life-changing injuries. Does any other country not deport a foreigner convicted of such a serious crime?
Not true. On current sentencing guidelines if you left someone with that level of injuries you would be looking at 9-16 years. The starting point for sentencing would be 12 years.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
Plus the Tory Manifesto was a disaster.
Plus Brexit as an issue was 'dealt with' as labour committed to carry out the referendum.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
Plus the Tory Manifesto was a disaster.
Plus Brexit as an issue was 'dealt with' as labour committed to carry out the referendum.
At the time - and right up until Johnson took over - Tory leave voters were becoming dispairing that a proper Brexit wouldn`t happen, that the political elite was shafting them, and (unbelievably now) blamed the Tories for it! I met a lot who said they would never vote Tory again. I would patiently point out that the Conservatives were the one party who was trying to fulfil the Ref result. It wasn`t until Johnson and Cummings arrived on the scene that these voters realised what was afoot and turned on Labour.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
Plus the Tory Manifesto was a disaster.
Plus Brexit as an issue was 'dealt with' as labour committed to carry out the referendum.
There is a strangely forgotten part of the 2017 election. Terrorism.
The Manchester Arena bombing and the London Bridge attacks occurred during the election campaign itself. Law and order is a Conservative issue, right? Unless the Tories, and Theresa May personally, had axed 20,000 coppers.
Point us to a Guardian article which is clearly "superior" in quality to an equivalent Daily Mail piece.
It's much harder than you think
Both papers publish some rather good stuff, amidst a larger sea of clickbating bilge.
C'mon! I haven't read either for a year but unless that year has seen the most remarkable uplift in one and deterioration in the other, I could just stick a pin and satisfy that request.
But, let me see, thinking back, what about that thing in the G, the "Long Read" that you get on a Saturday? Let's assume it's still going. So sometimes that would be delving into gene theory, say, or deep background on a conflict somewhere in the developing world, or something on the Chinese approach to public debt, all sorts of top drawer eclectic stuff like that. The Mail equivalent to this? Well, it would be something shallow and exploitative, wouldn't it?
Meh. The Guardian has long wittering essays, sometimes good, sometimes rubbish
Look at the equivalent Daily Mail pages on science. They are, to me, a lot more interesting and snappy. It is certainly difficult to argue they are "inferior" to what the Guardian does. The Daily Mail just says things in shorter sentences
I don't think it's right to kick people out of the country if they've committed only minor offences and they've lived here since an early age. Today's Daily Mail editorial thinks the same, oddly enough. Of course it's different for serious offences.
Where do you draw the line between minor and serious?
The Guardian article linked below gives an example of someone who arrived in the country aged 5, and was convicted of drug-offences (presumably dealing) aged 17.
I would be against deporting such a person, but public opinion would probably be strongly against me.
Guardian articles on such subjects have a long-standing habit of omitting certain key details that support the opposite view to their piece.
First name I google "Junior Kerr"...7 years GBH for stabbing somebody.
To get seven years for GBH you've damn nearly killed someone, almost certainly left them with life-changing injuries. Does any other country not deport a foreigner convicted of such a serious crime?
Not true. On current sentencing guidelines if you left someone with that level of injuries you would be looking at 9-16 years. The starting point for sentencing would be 12 years.
Oh okay. What does one usually have to go to only get seven years?
Rather annoyingly, there don’t seem to be many online reports on this particular offender.
EU will completely tank within access to London's financial markets
Why? What service is offered in London that is completely impossible to get outside the UK?
(I'm not saying that the London doesn't do things better. But it's not like there aren't alternative financial centres around the world. And ultimately finance is just people. You don't need factories.)
I think the EU will find that London's losses won't be their gains. London will lose business primarily to New York and Singapore. I've found that investors are very sceptical of the ability of EU nations to protect their money in extreme circumstances, having already been burned by "for the greater good" rulings by the ECJ. So if London loses its capital markets I find it very hard to believe they will go to Paris or Frankfurt.
London is successful because of a huge number of small things it does right. Some of that will change outside of he EU, how it changes remains to be seen. Companies from all over the world raise money in London in loads of different currencies, I find it highly unlikely that EU based companies will suddenly stop wanting to raise money in London and there really isn't a lot the EU can do to stop them. The EU doesn't have the ability to restrict the sale of Euro denominates bonds outside of the EU.
You know we're ****** when the experts take a month and a half to come up with this. https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1227248333871173632 Too late and too unpronounceable, people are just gonna call it beervirus/kung flu/virusy mcvirusface.
Not entirely sure what's wrong with just 'Coronavirus'.
I'm also still not entirely sure what the expected impact of this is likely to be. Or even the range. Are we expecting Spanish Flu type mortality figures? (I've just looked up Spanish Flu - it infected half the world and killed 3-6% of the world's population). We've got better medicines nowadays but we're also much more in contact with one another.
Calling this outbreak just 'Coronavirus' is like calling a newly discovered species of animal simply 'mammal'.
Coronavirus is a category of illness. We think of it as being specific today but a decade from now (or even now) referring to coronavirus in a scientific journal won't mean this illness specifically.
Well it will have to. Names assigned to things don't always fit categories.
No it won't have to. Scientists already have being using nCoV19 as the placeholder name for this. They will adopt COVID19 and move on in the future.
No one cares what scientists are adopting. We call the plague the plague. It obviously wasn't called 'the plague' by scientists at the time. This one is called Coronavirus. That's it. Other Coronaviruses in the future will have to face this issue when they come to it.
Maybe, maybe not. We all say "SARS" and not "bird-flu", which demonstrates that they do have the ability to change popular usage of language. If media outlets switch terms, then everyone else will follow within a few weeks.
... SARS is not bird flu.
Exactly. But yet it was popularly called that at first.
No it was called SARS early on, it just took ages to identify the precise cause. It was never called bird flu.
It was a year later that bird flu re-emerged after a long absence, before that the term bird flu was not really in the public counciousness. The internet and China's growing influence changed that in the 2004 outbreak.
Yeah, this bugged me sufficiently that I've looked at sources from the time, and the number calling SARS bird-flu is very small, so my memory was faulty there. Thanks.
Good to see people who don’t care if they get ‘cancelled’ start to stand up to the the woke. See also Ricky Gervais, who I really can’t stand but at least he isn’t afraid to call out Hollywood hypocrisy to their faces
Watching the BBC4 rerun of This Life, I notice Gervais is credited as “music advisor”. I believe he was girlfriend of the producer at the time. She gave him his first break.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
I think most people assumed TMay was going to get a landslide. That benefitted Corbyn because no-one thought he stood a chance. Second time around people realised how close they came and rejected him in spite of the rather unpalatable leader of the Conservative Party. The Tories won handsomely in spite of Johnson, not because of him.
I still find Labour's performance in 2017 pretty bizarre. Maybe Theresa May just annoyed a lot of people.
1. Corbyn was less well known 2. May was crap 3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit 4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
I think most people assumed TMay was going to get a landslide. That benefitted Corbyn because no-one thought he stood a chance. Second time around people realised how close they came and rejected him in spite of the rather unpalatable leader of the Conservative Party. The Tories won handsomely in spite of Johnson, not because of him.
Good point (first sentence). Electorate reacted against the over-confidence.
Comments
It will split the electorate 50-25-25, with neither of the two remaining Dem candidates able to bring their supporters out for the other against Trump at the actual election. Orange man will get a landslide.
https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1227080029819068421
Key sentence:
"They also don’t know how the Caucus Day results will be transmitted to the party."
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/02/tom-mcphail-successive-governments-have-dodged-tough-choices-on-pension-tax-reform-for-too-long.html
Everyone was convinced that May would win big and enough didn't want that to vote Labour in larger than expected numbers.
It looks more likely then usual this time.
https://mobile.twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1227262813233713154
The problem is that that everyone with a voice loves the status quo, from the senators and congressmen funded by the drug companies, to the media companies running 20 minutes of ads an hour for prescription-only medications.
I think the more worring thing is how it could potentially put a massive strain on the healthcare system. Even if the virus is not the most deadly it seems like it can take a while to recover, if uncontrolled it could see unecessary deaths due to lack of care as demonstrated by the problems in Wuhan.
By the end of Tuesday 4 March, approximately 40% of the delegates will have been elected. So, having 20% of 40% leaves Bloomberg with an essentially insurmountable task in the post Super Tuesday world.
Now... could he get to "first" in delegates? If the field remains split, yes. But getting anywhere near a majority is close to impossible.
And then you have Bloomberg's problem: he's not very popular with rank-and-file Democrats. Indeed, the only person less popular than him is probably Sanders.
At a brokered convention, could either of them get enough delegates to get over the line? Well, if Sanders had 40% of the delegates, and the closest other candidate had 20%, then he'd probably end up with the nomination. Likewise for Bloomberg. But that's not looking very likely right now.
And so... I find it hard to see the path to the nomination for any of the major players. Sanders can win if the moderate lane remains crowded. But it seems to me that the value at this point is Warren (who might well win Nevada) and Klobuchar (because she's been surging in NH, and is acceptable to every part of the Democratic party).
Of course, if Pete Buttigieg wins tonight, which is far from impossible, then everything changes again.
Sanders also leads among people of color (Black/Hispanic/Asian/other) in the Monmouth poll (v Jan 2020 poll). Biden dropped 14 ppts v last month: Sanders: 28%
Biden: 20%
Bloomberg: 12%
Warren: 11% (-) Buttigieg: 8%
Yang: 8%
Klobuchar: 1%
Gabbard: 1%
Father Ted creator Graham Linehan on trans rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e79k6LILL1I
But generally, what a mess. Trump might be laughing so hard the face paint comes off.
Between Sanders, Trump and lil Mike this isn't a particularly hard choice to make for me.
He can easily win a plurality of delegates, simply because there are so many moderates (and they seem determined to stay in). But getting 50%+1 is a tough, tough ask.
I guess we would have a similar issue talking to someone from Fukushima.
At this stage in the Republican primaries last time we had Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina (remember them?) just pulling out and we still had going forwards as well as Trump: Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, Carson and Jeb Bush. And a lot of talk about a contested convention.
Yang's campaign is clearly doomed. Klobuchar, Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Warren are all below the 15% threshold required to get delegates according to your link with Biden only just above it too, though its determined on a state level of course.
By this time next month some at least of the candidates will pull out and start to endorse other candidates remaining. Before long we'll be down to 2-3 serious candidates left and at that point a contested convention becomes remote.
Edit: to rationalise my behaviour I've found this https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/2020-campaign-mike-bloomberg-bernie-sanders-dream-rival/
But, let me see, thinking back, what about that thing in the G, the "Long Read" that you get on a Saturday? Let's assume it's still going. So sometimes that would be delving into gene theory, say, or deep background on a conflict somewhere in the developing world, or something on the Chinese approach to public debt, all sorts of top drawer eclectic stuff like that. The Mail equivalent to this? Well, it would be something shallow and exploitative, wouldn't it?
Elisabeth Murdoch has made clear she has no interest in becoming director general of the BBC, after bookmakers made her the favourite for the role following a string of speculative stories.
Murdoch, the daughter of Rupert and a successful media entrepreneur in her own right, was said to be the “surprise contender to become the BBC’s new director general” in an article in the i newspaper, which claimed the appointment would fit with Downing Street’s intentions for the role.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/11/elisabeth-murdoch-dismisses-bbc-director-general-rumours
Katy Balls" (£)
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/tory-mps-resigned-to-hs2-as-boris-bulldozes-ahead/
Why on earth did they let him into the primary at all. He's not a Democrat.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1227261446750449664?s=20
Who, if anyone, drops out after the Primary?
My personal view is that Biden's candidacy is the one most likely to fold. He has the least money (by a substantial margin) of any of the major campaigns. And a fourth or fifth placed position today is going to see the money taps close. No money, means no staff, means no advertisments, and no ability to pay volunteers' expenses.
I know he'll want to hang on to South Carolina, but it's one thing to hang on when you're getting seconds and thirds. It's another if you're coming fourth or fifth, three contests in a row.
Probably catchy enough.
I thought Warren was fishing in the same pool of voters as Sanders, and Sanders isn't going to pull out early.
If Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Biden are fishing in the same pool of voters then any of them can do better once the others are gone, but Warren is going to struggle.
Sanders, Buttigieg and (to a lesser extent) Warren have it, Biden and Klobuchar do not.
If Klobuchar cannot overtake Buttigieg this evening (and I don't think she will), then she's facing two states where she has little organisation and little likelihood of success. Can she continue?
If Biden is fourth or fifth today, and faces another terrible result in Nevada in ten days time, then how will he keep paying the bills?
If Buttigieg wins tonight or runs Sanders a close second, and Biden and Klobuchar do poorly, then I struggle to see how he doesn't end up continuing to attract moderate votes. (That he has a good operation in Nevada, and could win there, also suggests he could get it.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/crosswords/comments/evoqa4/cotd_coronavirus_outbreak_is_linked_to_eating/
Coronavirus outbreak is linked to eating animal flesh (11)
* Lesson from Iowa.
It was a year later that bird flu re-emerged after a long absence, before that the term bird flu was not really in the public counciousness. The internet and China's growing influence changed that in the 2004 outbreak.
And the world is jam packed with people "standing up to the woke". It's just in the victim culture of the right that people claim "you can't even say X any more", apparently oblivious to the fact that everyone from the leader of the free world to, well, them, is shrieking "X" at the top of their voices at every opportunity.
For Biden - it's presumably possible that the money dries up and he just coasts to South Carolina hoping to get a kick-start again rather than actively suspending his campaign.
The other thing is that (unusually compared to previously) there is an incentive to hang on past South Carolina so that you can at least say that you were there until Super Tuesday and potentially hope to get a random delegate from somewhere to give you a (minor) say at a prospective contested convention.
This seems to me to be an odd incentive - the higher the change of a contested convention - the greater the incentive to stay in the race even if performing poorly - which in turn has the effect of increasing the chances of a contested convention - so I think that we might see all the big players stay until Super Tuesday at least...
Could look very different in the morning mind.
Are some people that far in denial?
(I'm not saying that the London doesn't do things better. But it's not like there aren't alternative financial centres around the world. And ultimately finance is just people. You don't need factories.)
Apparently, that's called "charisma".
I`m hoping that LibDems will become the challenger party. But this is perhaps more hope than expectation.
2. May was crap
3. A lot of Remain voters wanted to stop a Tory hard Brexit
4. A fair few Leave voters were not yet worried about Brexit not happening
I think you're in danger of projecting your own hopes onto Starmer.
Nevada is coming up, and that is a heavily Hispanic state. If he wins there, then he clearly isn't such a repellent to PoC.
It's not stay uppable is it?
The Manchester Arena bombing and the London Bridge attacks occurred during the election campaign itself. Law and order is a Conservative issue, right? Unless the Tories, and Theresa May personally, had axed 20,000 coppers.
Ask Boris, he knows!
Rather annoyingly, there don’t seem to be many online reports on this particular offender.
London is successful because of a huge number of small things it does right. Some of that will change outside of he EU, how it changes remains to be seen. Companies from all over the world raise money in London in loads of different currencies, I find it highly unlikely that EU based companies will suddenly stop wanting to raise money in London and there really isn't a lot the EU can do to stop them. The EU doesn't have the ability to restrict the sale of Euro denominates bonds outside of the EU.
Watching the BBC4 rerun of This Life, I notice Gervais is credited as “music advisor”. I believe he was girlfriend of the producer at the time. She gave him his first break.
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/10/21131416/new-hampshire-primary-dixville-notch-millsfield-harts-location-midnight-vote
I think the rest come in about 11PM plus or minus an hour or 2