Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bernie just squeezes it in New Hampshire but Buttigieg retains

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited February 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bernie just squeezes it in New Hampshire but Buttigieg retains overall delegate lead

The CNN results above are just about in and the final outcome in New Hampshire is shown above. Bernie topped on votes but is having to share the delegates with Pete Buttigieg. Amy Klobuchar had a really great night doing far better with her third place than looked possible only a week or so ago.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,191
    first?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,542
    What is Gabbard doing in this race still?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    Terrific result for Buttigeig, especially given how well Klobuchar did as well. If she hadn't done quite as well he would have won.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 8,473
    Michael Bennet out of the race. The dream dies here for him.

    Amy? Interesting.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,200
    Either or both of Steyer and Gabbard withdrawing last week would surely have handed Pete first place.

    On another note, can we read anything into the 1.3% write-ins? If Bloomberg was genuinely on 20%+ nationally, shouldn't he have done a little better than that (even assuming that's all him, which it won't be)?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    Sanders on the other hand must be disappointed. In 2016 he got over 60% of the vote here against Hillary. Clearly more competitors this time and Warren makes a difference but that is a very long way down.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562
    It is South Carolina voting at the end if the month Biden must win, not North Carolina
  • I’m finally feeling confident about my betting strategy in this market.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    Is this true ?
    No candidate in modern political history has finished outside the top two in New Hampshire and gone on to win their party's nomination
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    Worth noting that in 2016, the delegates split Bernie 15, Hillary 9.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102
    Twice running Bernie Sanders has underperformed the preponderance of the polls. Is that coincidence or the start of a trend?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562

    Twice running Bernie Sanders has underperformed the preponderance of the polls. Is that coincidence or the start of a trend?

    Sanders won the popular vote in both early states, if Buttigieg loses South Carolina Sanders is likely nominee
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197
    HYUFD said:
    "No stepping back from our election-losing strategy."
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    edited February 12
    Is Buttigieg really 4/1 favourite to win Iowa ?

    (Brain fade... I meant Nevada, and no.)
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 1,191

    HYUFD said:
    "No stepping back from our election-losing strategy."
    Will Labour be supporting terrorists too?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    HYUFD said:

    Twice running Bernie Sanders has underperformed the preponderance of the polls. Is that coincidence or the start of a trend?

    Sanders won the popular vote in both early states, if Buttigieg loses South Carolina Sanders is likely nominee
    I thought Buttigieg won the popular vote in Iowa although I confess I lost interest after the first week. I don't agree with your assessment. Sanders is facing a series of moderate opponents and his plurality is nowhere near big enough. Biden surely has to drop out now and that will give the remaining moderates a further boost. think that this is going to run quite a long way and the traditional narrative of an early front runner getting all the momentum will not apply.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368

    Twice running Bernie Sanders has underperformed the preponderance of the polls. Is that coincidence or the start of a trend?

    Amy outperforming her polling again too.

    It's the KLOBUCHARGE...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    Twice running Bernie Sanders has underperformed the preponderance of the polls. Is that coincidence or the start of a trend?

    Perhaps a function of his support base, very young less reliable voters?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,522
    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102
    Gathering my thoughts, so others can take them apart:

    Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to convert his polling into votes. For that to happen once is unfortunate. Twice looks like a trend. Given that he has the additional drawback that he is very transfer-unfriendly, his price looks way too low. How is he going to get to 50% of the delegates either outright or at the convention? Surely he's not a 35% shot? To me he looks more like a 15% shot at present. It's the transfer-unfriendliness that makes it so much harder for him.

    As to who actually does win, goodness knows. Joe Biden may actually be oversold. If (huge Spartan if) he gets it together in South Carolina, he's back in it. Pete Buttigieg has bet the farm on Iowa and New Hampshire, and got some return, but now urgently needs to produce results elsewhere. Amy Klobuchar has momentum but from such a low base that she still seems implausible. Michael Bloomberg has pots of money and some ok national polling but nothing amazing.

    Elizabeth Warren looks done to me, unless Bernie Sanders keels over. Even then I'm not convinced she stands much chance.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,522

    HYUFD said:
    "No stepping back from our election-losing strategy."
    Will Labour be supporting terrorists too?
    Look at Starmer's record on the causes he has espoused. It is not comfortable reading
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 12,993
    HYUFD said:
    What does "support the abolition of tuition fees mean?"
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    The Nevada caucus early voting is by ranked choice ballot:
    https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21133208/nevada-caucuses-2020-democrats-schedule
    The early voters...will be asked in advance to rank up to five candidates by their order of preference. For instance, a voter could pick Tom Steyer as his first choice, Amy Klobuchar as his second, Pete Buttigieg as his third, Joe Biden as his fourth, and Elizabeth Warren as his fifth.

    And there are expected to be a lot of early voters — the Nevada Democratic Party anticipates around half of total caucus participants will vote early.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    No, but it is an appeal to the Labour selectorate. We do not yet know what the issues at the next election will be.
  • eekeek Posts: 7,079

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    If only they would think and separate things out.

    Universal Credit isn't a problem - the money available for it and the sanction scheme is.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368
    Nigelb said:

    The Nevada caucus early voting is by ranked choice ballot:
    https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21133208/nevada-caucuses-2020-democrats-schedule
    The early voters...will be asked in advance to rank up to five candidates by their order of preference. For instance, a voter could pick Tom Steyer as his first choice, Amy Klobuchar as his second, Pete Buttigieg as his third, Joe Biden as his fourth, and Elizabeth Warren as his fifth.

    And there are expected to be a lot of early voters — the Nevada Democratic Party anticipates around half of total caucus participants will vote early.

    Let's hope for an AV thread then!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    It's a long way from original but without Corbyn's baggage it is likely to poll better than he did.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    And ties will be broken by drawing cards rather than flipping a coin.

    ...Each precinct location will be given an unopened deck of cards by the Nevada Democratic Party. That deck then has to be shuffled at least seven times by the precinct chair or site lead. And then each candidate’s group will draw a card. The high card wins the delegate. (Aces are high. The suit order is spades highest, then hearts, diamonds, and clubs. Jokers and extra cards should be removed....
  • FPT
    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    I think Buttigieg’s biggest issue is his numbers with voters of colour as well as millennials. For all the issues of Sanders age, younger American voters certainly don’t seem keen on Buttigieg and I get why. I wonder whether those voters as well as voters of colour would turn out for Buttigieg if he were the nominee in November.

    When the alternative is Donald Trump? Yes, I think so.

    Plus I'd be curious to know if any of the swing states that the Democrat nominee needs to win off Trump is disproportionately dominated by African Americans? Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have below national average (Wisconsin close to half the national average) African American voters so that's not necessarily the key demographic to win.
    There is one theory that there are basically no swing voters in America. There is only differential turnout/energising the base.

    So depressed African American turnout is devastating for the Dems even in states where they are below national average pop count as there is no other demographic group that the Dems 'win' in their place.
    With respect though I think that theory is bollocks. It conveniently appeals to extremists to appeal to their own extremes rather than the swing but it doesn't explain key swing states results like Wisconsin etc last time or prior results.
    It does explain Wisconsin though. Trump was unappealing to Wisconsin Republicans and got less votes than Romney. Clinton utterly repulsed Wisconsin Democrats and saw the Dem voter crater into the floor giving the state to Trump.
    Wisconsin had been blue since Dukakis. Hillary got more votes than Dukakis, Bill Clinton I, Bill Clinton II and Al Gore - but they all won that state and she lost.

    Trump got close to a record amount of voters for a Republican there, so not sure where you're seeing unappealing?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    North Carolina is a March state
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Nevada caucus early voting is by ranked choice ballot:
    https://www.vox.com/2020/2/11/21133208/nevada-caucuses-2020-democrats-schedule
    The early voters...will be asked in advance to rank up to five candidates by their order of preference. For instance, a voter could pick Tom Steyer as his first choice, Amy Klobuchar as his second, Pete Buttigieg as his third, Joe Biden as his fourth, and Elizabeth Warren as his fifth.

    And there are expected to be a lot of early voters — the Nevada Democratic Party anticipates around half of total caucus participants will vote early.

    Let's hope for an AV thread then!
    I'm thrilled.

    Note that voting starts in three days' time.
    Not going to be easy for Klobuchar to ramp up her effort on the back of recent fundraising.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 33,197

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    Boris is already up and running on the New Green Deal. I should imagine Labour heads were exploding when he sat down with Sir David Attenborough to announce a five year earlier date for electric vehicles. Expect much more of that from Boris.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    Gathering my thoughts, so others can take them apart:

    Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to convert his polling into votes. For that to happen once is unfortunate. Twice looks like a trend. Given that he has the additional drawback that he is very transfer-unfriendly, his price looks way too low. How is he going to get to 50% of the delegates either outright or at the convention? Surely he's not a 35% shot? To me he looks more like a 15% shot at present. It's the transfer-unfriendliness that makes it so much harder for him.

    As to who actually does win, goodness knows. Joe Biden may actually be oversold. If (huge Spartan if) he gets it together in South Carolina, he's back in it. Pete Buttigieg has bet the farm on Iowa and New Hampshire, and got some return, but now urgently needs to produce results elsewhere. Amy Klobuchar has momentum but from such a low base that she still seems implausible. Michael Bloomberg has pots of money and some ok national polling but nothing amazing.

    Elizabeth Warren looks done to me, unless Bernie Sanders keels over. Even then I'm not convinced she stands much chance.

    In short its a bit of an unpredictable mess.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    Nigelb said:

    And ties will be broken by drawing cards rather than flipping a coin.

    ...Each precinct location will be given an unopened deck of cards by the Nevada Democratic Party. That deck then has to be shuffled at least seven times by the precinct chair or site lead. And then each candidate’s group will draw a card. The high card wins the delegate. (Aces are high. The suit order is spades highest, then hearts, diamonds, and clubs. Jokers and extra cards should be removed....

    Presumably Iowa keeps the jokers in?
  • Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,522
    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:
    What does "support the abolition of tuition fees mean?"
    It means trying to win student votes without actually promising anything.

    I don't think people will fall for it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    Boris is already up and running on the New Green Deal. I should imagine Labour heads were exploding when he sat down with Sir David Attenborough to announce a five year earlier date for electric vehicles. Expect much more of that from Boris.
    He will soon run out of other people's money.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    When he wins some votes? His betting odds are an opportunity but only because he seems to be using his cash to distort the market.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562
    edited February 12

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    His strategy of ignoring the early states failed for Giuliani in 2008
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 10,344
    DavidL said:

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    When he wins some votes? His betting odds are an opportunity but only because he seems to be using his cash to distort the market.
    Mike has backed the guy at 8/1, so....
  • Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    Boris is already up and running on the New Green Deal. I should imagine Labour heads were exploding when he sat down with Sir David Attenborough to announce a five year earlier date for electric vehicles. Expect much more of that from Boris.
    He will soon run out of other people's money.
    Anyone who wants to spend lots always does, every Labour government does. AFAIK it doesn't stop you from voting for them?

    Seems an odd complaint from those who oppose the Tories? Are you complaining the Tories are spending too much? What do you want cutting?
  • HYUFD said:

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    His strategy of ignoring the early states failed for Giuliani in 2008
    Another time-honoured PBer choosing to ignore the betting markets!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    DavidL said:

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    When he wins some votes? His betting odds are an opportunity but only because he seems to be using his cash to distort the market.
    Mike has backed the guy at 8/1, so....
    In a field as messed up as this you cannot say he has no chance and there has to be a point where the odds are attractive. 8/1 looks a bit skinny to me though.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    Boris is already up and running on the New Green Deal. I should imagine Labour heads were exploding when he sat down with Sir David Attenborough to announce a five year earlier date for electric vehicles. Expect much more of that from Boris.
    He will soon run out of other people's money.
    Anyone who wants to spend lots always does, every Labour government does. AFAIK it doesn't stop you from voting for them?

    Seems an odd complaint from those who oppose the Tories? Are you complaining the Tories are spending too much? What do you want cutting?
    He's just taking the piss. Which is fair enough. This is looking less and less like a traditional Tory government.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,832

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    Good to have the consensus challenged. The only way we have of measuring the success of Bloombergs strategy is national polling. He has risen up the ranks, but only to 3rd/4th depending on which you look at. His chances are rough to assess but I think he's too short at the moment.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    Boris is already up and running on the New Green Deal. I should imagine Labour heads were exploding when he sat down with Sir David Attenborough to announce a five year earlier date for electric vehicles. Expect much more of that from Boris.
    He will soon run out of other people's money.
    Anyone who wants to spend lots always does, every Labour government does. AFAIK it doesn't stop you from voting for them?

    Seems an odd complaint from those who oppose the Tories? Are you complaining the Tories are spending too much? What do you want cutting?
    No, I have always been in favour of a balanced budget. No problem with spending provided it is not borrowing.
  • eekeek Posts: 7,079
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    Boris is already up and running on the New Green Deal. I should imagine Labour heads were exploding when he sat down with Sir David Attenborough to announce a five year earlier date for electric vehicles. Expect much more of that from Boris.
    He will soon run out of other people's money.
    Anyone who wants to spend lots always does, every Labour government does. AFAIK it doesn't stop you from voting for them?

    Seems an odd complaint from those who oppose the Tories? Are you complaining the Tories are spending too much? What do you want cutting?
    No, I have always been in favour of a balanced budget. No problem with spending provided it is not borrowing.
    And less problem with spending for long term infrastructure rather than day to day expenditure.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 29,102
    If Joe Biden drops out at some point, who does he endorse? That might well be the decisive moment of the race for the Democratic nomination.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Twice running Bernie Sanders has underperformed the preponderance of the polls. Is that coincidence or the start of a trend?

    Sanders won the popular vote in both early states, if Buttigieg loses South Carolina Sanders is likely nominee
    I thought Buttigieg won the popular vote in Iowa although I confess I lost interest after the first week. I don't agree with your assessment. Sanders is facing a series of moderate opponents and his plurality is nowhere near big enough. Biden surely has to drop out now and that will give the remaining moderates a further boost. think that this is going to run quite a long way and the traditional narrative of an early front runner getting all the momentum will not apply.
    Sanders won the popular vote in Iowa, Buttigieg most delegates.

    Biden voters second preference is Sanders

  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,924

    Gathering my thoughts, so others can take them apart:

    Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to convert his polling into votes. For that to happen once is unfortunate. Twice looks like a trend. Given that he has the additional drawback that he is very transfer-unfriendly, his price looks way too low. How is he going to get to 50% of the delegates either outright or at the convention? Surely he's not a 35% shot? To me he looks more like a 15% shot at present. It's the transfer-unfriendliness that makes it so much harder for him.

    As to who actually does win, goodness knows. Joe Biden may actually be oversold. If (huge Spartan if) he gets it together in South Carolina, he's back in it. Pete Buttigieg has bet the farm on Iowa and New Hampshire, and got some return, but now urgently needs to produce results elsewhere. Amy Klobuchar has momentum but from such a low base that she still seems implausible. Michael Bloomberg has pots of money and some ok national polling but nothing amazing.

    Elizabeth Warren looks done to me, unless Bernie Sanders keels over. Even then I'm not convinced she stands much chance.

    Agree. For once I think we may actually be heading for a brokered convention.

    I expect the moderates to have a majority of delegates but at the moment can only see them finally coalescing around a candidate at the convention. It could be Buttigieg or Klobuchar if either one pulls well ahead of the other or it could yet be Bloomberg if he performs very well later on.

    Sanders may even arrive at the convention with the largest number of delegates but I don't think he will win it . After iowa and NH I am more hopeful that the Democrats will have the sense not to follow the magic grandpa route to electoral diisaster.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911

    If Joe Biden drops out at some point, who does he endorse? That might well be the decisive moment of the race for the Democratic nomination.

    #PrayitsnotB00merberg
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368
    eek said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:
    Clinging to the past is not the way to secure future success. Pledge one won't raise the money and secure a strong economy to deliver on the other pledges.

    It shows he isn't prepared to actually be radical. Just more lefty wishful thinking with a more technocratic face.

    Yawn
    Boris is already up and running on the New Green Deal. I should imagine Labour heads were exploding when he sat down with Sir David Attenborough to announce a five year earlier date for electric vehicles. Expect much more of that from Boris.
    He will soon run out of other people's money.
    Anyone who wants to spend lots always does, every Labour government does. AFAIK it doesn't stop you from voting for them?

    Seems an odd complaint from those who oppose the Tories? Are you complaining the Tories are spending too much? What do you want cutting?
    No, I have always been in favour of a balanced budget. No problem with spending provided it is not borrowing.
    And less problem with spending for long term infrastructure rather than day to day expenditure.
    Yes, certainly true.

    Considering the economic headwinds the budget will be interesting.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,542

    FPT

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    I think Buttigieg’s biggest issue is his numbers with voters of colour as well as millennials. For all the issues of Sanders age, younger American voters certainly don’t seem keen on Buttigieg and I get why. I wonder whether those voters as well as voters of colour would turn out for Buttigieg if he were the nominee in November.

    When the alternative is Donald Trump? Yes, I think so.

    Plus I'd be curious to know if any of the swing states that the Democrat nominee needs to win off Trump is disproportionately dominated by African Americans? Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have below national average (Wisconsin close to half the national average) African American voters so that's not necessarily the key demographic to win.
    There is one theory that there are basically no swing voters in America. There is only differential turnout/energising the base.

    So depressed African American turnout is devastating for the Dems even in states where they are below national average pop count as there is no other demographic group that the Dems 'win' in their place.
    With respect though I think that theory is bollocks. It conveniently appeals to extremists to appeal to their own extremes rather than the swing but it doesn't explain key swing states results like Wisconsin etc last time or prior results.
    It does explain Wisconsin though. Trump was unappealing to Wisconsin Republicans and got less votes than Romney. Clinton utterly repulsed Wisconsin Democrats and saw the Dem voter crater into the floor giving the state to Trump.
    Wisconsin had been blue since Dukakis. Hillary got more votes than Dukakis, Bill Clinton I, Bill Clinton II and Al Gore - but they all won that state and she lost.

    Trump got close to a record amount of voters for a Republican there, so not sure where you're seeing unappealing?
    Romney "huge turn off to the blue collar whites" (traditional narrative) got more votes than Trump "Huge ground swell of blue collar whites switching from Dem to GOP" (traditional narrative).

    The traditional narrative doesn't work.

    "Dem voters hated Clinton and stayed home in larger numbers than Republican voters who hates Trump did" does actually fit the result.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368
    rkrkrk said:

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    Good to have the consensus challenged. The only way we have of measuring the success of Bloombergs strategy is national polling. He has risen up the ranks, but only to 3rd/4th depending on which you look at. His chances are rough to assess but I think he's too short at the moment.
    Bloomberg seems more negative on Trump than anything positive. I am sceptical about him getting much on Super Tuesday.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,911
    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    Good to have the consensus challenged. The only way we have of measuring the success of Bloombergs strategy is national polling. He has risen up the ranks, but only to 3rd/4th depending on which you look at. His chances are rough to assess but I think he's too short at the moment.
    Bloomberg seems more negative on Trump than anything positive. I am sceptical about him getting much on Super Tuesday.
    Shit your pants Tuesday for myself, Casino and Quincel here tbh.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 69,562
    edited February 12

    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:

    He is targeting Tory and LD Remainers and soft Leavers who want to return to the single market not Labour Leavers who defected to the Tories it seems
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 18,067
    If Starmer pursues those policies as leader then the Tories have nothing to worry about. A charisma free version of Corbyn isn't going to do well.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,108
    The ' Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act ' sounds dangerous, as there are plenty of 'good' interventions which have saved countless lives.

    would prefer MPs to use their judgement on this on a case by case basis.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 13,542
    edited February 12
    A million more people live in Wisconsin than when Dukakis won the state and Bill Clinton had Perot as a serious third party candidate so a bit tough to compare absolute numbers.

    Of modern candidates less votes than Kerry, Obama, Obama.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,108
    HYUFD said:

    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:

    He is targeting Tory and LD Remainers who want to return to the single market not Labour Leavers who defected to the Tories it seems
    No one wants another round of european debates and battles do they? This is return to BRINO after Brexit. Another 5-10 years of this dominating? No thanks.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited February 12
    MaxPB said:

    If Starmer pursues those policies as leader then the Tories have nothing to worry about. A charisma free version of Corbyn isn't going to do well.

    One more heave comrades....while the public (if Ashcroft polling is anything to go by) see it as nuts stuff.

    Can you really see Brexit-land / Red Wall going ohhh goody we voted for Brexit in part to control immigration, this bloke wants to ignore us again.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429

    Gathering my thoughts, so others can take them apart:

    Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to convert his polling into votes. For that to happen once is unfortunate. Twice looks like a trend. Given that he has the additional drawback that he is very transfer-unfriendly, his price looks way too low. How is he going to get to 50% of the delegates either outright or at the convention? Surely he's not a 35% shot? To me he looks more like a 15% shot at present. It's the transfer-unfriendliness that makes it so much harder for him.

    As to who actually does win, goodness knows. Joe Biden may actually be oversold. If (huge Spartan if) he gets it together in South Carolina, he's back in it. Pete Buttigieg has bet the farm on Iowa and New Hampshire, and got some return, but now urgently needs to produce results elsewhere.....

    Bet the farm isn't strictly true. He's been spending significant money in Nevada since at least September;
    https://apnews.com/e71b3d54b66347dc8c23229a6103d1c6

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 19,429
    Pulpstar said:

    Foxy said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Despite a rather grudging sounding mention in his closing comment, OHG as well as TSE and other big hitters on PB.com continue largely to ignore the prospects of Mike Bloomberg winning the Democratic nomination, even possibly the Presidency itself. This, despite the fact that his odds have continued to shorten dramatically to the point whereby he is currently 2nd favourite for the nomination - "Wait until the New Hampshire Primary" (in which the former three times elected New York mayor played no part), Mike Smithson rather oddly cautioned to me.
    This is supposed, above all else, to be a betting site. When will his candidature start to be taken seriously?



    Good to have the consensus challenged. The only way we have of measuring the success of Bloombergs strategy is national polling. He has risen up the ranks, but only to 3rd/4th depending on which you look at. His chances are rough to assess but I think he's too short at the moment.
    Bloomberg seems more negative on Trump than anything positive. I am sceptical about him getting much on Super Tuesday.
    Shit your pants Tuesday for myself, Casino and Quincel here tbh.
    It's a concern.
    But if Biden whiffs in Nevada and Buttigieg does well, then it might be too late for Bloomberg.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,924
    edited February 12

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:

    He is targeting Tory and LD Remainers who want to return to the single market not Labour Leavers who defected to the Tories it seems
    No one wants another round of european debates and battles do they? This is return to BRINO after Brexit. Another 5-10 years of this dominating? No thanks.
    Brexit is only going to cease to be a political issue if it proves to be a roaring success. I'm sure we all have our own views on the likelihood of that happening.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,553

    The ' Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act ' sounds dangerous, as there are plenty of 'good' interventions which have saved countless lives.

    would prefer MPs to use their judgement on this on a case by case basis.

    There are way more that ended up as futile bloodbaths so, on balance, we'd have been better off not doing any of them,
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 14,174

    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:

    I'd sell that as winning back the right of Brits to live and work in Europe. I can see that being quite appealing after a few years where it's likely to have been more difficult.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 18,067
    Back to yesterday's discussion, it looks like the Bank is thinking along the same lines.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/grant-uk-equivalence-or-risk-losing-access-to-the-city-brussels-warned-tkl3xt2dr

    The EU has a much, much weaker hand than they think when it comes to financial services. The last government bought into the EU's narrative, but I don't think this one will. If they refuse mutual recognition then I think the government should walk away.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 13,504
    edited February 12
    HYUFD said:

    [Bloomberg's] strategy of ignoring the early states failed for Giuliani in 2008

    Yes, has it ever worked for anybody? I know Bill Clinton managed to grab the nomination without actually *winning* any of the first few states, but he was at least competitive in them, except in Iowa which was weird that year.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 44,318
    edited February 12

    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:

    I'd sell that as winning back the right of Brits to live and work in Europe. I can see that being quite appealing after a few years where it's likely to have been more difficult.
    Will any other country offer Brits the same voting rights? I doubt it.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 4,553

    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:

    I'd sell that as winning back the right of Brits to live and work in Europe.
    Leaver doctrine is that they shouldn't want to. If they want to live abroad they should qualify as anesthetists and move to Sydney's North Shore.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,340
    Which illegal war did Starmer have in mind, and which legislation wasn't used to prosecute the decision makers?



    Looks like a piece of red meat thrown out to appease the Labour membership.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,911
    Mr. Palmer, that's an argument for free movement. It's not a case for giving EU nationals full voting rights coupled with free movement.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    @Pulpstar

    What remaining money I have left (not much) is going on new boxer shorts for the time being.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    MaxPB said:

    Back to yesterday's discussion, it looks like the Bank is thinking along the same lines.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/grant-uk-equivalence-or-risk-losing-access-to-the-city-brussels-warned-tkl3xt2dr

    The EU has a much, much weaker hand than they think when it comes to financial services. The last government bought into the EU's narrative, but I don't think this one will. If they refuse mutual recognition then I think the government should walk away.

    As I said yesterday the BoE needs to step up as lender of last resort for financial transactions in London. If we take that risk then the EU can basically go whistle and the majority of their capital raising, currency transactions and bond trading will continue to be in London.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 42,476
    edited February 12
    BBC chairman warns end of licence fee would mean no CBeebies

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/11/bbc-boss-warns-end-of-licence-fee-would-mean-no-cbeebies

    What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.
  • The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.

    Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743
    OllyT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:

    He is targeting Tory and LD Remainers who want to return to the single market not Labour Leavers who defected to the Tories it seems
    No one wants another round of european debates and battles do they? This is return to BRINO after Brexit. Another 5-10 years of this dominating? No thanks.
    Brexit is only going to cease to be a political issue if it proves to be a roaring success. I'm sure we all have our own views on the likelihood of that happening.
    Disagree. It will only remain a political issue if it turns into an obvious failure. Otherwise it is the new normal. No doubt we all have our own views about the likelihood of that too.
  • The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.

    Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!

    I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    @peter_from_putney

    Why are you being led by the markets?

    You’re an astute punter. Surely you take your own view and analysis, apply some judgment and then place your bets according to where you think the value lies?

    I miscalled Bloomberg. I’d say his chances are currently about 15-20%, soI’d expect Betfair odds of between 6.0 to 9.0 to be a fair price for him for the nomination, and probably at the higher bound of that given he hasn’t got any votes or delegates yet.

    I certainly don’t think he’s a buy now at sub 3-1, and nor do I think there’s any inevitability about his journey to the nomination (although he may well turn out in his favour). It’s like a post-London hyper wealthy Boris (having never done Brexit) suddenly going independent and Uber centrist and then doing a Rory Stewart type act in running for the Labour leadership. I think the party base would be very suspicious about voting for that.

    Unfortunately, having sold him bigly at an average of 12s - and being so far underwater I can practically see the floor of the Mariana Trench - there’s no way out for me but to ride it out and keep my fingers crossed.

    But, I’m not going to follow the market whatever happens. There’s plenty of evidence Bloomberg is throwing huge amounts of his own money at this which is distorting things, and UK punters here have a penchant for previous winners and big names too.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.

    Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!

    I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election

    Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 34,563
    dr_spyn said:

    Which illegal war did Starmer have in mind, and which legislation wasn't used to prosecute the decision makers?



    Looks like a piece of red meat thrown out to appease the Labour membership.
    Red meat?

    It’s an all you eat carnivore feast.

    Either Starmer’s sincere (in which case he’s just a more competent Corbyn without the foreign policy and anti-semitism baggage) or he’s throwing up chaff to deflect the hard Left to get the leadership, and will tack to the centre later.

    I have no idea which yet. All I do know is that that isn’t an election winning platform.

    It may get some Lab defectors to return.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 57,911
    Vs RCP poll averages

    Iowa
    Buttigieg +4.5
    Klob +3.7
    Sanders +1.7
    Steyer -1.3
    Warren -3.0
    Biden -4.4

    New Hampshire
    Klobuchar +8.0
    Buttigieg +3.1
    Steyer +1.9
    Warren -1.7
    Biden -2.6
    Sanders -2.7

    Overall

    Klob +5.85
    Boot edge edge +3.8
    Steyer +0.3
    Sanders -1.0
    Warren -2.35
    Biden -3.5

    Projecting that lot nationally gives

    Sanders 22.0
    Biden 16.9
    Buttigieg 14.2
    Bloomberg 13.6
    Warren 10.65
    Klobuchar 10.25
    Steyer 2.3
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,770

    The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.

    Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!

    There have been a number of evidence-light, “he’s one of us” posts here. That’s not to say he will do something different but at present it’s all blame the messenger, not the message, “one more heave”. There will be disappointment for somebody.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 2,945
    edited February 12
    HYUFD said:
    That interests me - does anyone have any numbers on Tory Membership growth since the Election win?

    Will be fun if they suddenly turn out to have 600k members. Not likely :-) .

    I wonder how much of all this will survive once he has the votes.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 1,693
    RobD said:

    Starmer's pledge on full voting rights for EU nationals *and* free movement is utterly nuts:

    I'd sell that as winning back the right of Brits to live and work in Europe. I can see that being quite appealing after a few years where it's likely to have been more difficult.
    Will any other country offer Brits the same voting rights? I doubt it.
    I'm not convinces the right to live and work in Europe is as popular as its advocates think it is. Language is still an almost insurmountable barrier for most. Favoyred emigration destinations have always been English speaking countries, despite the lack of automatic right to liv and and work there.
  • DavidL said:

    The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.

    Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!

    I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election

    Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
    I am to be honest.

    I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
  • BBC chairman warns end of licence fee would mean no CBeebies

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/11/bbc-boss-warns-end-of-licence-fee-would-mean-no-cbeebies

    What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.

    I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.

    If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 29,743

    DavidL said:

    The idea Starmer is going to confront and take on the far left is absurd. He signed up wholeheartedly to Corbyn, served happily with RLB and Burgon and now he's trying to win the leadership with this claptrap.

    Starmer is not only no Blair, he's not even a Kinnock!

    I am amazed that he has not learned any lessons from the last election

    Are you? Did you not see the polling yesterday where Labour Members (ie the ones with the votes in this competition) thought that Corbyn was the best leader of recent times? That's the electorate he has to win no matter what he actually thinks. And he's going to. It's not exactly a nail biter.
    I am to be honest.

    I thought he would be his own person but he has swallowed the failed 2019 election manifesto hook , line and sinker and looks as if labour will be in the wilderness for decades
    He's got 4 years to find more credible lines. What's the rush? A lot is going to happen in that time for good or ill. Right now he wants to win convincingly and he will.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 10,340

    dr_spyn said:

    Which illegal war did Starmer have in mind, and which legislation wasn't used to prosecute the decision makers?



    Looks like a piece of red meat thrown out to appease the Labour membership.
    Red meat?

    It’s an all you eat carnivore feast.

    Either Starmer’s sincere (in which case he’s just a more competent Corbyn without the foreign policy and anti-semitism baggage) or he’s throwing up chaff to deflect the hard Left to get the leadership, and will tack to the centre later.

    I have no idea which yet. All I do know is that that isn’t an election winning platform.

    It may get some Lab defectors to return.
    Starmer appears to believe that there is a huge demand for more regional devolution in English regions. Wasn't aware that it was such a big doorstep issue in Dec 2019.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 52,911
    Dr. Spyn, John Denholm (former Labour minister) was similarly unimpressed with Starmer's view on that, preferring regional bodies rather than an English Parliament.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,200

    BBC chairman warns end of licence fee would mean no CBeebies

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/feb/11/bbc-boss-warns-end-of-licence-fee-would-mean-no-cbeebies

    What horseshit...CBeebies is a widely watched channel, unlike BBC3. If the BBC were offering packages like Sky do, the young kids one would be one of the most popular.

    I couldn't care less if CBeebies was axed. There's a plethora of kids TV out there. My kids prefer Disney Jr and Nick Jr anyway. Even on Freeview they prefer Tiny Pop.

    If CBeebies can't compete with Tiny Pop, Disney Jr, Nick Jr and the plethora of other kids channels out there they really need to ask themselves why the other channels can cope without a licence fee and what on Earth is wrong with CBeebies.
    You're seriously unclear on why the BBC might struggle to compete with Disney?

    Even without advertising, they could comfortably afford to subsidise the kids channel entirely, in the hope of picking up early brand loyalty and as a goodwill gesture to customers.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 14,368
    Pulpstar said:

    Vs RCP poll averages

    Iowa
    Buttigieg +4.5
    Klob +3.7
    Sanders +1.7
    Steyer -1.3
    Warren -3.0
    Biden -4.4

    New Hampshire
    Klobuchar +8.0
    Buttigieg +3.1
    Steyer +1.9
    Warren -1.7
    Biden -2.6
    Sanders -2.7

    Overall

    Klob +5.85
    Boot edge edge +3.8
    Steyer +0.3
    Sanders -1.0
    Warren -2.35
    Biden -3.5

    Projecting that lot nationally gives

    Sanders 22.0
    Biden 16.9
    Buttigieg 14.2
    Bloomberg 13.6
    Warren 10.65
    Klobuchar 10.25
    Steyer 2.3

    It is a shifting game though. I cannot see Biden on 16.9 by Super Tuesday, and quite possible that neither him nor Warren will still be in the running by then. Their slumps seem terminal. Where their supporters shift to will be key, but I think Bernie has peaked too.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 6,935
    dr_spyn said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Which illegal war did Starmer have in mind, and which legislation wasn't used to prosecute the decision makers?



    Looks like a piece of red meat thrown out to appease the Labour membership.
    Red meat?

    It’s an all you eat carnivore feast.

    Either Starmer’s sincere (in which case he’s just a more competent Corbyn without the foreign policy and anti-semitism baggage) or he’s throwing up chaff to deflect the hard Left to get the leadership, and will tack to the centre later.

    I have no idea which yet. All I do know is that that isn’t an election winning platform.

    It may get some Lab defectors to return.
    Starmer appears to believe that there is a huge demand for more regional devolution in English regions. Wasn't aware that it was such a big doorstep issue in Dec 2019.
    Take back control.

    Yorkshire would vote overwhelmingly for devolution I think. Other regions perhaps less so.
This discussion has been closed.