Howdy, Stranger!

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

Why I’m betting that Trump won’t be the GOP WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 12 in General
imageWhy I’m betting that Trump won’t be the GOP WH2024 nominee – politicalbetting.com

Next Tuesday Donald Trump is due to make a statement and the speculation is that he will seek to announce his intention to run for the White House again in 2024.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 19,555
    edited November 12
    First like Dems in Senate
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,544
    Agree. +1
  • It's not over till the fat billionaire sings!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    Been pleasantly surprised by the lack of calls of theft and lawsuits from these mid-terms tbh.
    May be a straw in the wind.
  • FPT
    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    kle4 said:

    In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.

    There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.

    The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:

    • 0.6% in 1851
    • 1.5% in 1901
    • 4.2% in 1951
    • 8.3% in 2001
    • 16.8% in 2022


    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA

    1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.
    2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
    3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
    Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
    And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867
    edited November 12
    All his statements make clear Trump will run. Prepare for a battle royale between Trump and De Santis in 2024 for the GOP nomination which could go all the way to the convention
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    Laxalt seems to think he's probably going to lose.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    dixiedean said:

    Laxalt seems to think he's probably going to lose.

    That's because of maths. It would take a miracle for him to win.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222
    I would be very reluctant to put money on something I so want to be true. Who can be impartial about the Donald? But if I was betting on this I would be betting the same way as Mike. We are finally getting past Trump. Its been tough.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,295
    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
  • Sack James Cleverly now, he's written in Le Monde the following rubbish.

    Ma présence à Paris le 11 novembre démontre que nous sommes amis, partenaires, alliés, que nous travaillons ensemble très étroitement en raison du retour de la guerre en Europe.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/11/12/james-cleverly-tout-le-monde-veut-que-le-conflit-trouve-une-issue-mais-elle-doit-etre-juste-pour-le-peuple-ukrainien_6149550_3210.html
  • On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,295
    The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,295

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
  • Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.

    Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:

    "You

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

    WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?

    No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."

    Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

    The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.

    The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".
  • WillGWillG Posts: 507

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
  • On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
  • WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The NY Dems couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068
    House out to 1.21 - 1.23 spread again.

    Remarkable.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,363
    WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.

    The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.

    The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,222

    WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The NY Dems couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
    The alternative view is that the Democrats have seriously out performed in the mid-terms because they focused all their efforts and money where it was needed most and, as a result, suffered the odd defeat to very well-funded campaigns in what were thought to be safe seats. Compare these results with Hilary's spectacular campaigning in California in 2016. I really don't think it was ever going to be better than this for the Dems and the GOP are devastated.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    If Trump runs as a 3rd party candidate there is zero chance of the GOP winning the White House. 95% of his voters would have voted for him and the GOP in 2020 and the Democrats could then win with under 45% as Clinton did in 1992 when Perot ran and took lots of voters who voted for Bush in 1988
  • Am starting to think along same lines as OGH, that the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo may NOT declare his candidacy any time soon.

    NOT sure I'd put any money down on that basis, but nevertheless.

    Trump is a guy who HATES to lose. AND is now in electoral terms at least a three-time loser:
    1. 2020 "re"-election
    2. 2021 GA double US Senate runoff
    3. 2022 midterm elections

    Am not sure 45 is gonna want to make it 4.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    edited November 12

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    I hope Nigella Lawson is preparing an extra helping of her Bitter Orange Tart for when he starts ranting about stolen elections again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867
    DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The NY Dems couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
    The alternative view is that the Democrats have seriously out performed in the mid-terms because they focused all their efforts and money where it was needed most and, as a result, suffered the odd defeat to very well-funded campaigns in what were thought to be safe seats. Compare these results with Hilary's spectacular campaigning in California in 2016. I really don't think it was ever going to be better than this for the Dems and the GOP are devastated.
    Upstate New York though is swing seat area really, with rural New York state pro Trump.

    Only New York City and its suburbs make New York a safe Democrat state overall
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    'Another?'
  • dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
  • DavidL said:

    WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The NY Dems couldn't organise a pregnancy on a council estate.
    The alternative view is that the Democrats have seriously out performed in the mid-terms because they focused all their efforts and money where it was needed most and, as a result, suffered the odd defeat to very well-funded campaigns in what were thought to be safe seats. Compare these results with Hilary's spectacular campaigning in California in 2016. I really don't think it was ever going to be better than this for the Dems and the GOP are devastated.
    Democratic successes (such as they are) in 2022 have more to do with the self-inflicted wounds of Republicans - namely Trump & SCOTUS with minor but appreciated assist from Tim Scott - than to the strategy & focus of Democrats, in particular the drones of the DCCC.

    Of whom Sean Patrick Baloney, soon-to-be ex-US Rep & head of Dee-Trip(e), is the Poster Child of 2022.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.

    Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:

    "You

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

    WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?

    No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."

    Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

    The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.

    The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".

    Better known to me (alas) as the chap who fronted off against Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267

    Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.

    Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:

    "You

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

    WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?

    No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."

    Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

    The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.

    The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".

    No.
    That speech makes grammatical and logical sense.
    So no comparison at all.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867
    edited November 12

    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
    In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.

    The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Sack James Cleverly now, he's written in Le Monde the following rubbish.

    Ma présence à Paris le 11 novembre démontre que nous sommes amis, partenaires, alliés, que nous travaillons ensemble très étroitement en raison du retour de la guerre en Europe.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/11/12/james-cleverly-tout-le-monde-veut-que-le-conflit-trouve-une-issue-mais-elle-doit-etre-juste-pour-le-peuple-ukrainien_6149550_3210.html

    Fifth columnist, no question. Probably has Castillon tattooed on his bicep.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624

    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
    Sounds more like the sort of window that Russian politicians tend to interact with.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068
    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    Yeah, I posted that prediction earlier today.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 507

    FPT

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    kle4 said:

    In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.

    There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.

    The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:

    • 0.6% in 1851
    • 1.5% in 1901
    • 4.2% in 1951
    • 8.3% in 2001
    • 16.8% in 2022


    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA

    1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.
    2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
    3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
    Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
    And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
    Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.

    Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.

    The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.

    The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
    More complicated, the Republican judge (yeah Cuomo appointed a Republican) then appointed a special maester and he was batshit crazy drawing "fair" districts that ignore a lot of axis of fairness.

    Districts were torn every which way.
  • dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
    In 1968, George Wallace's "Stand Up for America" campaign took way more votes from Richard Nixon than from Hubert Humphrey (Texas for example, won by HHH, plus some southern states won by GW himself).

    A similar Trump independent campaign in 2024 would take more votes from Republican than from Democratic nominee, whomever the Rs & Ds end up nominating.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,435
    edited November 12

    Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    William Jennings Bryan played a crucial role in my life.

    As a young boy I watched Inherit The Wind with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.

    Loved the film and the performances, became hooked on it, then my teacher informed it was based on real events, in the days of before the internet I had fun trying to read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Always liked WJB even if I disagreed with him on his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Between that film and Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird had such a profound effect on me.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited November 12
    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    America is a funny old place.
    Trump gets 10%, Biden beats DS by 5 but 'EC maths' and they are even and Trump gets his best result in, i dunno, Alabama and takes it 36, 34, 30, taking their 9 votes and leaving it 268-261 to the other 2

    Edit - or Dems flood to Trump in Republican strongholds as a stop De Santis measure if they are running behind
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    My sense is the drop in the female vote has massively cost the Republicans, particularly in close races.

    They'd otherwise be walking this. Senate and House.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    edited November 12
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
    In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.

    The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
    Yes. It really needs a regionalist or a centrist third Party candidate to conceive of a way there could be no EC majority*. Trump is neither.

    *Of course. A 269-269 tie is possible too.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    Toon ahead.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867

    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
    In 1968, George Wallace's "Stand Up for America" campaign took way more votes from Richard Nixon than from Hubert Humphrey (Texas for example, won by HHH, plus some southern states won by GW himself).

    A similar Trump independent campaign in 2024 would take more votes from Republican than from Democratic nominee, whomever the Rs & Ds end up nominating.
    In 1964 LBJ won all 8 out of 13 southern States.

    In 1968 Humphrey won just 1 southern state, Texas, with Wallace winning 5 southern States and Nixon
    the remaining 7.

    1968 was the first clear sign the Democrats had lost the South effectively in most Presidential elections going forward.

    Though yes Trump would hit the GOP more now the South is a largely Republican region
  • This is the narrow window.

    In the United States, a contingent election is used to elect the president or vice president if no candidate receives a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed. A presidential contingent election is decided by a special vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate.

    During a contingent election in the House, each state delegation votes en bloc to choose the president instead of representatives voting individually. Senators, by contrast, cast votes individually for vice president.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election
  • Carnyx said:

    Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.

    Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:

    "You

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

    WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?

    No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."

    Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

    The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.

    The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".

    Better known to me (alas) as the chap who fronted off against Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
    By that time, Bryan was also famous as promoter of Florida real estate AND popularizer of the Palm Beach Suit.

    WJB's role in Scopes trial was part and parcel of his defense of old-time American values and old-school Christianity against the reasons and ravages of modernism and (dare I say it?) wokeism.

    BTW, the play and movie "Inherit the Wind" is a total hatchet job where Bryan is concerned. About as reliable as history as Oliver Stone's "JFK".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    Some real tight races there, needs more gerrymandering.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    So we're going to get Trump running, presumably on a basis of 'I won 2 times in a row but one was stolen, you are all ungrateful f*ckers and if you don't support me I will destroy you'.

    And possibly at least one very direct 'Trump is a loser and we need to move on from him' candidate, to get smashed.

    And DeSantis just throws his hat in the ring without being as direct, but just continually pointing to his result vs Trump fanatics?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,068
    DavidL said:

    I would be very reluctant to put money on something I so want to be true. Who can be impartial about the Donald? But if I was betting on this I would be betting the same way as Mike. We are finally getting past Trump. Its been tough.

    We need to revise our view of what's been happening over the last 15 years: Scottish nationalism, Corbyn, even some of those who voted for Brexit, Trump... it's an anti-establishment revolt for all the fuck-ups that led to the GFC, and their arrogance and self-serving nature in the process and thereafter.

    Now, I think, voters are learning that populism provides no easy answers. But, they still don't like establishment centrist political figures either.

    The savvy political moderate who addresses these concerns with real solutions, and shows voters absolute respect, will inherit the earth.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,624
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
    In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.

    The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
    Yes. It really needs a regionalist or a centrist third Party candidate to conceive of a way there could be no EC majority*. Trump is neither.

    *Of course. A 269-269 tie is possible too.
    Trump gets the nomination, De Santis stands in Florida and takes the state.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,093
    Think he'll run but be rejected - by the GOP and if not by the country. The big question for me is how much damage he'll do - and to who and to what - as he goes down. Dems at 2.5 for the WH is something to consider imo.
  • Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.

    The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.

    The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
    More complicated, the Republican judge (yeah Cuomo appointed a Republican) then appointed a special maester and he was batshit crazy drawing "fair" districts that ignore a lot of axis of fairness.

    Districts were torn every which way.
    That is mostly (but not entirely) Democratic spin, trying to exculpate Democratic cluster fuck.

    Can't blame the Republicans for THIS one.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981

    It's not over till the fat billionaire sings!

    Do squeals or whines count ?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited November 12

    This is the narrow window.

    In the United States, a contingent election is used to elect the president or vice president if no candidate receives a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed. A presidential contingent election is decided by a special vote of the United States House of Representatives, while a vice-presidential contingent election is decided by a vote of the United States Senate.

    During a contingent election in the House, each state delegation votes en bloc to choose the president instead of representatives voting individually. Senators, by contrast, cast votes individually for vice president.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election

    Republican president, and depending on Georgia run off and Nevada, deadlock on VP
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    A valuable lesson, perhaps.
    Or will they learn nothing ?
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 626
    dixiedean said:

    Toon ahead.

    Is that a Clark County drop in Nevada for State Chief Pie Scrutineer ?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    edited November 12

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
    In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.

    The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
    Yes. It really needs a regionalist or a centrist third Party candidate to conceive of a way there could be no EC majority*. Trump is neither.

    *Of course. A 269-269 tie is possible too.
    Trump gets the nomination, De Santis stands in Florida and takes the state.
    He'd be the regionalist. And the centrist, too, in that case.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    edited November 12

    The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?

    I think he’s done.
    He won’t run as an independent as his ego couldn’t deal with the almost certain defeat. Most likely to spoiler from the sidelines while grifting to the max, IMO.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    NEW: Dominic Raab facing more bullying claims from time as Brexit secretary - with a document outlining “formal expression of concern” sent to Cabinet Office - by @michaelsavage @tobyhelm & me https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/12/dominic-raab-facing-more-bullying-claims-from-time-as-brexit-secretary?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
  • Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    William Jennings Bryan played a crucial role in my life.

    As a young boy I watched Inherit The Wind with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.

    Loved the film and the performances, became hooked on it, then my teacher informed it was based on real events, in the days of before the internet I had fun trying to read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Always liked WJB even if I disagreed with him on his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Between that film and Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird had such a profound effect on me.
    Like I said, "Inherit the Wind" is unreliable as history. But great drama.

    Essentially the viewpoint of the play/movie re: William Jennings Bryan, is that of better-educated, more prosperous, eastern establishment AND liberal America of the 1920s.

    Note that this section of society considered WJB's core supporters to be a bunch of ignorant, mean-spirited, fundamentally stupid hicks, hillbillies and similar bumpkins, in other words the Great Unwashed.

    Sound familiar?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.

    The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.

    The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
    More complicated, the Republican judge (yeah Cuomo appointed a Republican) then appointed a special maester and he was batshit crazy drawing "fair" districts that ignore a lot of axis of fairness.

    Districts were torn every which way.
    That is mostly (but not entirely) Democratic spin, trying to exculpate Democratic cluster fuck.

    Can't blame the Republicans for THIS one.
    Oh, no, it is entirely the New York Dems fault. They be some dumb mutha fuckers. I is genuinely jaw dropping how badly they fucked it.

    Its just not quite as simple as saying the NY has "fair" maps though.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,544
    dixiedean said:

    Toon ahead.

    But all eyes on Arsenal. If they could get 5 points ahead before the break.....I could begin to believe it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    Nigelb said:

    The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?

    I think he’s done.
    He won’t run as an independent as his ego couldn’t deal with the almost certain defeat. Most likely to spoiler from the sidelines while grifting to the max, IMO.
    What's his best way of hoovering up donations for the longest time which he can siphon off?
  • Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    rcs1000 said:

    WillG said:

    Alistair said:

    Thr Dems NY fuck up has cost them the house.

    https://twitter.com/baseballot/status/1591479674710134786?t=hBFAnF5Cdhl6WNO8A7jtzA&s=19

    Nate Cohn is projecting a 216-219 House

    That's much better than the Dems expected.
    What actually happened in New York?
    The New York Dems put forward a ridiculous gerrymandered map, which was thrown out by (Democrat appointed) judges for being ridiculous and gerrymandered.

    The result is that the map that got used was essentially entirely fair and reasonable.

    The criticism is that if the Dems hadn't completely taken the piss, then they would have had a moderately more favourable (i.e. slightly gerrymandered) map, and would probably have ended up not losing the House.
    More complicated, the Republican judge (yeah Cuomo appointed a Republican) then appointed a special maester and he was batshit crazy drawing "fair" districts that ignore a lot of axis of fairness.

    Districts were torn every which way.
    That is mostly (but not entirely) Democratic spin, trying to exculpate Democratic cluster fuck.

    Can't blame the Republicans for THIS one.
    Oh, no, it is entirely the New York Dems fault. They be some dumb mutha fuckers. I is genuinely jaw dropping how badly they fucked it.

    Its just not quite as simple as saying the NY has "fair" maps though.
    True, but really no such thing as totally fair map re: redistricting. Somebody's ox is bound to get gored.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411
    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867
    Nigelb said:

    The Republicans have some very difficult decisions to make. I'm sure they would like Trump to just go away and be quiet, but that doesn't seem to be his style. They can't, I assume, stop him standing in Primaries and he could well win some of those, they may be stuck with him whatever they do. If they manage to get a different candidate, what is the betting that Trump won't stand as an Independent?

    I think he’s done.
    He won’t run as an independent as his ego couldn’t deal with the almost certain defeat. Most likely to spoiler from the sidelines while grifting to the max, IMO.
    No, if he loses the nomination to DeSantis Trump would run out of spite to split the GOP vote and hand the election to the Democrats.

    His aim would not be to win, purely to say they should have nominated him again. As far as Trump is concerned he now owns the GOP and any candidate who attempts to challenge that must be humiliated
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,559
    edited November 12
    WillG said:

    FPT

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    kle4 said:

    In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.

    There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.

    The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:

    • 0.6% in 1851
    • 1.5% in 1901
    • 4.2% in 1951
    • 8.3% in 2001
    • 16.8% in 2022


    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA

    1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.
    2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
    3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
    Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
    And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
    Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.

    Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
    Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
    Whose money did she spend?
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
    It happened 12 years ago.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 12
    HYUFD said:
    Shocking and vital news.

    It was ages ago and all. I mean, she mentioned it so its fine for an outlet to make a story, but there's no angle here.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    On topic, I agree.

    Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.

    Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.

    .... as do the Republicans?
    Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.

    Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
    Trump and another Republican on the ballot?
    How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then?
    470 more likely.
    I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
    In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.

    The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
    Yes. It really needs a regionalist or a centrist third Party candidate to conceive of a way there could be no EC majority*. Trump is neither.

    *Of course. A 269-269 tie is possible too.
    Trump gets the nomination, De Santis stands in Florida and takes the state.
    He'd be the regionalist. And the centrist, too, in that case.
    Though with Trump v DeSantis v Democrat, the Dems would be heavy odds on to win Florida.
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,834

    Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    William Jennings Bryan played a crucial role in my life.

    As a young boy I watched Inherit The Wind with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.

    Loved the film and the performances, became hooked on it, then my teacher informed it was based on real events, in the days of before the internet I had fun trying to read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Always liked WJB even if I disagreed with him on his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Between that film and Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird had such a profound effect on me.
    Like I said, "Inherit the Wind" is unreliable as history. But great drama.

    Essentially the viewpoint of the play/movie re: William Jennings Bryan, is that of better-educated, more prosperous, eastern establishment AND liberal America of the 1920s.

    Note that this section of society considered WJB's core supporters to be a bunch of ignorant, mean-spirited, fundamentally stupid hicks, hillbillies and similar bumpkins, in other words the Great Unwashed.

    Sound familiar?
    I've been to Dayton TN. Even in the 1990s it was an old-fashioned Southern town racially divided by the (non-functioning) railroad track. The portrayal of WJB as a drunken trencherman in ITW comprehensively destroyed his political legacy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 12

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
    It happened 12 years ago.
    It's in the first line of the story! Hard to miss.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    edited November 12

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazine
  • DavidL said:

    dixiedean said:

    Laxalt seems to think he's probably going to lose.

    Yes, but he is also being incredibly straightforward. If more of these drop ins go to my opponent she will overtake me and she will win. No more than a statement of the blindingly obvious but nice to see a Republican who is willing to acknowledge that is the way it works in a grown up way.
    Trump and his most devoted acolytes (almost said catamites!) have given election denial a BAD reputation.

    Both as a allegedly quasi-coherent argument AND even more importantly as a campaign tactic.

    Wages of 1/6/21.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazine
    I don’t get HYFUD posting it here as if she’s done something wrong. It was 12 years ago, so totally unrelated to CoL. I assume she’s paid the loan back by now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazine
    She mentioned it, sure.

    Media outlets will choose whether to focus on it as of any interest or not.

    HYUFD thought it was fertile ground for a political attack (initially that was not clear, but his follow up revealed it).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867
    edited November 12

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
    It happened 12 years ago.
    Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
    It happened 12 years ago.
    Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
    Perhaps, but I think most are just sick of the sight of Tories right now. Put a red rosette on a shop dummy and I think it will win in most places.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
    It happened 12 years ago.
    Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
    I think the voters would relate with a woman who was dealing with pregnancy related weight issues.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
    It happened 12 years ago.
    Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough spending choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
    In which case I'd be very interested in what the current PM has chosen to spend £5k on.
    I should imagine it to be a lengthy list.

    I am not interested in what legal things politicians choose to spend their own money on.
    Borrowed or not.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    edited November 12
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    At a time of cost of living crisis?
    It happened 12 years ago.
    Even so hardly the austere image voters would want in the likely next Deputy PM given the tough sounding choices they have to make at the moment and the spending cuts and tax rises a Starmer government would also likely have to make
    Sometimes I have to applaud your commitment to the bit.

    You are seriously trying to suggest voters will find the idea the Deputy Leader of Labour, a niche political figure with all respects to her, took a loan for a personal extravagance more than a decade ago, before she was an MP and in much better economic times, to be insufficiently austere? Whilst the PM is close to billionaire status?

    Could you lay out the logic for me as to why that would strike a chord? Maybe you could denigrate her intellect again because she left school at 16.

    The story is just adding a bit of further detail to her backstory is all.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648

    HYUFD said:
    Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
    She chose to tell us all about it in an interview though, its not an exposé. Why she thinks we should care that she borrrowed a lot of money for sheer vanity i'm not sure, its all a bit Hello magazine
    I don’t get HYFUD posting it here as if she’s done something wrong. It was 12 years ago, so totally unrelated to CoL. I assume she’s paid the loan back by now.
    Oh i agree, there is no story other than she is vain and wasted a load of money on having her boobs done. Like millions of other women, and increasingly, men. The vanity industry is a moneymaker
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,867

    WillG said:

    FPT

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    kle4 said:

    In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.

    There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.

    The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:

    • 0.6% in 1851
    • 1.5% in 1901
    • 4.2% in 1951
    • 8.3% in 2001
    • 16.8% in 2022


    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA

    1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.
    2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
    3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
    Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
    And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
    Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.

    Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
    Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
    Oh really?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

    Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
  • HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    FPT

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    kle4 said:

    In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.

    There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.

    The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:

    • 0.6% in 1851
    • 1.5% in 1901
    • 4.2% in 1951
    • 8.3% in 2001
    • 16.8% in 2022


    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA

    1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.
    2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
    3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
    Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
    And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
    Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.

    Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
    Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
    Oh really?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

    Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
    A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    HYUFD said:

    WillG said:

    FPT

    Chris said:

    Cookie said:

    kle4 said:

    In a way these figures make me wonder more about why there was comparitively slow growth from the 50s.

    There has always been immigration to Britain — that’s my heritage — but the historical trend is obviously remarkable.

    The overall foreign born population of Britain has risen from:

    • 0.6% in 1851
    • 1.5% in 1901
    • 4.2% in 1951
    • 8.3% in 2001
    • 16.8% in 2022


    https://twitter.com/b_judah/status/1589259006232891392?cxt=HHwWgMDQqaupl44sAAAA

    1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement.
    2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country.
    3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
    Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
    And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
    Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.

    Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
    Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
    Oh really?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

    Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
    A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
    And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    BBC reporting £35bn in cuts and £20bn in tax rises. Mostly from freezing thresholds.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,544
    HYUFD said:
    She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.

    But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:


    "I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.


    as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.



  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Carnyx said:

    Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    WJB was won the Democratic nomination but lost the election in 1896, 1900 and 1908. As an anti-establishment populist, drawing votes mostly from disaffected, declining geographic regions and demographic sectors. Supported by most farmers and many workers, opposed by most business people and better-educated, more-affluent sections of society.

    Only campaign where Bryan had an realistic chance of winning was in 1896, in the midst of economic depression, and agitation for "bi-metalism" (use of silver as well as gold standard) as a monetary remedy. Indeed, the then-youngish WJB won the nomination thanks to his electrifying "Cross of Gold" speech to the Democratic Convention:

    "You

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Gold_speech

    WJB - It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but three millions in number, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation; shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to seventy millions, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers?

    No, my friends, that will never be the verdict of our people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost."

    Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."

    The response of the Convention was - pandemonium.

    The crowd raised Bryan to it's shoulders in triumph, as delegates grabbed the standards of a score of state and carried them to join that of Nebraska, WJB's own state, where he was already famed as "the Boy Orator of the River Platte".

    Better known to me (alas) as the chap who fronted off against Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
    By that time, Bryan was also famous as promoter of Florida real estate AND popularizer of the Palm Beach Suit.

    WJB's role in Scopes trial was part and parcel of his defense of old-time American values and old-school Christianity against the reasons and ravages of modernism and (dare I say it?) wokeism.

    BTW, the play and movie "Inherit the Wind" is a total hatchet job where Bryan is concerned. About as reliable as history as Oliver Stone's "JFK".
    They sure made him out to be the monkey. Ook!

    (Got a decent history of the trial somewhere, to be fair.)
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,648
    dixiedean said:

    BBC reporting £35bn in cuts and £20bn in tax rises. Mostly from freezing thresholds.

    So we will have less money not to spend on things that have closed down. Awesome.
  • Could be that Donald Trump is the 3rd millennium's William Jennings Bryan?

    William Jennings Bryan played a crucial role in my life.

    As a young boy I watched Inherit The Wind with Spencer Tracy and Fredric March.

    Loved the film and the performances, became hooked on it, then my teacher informed it was based on real events, in the days of before the internet I had fun trying to read about the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Always liked WJB even if I disagreed with him on his role in the Scopes Monkey Trial.

    Between that film and Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mockingbird had such a profound effect on me.
    Like I said, "Inherit the Wind" is unreliable as history. But great drama.

    Essentially the viewpoint of the play/movie re: William Jennings Bryan, is that of better-educated, more prosperous, eastern establishment AND liberal America of the 1920s.

    Note that this section of society considered WJB's core supporters to be a bunch of ignorant, mean-spirited, fundamentally stupid hicks, hillbillies and similar bumpkins, in other words the Great Unwashed.

    Sound familiar?
    I've been to Dayton TN. Even in the 1990s it was an old-fashioned Southern town racially divided by the (non-functioning) railroad track. The portrayal of WJB as a drunken trencherman in ITW comprehensively destroyed his political legacy.
    Dayton TN, home of Bryan College
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_College

    Somebody could do a REALLY interesting movie about the Life and Times of William Jennings Bryan. From Illinois farm to Nebraska frontier (sorta) to political fame (if not fortune) to US Secretary of State at start of WWI (until he resigned due to Lusitania Crisis) to Florida Gold Coast booster to tribune (and martyr) for Creationism.

    You are true that WJB has never lived (or rather died) down the portrait of him drawn by "Inherit the Wind".

    At same time, his "Cross of Gold" speech of 1896 remains as one of the great moments of American political history.

    This recording made by WJB of "CoG" twenty-five does NOT have the atmosphere of the 1896 convention, but does convey some idea:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV2wRCcWJa8
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    dixiedean said:

    BBC reporting £35bn in cuts and £20bn in tax rises. Mostly from freezing thresholds.

    So more realistically about £15bn achieved in cuts, £10bn obtained in tax rises, and £30bn pushed onto an extended period for savings/additional rises, once markets hopefully calm down a bit and acknowledge the government has shown willing to get a grip.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,544
    dixiedean said:

    BBC reporting £35bn in cuts and £20bn in tax rises. Mostly from freezing thresholds.

    And Toon still ahead
Sign In or Register to comment.