Today the US MidTerms – the final final chapter – politicalbetting.com
If you thought that the US mid-term elections were all done and dusted 4 weeks ago on November 8th then the fact that there is voting today in the state of Georgia might come as a surprise.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
"We got two final polls the day before Election Day giving the edge to Warnock, who outpaced Walker 49-48 last month, but there are caveats about both. YouGov, working on behalf of UMass Lowell, showed the senator up 51-46, while the GOP firm InsiderAdvantage’s survey for Fox 5 gave him a smaller 51-48 edge. Recent media polls from SurveyUSA and SRSS had Warnock leading 50-47 and 52-48, respectively."
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
Also kind of moot since the GOP have the House. Relevant to confirming some appointments, possibly.
The seat may be more relevant after future elections though.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
Every seat makes a difference. Given the age of the Senate, a death during the term is entirely possible, for example. And it lowers the hurdle for the Democrats to retain control in 2024.
But you're right that it lowers the incentive for Republicans to turn out to vote for a manifestly unqualified candidate.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
Check out the 2024 map.
Then ponder how important that extra seat might be for the Dems.
"We got two final polls the day before Election Day giving the edge to Warnock, who outpaced Walker 49-48 last month, but there are caveats about both. YouGov, working on behalf of UMass Lowell, showed the senator up 51-46, while the GOP firm InsiderAdvantage’s survey for Fox 5 gave him a smaller 51-48 edge. Recent media polls from SurveyUSA and SRSS had Warnock leading 50-47 and 52-48, respectively."
It has to be 52:48. It is the Law of Close Contests.....
"We got two final polls the day before Election Day giving the edge to Warnock, who outpaced Walker 49-48 last month, but there are caveats about both. YouGov, working on behalf of UMass Lowell, showed the senator up 51-46, while the GOP firm InsiderAdvantage’s survey for Fox 5 gave him a smaller 51-48 edge. Recent media polls from SurveyUSA and SRSS had Warnock leading 50-47 and 52-48, respectively."
It has to be 52:48. It is the Law of Close Contests.....
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
Check out the 2024 map.
Then ponder how important that extra seat might be for the Dems.
Even in 2024 whether Biden or another Democrat is re elected would be more significant and of course the current Senate will confirm the EC results and whether any objections or not.
In Presidential election years the Congress results largely follow the Presidential ones anyway in terms of winning party, unlike midterms which tend to be protests against the incumbent President in terms of swing
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
Check out the 2024 map.
Then ponder how important that extra seat might be for the Dems.
Even in 2024 whether Biden or another Democrat is re elected would be more significant and of course the current Senate will confirm the EC results and whether any objections or not.
In Presidential election years the Congress results largely follow the Presidential ones anyway in terms of winning party, unlike midterms which tend to be protests against the incumbent President in terms of swing
It may not be. You are forgetting the Supreme Court. A Democratic senate would be much better placed to deal with new nominations.
Also, with regard to your last paragraph while that's true of the House I would say it's much less true of the Senate. In particular, I would be amazed if Montana voted for another Democrat while Wisconsin is no gimme, regardless of the presidential vote.
"We got two final polls the day before Election Day giving the edge to Warnock, who outpaced Walker 49-48 last month, but there are caveats about both. YouGov, working on behalf of UMass Lowell, showed the senator up 51-46, while the GOP firm InsiderAdvantage’s survey for Fox 5 gave him a smaller 51-48 edge. Recent media polls from SurveyUSA and SRSS had Warnock leading 50-47 and 52-48, respectively."
It has to be 52:48. It is the Law of Close Contests.....
There is nothing close about 52:48.
No of course it isn't. Those two numbers are absolutely miles apart. We can all see that. Not close at all. How did you do in maths at school? Trouble counting at all?
Whiffy. Apart from anything else a crappy, ill-fitting metaphor.
Thought it was quite funny myself.
Most would. Nats have to have their sense of humour surgically removed when they pledge allegiance to the glorious cause of Anglophobia and Scottish exceptionalism.
Not much has changed in the nearly 80 years since PG Wodehouse.
One can hear the Snats reading this thinking "They're only saying that because they're English". Similarly there are suburbanites who can't wrap their heads around the idea that the bloke next door's action of mowing his lawn has no relationship whatsoever to his being black (or Catholic).
And Gordon Brown wants to give Scotland more say inside the Union. Fine, but can we have a mechanism for WENI as a bloc to go independent.
I really, really hope this is true. Rumours that the boo was in a Scottish accent yet to be confirmed..
It might just be a nascent middle class urban myth, similar to the idea that knuckledragging moorlocks bricked a medic's window because he had a plate outside saying "Paediatrician".
It's true there's a fine working class tradition of punchups at funerals, but not of open displays of contempt for the deceased. The way to do that is not to attend.
No. They'll be able to shelter on the Midnight Train.
Herschel indeed: (A superstar, but he didn't get far) But he sure found out the hard way That dreams don't always come true (dreams don't always come true) Oh no (uh-uh, no, uh-uh)
Steve Borthwick is expected to be confirmed as the new England head coach by the end of the week after the Rugby Football Union opened negotiations with his club Leicester Tigers, Telegraph Sport can reveal.
It is likely that the RFU will have to offer Leicester well in excess of £200,000 to buy Borthwick out of his contract with the Premiership champions, meaning that the cost of sacking Jones will exceed £1 million.
Hasn't Borthwick been part of the setup for years leading to 2019 world cup as forward coach?
Edit - Christ he was also part of Eddie Jones setup with Japan. Sounds like they have gone for mini-Eddie.
As Gavin Barwell has tweeted, the Georgia run-off does matter, rather a lot.
1. If the Dems win they will have a majority on Senate committees, speeding up business.
2. They will be able to lose a seat in 2 years' time (when they have 3 seats in normally red states to defend) without losing control.
3.They won't have to depend on Joe Manchin's support for every vote.
It would also be a useful poke in the eye for Trump if Walker loses when Republicans won every other state-wide election in Georgia.
But they don't have the House, so control doesn't mean much outside of judges. And they will almost certainly lose at least 2 Senate seats in two years time.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
It makes more of a difference to Senate control after the next elections in 2024. The Dems have a lot of defences in 2024, so holding Georgia now improves their chances of holding the Senate in 2024 (particularly if they lose the VP's casting vote), or at least reduces the GOP majority so that Romney, Collins, etc, could be influential.
They aren't getting much past the GOP house for the next two years anyway.
"Foden was born sensational and everyone knew it. At no point has he really had the capacity to surprise us."
There are clips on the internet of him playing for Man City academy at 13-14, he plays exactly like he does now. At that age so many of the future superstars, its all the about the skills, the clips of them beating 6-7 players to score worldie goals...Foden in the clips, he is ruthlessly efficient, beats a man, visionary pass out to a free man in space etc. Its man against boys not in a physical sense, but a footballing intelligence sense.
As Gavin Barwell has tweeted, the Georgia run-off does matter, rather a lot.
1. If the Dems win they will have a majority on Senate committees, speeding up business.
2. They will be able to lose a seat in 2 years' time (when they have 3 seats in normally red states to defend) without losing control.
3.They won't have to depend on Joe Manchin's support for every vote.
It would also be a useful poke in the eye for Trump if Walker loses when Republicans won every other state-wide election in Georgia.
But they don't have the House, so control doesn't mean much outside of judges. And they will almost certainly lose at least 2 Senate seats in two years time.
And all other appointments, of course. And any efforts to impeach Biden.
The ones flagged as vulnerable next time are Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. West Virginia is of course Manchin so I would assume he is likely to hold if he runs again, but whether that helps the blue caucus is another question. Montana I think will go. I have to say I would be surprised if Sherrod Brown lost the Ohio seat, although his best chance is if Ohio goes Republican for the Presidency and votes for a split ticket. Wisconsin is very tight however you look at it, as is Nevada. Keep an eye on Vermont too, where if he lives that long Bernie Sanders will be 83 and may retire at the next election. Who would win that is anybody's guess. The Dems should surely be favourites but if there was another radical left independent who split the vote...
About the only faint chance of a Dem pickup is if something dramatic happens in Texas. If Trump and Ted Cruz have another of their spats I suppose it might split the Republican vote and let a Dem in, but I wouldn't be putting money on it.
So holding Georgia is really quite important to them.
Albeit, even that is possibly not as important as keeping a certifiable fucktard like Walker away from the Senate.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
It makes more of a difference to Senate control after the next elections in 2024. The Dems have a lot of defences in 2024, so holding Georgia now improves their chances of holding the Senate in 2024 (particularly if they lose the VP's casting vote), or at least reduces the GOP majority so that Romney, Collins, etc, could be influential.
They aren't getting much past the GOP house for the next two years anyway.
You think Romney will be the Republican candidate in Utah next time? Well, here's hoping so as that would suggest Trump's influence has vanished altogether.
Great result for them against Wales last month too, but the uptick in Italy’s fortunes means I don’t think we’ll be seeing them in a 7 Nations for a while.
The SNP Westminster leadership election really is one of those rare win-win occasions. If Stephen Flynn loses, that will obviously be very, very funny. But if he wins, the SNP Westminster group is lumbered with a showboating chancer who was too lazy to understand his own brief.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
It makes more of a difference to Senate control after the next elections in 2024. The Dems have a lot of defences in 2024, so holding Georgia now improves their chances of holding the Senate in 2024 (particularly if they lose the VP's casting vote), or at least reduces the GOP majority so that Romney, Collins, etc, could be influential.
They aren't getting much past the GOP house for the next two years anyway.
You think Romney will be the Republican candidate in Utah next time? Well, here's hoping so as that would suggest Trump's influence has vanished altogether.
Wasn't Romney's election in Utah a rebuke to Trump in the first place? I think it's a place apart from the other states.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
It makes more of a difference to Senate control after the next elections in 2024. The Dems have a lot of defences in 2024, so holding Georgia now improves their chances of holding the Senate in 2024 (particularly if they lose the VP's casting vote), or at least reduces the GOP majority so that Romney, Collins, etc, could be influential.
They aren't getting much past the GOP house for the next two years anyway.
You think Romney will be the Republican candidate in Utah next time? Well, here's hoping so as that would suggest Trump's influence has vanished altogether.
Utah Republicans are far less Trumpite than the rest of the US, in 2016 it was one of the few states which saw a swing to Hillary relative to Obama's share in 2012
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
It makes more of a difference to Senate control after the next elections in 2024. The Dems have a lot of defences in 2024, so holding Georgia now improves their chances of holding the Senate in 2024 (particularly if they lose the VP's casting vote), or at least reduces the GOP majority so that Romney, Collins, etc, could be influential.
They aren't getting much past the GOP house for the next two years anyway.
You think Romney will be the Republican candidate in Utah next time? Well, here's hoping so as that would suggest Trump's influence has vanished altogether.
Utah Republicans are far less Trumpite than the rest of the US, in 2016 it was one of the few states which saw a swing to Hillary relative to Obama's share in 2012
Mormons tend to have a much higher degree of moral consistency than evangelical Christians.
As Gavin Barwell has tweeted, the Georgia run-off does matter, rather a lot.
1. If the Dems win they will have a majority on Senate committees, speeding up business.
2. They will be able to lose a seat in 2 years' time (when they have 3 seats in normally red states to defend) without losing control.
3.They won't have to depend on Joe Manchin's support for every vote.
It would also be a useful poke in the eye for Trump if Walker loses when Republicans won every other state-wide election in Georgia.
But they don't have the House, so control doesn't mean much outside of judges. And they will almost certainly lose at least 2 Senate seats in two years time.
And all other appointments, of course. And any efforts to impeach Biden.
The ones flagged as vulnerable next time are Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. West Virginia is of course Manchin so I would assume he is likely to hold if he runs again, but whether that helps the blue caucus is another question. Montana I think will go. I have to say I would be surprised if Sherrod Brown lost the Ohio seat, although his best chance is if Ohio goes Republican for the Presidency and votes for a split ticket. Wisconsin is very tight however you look at it, as is Nevada. Keep an eye on Vermont too, where if he lives that long Bernie Sanders will be 83 and may retire at the next election. Who would win that is anybody's guess. The Dems should surely be favourites but if there was another radical left independent who split the vote...
About the only faint chance of a Dem pickup is if something dramatic happens in Texas. If Trump and Ted Cruz have another of their spats I suppose it might split the Republican vote and let a Dem in, but I wouldn't be putting money on it.
So holding Georgia is really quite important to them.
Albeit, even that is possibly not as important as keeping a certifiable fucktard like Walker away from the Senate.
Manchin is gonna lose West Virginia. Tester will lose in Montana. Can't see the Dems winning Texas yet. The Dems should be favoured in the rest but just because of the numbers there is likely to be an upset somewhere.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Assault with an egg is a fairly common assault. Slapping someone with a whole lobe of foie gras is a little more refayned.
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
It makes more of a difference to Senate control after the next elections in 2024. The Dems have a lot of defences in 2024, so holding Georgia now improves their chances of holding the Senate in 2024 (particularly if they lose the VP's casting vote), or at least reduces the GOP majority so that Romney, Collins, etc, could be influential.
They aren't getting much past the GOP house for the next two years anyway.
You think Romney will be the Republican candidate in Utah next time? Well, here's hoping so as that would suggest Trump's influence has vanished altogether.
Utah Republicans are far less Trumpite than the rest of the US, in 2016 it was one of the few states which saw a swing to Hillary relative to Obama's share in 2012
Mormons tend to have a much higher degree of moral consistency than evangelical Christians.
That's because they don't need to have affairs, they just add a new spouse to the collection.
They won't want egg trials. Prosecuting counsel: "Did you throw an egg intending that it land on the person of His Majesty?" Defendant: "Well, let's just say that unlike Mr Mountbatten I don't possess the stolen Koh-i-Noor diamond, so I couldn't have thrown that at him even if I'd wanted to."
Now the Democrats have already retained control of the Senate it makes little real difference who wins in Georgia today.
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
It makes more of a difference to Senate control after the next elections in 2024. The Dems have a lot of defences in 2024, so holding Georgia now improves their chances of holding the Senate in 2024 (particularly if they lose the VP's casting vote), or at least reduces the GOP majority so that Romney, Collins, etc, could be influential.
They aren't getting much past the GOP house for the next two years anyway.
You think Romney will be the Republican candidate in Utah next time? Well, here's hoping so as that would suggest Trump's influence has vanished altogether.
Utah Republicans are far less Trumpite than the rest of the US, in 2016 it was one of the few states which saw a swing to Hillary relative to Obama's share in 2012
Mormons tend to have a much higher degree of moral consistency than evangelical Christians.
That's because they don't need to have affairs, they just add a new spouse to the collection.
As Gavin Barwell has tweeted, the Georgia run-off does matter, rather a lot.
1. If the Dems win they will have a majority on Senate committees, speeding up business.
2. They will be able to lose a seat in 2 years' time (when they have 3 seats in normally red states to defend) without losing control.
3.They won't have to depend on Joe Manchin's support for every vote.
It would also be a useful poke in the eye for Trump if Walker loses when Republicans won every other state-wide election in Georgia.
But they don't have the House, so control doesn't mean much outside of judges. And they will almost certainly lose at least 2 Senate seats in two years time.
And all other appointments, of course. And any efforts to impeach Biden.
The ones flagged as vulnerable next time are Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. West Virginia is of course Manchin so I would assume he is likely to hold if he runs again, but whether that helps the blue caucus is another question. Montana I think will go. I have to say I would be surprised if Sherrod Brown lost the Ohio seat, although his best chance is if Ohio goes Republican for the Presidency and votes for a split ticket. Wisconsin is very tight however you look at it, as is Nevada. Keep an eye on Vermont too, where if he lives that long Bernie Sanders will be 83 and may retire at the next election. Who would win that is anybody's guess. The Dems should surely be favourites but if there was another radical left independent who split the vote...
About the only faint chance of a Dem pickup is if something dramatic happens in Texas. If Trump and Ted Cruz have another of their spats I suppose it might split the Republican vote and let a Dem in, but I wouldn't be putting money on it.
So holding Georgia is really quite important to them.
Albeit, even that is possibly not as important as keeping a certifiable fucktard like Walker away from the Senate.
Manchin is gonna lose West Virginia. Tester will lose in Montana. Can't see the Dems winning Texas yet. The Dems should be favoured in the rest but just because of the numbers there is likely to be an upset somewhere.
Unlikely as it is that the Democrats hold the Senate, I'd point out that the Dems held almost all of these states the last but one time they were contested, which was Obama's re-election year.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Thelwall was banned from carrying eggs and must stay 500m from the King.
The King is the King, he may not be as popular as his mother but the law still needs to be enforced to protect the Monarch, for starters as the next anarchist republican may not be carrying an egg but a gun
As Gavin Barwell has tweeted, the Georgia run-off does matter, rather a lot.
1. If the Dems win they will have a majority on Senate committees, speeding up business.
2. They will be able to lose a seat in 2 years' time (when they have 3 seats in normally red states to defend) without losing control.
3.They won't have to depend on Joe Manchin's support for every vote.
It would also be a useful poke in the eye for Trump if Walker loses when Republicans won every other state-wide election in Georgia.
But they don't have the House, so control doesn't mean much outside of judges. And they will almost certainly lose at least 2 Senate seats in two years time.
And all other appointments, of course. And any efforts to impeach Biden.
The ones flagged as vulnerable next time are Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. West Virginia is of course Manchin so I would assume he is likely to hold if he runs again, but whether that helps the blue caucus is another question. Montana I think will go. I have to say I would be surprised if Sherrod Brown lost the Ohio seat, although his best chance is if Ohio goes Republican for the Presidency and votes for a split ticket. Wisconsin is very tight however you look at it, as is Nevada. Keep an eye on Vermont too, where if he lives that long Bernie Sanders will be 83 and may retire at the next election. Who would win that is anybody's guess. The Dems should surely be favourites but if there was another radical left independent who split the vote...
About the only faint chance of a Dem pickup is if something dramatic happens in Texas. If Trump and Ted Cruz have another of their spats I suppose it might split the Republican vote and let a Dem in, but I wouldn't be putting money on it.
So holding Georgia is really quite important to them.
Albeit, even that is possibly not as important as keeping a certifiable fucktard like Walker away from the Senate.
Manchin is gonna lose West Virginia. Tester will lose in Montana. Can't see the Dems winning Texas yet. The Dems should be favoured in the rest but just because of the numbers there is likely to be an upset somewhere.
Unlikely as it is that the Democrats hold the Senate, I'd point out that the Dems held almost all of these states the last but one time they were contested, which was Obama's re-election year.
If you look at Montana, Tester won by 4.5% percentage points, while Romney beat out Obama by 14%.
That being said... you are absolutely right that 2024 will be an uphill battle for the Dems: I'd probably want at least 8-1 on them holding the Senate.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Thelwall was banned from carrying eggs and must stay 500m from the King.
The King is the King, he may not be as popular as his mother but the law still needs to be enforced to protect the Monarch, for starters as the next anarchist republican may not be carrying an egg but a gun
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
What time are the Georgia results likely to start coming in?
Dems are 1.06 so it'll be a mega upset if they don't win it.
I would expect the Dems to win, given a superior early voting operation, a better candidate, and the fact that Walker cannot ride on Kemp's coattails... but close to 20-1 on a two horse race where the polls show only a very narrow Democratic lead, and with Republicans typically outperforming in run-offs...
I would expect it to be a loser (the right odds are probably 6 or 7-1), but I'd chuck £5 on Walker at these odds.
What time are the Georgia results likely to start coming in?
Dems are 1.06 so it'll be a mega upset if they don't win it.
I would expect the Dems to win, given a superior early voting operation, a better candidate, and the fact that Walker cannot ride on Kemp's coattails... but close to 20-1 on a two horse race where the polls show only a very narrow Democratic lead, and with Republicans typically outperforming in run-offs...
I would expect it to be a loser (the right odds are probably 6 or 7-1), but I'd chuck £5 on Walker at these odds.
There's also a possibility that odds could shift Walker's way if punters misread early results that would allow profit taking, I would think?
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
How is Scotland any more a historic nation than Bavaria or Gujurat?
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
OGH's headline is factually incorrect, although it is largely accurate from perspective of most Brit bettors.
Note that there are number of recounts for various offices, either still ongoing or yet to commence, across USA from sea to shining sea.
For example - and for comic relief - in WA 3rd Congressional, Putinist loser Joe Kent has requested a machine recount, which won't happen until the WA Secretary of State certifies the election later this week.
Basically just more grifting by a MAGA-maniac grifter, emulating his role model the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo. BUT meaning that the Georgia runnoff - which itself will not be certified today obviously - is NOT the "Final Final Chapter" for the 2022 US midterm elections.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
How is Scotland any more a historic nation than Bavaria or Gujurat?
It is not, and I withdraw the blanket designation.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"finally"?
"jailed"?
There is this thing called fair trial. And there is also this thing called contempt of court. Are you alleging that this gent is a repeat offender and are you trying to bring this to public attention?
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Assault with an egg is a fairly common assault. Slapping someone with a whole lobe of foie gras is a little more refayned.
HM the King should not bother with petty little trials. He should just be allowed to beat his assailant to death. With a swan.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
How is Scotland any more a historic nation than Bavaria or Gujurat?
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
How is Scotland any more a historic nation than Bavaria or Gujurat?
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
Gordon Brown's paper is super-fudge - lots of different functions for bodies working to remits that are geographically restricted at lots of different levels, in a procedure-loving politician's paradise. Who would have thought the guy was such a twit? But then again he b*llsed up British policy on the euro, and thereby the EU, big time. As a package his latest effort will probably soon be binned, but some of his specific suggestions may not be.
The one that stands out for me is the idea of sending representatives of Scotland to international bodies. No. Don't do this. The aim of refreshing the Union is a good one, but the method is wrong. In pragmatic terms this won't win votes from the SNP. The SNP will respond by saying that if Scotland is good enough to be allowed by its English Westminster masters to have representatives on international bodies, then how much better they would be able to represent Scotland on those bodies if it were an independent country. Also why TF shouldn't England be allowed representatives on international bodies if Scotland has got some? Oh they would? Well what's the point of having the Union then? That's not the kind of debate that Unionists in their right minds should seek to trigger.
To refresh the Union you need a big idea, not a bowlful of fudge.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Assault with an egg is a fairly common assault. Slapping someone with a whole lobe of foie gras is a little more refayned.
HM the King should not bother with petty little trials. He should just be allowed to beat his assailant to death. With a swan.
A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
Good, hopefully this time they will be finally be jailed
"Given a fair trial" may be the phrase you were looking for.
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Assault with an egg is a fairly common assault. Slapping someone with a whole lobe of foie gras is a little more refayned.
HM the King should not bother with petty little trials. He should just be allowed to beat his assailant to death. With a swan.
There should be some perks to being a King.
Bit harsh. On the swan.
Some pretty bad-tempered royalists out today. Must be the weather.
As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.
You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.
The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy
That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.
They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.
Comments
Even if the Republicans did win it it would just mean at most the Democrats in the Senate would have to occasionally work with Mitt Romney or Susan Collins if say Manchin decided to vote against one of their bills
"We got two final polls the day before Election Day giving the edge to Warnock, who outpaced Walker 49-48 last month, but there are caveats about both. YouGov, working on behalf of UMass Lowell, showed the senator up 51-46, while the GOP firm InsiderAdvantage’s survey for Fox 5 gave him a smaller 51-48 edge. Recent media polls from SurveyUSA and SRSS had Warnock leading 50-47 and 52-48, respectively."
The seat may be more relevant after future elections though.
Hope they've confiscated her passport.
Given the age of the Senate, a death during the term is entirely possible, for example.
And it lowers the hurdle for the Democrats to retain control in 2024.
But you're right that it lowers the incentive for Republicans to turn out to vote for a manifestly unqualified candidate.
Then ponder how important that extra seat might be for the Dems.
In Presidential election years the Congress results largely follow the Presidential ones anyway in terms of winning party, unlike midterms which tend to be protests against the incumbent President in terms of swing
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/millennials-turning-backs-traditional-boozy-breaks/
Also, with regard to your last paragraph while that's true of the House I would say it's much less true of the Senate. In particular, I would be amazed if Montana voted for another Democrat while Wisconsin is no gimme, regardless of the presidential vote.
And Gordon Brown wants to give Scotland more say inside the Union. Fine, but can we have a mechanism for WENI as a bloc to go independent.
"Not appreciating my puns when I was alive was a grave mistake."
The Devil went down to Georgia....
It's true there's a fine working class tradition of punchups at funerals, but not of open displays of contempt for the deceased. The way to do that is not to attend.
(A superstar, but he didn't get far)
But he sure found out the hard way
That dreams don't always come true (dreams don't always come true)
Oh no (uh-uh, no, uh-uh)
1. If the Dems win they will have a majority on Senate committees, speeding up business.
2. They will be able to lose a seat in 2 years' time (when they have 3 seats in normally red states to defend) without losing control.
3.They won't have to depend on Joe Manchin's support for every vote.
It would also be a useful poke in the eye for Trump if Walker loses when Republicans won every other state-wide election in Georgia.
It is likely that the RFU will have to offer Leicester well in excess of £200,000 to buy Borthwick out of his contract with the Premiership champions, meaning that the cost of sacking Jones will exceed £1 million.
Hasn't Borthwick been part of the setup for years leading to 2019 world cup as forward coach?
Edit - Christ he was also part of Eddie Jones setup with Japan. Sounds like they have gone for mini-Eddie.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2022/dec/05/phil-foden-england-senegal-world-cup-qatar
They aren't getting much past the GOP house for the next two years anyway.
There are clips on the internet of him playing for Man City academy at 13-14, he plays exactly like he does now. At that age so many of the future superstars, its all the about the skills, the clips of them beating 6-7 players to score worldie goals...Foden in the clips, he is ruthlessly efficient, beats a man, visionary pass out to a free man in space etc. Its man against boys not in a physical sense, but a footballing intelligence sense.
The ones flagged as vulnerable next time are Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. West Virginia is of course Manchin so I would assume he is likely to hold if he runs again, but whether that helps the blue caucus is another question. Montana I think will go. I have to say I would be surprised if Sherrod Brown lost the Ohio seat, although his best chance is if Ohio goes Republican for the Presidency and votes for a split ticket. Wisconsin is very tight however you look at it, as is Nevada. Keep an eye on Vermont too, where if he lives that long Bernie Sanders will be 83 and may retire at the next election. Who would win that is anybody's guess. The Dems should surely be favourites but if there was another radical left independent who split the vote...
About the only faint chance of a Dem pickup is if something dramatic happens in Texas. If Trump and Ted Cruz have another of their spats I suppose it might split the Republican vote and let a Dem in, but I wouldn't be putting money on it.
So holding Georgia is really quite important to them.
Albeit, even that is possibly not as important as keeping a certifiable fucktard like Walker away from the Senate.
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1600130637930803201
Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.
The last time the Tories had a poll lead was Redfield & Wilton, exactly a year ago today!
What happened with Patrick Thelwell in York? Last I heard, he was on bail. If he'd been tried the verdict would have been reported, surely? (He said that if he was brought to court he'd plead not guilty.) Was the case dropped? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :-)
As for the offence of common assault,
1. There has to be fear or "apprehension" on the part of the alleged victim that they were about to suffer an act of violence, so how can there be a fair trial if the alleged victim won't come to the stand and submit to cross-examination about what was in his mind? A fortiori when he was protected by armed security at the time of the incident. "There may well not have been apprehension to the level required for a guilty verdict" would be one way to run the defence case.
2. Is it possible to "commonly assault" a king?
The guy who has his crest behind the judges and magistrates isn't supposed to be so unpopular. Trouble looms.
Throw a Faberge egg: posh assault.
Throw an ostrich egg at a Tory and it's not assault, it's a character statement.
Prosecuting counsel: "Did you throw an egg intending that it land on the person of His Majesty?"
Defendant: "Well, let's just say that unlike Mr Mountbatten I don't possess the stolen Koh-i-Noor diamond, so I couldn't have thrown that at him even if I'd wanted to."
https://ph.churchofjesuschrist.org/polygamy-mormons-plural-marriage#:~:text=Do Mormons believe in polygamy,God to issue a declaration.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/student-accused-throwing-eggs-king-28457424
The King is the King, he may not be as popular as his mother but the law still needs to be enforced to protect the Monarch, for starters as the next anarchist republican may not be carrying an egg but a gun
That being said... you are absolutely right that 2024 will be an uphill battle for the Dems: I'd probably want at least 8-1 on them holding the Senate.
I would expect it to be a loser (the right odds are probably 6 or 7-1), but I'd chuck £5 on Walker at these odds.
Face in a frown
Never a sound
With Burford Browns
(sorry, not really a yolking matter)
Morocco 6.2
Draw 2.72
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/football/fifa-world-cup/morocco-v-spain-betting-31945366
https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,snp-leadership-contest-who-are-the-candidates-for-westminster-roles
Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either
Note that there are number of recounts for various offices, either still ongoing or yet to commence, across USA from sea to shining sea.
For example - and for comic relief - in WA 3rd Congressional, Putinist loser Joe Kent has requested a machine recount, which won't happen until the WA Secretary of State certifies the election later this week.
Basically just more grifting by a MAGA-maniac grifter, emulating his role model the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo. BUT meaning that the Georgia runnoff - which itself will not be certified today obviously - is NOT the "Final Final Chapter" for the 2022 US midterm elections.
"jailed"?
There is this thing called fair trial. And there is also this thing called contempt of court. Are you alleging that this gent is a repeat offender and are you trying to bring this to public attention?
There should be some perks to being a King.
The one that stands out for me is the idea of sending representatives of Scotland to international bodies. No. Don't do this. The aim of refreshing the Union is a good one, but the method is wrong. In pragmatic terms this won't win votes from the SNP. The SNP will respond by saying that if Scotland is good enough to be allowed by its English Westminster masters to have representatives on international bodies, then how much better they would be able to represent Scotland on those bodies if it were an independent country. Also why TF shouldn't England be allowed representatives on international bodies if Scotland has got some? Oh they would? Well what's the point of having the Union then? That's not the kind of debate that Unionists in their right minds should seek to trigger.
To refresh the Union you need a big idea, not a bowlful of fudge.
They are now letting him simmer in a cell, before seeing if he cracks under interrogation.
Or perhaps they could try and recruit him into the force - poacher turned gamekeeper.
Was it his own idea, or was he egged on by someone else?
On the swan.