Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden’s VP choice: Klobuchar, 2nd favourite in the betting les
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Biden’s VP choice: Klobuchar, 2nd favourite in the betting less than a month go, has withdrawn from being considered
The big political betting news is a piece in the New York Times reporting that Senator Amy Klobuchar has written to Joe Biden saying she doesn’t want to be considered for the Democratic VP nomination. As the Betdata.io chart of the Betfair exchange shows Klobuchar was 24% second favourite less than a month ago.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In other news
Drakeford has bowed to pressure and from the 6th July is abandoning the 5 mile driving restriction and opening the holiday and leisure industry
Best news of the day for us in North Wales
Rochdale Pioneer can come here to Wales for his holidays and he will be very welcome
Countercyclical borrowing during a recession is not a novel idea invented by the Tories during this recession.
If other parties wish to tear up economics and borrow more during growth times then I will oppose that as I always have. If my party sought to do that I would too.
A recession being justification for such borrowing was accepted centuries before I was born and always will be accepted. Your whatabouterism is absurd.
* Quite a lot of Native Americans are rather sensitive about claims to be NA - https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-26/elizabeth-warren-again-is-pressed-on-past-claims-of-native-american-heritage
** The initial issue of Black Live has also spread to the issue of Native American lives. Serious deprivation, massive excess numbers of police actions etc.
During periods of growth, they stop being Keynesians.
CMO's from all four countries now say we are in level 3
https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1273631692427837441?s=20
https://twitter.com/realspencergray/status/1273304805931442178?s=20
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1273908149041455105
I think Harris would be a good choice.
Press Association.
My own view is that they have both been (together with Corbyn) a product of normal people becoming less engaged with politics than they once were. Middle aged and older folk say "I don't do politics" as though it were a badge of honour, and the younger are more interested in the opinions of Kim Kardasian or Pewdie Pie (not sure I have spelt either properly!). Maybe one upside of the pandemic is that all people might realise it is worth taking an interest a little more. After all our leaders take decisions that really do affect us in life or death ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
Predict politicians of all stripes (except in Germany) could soon be seizing on this as intellectual cover for "magicking" away budgetary and debt problems.
Also all the UK has now moved from 4 to 3 so no excuse, and no doubt Nicola will follow if only to give Scotland a chance to mitigate the damage to their industry and economy over the essential summer holiday season
I'm not who Malmesbury was referring to though, [I think] he was agreeing with me.
Global financial crisis:
Borrowing before crisis (2007, % GDP): 2.9%
Cyclically adjusted terms: 2.0%
Debt before crisis (2007, % GDP): 34.2%
Change in debt to GDP ratio 1997-2007: -1.5pp
Borrowing at peak (2009): 10.2%.
Coronavirus crisis:
Borrowing before crisis (2019): 2.8%
Cyclically adjusted terms: 1.6%
Debt before crisis (2019, % GDP): 79.7%
Change in debt to GDP ratio 2009-2019: +16.8pp
Borrowing at peak (2020, OBR forecast): 15.2%.
So prior to the global financial crisis, Labour had brought down the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years and was running a deficit to GDP ratio of about the same size as the one the current government was running going into the current crisis (having presided over a 17pp increase in the debt to GDP ratio over the previous ten years).
I am not going to criticise the government for borrowing more, they are doing exactly the right thing. I merely note that Labour did the same thing in 08-09 and were crucified for it by Tories ever since. The level of intellectual dishonesty is astounding.
Yes, but he's [Matt] not really a political cartoonist. Of those that are I rate Martin Rowson very highly. Bell's ability and power cannot be questioned but personally I find himtoo acerbic, brutal and at times unpleasant.
Generally the standard is not high, I'm afraid.
CMO's from all countries including England have made a joint public announcement
With respect I doubt you have greater expertise in this field
I hope social media spreads this about so when hapless grockles are stopped by the cops they can say Big G told them it was ok.
Labour had inherited a balanced budget with the deficit coming down to surplus and then chose, for no good reason, to blow the budget out to a budget deficit during growth times. Labour created the deficit from 2002 onwards, that is what caused the problem.
The Tories inherited Labour's economic catastrophe and brought the deficit down.
To claim the Tories had increased the debt to GDP is absolute garbage and shows you to be totally ignorant. The Tories reduced the deficit every year, they didn't create it as Labour had previously. There was no alternative to debt going up unless the Tories had been far more austere ending the deficit overnight.
You said an "economic crisis" justifies unprecedented spending. I am just pointing out to you that once you say a crisis of one sort or another justifies unprecedented spending then you can't complain if the crisis that is picked is not one you would spend an extra fiver on.
There is more to politics than hatred and over simplification.
Imagine what he might say if his Tulsa rally spreads SARS-Cov2 and kills people. "Fakes!" "Crisis actors!" Perhaps he'll say they were all ill from something else anyway.
That said, there has got to be some kind of method in posting the red triangle at Facebook and then the "racist baby" fake at Twitter. I'm waiting with bated breath for whether he's going to make it a triple.
The law should be there primarily to prevent harm to others. Blood sports fall under that definition, so long as you accept animals as others.
I have no problems with "country sports": Polo, croquet etc may be country sports - my concern was with ones that involve blood not the country.
My sense is, essentially bollox but with some useful insights. Like so many things, if you think about it. Brexit, for example. You, even.
Drakeford has been live on tv confirming these changes from the 6th July and seeking holiday bookings across Wales from the 13th July
What is it with so many who seem to want to continue to support the armageddon to our economy for political gain
Fleeting passing outdoors - Not particularly likely
Sitting with your mates outdoors - Seems to be mainly OK
Moving around indoors (Shopping) whilst trying to maintain a 2 metre distance - You'd be unlucky
Mass gathering outdoors - Doesn't look to have taken R over 1.
Which really only leaves larger gatherings indoors. By elimination they pretty much MUST be superspreader events !
You started off by saying:
"There's a difference between borrowing for an economic crisis..."
To which I responded that if you are picking and choosing crises that it is ok to borrow for then you can't criticise other governments or views that agree with that principle (albeit you might not agree that their crisis needs money spending on it in the same way as "your" crisis does).
The world has moved on from cock fighting and fox hunting. So should you.
There's clearly overlap but it's a question of where the priority lies. If a Matt isn't funny, he's failed. If a Rowson carton doesn't score a political point, he's failed. Matt doesn't have to be political, but sometimes is; likewise Rowson doesn't have to be funny, though he sometimes is.
Your 100% accurate, deeply insightful observations on Scottish politics have been predicting doom for Sturgeon and the SNP because of lockdown. How does that square with 'support the armageddon to our economy for political gain'?
When someone uses the word "between" there's normally two or more options for it to be between so please quote the full sentence to see what 'economic crisis' was contrasted with. Feel free to snip the rest of the post but if you're going to quote a sentence including the word "difference between" then please include the full sentence to show what it is meant to be between.
If you do that it might aid your reading comprehension.
There are those who accuse Boris of being an instinctive liar. That's not totally fair. He's an incredible seductor. His key skill is the ability to size up his audience and tell them what they want to hear.
It's why he can attract the ladies. It's why he can bounce back from career disasters into new higher roles. It's why he can win elections.
So metropolitan liberals will have been told that Mayor of London Boris is the true Boris. One Nation Conservatives will have been told, with complete insincerity that the Department for International Development was completely safe. Professor Goodwin will have left meetings with a strong impression that Boris got the National Populist agenda and was going to deliver on it. Brexit will be somewhere on the scale of WTO to seamless co-operation, depending on the audience.
As a technique to get the lady, or the job, or the win, it's genius. It's a real talent. The trouble comes after that, when reality intrudes and you have to choose between having your cake and eating it.
And that's why he keeps losing the ladies, and the jobs, and virtually everyone who has had dealings with BoJo ends up regretting it. Whilst Boris as PM might be the exception, is there any reason to think it won't be?
When growth is below trend, spending should grow because it must.
When growth is above trend, spending should grow because it can.
https://twitter.com/P14Murray/status/1273888249770053633?s=20
I do not approve of lifting bans on animal cruelty. If I saw someone torturing a cat or dog I don't think that needs to be legal in order to be libertarian.
Yes the deficit was coming down when Labour came in. Why? Because the Tories had mismanaged the economy in the late 1980s, created an unsustainable boom and the resulting recession had crashed the public finances. They were in the process of restoring some semblance of sanity after debt had risen to 37% of GDP by 1996. Labour continued that process so that by 2000 it was running a 1.4% of GDP surplus and debt had fallen to just 27% of GDP (creating concerns that there wouldn't be enough debt to satisfy demands by the financial system). With debt under control and with a dire need for investment in public services, Labour increased borrowing to 2.9% of GDP, which was the average level for the 1979-1996 period so was hardly profligate or dangerous unless you want to accuse Thatcher and Major of that too.
Call me a hypocrite if you like. I think killing animals for their meat or leather is fine as its done for a necessary reason so long as you don't do it cruelly or treat the animals cruelly while they're farmed.
Is wot u wrote.
Actually it is an illogical statement. You have identified a crisis that is worth excess borrowing. You have therefore accepted that for certain crises (presumably the ones you think justify it) excess borrowing is ok. Whereas there are plenty of crises that are worth excess borrowing.
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1273779278048489472?s=20
That 2.9% was the average level for the 1979-1996 period is meaningless. You need to consider the stage of the economic cycle, during 1979-1996 the deficit generally went down during times of growth and up during recessions. As is sane and sensible.
When the UK went into recession during the 1979-1996 period it did so from a budget surplus allowing the deficit to go back up again and then start coming back down again.
Blowing the deficit up BEFORE the recession is what Labour did that was so catastrophic.
Good answer to be fair
Good tip from OGH
Likewise Bell's portrayal of Patel as a fat old heifer with a ring through her nose simply didn't work on any level.
I take your point though. The Raab 'toon wasn't amusing and didn't make you think. The Patel effort wasn't funny and made you think but not in the way intended. Both fails, I'm afraid.
For the record, I respect Bell rather than like him. I don't care for Brookes' work. In fact I like very few current political cartoonists.
Not understanding that once excess spending for crises has been sanctioned, just watch the number of crises that crop up; and also, not really understanding hunting, vaguely aware that people who do it dress funny in red coats and, ahem, top hats, and therefore has latched on to what he thinks is an acceptable position on it whereas it is one born of ignorance.
But do you accept that if it is cruel then its reasonable for it to be banned?
Or do you think eg a pet owner should be able to torture their pet without the law getting involved? I don't and I don't think that's a liberal policy.
I would be shocked if Biden goes with Warren. Not only is there the issue with BLM but his "you ain't black" comment also means he needs to show that he is not just an old white guy taking the Black vote for granted. That caused a big amount of controversy and hit Biden. If he picks Warren, Stacey Abrams in particular - who I don't have much time for but doesn't command a certain audience in the Democrat activist base - would go nuts ("he didn't call me for VP pick but he chose a white woman!").
But Harris is also disliked. BLM members have said they won't vote for Biden if she is the VP pick. Her record as AG in CA has a lot of problems. And - irony of ironies - she is not really considered part of the African-American community (she is half Jamaican - descended from a slave owner - and half Indian). There is a fair chance that, if he goes with Harris, he does not get the Black vote out.
If it was then why didn't it exponentially grow for months?
Especially in December when everyone is indoors and full of Christmas Parties and other sorts of probable superspreader events.
Good on the emotive language, that said, as always.