Howdy, Stranger!

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

Trump back up to a 36% betting chance for the GOP 2024 nomination – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    Dominic Raab says the ‘flying tomato’ incident ‘did not happen’ #DPMQs
    https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1592852741743087616

    How many of the "more than 10" will go on the record?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,593

    MaxPB said:

    Also interesting and probably good news, house price inflation fell from 13% to 9% YoY, I think for the first time in years houses now have negative real return on capital. If the government manages to put up costs for landlords a bit further we could see a glut of existing property put up for sale by them.

    I read in the last thread you placing the blame for the latest inflation rises on the BOE's timidity in raising interest rates. I am not opposing this argument, but I am interested - by what mechanism do you think lower than desired interest rates have raised petrol, energy and food costs? The pound is afaik, somewhat recovered, so it wouldn't be that - or would it?
    The Bank of England has invited structural weakness in sterling because of its ridiculously dovish outlook and lack of credibility on meeting the inflation target. That has added 2-3% on CPI due to dollar priced commodity inflation. Sterling has only "recovered" to the extent that the dollar index has gone down again, at a similar level sterling was sitting at $1.25-1.28 and that 7-10 cents makes a huge difference when we run a gigantic commodity deficit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The @UKSupremeCourt will rule next Wednesday, 23 November, on the questions raised by the lord advocate about holding a referendum on Scottish independence.
    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1592839626015723520

    A win for the SNP whatever the outcome sadly.

    In a non lawyer's reading of the arguments it did seem pretty straightforward that it was for the Lord Advocate to state if they believed the parliament had power to legislate on the question, and not to refer it to court in advance. If they couldn't say in their view the power was there, end of for their part at least.

    Can't imagine questions of technical legal procedure cutting much ice though.
    I would be extremely surprised and disappointed if the SC ducked the question in this way. The central question is can the Scottish Parliament legislate for a referendum on Independence without the consent of the UK Parliament. Even if they find this reference premature I think that they will answer that question.
    Is it their habit to not address further arguments if the first step determines the matter, or are they generally more exhaustive? Eg For the avoidance of doubt even had we not determined x, it would fail on the other grounds
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977
    edited November 2022
    Jakey nails it!

    Unlike RLB who as usual makes no sense whatsoever.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Dura_Ace said:

    If not Biden for the Dems then who?

    Is there a current or ex Governor who could step up? What about a senator or a representative?

    It is not obvious.

    Whitmer? National profile and strong anti-MAGA credentials.

    Newsom is a terrific fund-raiser but his strong Patrick Bateman energy might not play.
    If the Dems wanted to lose badly they would nominate Newsom.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 3,018
    kle4 said:

    kamski said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:



    ...Trump does worse in head-to-head primary polls vs DeSantis, compared with polls with several candidates. (DeSantis also still has worse name recognition, so those head to head polls might be understating his potential lead)...

    That's to assume to know him is to like him.
    Not sure that holds outside of Florida.
    Possibly. Although he beats Trump by 26% in Florida in the latest (post-midterm) poll, which is quite a lot among Republicans who do know him. The previous poll from the same pollster conducted in August had DeSantis only 7% ahead.

    The other thing which could work against Trump is that primary voters tend to prefer candidates they think will win in the general. If Republican voters start thinking Trump is less likely than eg DeSantis to win the presidency, then Trump could rapidly lose a lot of support.
    That's the hope.

    Some clearly already think he is not a winner, but its mostly those who already disliked him.

    Who can persuade the rank and file that he is not a winner?

    Hence the need for a popular new candidate. They need not attack him too much, but just hammer home that they are a winner, and watch Trump explode.
    That's the ideal scenario for the Republicans, someone not Trump who can win while saying "Trump was a one of the greatest presidents ever, but it's time to move on, he's not a vote-winner any more, the public want a unifying president, etc". If they also promise to put an end to all the witch hunts against Trump, Trump might even play ball.

    "But Trump just called you Ron DeSanctimonious, what do you say to that?"
    "Like everyone else, I've really enjoyed Donald's colourful use of language - it was so refreshing in 2016"

    Was surprised to read this from 2015:

    'A new Post/ABC News poll asked GOP-leaning voters which candidate “has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2016?” The winner was Trump by a landslide. An incredible 43 percent of GOP voters say that Trump is the most electable GOP candidate. In a distant second place, Ben Carson trails Trump on electability by 27 points, while Jeb Bush — whose entire rationale for his campaign is electability — trails Trump on electability by 30 points. Since the same poll found Trump with 32 percent support, that means even GOP voters who do not support Trump still believe he is most likely to beat the Democrats in 2016. A new Associated Press-GfK pollconfirms this, finding that “Seven in 10 Republicans and Republican-leaning registered voters say they think Trump could win in November 2016 if he were nominated; that’s the most of any Republican candidate.”'

    https://www.aei.org/articles/why-trump-isnt-fading-like-the-gop-establishment-expected/

  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,485
    I tend to think Biden can beat Trump again, but if he didn't run, Whitmer would be a better candidate than Harris.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    If Biden does run again (and I think even if he isn't he won't say for some time), dare he ditch Harris, or does that cost him more support than it would gain (within the party anyway)?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited November 2022
    kamski said:

    kle4 said:

    kamski said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:



    ...Trump does worse in head-to-head primary polls vs DeSantis, compared with polls with several candidates. (DeSantis also still has worse name recognition, so those head to head polls might be understating his potential lead)...

    That's to assume to know him is to like him.
    Not sure that holds outside of Florida.
    Possibly. Although he beats Trump by 26% in Florida in the latest (post-midterm) poll, which is quite a lot among Republicans who do know him. The previous poll from the same pollster conducted in August had DeSantis only 7% ahead.

    The other thing which could work against Trump is that primary voters tend to prefer candidates they think will win in the general. If Republican voters start thinking Trump is less likely than eg DeSantis to win the presidency, then Trump could rapidly lose a lot of support.
    That's the hope.

    Some clearly already think he is not a winner, but its mostly those who already disliked him.

    Who can persuade the rank and file that he is not a winner?

    Hence the need for a popular new candidate. They need not attack him too much, but just hammer home that they are a winner, and watch Trump explode.
    That's the ideal scenario for the Republicans, someone not Trump who can win while saying "Trump was a one of the greatest presidents ever, but it's time to move on, he's not a vote-winner any more, the public want a unifying president, etc". If they also promise to put an end to all the witch hunts against Trump, Trump might even play ball.

    "But Trump just called you Ron DeSanctimonious, what do you say to that?"
    "Like everyone else, I've really enjoyed Donald's colourful use of language - it was so refreshing in 2016"

    Was surprised to read this from 2015:

    'A new Post/ABC News poll asked GOP-leaning voters which candidate “has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2016?” The winner was Trump by a landslide. An incredible 43 percent of GOP voters say that Trump is the most electable GOP candidate. In a distant second place, Ben Carson trails Trump on electability by 27 points, while Jeb Bush — whose entire rationale for his campaign is electability — trails Trump on electability by 30 points. Since the same poll found Trump with 32 percent support, that means even GOP voters who do not support Trump still believe he is most likely to beat the Democrats in 2016. A new Associated Press-GfK pollconfirms this, finding that “Seven in 10 Republicans and Republican-leaning registered voters say they think Trump could win in November 2016 if he were nominated; that’s the most of any Republican candidate.”'

    https://www.aei.org/articles/why-trump-isnt-fading-like-the-gop-establishment-expected/

    It's hard to remember how incredibly against the polling tide the pundit's view of TRump's chances were.

    Poll after poll showed Trump the massive front runner and pundit after pundit after PB Header Writer said he had no chance.

    God Bless Marco Rubio and the Cromwell's of this world.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    Taz said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I'm reliably informed there were well over 10 witnesses to the tomato hurling
    https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1592853557581340673

    I hope counselling is available to help them with this traumatic incident.
    To be fair, projectile vomiting of tomatoes does sound rather disconcerting.
  • 148grss148grss Posts: 1,477
    kamski said:

    kle4 said:

    kamski said:

    Nigelb said:

    kamski said:



    ...Trump does worse in head-to-head primary polls vs DeSantis, compared with polls with several candidates. (DeSantis also still has worse name recognition, so those head to head polls might be understating his potential lead)...

    That's to assume to know him is to like him.
    Not sure that holds outside of Florida.
    Possibly. Although he beats Trump by 26% in Florida in the latest (post-midterm) poll, which is quite a lot among Republicans who do know him. The previous poll from the same pollster conducted in August had DeSantis only 7% ahead.

    The other thing which could work against Trump is that primary voters tend to prefer candidates they think will win in the general. If Republican voters start thinking Trump is less likely than eg DeSantis to win the presidency, then Trump could rapidly lose a lot of support.
    That's the hope.

    Some clearly already think he is not a winner, but its mostly those who already disliked him.

    Who can persuade the rank and file that he is not a winner?

    Hence the need for a popular new candidate. They need not attack him too much, but just hammer home that they are a winner, and watch Trump explode.
    That's the ideal scenario for the Republicans, someone not Trump who can win while saying "Trump was a one of the greatest presidents ever, but it's time to move on, he's not a vote-winner any more, the public want a unifying president, etc". If they also promise to put an end to all the witch hunts against Trump, Trump might even play ball.

    "But Trump just called you Ron DeSanctimonious, what do you say to that?"
    "Like everyone else, I've really enjoyed Donald's colourful use of language - it was so refreshing in 2016"

    Was surprised to read this from 2015:

    'A new Post/ABC News poll asked GOP-leaning voters which candidate “has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2016?” The winner was Trump by a landslide. An incredible 43 percent of GOP voters say that Trump is the most electable GOP candidate. In a distant second place, Ben Carson trails Trump on electability by 27 points, while Jeb Bush — whose entire rationale for his campaign is electability — trails Trump on electability by 30 points. Since the same poll found Trump with 32 percent support, that means even GOP voters who do not support Trump still believe he is most likely to beat the Democrats in 2016. A new Associated Press-GfK pollconfirms this, finding that “Seven in 10 Republicans and Republican-leaning registered voters say they think Trump could win in November 2016 if he were nominated; that’s the most of any Republican candidate.”'

    https://www.aei.org/articles/why-trump-isnt-fading-like-the-gop-establishment-expected/

    I think the issue is Trump seems unlikely to play ball with anyone who stands against him - even if they like him and his policy for Trump it's about him winning, not policy goals, so someone standing against him is the enemy. There is no candidate that can convince Trump they would be a better president, and therefore noone Trump would pull punches on.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,735
    edited November 2022

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The @UKSupremeCourt will rule next Wednesday, 23 November, on the questions raised by the lord advocate about holding a referendum on Scottish independence.
    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1592839626015723520

    That's much faster than was indicated at the time. Interesting.
    I struggle to understand the fuss really. If they want to hold an advisory referendum what is the legal case for stopping it? If westminster wants to strike it down?
    The legal case for not allowing it is that it is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act (Schedule 5). Matters reserved to Westminster include:

    "(b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,

    (c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom".


    The other side has to argue that somehow a referendum, not being binding (just like the Brexit one!), isn't trespassing on reserved ground.

    Obviously there is a case for both sides. Probabilities in my opinion: Westminster will win 70%. SNP win 30%.

    If they can do this, then the Sottish parliament would seem also to be able to hold a non binding referendum about declaring war on Norway. Or Russia.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Gotta keep slimming the orginisation down

    https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1592801188277538818
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,649
    kle4 said:

    If Biden does run again (and I think even if he isn't he won't say for some time), dare he ditch Harris, or does that cost him more support than it would gain (within the party anyway)?

    Nobody likes Harris. Ditching her is a no brainer
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,386
    Freggles said:

    I tend to think Biden can beat Trump again, but if he didn't run, Whitmer would be a better candidate than Harris.

    Never even heard of Whitmer. Going to look him up now.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    Scott_xP said:

    I'm reliably informed there were well over 10 witnesses to the tomato hurling
    https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1592853557581340673

    https://www.latomatinatours.com/
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,386

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    kamski said:

    Undoubtedly he will have an impact on the Republican party nomination race and my guess is that the betting markets are right and this will be between him and the governor of Florida Ron DeS
    edmundintokyo:
    "This is where I'd say the betting markets are wrong. Early favourites don't have a great record of making it to the nomination."
    538 now hedging a bit and making a case for DeSantis:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-desantis-is-a-major-threat-to-trumps-reelection/

    Trump does worse in head-to-head primary polls vs DeSantis, compared with polls with several candidates. (DeSantis also still has worse name recognition, so those head to head polls might be understating his potential lead). If the Republicans can coalesce around a single candidate against Trump this time, Trump's chances don't look too good.

    Agreed. I like DeSantis as the ultimate Trump-Not-Trump candidate. The fact that Trumpton himself has made up a silly childish name for him shows that he's scared of him. I think DeSantis can take him out and then the race is wide open.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    Ouch. @BambosMP asks if Raab has ever been invovled in a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
    Raab says he's referring to a court case which was settled, and which involved confidentiality agreement - but it was not a NDA

    Think this is the employment case Dominic Raab was referring to.

    "In 2007, while Raab was working as chief of staff to Tory MP David Davis, the two men entered into a “compromise agreement” with a woman who had worked in their office."

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/maria-miller-dominic-raab-nda
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    Raab said “there was a confidentiality clause which was standard at the time.”

    What a phrase. Standard at the time. It was only “standard at the time” for people having to go to court over employment problems with women they worked with.

    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1592856830161879040
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    Scott_xP said:

    Take your pick

    Raab dealt with that comfortably. Though to be fair, Angela Rayner made it very easy for him.
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1592853158216495110

    Easy win for Angela Rayner, there.
    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1592853116193763328

    OMG, I agree with Dan the Man!
    You always do on the weeks he decrees that the Tories won PMQs.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,279

    kle4 said:

    If Biden does run again (and I think even if he isn't he won't say for some time), dare he ditch Harris, or does that cost him more support than it would gain (within the party anyway)?

    Nobody likes Harris. Ditching her is a no brainer
    Very difficult to do. Eisenhauer couldn't get rid of Nixon.
  • TazTaz Posts: 6,568
    Scott_xP said:

    Take your pick

    Raab dealt with that comfortably. Though to be fair, Angela Rayner made it very easy for him.
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1592853158216495110

    Easy win for Angela Rayner, there.
    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1592853116193763328

    True. In cases like this we always need the view of someone impartial.

    I wonder what Kevin Maguire or Richard Murphy thought.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    edited November 2022

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    Several people have been elected to the Senate underage (despite the constitutional minimum apparently), though that was the 19th century. Joe Biden, though, was 29 years 11 months at election, turning 30 before starting his term.

    I was amused to see checking that the youngest member of the current Congress (and youngest since the 60s) lost his primary, so pending any retreading will have served from ages 25-27.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_members_of_the_United_States_Congress#List_of_youngest_U.S._senators
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 47,251
    How was the Dominator at PMQs? (I had some gardening to do before a wall of water arrives....)
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977
    Lee Anderson could be
    Andy_JS said:

    Freggles said:

    I tend to think Biden can beat Trump again, but if he didn't run, Whitmer would be a better candidate than Harris.

    Never even heard of Whitmer. Going to look him up now.
    Don't wind up Carlotta, Gretchen is currently a her.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,788
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The @UKSupremeCourt will rule next Wednesday, 23 November, on the questions raised by the lord advocate about holding a referendum on Scottish independence.
    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1592839626015723520

    A win for the SNP whatever the outcome sadly.

    In a non lawyer's reading of the arguments it did seem pretty straightforward that it was for the Lord Advocate to state if they believed the parliament had power to legislate on the question, and not to refer it to court in advance. If they couldn't say in their view the power was there, end of for their part at least.

    Can't imagine questions of technical legal procedure cutting much ice though.
    I would be extremely surprised and disappointed if the SC ducked the question in this way. The central question is can the Scottish Parliament legislate for a referendum on Independence without the consent of the UK Parliament. Even if they find this reference premature I think that they will answer that question.
    Is it their habit to not address further arguments if the first step determines the matter, or are they generally more exhaustive? Eg For the avoidance of doubt even had we not determined x, it would fail on the other grounds
    It very much depends on the court and the nature of the case. I think that Reed will think that it is the duty of the SC to give clear guidance on constitutional matters like this rather than generate unnecessary uncertainty and future litigation.

    The question for the SC is how the Scotland Act works and I think that there is very little doubt that it makes consent from the UK Parliament necessary for reserved constitutional matters as set out in Schedule 5 of the 1998 Act which includes the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. They have made it clear in previous decisions that these provisions are to be read broadly and any attempt to legislate in an area which might have an impact on such a reserved matter is beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

    The question of whether this is an acceptable or democratic state of affairs, when Scotland voted by a very small majority for parties committed to such a referendum is a political one which will no doubt rumble on but the law is pretty clear in my view.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977
    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    Andy_JS said:

    Freggles said:

    I tend to think Biden can beat Trump again, but if he didn't run, Whitmer would be a better candidate than Harris.

    Never even heard of Whitmer. Going to look him up now.
    Er, she is a she.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    I see Ivanka has declined the opportunity to be part of her dad's circus this time around.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    edited November 2022
    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The @UKSupremeCourt will rule next Wednesday, 23 November, on the questions raised by the lord advocate about holding a referendum on Scottish independence.
    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1592839626015723520

    A win for the SNP whatever the outcome sadly.

    In a non lawyer's reading of the arguments it did seem pretty straightforward that it was for the Lord Advocate to state if they believed the parliament had power to legislate on the question, and not to refer it to court in advance. If they couldn't say in their view the power was there, end of for their part at least.

    Can't imagine questions of technical legal procedure cutting much ice though.
    I would be extremely surprised and disappointed if the SC ducked the question in this way. The central question is can the Scottish Parliament legislate for a referendum on Independence without the consent of the UK Parliament. Even if they find this reference premature I think that they will answer that question.
    Is it their habit to not address further arguments if the first step determines the matter, or are they generally more exhaustive? Eg For the avoidance of doubt even had we not determined x, it would fail on the other grounds
    It very much depends on the court and the nature of the case. I think that Reed will think that it is the duty of the SC to give clear guidance on constitutional matters like this rather than generate unnecessary uncertainty and future litigation.

    The question for the SC is how the Scotland Act works and I think that there is very little doubt that it makes consent from the UK Parliament necessary for reserved constitutional matters as set out in Schedule 5 of the 1998 Act which includes the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. They have made it clear in previous decisions that these provisions are to be read broadly and any attempt to legislate in an area which might have an impact on such a reserved matter is beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

    The question of whether this is an acceptable or democratic state of affairs, when Scotland voted by a very small majority for parties committed to such a referendum is a political one which will no doubt rumble on but the law is pretty clear in my view.
    Is the act of holding a referendum itself incendiary (ie is it presumed that by holding it, one or other of the outcomes is more or less likely)?

    I don't see why an "informal" one (howsoever described by the SNP) couldn't be held although I suppose there would likely be a boycott by unionists.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    edited November 2022
    Blimey, there were at least a few occasions when the youngest serving Senator was in their mid 40s. That's House of Lords esque (though heriditaries will have meant some much younger no doubt)

    A couple of occasions with youngest Congressperson being 30+, with one occasion the youngest being 35.

    The Commons doesn't seem to have quite managed that in the age of proper democracy, though the baby of the House has been as old as 29.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
    I've said much the same.
    Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,751
    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I agree. I've got AOC down as President in either 2032 or 2036, depending how things pan out.

    She's a huge talent, very charismatic, and will mellow enough over the next 5-10 years to become a very credible POTUS.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Pedanticbetting.com News Flash:

    It's not. It's called a driving licence.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490
    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The @UKSupremeCourt will rule next Wednesday, 23 November, on the questions raised by the lord advocate about holding a referendum on Scottish independence.
    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1592839626015723520

    A win for the SNP whatever the outcome sadly.

    In a non lawyer's reading of the arguments it did seem pretty straightforward that it was for the Lord Advocate to state if they believed the parliament had power to legislate on the question, and not to refer it to court in advance. If they couldn't say in their view the power was there, end of for their part at least.

    Can't imagine questions of technical legal procedure cutting much ice though.
    I would be extremely surprised and disappointed if the SC ducked the question in this way. The central question is can the Scottish Parliament legislate for a referendum on Independence without the consent of the UK Parliament. Even if they find this reference premature I think that they will answer that question.
    Is it their habit to not address further arguments if the first step determines the matter, or are they generally more exhaustive? Eg For the avoidance of doubt even had we not determined x, it would fail on the other grounds
    It very much depends on the court and the nature of the case. I think that Reed will think that it is the duty of the SC to give clear guidance on constitutional matters like this rather than generate unnecessary uncertainty and future litigation.

    The question for the SC is how the Scotland Act works and I think that there is very little doubt that it makes consent from the UK Parliament necessary for reserved constitutional matters as set out in Schedule 5 of the 1998 Act which includes the union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. They have made it clear in previous decisions that these provisions are to be read broadly and any attempt to legislate in an area which might have an impact on such a reserved matter is beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

    The question of whether this is an acceptable or democratic state of affairs, when Scotland voted by a very small majority for parties committed to such a referendum is a political one which will no doubt rumble on but the law is pretty clear in my view.
    Is the act of holding a referendum itself incendiary (ie is it presumed that by holding it, one or other of the outcomes is more or less likely)?

    I don't see why an "informal" one (howsoever described by the SNP) couldn't be held although I suppose there would likely be a boycott by unionists.
    If it would be used as justification for a 'proper' one or other legislative action in support of the case for ending the union the question would seem to clearly relate to the union. It would be used for persuasive effect.

    But really it seems more the point made about what else could they randomly ask about on the basis it is advisory which is interesting.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
    I've said much the same.
    Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
    I remember reading some serious US analysis of UK politics which said something along the lines of: The UK has two major socialist parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,914
    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    And around we go.

    The problem isn’t an ID card. Having a unique id number per citizen is very useful for keying various databases.

    The problem is the demented attempts to links all personal records together and make them available to virtuale any official, in a number of proposals. This is what was proposed and nearly implemented by the last Labour government.

    Quite apart from the civil liberties issue, this would be an insane risk for identity theft, fraud, stalking and would break every rule about data security. It would break laws on data privacy if done by a non-governmental organisation.
  • Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
    It is not just a US disease, quite a few conservatives over here consider Sunak a remainer lefty socialist.
  • Joanna Cherry MP in a fetching scarf - hasn’t been asked to take it off….
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
    I've said much the same.
    Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
    I remember reading some serious US analysis of UK politics which said something along the lines of: The UK has two major socialist parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
    I'm sure you'll find a site here that would agree, albeit not serious. Probably TheConservativeWoman, that seems to be at the extreme end.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977
    ...
    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
  • A takeaway from the missile incident:

    1. Russia very quick to say “no, no, no, it wasn’t us, it really wasn’t”
    2. Kremlin Spokesman today saying that America’s response was more measured and sensible than Eastern Europe’s response last night.

    Those two things tell me Russia is scared of a misunderstanding and escalation. That is the rational and reasonable position to take, as has been the case for decades of US-Russia and US-Soviet relations, but in the course of this invasion some have tried to present the Russian position as being somewhat more gung-ho and apocalyptic.

    This tells us otherwise. Either that means that calmer heads have restored a bit of order behind the scene in the Kremlin, Putin really has been a rational and sensible actor this whole time and was bluffing his madman act, or Putin has been sidelined.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    You're not required to carry your driving licence everywhere though. Only if you choose to drive.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,490

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I agree. I've got AOC down as President in either 2032 or 2036, depending how things pan out.

    She's a huge talent, very charismatic, and will mellow enough over the next 5-10 years to become a very credible POTUS.
    I wondered if she was actually less popular among her colleagues precisely because she has managed to grab so much attention so early in her political career, and whether that would hurt her chances. But the longer she's there presumably the less chance of that.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,025
    edited November 2022

    How was the Dominator at PMQs? (I had some gardening to do before a wall of water arrives....)

    Smooth. Hardly put a foot wrong. Ange in contrast was way off the pace today, couldn’t get out of first gear.

    Rabb did admit at one point hushed up bullying claims stretch back to before he was MP, I’m sure media will pile on.

    The main take for me from a soporific PMQs is the frothy mouthed anger on the Tory back benches to a migrant deal with France that clearly for them doesn’t go far enough. It bubbled to the surface at least three times. There was also clear back bench support for McVey expressing frustration at prospect of even more tax rises on what she called the highest tax take for 80 years, especially if taxes go up and HS2 not scrapped.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,112
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
    I've said much the same.
    Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
    Really? AOC might not be in the same league as our old school socialists in terms of redistribution, but she is, unless I am very much mistaken, quite a long way left of Liz Kendall or Rachel Reeves in terms of her position on identarian issues.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 20,386
    edited November 2022
    kle4 said:

    Blimey, there were at least a few occasions when the youngest serving Senator was in their mid 40s. That's House of Lords esque (though heriditaries will have meant some much younger no doubt)

    A couple of occasions with youngest Congressperson being 30+, with one occasion the youngest being 35.

    The Commons doesn't seem to have quite managed that in the age of proper democracy, though the baby of the House has been as old as 29.

    Matthew Taylor was Baby of the House from 1987 to 1997 IIRC, 24 to 34 which is pretty old for youngest MP. LD MP for Truro.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977

    Scott_xP said:

    Take your pick

    Raab dealt with that comfortably. Though to be fair, Angela Rayner made it very easy for him.
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1592853158216495110

    Easy win for Angela Rayner, there.
    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1592853116193763328

    OMG, I agree with Dan the Man!
    You always do on the weeks he decrees that the Tories won PMQs.
    Rayner had a shocker. Compare and contrast with Yvette who just owned Robert Jenrick
  • WillGWillG Posts: 954

    A takeaway from the missile incident:

    1. Russia very quick to say “no, no, no, it wasn’t us, it really wasn’t”
    2. Kremlin Spokesman today saying that America’s response was more measured and sensible than Eastern Europe’s response last night.

    Those two things tell me Russia is scared of a misunderstanding and escalation. That is the rational and reasonable position to take, as has been the case for decades of US-Russia and US-Soviet relations, but in the course of this invasion some have tried to present the Russian position as being somewhat more gung-ho and apocalyptic.

    This tells us otherwise. Either that means that calmer heads have restored a bit of order behind the scene in the Kremlin, Putin really has been a rational and sensible actor this whole time and was bluffing his madman act, or Putin has been sidelined.

    The Russians are trying salami tactics to attack NATO without a reaction. First it is one missile 'accidentally' shot at a Polish border town. Then it's 3-4. Then some hit Wroclaw. Then more do. Before long the entire Ukrainian supply chain in Poland is regularly pummeled. Then they start on the Baltics. NATO need to show this is unacceptable.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.

    If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    Certainly the Trump v DeSantis GOP nomination battle could be the closest and longest running since Reagan v Ford in 1976
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
    It is not just a US disease, quite a few conservatives over here consider Sunak a remainer lefty socialist.
    And the BBC and archdiocese of Canterbury are institutionally leftwing too, and as for Cambridge University going on about how bad slavery was... bloody woke brigade... and Margaret Thatcher, that tax-raising nationalising appeaser, remainer, and prole-helper...
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624

    Reliving my glorious betting strategy of early 2016 and I’ve got to say Trump is a lay.

    I reckon the January 6th coup d’état attempt was a Salisbury moment for Trump.

    In the UK it turned Corbyn from harmless old grandad into a malevolent force.

    Is that the Salisbury Convention?

  • WillG said:

    A takeaway from the missile incident:

    1. Russia very quick to say “no, no, no, it wasn’t us, it really wasn’t”
    2. Kremlin Spokesman today saying that America’s response was more measured and sensible than Eastern Europe’s response last night.

    Those two things tell me Russia is scared of a misunderstanding and escalation. That is the rational and reasonable position to take, as has been the case for decades of US-Russia and US-Soviet relations, but in the course of this invasion some have tried to present the Russian position as being somewhat more gung-ho and apocalyptic.

    This tells us otherwise. Either that means that calmer heads have restored a bit of order behind the scene in the Kremlin, Putin really has been a rational and sensible actor this whole time and was bluffing his madman act, or Putin has been sidelined.

    The Russians are trying salami tactics to attack NATO without a reaction. First it is one missile 'accidentally' shot at a Polish border town. Then it's 3-4. Then some hit Wroclaw. Then more do. Before long the entire Ukrainian supply chain in Poland is regularly pummeled. Then they start on the Baltics. NATO need to show this is unacceptable.
    How do you square that with the news out of NATO this morning that this likely wasn’t a Russian missile?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    kle4 said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    You're not required to carry your driving licence everywhere though. Only if you choose to drive.
    An ID card doesn't have to come with mandatory carry and produce, I wouldn't have thought.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977
    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.

    If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
    It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 954
    kle4 said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    You're not required to carry your driving licence everywhere though. Only if you choose to drive.
    You're not required to carry it even if you drive.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,025

    Raab just crushed Mrs Shouty.

    Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.

    you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 3,624

    If not Biden for the Dems then who?

    Is there a current or ex Governor who could step up? What about a senator or a representative?

    It is not obvious.

    Hilary? Michelle?
    Are there so few good candidates that (a) a has been with a track record of success; and (b) someone who has never suggested any interest in running for office herself are they best you can come up with!
  • RPI inflation has now reached 14.2% - much higher than the 10.2% inherited by Thatcher in May 1979. Also higher than the 13% inherited by Wilson in March 1974.
  • DJ41DJ41 Posts: 792

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    You're not getting what an ID card is.

    You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.

    An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does.
    A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.

    You don't need a licence to walk down the street.

  • WillGWillG Posts: 954

    If not Biden for the Dems then who?

    Is there a current or ex Governor who could step up? What about a senator or a representative?

    It is not obvious.

    Hilary? Michelle?
    Are there so few good candidates that (a) a has been with a track record of success; and (b) someone who has never suggested any interest in running for office herself are they best you can come up with!
    There are plenty of good candidates. Newsom, Buttigieg, Roy Cooper, Andy Beshear, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Whitmer...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly the Trump v DeSantis GOP nomination battle could be the closest and longest running since Reagan v Ford in 1976

    Obama v Clinton was quite a tussle.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 954
    WillG said:

    If not Biden for the Dems then who?

    Is there a current or ex Governor who could step up? What about a senator or a representative?

    It is not obvious.

    Hilary? Michelle?
    Are there so few good candidates that (a) a has been with a track record of success; and (b) someone who has never suggested any interest in running for office herself are they best you can come up with!
    There are plenty of good candidates. Newsom, Buttigieg, Roy Cooper, Andy Beshear, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Whitmer...
    Ossoff is another one.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977

    Raab just crushed Mrs Shouty.

    Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.

    you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
    Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    DJ41 said:

    You don't need a licence to walk down the street.

    Just an ID card
  • Alistair said:

    Gotta keep slimming the orginisation down

    https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1592801188277538818

    According to our business analysts they think a technical collapse is more likely to happen first than a financial collapse for Twitter.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 3,029

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.

    If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
    It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
    You don't have to carry it even to drive, as far as I know. If the police stop you and you don't have it with you they can require to produce it at a police station within a certain time - unless that was changed?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.

    If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
    It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
    Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
  • I want a brokered convention.

    Not had one in my lifetime.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 954
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.

    If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
    It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
    Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
    It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,164
    NEW: Rishi Sunak is appointing an “independent” investigator from outside government to establish facts of Dominic Raab allegations and report back to him.

    However, No 10 concedes that PM himself will be “ultimate arbiter” of complaints. The judge and jury, if you like.

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1592866712365719552
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897

    If not Biden for the Dems then who?

    Is there a current or ex Governor who could step up? What about a senator or a representative?

    It is not obvious.

    Hilary? Michelle?
    Are there so few good candidates that (a) a has been with a track record of success; and (b) someone who has never suggested any interest in running for office herself are they best you can come up with!
    Heard an interview with Michelle the other day - ostensibly about her new book but also just possibly testing the water. The presidency didn't come up but if it had, who knows what she'd have said? She certainly sounded credible. I'm on at a HUGE price from a year ago. Much shorter now.
  • WillGWillG Posts: 954

    I want a brokered convention.

    Not had one in my lifetime.

    It would be a contested convention, not a brokered one, as there aren't any power brokers any more.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,363

    Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rishi Sunak has written to Dominic Raab to confirm there will be an independent investigation into the two formal complaints against the deputy prime minister. https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1592831453901250596/photo/1

    “He’s fucked,” a former cabinet minister told @PoliticsHome.

    https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/dominic-raab-asks-rishi-sunak-to-launch-independent-investigation-following-conduct-claims

    Soon to 'stand down to spend more time clearing my name'?
    He'll be eating roo perineum by the end of 2023.
    Will he pick out the witchety grubs and contemptuously toss them across the table?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,977
    DJ41 said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    You're not getting what an ID card is.

    You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.

    An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does.
    A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.

    You don't need a licence to walk down the street.

    F******* hell! A driving license confirms one's identify. If you fly from England to Northern Ireland for example, one needs a form of formal identity, either a passport or a DRIVING LICENCE.
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 2,708
    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The @UKSupremeCourt will rule next Wednesday, 23 November, on the questions raised by the lord advocate about holding a referendum on Scottish independence.
    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1592839626015723520

    That's much faster than was indicated at the time. Interesting.
    Absolutely no idea what this likely indicates - that they’ll say ruling premature?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992

    I want a brokered convention.

    Not had one in my lifetime.

    A contested convention involving Trump would be quite something.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 9,025
    edited November 2022

    Raab just crushed Mrs Shouty.

    Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.

    you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
    Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
    Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.

    She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.

    I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,788
    edited November 2022

    DavidL said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The @UKSupremeCourt will rule next Wednesday, 23 November, on the questions raised by the lord advocate about holding a referendum on Scottish independence.
    https://twitter.com/JoshuaRozenberg/status/1592839626015723520

    That's much faster than was indicated at the time. Interesting.
    Absolutely no idea what this likely indicates - that they’ll say ruling premature?
    As I have said down thread I think that they will say that but also give clear guidance which will make it clear that no conceivable bill on a referendum can be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament without Westminster consent.

    All of this was accepted to be the case prior to 2014 where consent was sought and given. I really don't see that changing.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 20,363

    Raab just crushed Mrs Shouty.

    Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.

    you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
    Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
    Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.

    She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.

    I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
    Disagree on the last part. Wait till tomorrow would have been a perfectly adequate and logical answer there.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992
    Cookie said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
    I've said much the same.
    Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
    Really? AOC might not be in the same league as our old school socialists in terms of redistribution, but she is, unless I am very much mistaken, quite a long way left of Liz Kendall or Rachel Reeves in terms of her position on identarian issues.
    Perhaps.
    I'm no expert on Labour politics, or indeed AOC.
    But she's viewed in the US as some sort of crypto communist. Which she isn't.
  • Nigelb said:

    I want a brokered convention.

    Not had one in my lifetime.

    A contested convention involving Trump would be quite something.
    Indeed.

    It would be a bit like The Hunger Games meets Cannibal Holocaust.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.

    If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
    It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
    Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
    It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
    A strikingly weak point, how can you tell they "never care" about something?

    Silly argument anyway, if I were an aspiring totalitarian dictator I wouldn't insist on ID cards, because who needs them for total dystopian control of everyone? If you carry a mobile phone and do not wear a burqa you can be pinpointed to the nearest metre and identified at any time of the day or night by phone signal and CCTV/facial recognition. Just read the reports of any murder trial, e.g. https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/woman-found-guilty-of-murdering-and-decapitating-her-friend-to-in-order-to-inher/
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000
    It's strange isn't it.

    Most HMF induction tests/training take you to a place where your state is such that are barely able to function, whether through stress, tiredness, anxiety, or somesuch. This is because on operations you can be subject to stress, tiredness, anxiety, or somesuch.

    In that altered state you create around you a separate reality with its own rules, sensibilities, and logic that might or might not coincide with "real world" rules, sensibilities, and logic but you are in that state and you literally soldier on either returning to reality or continuing to operate according to your own rules.

    Look at the CVs of Raab, Kwarteng, Braverman, even Truss. Quite extraordinary talented, gifted even perhaps, and hardworking. Certainly if you had a candidate who had such qualifications you would likely fall over yourself trying to hire them.

    But look at their actions. Absolutely bonkers. No regard for real world rules, sensibilities, or logic. And they see precisely nothing wrong or strange about their actions.

    I can only believe that the conditions of high office mean that they/people are in that altered state permanently.
  • I want a brokered convention.

    Not had one in my lifetime.

    Followed by a tied electoral college...
  • Scott_xP said:

    NEW: Rishi Sunak is appointing an “independent” investigator from outside government to establish facts of Dominic Raab allegations and report back to him.

    However, No 10 concedes that PM himself will be “ultimate arbiter” of complaints. The judge and jury, if you like.

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1592866712365719552

    Well. Yes. Unless you want to subcontract the hiring and firing of ministers to a third party then the PM as chief executive of the government has the final decision.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 107,074
    edited November 2022

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    No.
    Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.

    You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.

    2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
    I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
    I've said much the same.
    Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
    I remember reading some serious US analysis of UK politics which said something along the lines of: The UK has two major socialist parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
    Every nation in the Western world is left of the US, except maybe Switzerland on economics or Italy on cultural issues, so that is hardly surprising.

    Danish politics would be communist on that basis


  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,000

    DJ41 said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    You're not getting what an ID card is.

    You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.

    An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does.
    A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.

    You don't need a licence to walk down the street.

    F******* hell! A driving license confirms one's identify. If you fly from England to Northern Ireland for example, one needs a form of formal identity, either a passport or a DRIVING LICENCE.
    You don't have to do any of those things. An identity card in most peoples' minds (rightly or wrongly) is needing to prove you are who you are apropos of nothing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 46,992

    Nigelb said:

    I want a brokered convention.

    Not had one in my lifetime.

    A contested convention involving Trump would be quite something.
    Indeed.

    It would be a bit like The Hunger Games meets Cannibal Holocaust.
    I suppose it would give them an outside chance of winning, as all the Democrats are struck down by fatal popcorn overdoses.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,463

    Raab just crushed Mrs Shouty.

    Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.

    you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
    Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
    Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.

    She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.

    I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
    Spot on. Nobody "crushed" anybody at PMQs. It was a dull session, Ange having to go against her natural inclination to attack to open with a consensual question about Ukraine. For his part, Raab did a lot of "thanking the right honourable lady".

    As for Mexican, he is a poster who is worth listening to on many matters – but the Labour front bench is not one of them. His weird anti-Starmer obsession is akin to that of Owls. He has a similar view of Rayner: "Shouty Ange". She wasn't actually that shouty today – she perhaps should have been more so.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 42,433

    148grss said:

    I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR

    Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
    If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
    I would say that it would be hillarious to see AOC run, and have to be exposed to the rest of the country outside of New York - but then I remember all the commentators in 2015, saying it would be hillarious to see Donald Trump run.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,897
    WillG said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    ...

    TOPPING said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.

    I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
    I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
    Huh?
    When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
    But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.

    If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
    It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
    Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
    It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
    But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
This discussion has been closed.