A Boris comeback is not beyond the realms of possibility. The way in which he's trying to destroy Rishi's NI-protocol negotiations - one of the few potential bright spots of Rishi's premiership - suggests the sly old dog still thinks he's in with a chance. Dave, Theresa and now Rishi... which Tory PM hasn't Boris set out to destroy? Liz perhaps, although we've learned that Boris actively wanted her to be a disaster because that would reflect well on him. The old schemer!
Hmm, would Boris Johnson sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland for another tilt at becoming PM? Of course he would.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
I am disappointed not to have been adopted as the Conservative candidate for the new Weald of Kent seat. I am now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work for the people of Ashford and support the Government.
Remember how we all worried that Momentum would deselect moderate Labour MPs for the crime of insufficient loyalty to the Great Leader? Maybe we were looking at the wrong party.
If this turns into a pattern, the Conservative trudge back to electability gets that bit harder.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
I’d say there’s a certain lazy cnuts can’t be arsed learning a new language factor in there.
I have to say I am a little baffled by Max's remarks on the UK/EU situation. The general tenor of this article is that the threats with regard to the protocol are damaging the UK economy and making it difficult for us to agree better arrangements - the Lugano convention being the example mentioned. Sunak is going to struggle to get things passed the ERG so it all depends whether he's prepared to risk it for the benefit of the economy.
I am disappointed not to have been adopted as the Conservative candidate for the new Weald of Kent seat. I am now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work for the people of Ashford and support the Government.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
A Boris comeback is not beyond the realms of possibility. The way in which he's trying to destroy Rishi's NI-protocol negotiations - one of the few potential bright spots of Rishi's premiership - suggests the sly old dog still thinks he's in with a chance. Dave, Theresa and now Rishi... which Tory PM hasn't Boris set out to destroy? Liz perhaps, although we've learned that Boris actively wanted her to be a disaster because that would reflect well on him. The old schemer!
Hmm, would Boris Johnson sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland for another tilt at becoming PM? Of course he would.
I am disappointed not to have been adopted as the Conservative candidate for the new Weald of Kent seat. I am now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work for the people of Ashford and support the Government.
Remember how we all worried that Momentum would deselect moderate Labour MPs for the crime of insufficient loyalty to the Great Leader? Maybe we were looking at the wrong party.
If this turns into a pattern, the Conservative trudge back to electability gets that bit harder.
Except Boris actually won a general election unlike Corbyn
A Boris comeback is not beyond the realms of possibility. The way in which he's trying to destroy Rishi's NI-protocol negotiations - one of the few potential bright spots of Rishi's premiership - suggests the sly old dog still thinks he's in with a chance. Dave, Theresa and now Rishi... which Tory PM hasn't Boris set out to destroy? Liz perhaps, although we've learned that Boris actively wanted her to be a disaster because that would reflect well on him. The old schemer!
Hmm, would Boris Johnson sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland for another tilt at becoming PM? Of course he would.
Boris Johnson is a blight on British politics.
It would have been preferable to have seen him fail massively at a general election. Me thinks by avoiding that, he can continue to be some sort of a malign force on politics
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
I’d say there’s a certain lazy cnuts can’t be arsed learning a new language factor in there.
Switzerland is safe and rich. That’s it
The more interesting question would be “if your country was about to be melted by Russian strategic thermonuclear weapons, turning it into the second half of Threads, where would you flee to?” Then I’d get to reel out my spreadsheet.
A Boris comeback is not beyond the realms of possibility. The way in which he's trying to destroy Rishi's NI-protocol negotiations - one of the few potential bright spots of Rishi's premiership - suggests the sly old dog still thinks he's in with a chance. Dave, Theresa and now Rishi... which Tory PM hasn't Boris set out to destroy? Liz perhaps, although we've learned that Boris actively wanted her to be a disaster because that would reflect well on him. The old schemer!
Hmm, would Boris Johnson sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland for another tilt at becoming PM? Of course he would.
Boris Johnson is a blight on British politics.
It would have been preferable to have seen him fail massively at a general election. Me thinks by avoiding that, he can continue to be some sort of a malign force on politics
We may yet see that day. December 2024, after a Boris putsch. It would be wonderful to witness.
Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’.
I think you are rather searching for a reason to get offended there. Are there really political parties, except at their lowest points, known for going 'People were right to vote for someone else'?
Not why sure why you cropped my post but that’s not what I’m saying at all, I’m pointing out the lack of reflection from Labour in the part they played in Scottish voters turning to other parties. Since I’m someone who stopped voting Labour to vote for other parties, I think I can speak with a little authority on the matter.
I'm presuming it's Labour role in BT as opposed to support for continuation in itself which gripes you, TUD. If that is the case, then let me ask you this... if Labour had worked more constructively with the Tories during the Brexit referendum, would that have been justifiable if had it kept us in the EU?
Twitter has noticed that Nixon-era conservative America is starting to look cool
I think in 1972 most of the cool but also rich people told their liberal friends they voted for McGovern but in the privacy of the ballot box voted to re elect Nixon
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’.
I think you are rather searching for a reason to get offended there. Are there really political parties, except at their lowest points, known for going 'People were right to vote for someone else'?
Not why sure why you cropped my post but that’s not what I’m saying at all, I’m pointing out the lack of reflection from Labour in the part they played in Scottish voters turning to other parties. Since I’m someone who stopped voting Labour to vote for other parties, I think I can speak with a little authority on the matter.
I'm presuming it's Labour role in BT as opposed to support for continuation in itself which gripes you, TUD. If that is the case, then let me ask you this... if Labour had worked more constructively with the Tories during the Brexit referendum, would that have been justifiable if had it kept us in the EU?
You presume wrong: Blair>New Labour>Iraq. I'd guess it may play a big part for younger voters but Better Together was just the excrement icing on a cake I no longer liked, reinforcing my near certainty that there was nothing left in the UK for me.
A Boris comeback is not beyond the realms of possibility. The way in which he's trying to destroy Rishi's NI-protocol negotiations - one of the few potential bright spots of Rishi's premiership - suggests the sly old dog still thinks he's in with a chance. Dave, Theresa and now Rishi... which Tory PM hasn't Boris set out to destroy? Liz perhaps, although we've learned that Boris actively wanted her to be a disaster because that would reflect well on him. The old schemer!
Hmm, would Boris Johnson sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland for another tilt at becoming PM? Of course he would.
He would. It’s truly puzzling that 100 or so MP’s adore him
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
If the SNP are treating it as a “de facto referendum”, will they have any other policies in their manifesto?
If YES, will they claim all those votes for independence as votes to support all the other policies in their platform? (So people with strong feelings against, say, their nuclear disarmament platform, their trans platform, their economic platform, etc - should they be treated as supporting it?)
If NO, what will they do in Holyrood if they win power but fall short of 50%+1? Or what policies will they push for in Westminster?
This is the awkwardness with trying to conflate a single-issue vote with an election of a full platform.
Nothing is simple about the mandate provided to MPs by their electors, except that if they get it very wrong their electors are likely to let them know about it at the next election.
Elections contested on single issues has happened before, as for example in 1910 with the constitutional standoff between the Commons and the Lords over the People's Budget and the Parliament Act.
I think that politicians will find that, if they treat their election as a 100% mandate for everything they promised during the campaign, and don't listen to the public between elections, that they won't win many subsequent elections.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
Pretty well every US general election since 2000 has been a battle of attrition (even in 2008 and 2014, the leads were not huge in voting terms).
This year, the Republicans polled above 50% on a high turnout, but chose some batshit candidates in marginal seats, so they fell short.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
Bill Clinton and Obama were unbeatable, both brilliant campaigners if not perfect Presidents in office.
The Republicans did beat Gore and Kerry and Hillary however.
Had the popular vote decided the Presidency then they may have picked McCain in 2000 or Kasich in 2016 who would have had more appeal on the coasts. However as the EC and Midwest and rustbelt swing states determine the Presidency they didn't need to and could win with W Bush and Trump.
Even Trump could still beat Biden in 2024 despite Biden defeating him in 2020 on some polls
Trying to pigeonhole Kipling is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. Very subtle, with numerous texts to contradict everything else he wrote. You think he's a warmonger ? Read Recessional, or My Son Jack. Think he's a hard-hearted cruel despot? Read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Think he's just a narrow-minded racist? Read any of the things which portray Indians as having a civilisation and culture vastly superior to the Europeans. Yes, that's relativist, which is Bad nowadays, but relativism was acceptable then, as was the classification of people into stereotypical races.
Dame Marghanita Laski said that every generation would have to re-discover Kipling whilst trying to shake off the opinions of their parents. She was absolutely right.
Spot on.
There’s also the option if not bothering, of course. I’ve read a fair amount of Kipling, but Dame Marghanita was hardly spot on when she suggested it’s compulsory.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A Boris comeback is not beyond the realms of possibility. The way in which he's trying to destroy Rishi's NI-protocol negotiations - one of the few potential bright spots of Rishi's premiership - suggests the sly old dog still thinks he's in with a chance. Dave, Theresa and now Rishi... which Tory PM hasn't Boris set out to destroy? Liz perhaps, although we've learned that Boris actively wanted her to be a disaster because that would reflect well on him. The old schemer!
Hmm, would Boris Johnson sacrifice peace in Northern Ireland for another tilt at becoming PM? Of course he would.
He would. It’s truly puzzling that 100 or so MP’s adore him
Gang/pack dynamics. Alpha males aren't followed because they're good, but because they're at the top of the pecking order.
See the many Americans who still prostrate themselves before the orange one.
‘Don’t like it, it’s Toughsheet’: Bolton announce new stadium sponsor
Deal with recycling manufacturer is largest in club’s history
Name is ‘a bit tongue-in-cheek, a bit schoolboy humour’
The managing director of Bolton’s new stadium sponsors says he hopes its dash of “schoolboy humour” will tie television pundits in knots when its name-change comes into effect this summer.
The naming rights deal with a Bolton-based recyclable building product manufacturer ensures the League One promotion hopefuls will be playing at the Toughsheet Community Stadium for the next five years.
“We’re happy to have a bit of fun with it,” Doug Mercer told the Bolton News. “Obviously the brand name is a bit tongue-in-cheek, a bit schoolboy humour.
“But I can’t wait to see them try and make each other say it on Sky Sports, it’ll be a great laugh!”
Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’.
I think you are rather searching for a reason to get offended there. Are there really political parties, except at their lowest points, known for going 'People were right to vote for someone else'?
Not why sure why you cropped my post but that’s not what I’m saying at all, I’m pointing out the lack of reflection from Labour in the part they played in Scottish voters turning to other parties. Since I’m someone who stopped voting Labour to vote for other parties, I think I can speak with a little authority on the matter.
I'm presuming it's Labour role in BT as opposed to support for continuation in itself which gripes you, TUD. If that is the case, then let me ask you this... if Labour had worked more constructively with the Tories during the Brexit referendum, would that have been justifiable if had it kept us in the EU?
You presume wrong: Blair>New Labour>Iraq. I'd guess it may play a big part for younger voters but Better Together was just the excrement icing on a cake I no longer liked, reinforcing my near certainty that there was nothing left in the UK for me.
What will you do if you lose the political arguments in a future independent Scotland and are outvoted by people who choose Blairite politics, or those further to the right?
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
I’d say there’s a certain lazy cnuts can’t be arsed learning a new language factor in there.
Switzerland is safe and rich. That’s it
It's interesting that the UK is nobody's answer. I wonder whether that would have been the case ten years ago?
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
Versus a left liberal Democrat like Harris however either Trump or DeSantis would trounce her
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
And my guess is that it wouldn't. Because what you are overlooking is that the development of the current voting blocks is a very recent phenomenon. Reagan could realistically challenge in every state in 1984. As could Nixon in 72 and Johnson in 68.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
I’d say there’s a certain lazy cnuts can’t be arsed learning a new language factor in there.
Switzerland is safe and rich. That’s it
It's interesting that the UK is nobody's answer. I wonder whether that would have been the case ten years ago?
Perhaps more interesting that France doesn't have an equivalent 'bloc' to Germany given that it has a lot of direct neighbours.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
I’d say there’s a certain lazy cnuts can’t be arsed learning a new language factor in there.
Switzerland is safe and rich. That’s it
It's interesting that the UK is nobody's answer. I wonder whether that would have been the case ten years ago?
Perhaps more interesting that France doesn't have an equivalent 'bloc' to Germany given that it has a lot of direct neighbours.
@tse will be along shortly to say it's not that surprising given it's full of French people.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
I’d say there’s a certain lazy cnuts can’t be arsed learning a new language factor in there.
Switzerland is safe and rich. That’s it
It's interesting that the UK is nobody's answer. I wonder whether that would have been the case ten years ago?
Perhaps more interesting that France doesn't have an equivalent 'bloc' to Germany given that it has a lot of direct neighbours.
Switzerland is just an obvious answer though: neutral, anonymous, efficient etc. Same as Germany.
It’s interesting that the UK and Irish answers are a bit more whimsical than the others. The question was “if you had to leave your country” and most people have thought about a suitable place of safety, but we’ve thought “where would be nice to move to”.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
And my guess is that it wouldn't. Because what you are overlooking is that the development of the current voting blocks is a very recent phenomenon. Reagan could realistically challenge in every state in 1984. As could Nixon in 72 and Johnson in 68.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
Not entirely, the Democrats may have won coastal states like California and New Jersey and New Hampshire and Connecticut which Nixon and Ford and Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 in 1988 won but the Republicans have also won rural and bluecollar states like Iowa and West Virginia which Dukakis and Bill Clinton won.
Indeed West Virginia voted for Carter and Humphrey too but the GOP have won it at every presidential election since 2000
Good old Labour, Scottish voters are never bright enough to make their own minds up, they have to be ‘turned’.
I think you are rather searching for a reason to get offended there. Are there really political parties, except at their lowest points, known for going 'People were right to vote for someone else'?
Not why sure why you cropped my post but that’s not what I’m saying at all, I’m pointing out the lack of reflection from Labour in the part they played in Scottish voters turning to other parties. Since I’m someone who stopped voting Labour to vote for other parties, I think I can speak with a little authority on the matter.
I'm presuming it's Labour role in BT as opposed to support for continuation in itself which gripes you, TUD. If that is the case, then let me ask you this... if Labour had worked more constructively with the Tories during the Brexit referendum, would that have been justifiable if had it kept us in the EU?
You presume wrong: Blair>New Labour>Iraq. I'd guess it may play a big part for younger voters but Better Together was just the excrement icing on a cake I no longer liked, reinforcing my near certainty that there was nothing left in the UK for me.
What will you do if you lose the political arguments in a future independent Scotland and are outvoted by people who choose Blairite politics, or those further to the right?
That would be democracy (which is not a fixed thing), unlike now; we're currently just flotsam bobbing in the sewagy outflow of an English psychodrama. If people in an indy Scotland wanted a referendum on Brexit or returning to the UK or Shetland leaving, fine, I'd want a Scottish government to recognise that, if there were identifiable parties, voters and groups backing them rather than individuals whining on the internet.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Don't spend too much money on it though - there's no POTUS election in 2030.
Twitter has noticed that Nixon-era conservative America is starting to look cool
White people and polyester are so in right now.
I have a distinct memory of waking up as a child with my polyester 'quilt' and polyester pyjamas both 'melting' in a bubbly black molten stream in front of the Calor gas heater.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Don't spend too much money on it though - there's no POTUS election in 2030.
Is Generic Democrat one of the American options for "None of the Above" when they go the same way on the compulsory voting?
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Don't spend too much money on it though - there's no POTUS election in 2030.
You make an excellent point, and it's the one flaw in my brilliant plan.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
And my guess is that it wouldn't. Because what you are overlooking is that the development of the current voting blocks is a very recent phenomenon. Reagan could realistically challenge in every state in 1984. As could Nixon in 72 and Johnson in 68.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
The Republicans treat their primaries as pissing contests.
Despite that, as much of the USA has shifted in their direction (Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) ,) as has shifted against them, since Clinton was President
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
And my guess is that it wouldn't. Because what you are overlooking is that the development of the current voting blocks is a very recent phenomenon. Reagan could realistically challenge in every state in 1984. As could Nixon in 72 and Johnson in 68.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
The Republicans treat their primaries as pissing contests.
Despite that, as much of the USA has shifted in their direction (Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) ,) as has shifted against them, since Clinton was President
You mean, 'since they started their long period of losing...'
That isn't good enough for them. They need to be at least in contention in far more states, and they simply aren't.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
And my guess is that it wouldn't. Because what you are overlooking is that the development of the current voting blocks is a very recent phenomenon. Reagan could realistically challenge in every state in 1984. As could Nixon in 72 and Johnson in 68.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
Two things there.
First, electoral patterns evolve - as we see here - and they work two ways. So just in the same way AZ and GA move more D leaning, twenty years ago it would have inconceivable that the likes of Michigan and Wisconsin are not part of a safe Blue Wall.
Second, you could argue that the GOP is actually making inroads into where it needs to go - its biggest gains relatively are in the Hispanic and Asian votes, which are the fastest growing demographics. Where it is losing share is White professional graduates. And, if you look at US higher education enrolment trends over the past ten years, they have started to go into decline - which has interesting long term implications for the Democrat vote.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
And my guess is that it wouldn't. Because what you are overlooking is that the development of the current voting blocks is a very recent phenomenon. Reagan could realistically challenge in every state in 1984. As could Nixon in 72 and Johnson in 68.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
The Republicans treat their primaries as pissing contests.
Despite that, as much of the USA has shifted in their direction (Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) ,) as has shifted against them, since Clinton was President
It is the same trend here since the 1990s and indeed in most of the western world.
Wealthy, upper middle class, suburban and expensive areas of cities with lots of graduates have become less conservative and more left liberal but poorer, white working class, rural and ex industrial areas with fewer graduates and more older people have become more conservative
Having enjoyed the company of Stephen Fry on more than one occasion, he is the last person I would expect to make an Islamophobic joke.
Stephen Fry is the subject of a formal complaint after being accused of making misogynistic and racist jokes at a cricketing dinner at Lord’s.
Speaking in his capacity as president of Marylebone Cricket Club, the actor and comedian allegedly joked about women “shagging” and linked Muslims and terrorists.
One of those present has called for disciplinary action to be taken against him by MCC, calling the comments, for which Fry subsequently refused to apologise, “egregious”.
However, MCC and some other diners have disputed the claims, saying that the apparently misogynistic joke had been misheard and that the one about Muslims was never made.
The complaint was made by Chris Waterman, a member of MCC, who claims that Fry stood up to welcome members to the dinner, saying: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. I suppose they are off shagging’.”
Later, according to Waterman, Fry referred to the Allahakbarries, an amateur cricket team founded by the Peter Pan author JM Barrie. He went on to joke that “the term ‘Allahu akbar’, when used today, was usually followed by a loud bang”.
Fry’s representatives were approached for comment. Guy Lavender, chief executive and secretary of MCC, said that this account “is factually incorrect”.
“The dinner in question was enjoyed by those that attended and we have not received any other complaint from attendees in this regard,” he said
Other diners told The Times that what Fry actually said was: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. Now we can talk about shagging,” and his point was to mock the underrepresentation of women in the club. They said they had not heard the Muslim joke...
...Waterman has also been a divisive figure. A Liberal Democrat adviser, he has previously run for MCC committee positions but failed to get them — blaming a “chumocracy”. He describes himself as a “contrarian” and “iconoclast”, and describes MCC as “male, pale and stale”.
Having enjoyed the company of Stephen Fry on more than one occasion, he is the last person I would expect to make an Islamophobic joke.
Stephen Fry is the subject of a formal complaint after being accused of making misogynistic and racist jokes at a cricketing dinner at Lord’s.
Speaking in his capacity as president of Marylebone Cricket Club, the actor and comedian allegedly joked about women “shagging” and linked Muslims and terrorists.
One of those present has called for disciplinary action to be taken against him by MCC, calling the comments, for which Fry subsequently refused to apologise, “egregious”.
However, MCC and some other diners have disputed the claims, saying that the apparently misogynistic joke had been misheard and that the one about Muslims was never made.
The complaint was made by Chris Waterman, a member of MCC, who claims that Fry stood up to welcome members to the dinner, saying: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. I suppose they are off shagging’.”
Later, according to Waterman, Fry referred to the Allahakbarries, an amateur cricket team founded by the Peter Pan author JM Barrie. He went on to joke that “the term ‘Allahu akbar’, when used today, was usually followed by a loud bang”.
Fry’s representatives were approached for comment. Guy Lavender, chief executive and secretary of MCC, said that this account “is factually incorrect”.
“The dinner in question was enjoyed by those that attended and we have not received any other complaint from attendees in this regard,” he said
Other diners told The Times that what Fry actually said was: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. Now we can talk about shagging,” and his point was to mock the underrepresentation of women in the club. They said they had not heard the Muslim joke...
...Waterman has also been a divisive figure. A Liberal Democrat adviser, he has previously run for MCC committee positions but failed to get them — blaming a “chumocracy”. He describes himself as a “contrarian” and “iconoclast”, and describes MCC as “male, pale and stale”.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
Versus a left liberal Democrat like Harris however either Trump or DeSantis would trounce her
I don't think Harris is a Generic Democrat in the sense that, although she's a serious contender as future Democrat candidate, you'd not draw a mixed race woman as your central casting standard Democrat presidential candidate. You'd draw Gavin Newsom, Roy Cooper, or at a push Jon Ossoff.
None of that is commenting on quality - just that if they turned up in a film as a Democrat candidate, that'd be standard and unremarkable. Ditto De Santis as a Republican candidate.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
And my guess is that it wouldn't. Because what you are overlooking is that the development of the current voting blocks is a very recent phenomenon. Reagan could realistically challenge in every state in 1984. As could Nixon in 72 and Johnson in 68.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
The Republicans treat their primaries as pissing contests.
Despite that, as much of the USA has shifted in their direction (Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) ,) as has shifted against them, since Clinton was President
You mean, 'since they started their long period of losing...'
That isn't good enough for them. They need to be at least in contention in far more states, and they simply aren't.
They’ve held the Presidency for 12 years, since 2000, the House for 14, and the Senate for 13.
Having enjoyed the company of Stephen Fry on more than one occasion, he is the last person I would expect to make an Islamophobic joke.
Stephen Fry is the subject of a formal complaint after being accused of making misogynistic and racist jokes at a cricketing dinner at Lord’s.
Speaking in his capacity as president of Marylebone Cricket Club, the actor and comedian allegedly joked about women “shagging” and linked Muslims and terrorists.
One of those present has called for disciplinary action to be taken against him by MCC, calling the comments, for which Fry subsequently refused to apologise, “egregious”.
However, MCC and some other diners have disputed the claims, saying that the apparently misogynistic joke had been misheard and that the one about Muslims was never made.
The complaint was made by Chris Waterman, a member of MCC, who claims that Fry stood up to welcome members to the dinner, saying: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. I suppose they are off shagging’.”
Later, according to Waterman, Fry referred to the Allahakbarries, an amateur cricket team founded by the Peter Pan author JM Barrie. He went on to joke that “the term ‘Allahu akbar’, when used today, was usually followed by a loud bang”.
Fry’s representatives were approached for comment. Guy Lavender, chief executive and secretary of MCC, said that this account “is factually incorrect”.
“The dinner in question was enjoyed by those that attended and we have not received any other complaint from attendees in this regard,” he said
Other diners told The Times that what Fry actually said was: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. Now we can talk about shagging,” and his point was to mock the underrepresentation of women in the club. They said they had not heard the Muslim joke...
...Waterman has also been a divisive figure. A Liberal Democrat adviser, he has previously run for MCC committee positions but failed to get them — blaming a “chumocracy”. He describes himself as a “contrarian” and “iconoclast”, and describes MCC as “male, pale and stale”.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
Democrats would prefer to face RDS because GOP will lose a lot of votes to write-in Trump.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I think RDS would wipe the floor with the Dems: there is a huge market for Trump-ism, only not delivered by Trump.
Trump is also significant weaker than in 2020, with ongoing legal peril.
On topic, I would support compulsory voting as long as there is a none of the above category, my last constituency only had a choice of tory, lib dem or labour and I don't want to be in the position where I have to choose one of the three crap choices.
This means fans of compulsory voting have to tell us what happens if on an election for a constituency we get non of the above = 40%, party A = 29% and party b 27%. My suspicion is they will say party A gets it rather than their is a byelection.
They also need to tell us what happens if none of the above wins in 300 constituences....do we really form a government on a majority of the 365 left?
Having enjoyed the company of Stephen Fry on more than one occasion, he is the last person I would expect to make an Islamophobic joke.
Stephen Fry is the subject of a formal complaint after being accused of making misogynistic and racist jokes at a cricketing dinner at Lord’s.
Speaking in his capacity as president of Marylebone Cricket Club, the actor and comedian allegedly joked about women “shagging” and linked Muslims and terrorists.
One of those present has called for disciplinary action to be taken against him by MCC, calling the comments, for which Fry subsequently refused to apologise, “egregious”.
However, MCC and some other diners have disputed the claims, saying that the apparently misogynistic joke had been misheard and that the one about Muslims was never made.
The complaint was made by Chris Waterman, a member of MCC, who claims that Fry stood up to welcome members to the dinner, saying: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. I suppose they are off shagging’.”
Later, according to Waterman, Fry referred to the Allahakbarries, an amateur cricket team founded by the Peter Pan author JM Barrie. He went on to joke that “the term ‘Allahu akbar’, when used today, was usually followed by a loud bang”.
Fry’s representatives were approached for comment. Guy Lavender, chief executive and secretary of MCC, said that this account “is factually incorrect”.
“The dinner in question was enjoyed by those that attended and we have not received any other complaint from attendees in this regard,” he said
Other diners told The Times that what Fry actually said was: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. Now we can talk about shagging,” and his point was to mock the underrepresentation of women in the club. They said they had not heard the Muslim joke...
...Waterman has also been a divisive figure. A Liberal Democrat adviser, he has previously run for MCC committee positions but failed to get them — blaming a “chumocracy”. He describes himself as a “contrarian” and “iconoclast”, and describes MCC as “male, pale and stale”.
Well, Waterman sounds like the life and soul of the party!
I think what you mean is "imagine sitting next to that boring f*cker on a 12 hour flight'". Bet he bangs on about Remain all day and has FBPE on his Twitter profile
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
Versus a left liberal Democrat like Harris however either Trump or DeSantis would trounce her
I don't think Harris is a Generic Democrat in the sense that, although she's a serious contender as future Democrat candidate, you'd not draw a mixed race woman as your central casting standard Democrat presidential candidate. You'd draw Gavin Newsom, Roy Cooper, or at a push Jon Ossoff.
None of that is commenting on quality - just that if they turned up in a film as a Democrat candidate, that'd be standard and unremarkable. Ditto De Santis as a Republican candidate.
Trump or De Santis would trounce Newsom too.
Biden won in 2020 as he could appeal beyond coastal liberals to blue collar voters in the rustbelt, neither Harris nor Newsom can, neither could Hillary in 2016 either. Bill Clinton like Biden had the same rustbelt appeal.
Obama didn't so much but could mobilise huge black turnout to make up for it
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I think RDS would wipe the floor with the Dems: there is a huge market for Trump-ism, only not delivered by Trump.
Trump is also significant weaker than in 2020, with ongoing legal peril.
Possibly but I think RDS might be the worst of both worlds at this stage - he doesn't reach the parts Trump reaches but, conversely, puts off enough Democrats and / or boosts their enthusiasm.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I think RDS would wipe the floor with the Dems: there is a huge market for Trump-ism, only not delivered by Trump.
Trump is also significant weaker than in 2020, with ongoing legal peril.
Possibly but I think RDS might be the worst of both worlds at this stage - he doesn't reach the parts Trump reaches but, conversely, puts off enough Democrats and / or boosts their enthusiasm.
I think the Florida electorate rather refuted that.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Trump also trounces Harris 49% to 39% in that poll.
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
There have only been two since then - 1988 and 2004. The latter was by a wafer thin margin.
Bush Snr beat Dukakis by 8% in 1988, so Trump's 10% lead over Harris would be even bigger than that and the biggest GOP landslide since Reagan.
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Yes, I agree with you. But perhaps the Republicans should ask themselves why they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once - and that by less than 2.5% - since the end of the Cold War.
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
A block vote effect plus a fallacy in the logic point there.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
And my guess is that it wouldn't. Because what you are overlooking is that the development of the current voting blocks is a very recent phenomenon. Reagan could realistically challenge in every state in 1984. As could Nixon in 72 and Johnson in 68.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
The Republicans treat their primaries as pissing contests.
Despite that, as much of the USA has shifted in their direction (Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) ,) as has shifted against them, since Clinton was President
You mean, 'since they started their long period of losing...'
That isn't good enough for them. They need to be at least in contention in far more states, and they simply aren't.
They’ve held the Presidency for 12 years, since 2000, the House for 14, and the Senate for 13.
Won the House in November on the popular vote too by around 2.5%
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I agree that, because De Santis is more "normal" it would be more palatable. Hence a lower turnout election. He'd pursue policies Democrats would hate, of course, but he's not really a threat to American democracy and rule of law.
On Trump being in Biden's head, no doubt he thinks of himself as the anti-Trumo. But that's a hell of a lot easier to deal with when you've beaten him. Biden just needs to say "remember when I handed your ass back to you in 2020, Don? Good times" and Trump spirals into plate throwing insanity. So that's the campaign strategy.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I think RDS would wipe the floor with the Dems: there is a huge market for Trump-ism, only not delivered by Trump.
Trump is also significant weaker than in 2020, with ongoing legal peril.
Possibly but I think RDS might be the worst of both worlds at this stage - he doesn't reach the parts Trump reaches but, conversely, puts off enough Democrats and / or boosts their enthusiasm.
I think the Florida electorate rather refuted that.
Florida is not necessary representative of US elections - as we all remember from the 2020 Presidential election night
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I agree that, because De Santis is more "normal" it would be more palatable. Hence a lower turnout election. He'd pursue policies Democrats would hate, of course, but he's not really a threat to American democracy and rule of law.
On Trump being in Biden's head, no doubt he thinks of himself as the anti-Trumo. But that's a hell of a lot easier to deal with when you've beaten him. Biden just needs to say "remember when I handed your ass back to you in 2020, Don? Good times" and Trump spirals into plate throwing insanity. So that's the campaign strategy.
In Donald's head, he's already "dealt" with that by saying the media got Biden over the line by hiding the Hunter Biden laptop story. I think for Biden, conversely, I think he's also aware that, despite his political pedigree and record, he nearly lost to Trump (based on how few votes would have had to switch in swing states for a different outcome). I'm not so sure Biden would be so confident in his head - I wouldn't but I'm not him.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I agree that, because De Santis is more "normal" it would be more palatable. Hence a lower turnout election. He'd pursue policies Democrats would hate, of course, but he's not really a threat to American democracy and rule of law.
On Trump being in Biden's head, no doubt he thinks of himself as the anti-Trumo. But that's a hell of a lot easier to deal with when you've beaten him. Biden just needs to say "remember when I handed your ass back to you in 2020, Don? Good times" and Trump spirals into plate throwing insanity. So that's the campaign strategy.
In Donald's head, he's already "dealt" with that by saying the media got Biden over the line by hiding the Hunter Biden penis story. I think for Biden, conversely, I think he's also aware that, despite his political pedigree and record, he nearly lost to Trump (based on how few votes would have had to switch in swing states for a different outcome). I'm not so sure Biden would be so confident in his head - I wouldn't but I'm not him.
Europe has four clear zones: A Latin zone, favouring Switzerland A Central and Balkan zone, favouring Germany. A Scandinavian zone, favouring Sweden. An Atlantic zone, favouring Anglo countries.
This maps vaguely onto economic models and maybe even defence constructs.
In Britain’s case it’s where Brits have actually gone - more in Australia than the entire EU.
Source? I heard approximately 1 million British born living in Australia and 1.2 million in EU-27, can't get source atm
Also, seasonal v year-round, born there and inherited British passport v emigrated. There are - I'm sure - many different ways to run the numbers to get the desired answer.
It's not a great map for the FBPE crowd though. Every European country if you exclude Turkey would choose another European country except the British who prefer somewhere half way around the world. It does suggest there is something to the argument that if the British have to choose between Europe and the open sea the open sea wins every time.
I say all European countries, Ireland is different too. But different from us as well in preferring the States. I don't quite understand which country the Netherlands is choosing.
It would be nice if some lickspittle in the Kremlin could show the map to the President. I'm sure he'd like it.
When Churchill said about 'choosing the open sea', I think he was harking back to 'the patriots' - the aristocratic subversive movement in the 18th century who wanted Britain to become a Naval power, and abandon continental conflicts like the war of the Spanish succession. The song urging 'Britannia' to 'rule the waves' was a subversive song, as the Hanover monarchs were up to their necks in those wars. When the patriots put their plan into action, it worked, and you had the 'annus mirabilis'. It is the undoubted truth that Britain always prospers when we look to naval power (guarding trade routes etc.), and away from being a partipant in the wars of the continent. However, it could be argued that Churchill failed to take his own advice, though probably for the good of mankind. It is a lesson we keep having to learn. It is similar to the Oracle at Delphi advising the Athenians to 'trust in the wooden walls'.
I am disappointed not to have been adopted as the Conservative candidate for the new Weald of Kent seat. I am now thinking about what to do next and how I can best continue to work for the people of Ashford and support the Government.
Remember how we all worried that Momentum would deselect moderate Labour MPs for the crime of insufficient loyalty to the Great Leader? Maybe we were looking at the wrong party.
If this turns into a pattern, the Conservative trudge back to electability gets that bit harder.
Yes, the handsy office porn viewer was such an electoral asset.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I think RDS would wipe the floor with the Dems: there is a huge market for Trump-ism, only not delivered by Trump.
Trump is also significant weaker than in 2020, with ongoing legal peril.
Possibly but I think RDS might be the worst of both worlds at this stage - he doesn't reach the parts Trump reaches but, conversely, puts off enough Democrats and / or boosts their enthusiasm.
I think the Florida electorate rather refuted that.
Florida is not necessary representative of US elections - as we all remember from the 2020 Presidential election night
Bush 41 held Florida in 1992 despite losing to Bill Clinton too.
Pennsylvania is now probably more the key swing state then Florida
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I think RDS would wipe the floor with the Dems: there is a huge market for Trump-ism, only not delivered by Trump.
Trump is also significant weaker than in 2020, with ongoing legal peril.
O/T, Harvard-Harris poll showing Trump with double the support of RDS (46/23) as well as +5 v Biden. Trump also has more solidity of support vs rivals than Biden does when it comes to the Democrat nomination.
Alternatively, there's a quinnipac poll from three days ago showing a very different picture
Biden 48% Trump 46% there but De Santis 47% Biden 46%
Someone on here I think (sorry, I forget who) said De Santis beats Biden, Biden beats Trump, Trump beats Generic Democrat, and Generic Democrat beats De Santis.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Largely but I think DeSantis beats Generic Democrat too unless Trump went Independent, certainly he easily beats Harris like Trump. Biden may be the Democrats best hope in 2024 as in 2020
A De Santis election would be a lower turnout election. He is, in many senses, a Generic Republican.
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
For all their talk, I think the Democrats would prefer to face RDS than Trump. He's more of a "known" and won't get the base out like Trump. I also think a loss to RDS would be more palatable for Democrats.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
I agree that, because De Santis is more "normal" it would be more palatable. Hence a lower turnout election. He'd pursue policies Democrats would hate, of course, but he's not really a threat to American democracy and rule of law.
On Trump being in Biden's head, no doubt he thinks of himself as the anti-Trumo. But that's a hell of a lot easier to deal with when you've beaten him. Biden just needs to say "remember when I handed your ass back to you in 2020, Don? Good times" and Trump spirals into plate throwing insanity. So that's the campaign strategy.
In Donald's head, he's already "dealt" with that by saying the media got Biden over the line by hiding the Hunter Biden laptop story. I think for Biden, conversely, I think he's also aware that, despite his political pedigree and record, he nearly lost to Trump (based on how few votes would have had to switch in swing states for a different outcome). I'm not so sure Biden would be so confident in his head - I wouldn't but I'm not him.
I think that's Trump's LINE on the matter.
But what goes on in people's heads is totally different. All the anecdotal evidence from around Trump is that he cannot believe he lost to that (literally to an extent) and it's all mentally crippling. Biden, meanwhile, is a pretty happy family man who won - doesn't mean he doesn't have thoughts, but it's just not the festering, pustular sore it is with The Donald, and poking it isn't as effective.
Twitter has noticed that Nixon-era conservative America is starting to look cool
I think in 1972 most of the cool but also rich people told their liberal friends they voted for McGovern but in the privacy of the ballot box voted to re elect Nixon
Having enjoyed the company of Stephen Fry on more than one occasion, he is the last person I would expect to make an Islamophobic joke.
Stephen Fry is the subject of a formal complaint after being accused of making misogynistic and racist jokes at a cricketing dinner at Lord’s.
Speaking in his capacity as president of Marylebone Cricket Club, the actor and comedian allegedly joked about women “shagging” and linked Muslims and terrorists.
One of those present has called for disciplinary action to be taken against him by MCC, calling the comments, for which Fry subsequently refused to apologise, “egregious”.
However, MCC and some other diners have disputed the claims, saying that the apparently misogynistic joke had been misheard and that the one about Muslims was never made.
The complaint was made by Chris Waterman, a member of MCC, who claims that Fry stood up to welcome members to the dinner, saying: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. I suppose they are off shagging’.”
Later, according to Waterman, Fry referred to the Allahakbarries, an amateur cricket team founded by the Peter Pan author JM Barrie. He went on to joke that “the term ‘Allahu akbar’, when used today, was usually followed by a loud bang”.
Fry’s representatives were approached for comment. Guy Lavender, chief executive and secretary of MCC, said that this account “is factually incorrect”.
“The dinner in question was enjoyed by those that attended and we have not received any other complaint from attendees in this regard,” he said
Other diners told The Times that what Fry actually said was: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. Now we can talk about shagging,” and his point was to mock the underrepresentation of women in the club. They said they had not heard the Muslim joke...
...Waterman has also been a divisive figure. A Liberal Democrat adviser, he has previously run for MCC committee positions but failed to get them — blaming a “chumocracy”. He describes himself as a “contrarian” and “iconoclast”, and describes MCC as “male, pale and stale”.
I want there to be an opposition. A decent one, at that. But the Tories do need to do a Starmer-esque lancing of the boil. No doubt they’ll say there weren’t “hard line” enough in electoral defeat
The Tories are heading for a long spell in opposition. They seem intent on getting rid of any of the good talent.
Labour 30 point lead by July. Nailed on
Even longer if the ERG push on. They seem utterly disconnected from reality
Completely deluded. Much as I would like to see them trashed, a country does need an effective opposition
Funnily enough yesterday I was thinking we might be at peak Starmer and the Tories would start clawing things back. Sunak was going to do a sensible deal with the EU on the NIP which would reassure the blue wall. Inflation is inevitably coming down. The economy might start bubbling along reasonably. And people would be getting sick and tired of woke bowdlerisation along the lines of the Dahl changes while Labour figures continue to struggle with trans questions.
24 hours later and Boris and the ERG are plotting to nobble Sunak over the NIP making the party look as mad as ever, and the universal hilarity at the Dahl nonsense shows culture wars just don’t fire up the left in Britain in the way they do in the US. I still think inflation falling will take the edge off the poll leads but not by enough. And China looking like providing lethal aid to Russia implies many more years of expensive fuel.
Having enjoyed the company of Stephen Fry on more than one occasion, he is the last person I would expect to make an Islamophobic joke.
Stephen Fry is the subject of a formal complaint after being accused of making misogynistic and racist jokes at a cricketing dinner at Lord’s.
Speaking in his capacity as president of Marylebone Cricket Club, the actor and comedian allegedly joked about women “shagging” and linked Muslims and terrorists.
One of those present has called for disciplinary action to be taken against him by MCC, calling the comments, for which Fry subsequently refused to apologise, “egregious”.
However, MCC and some other diners have disputed the claims, saying that the apparently misogynistic joke had been misheard and that the one about Muslims was never made.
The complaint was made by Chris Waterman, a member of MCC, who claims that Fry stood up to welcome members to the dinner, saying: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. I suppose they are off shagging’.”
Later, according to Waterman, Fry referred to the Allahakbarries, an amateur cricket team founded by the Peter Pan author JM Barrie. He went on to joke that “the term ‘Allahu akbar’, when used today, was usually followed by a loud bang”.
Fry’s representatives were approached for comment. Guy Lavender, chief executive and secretary of MCC, said that this account “is factually incorrect”.
“The dinner in question was enjoyed by those that attended and we have not received any other complaint from attendees in this regard,” he said
Other diners told The Times that what Fry actually said was: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. Now we can talk about shagging,” and his point was to mock the underrepresentation of women in the club. They said they had not heard the Muslim joke...
...Waterman has also been a divisive figure. A Liberal Democrat adviser, he has previously run for MCC committee positions but failed to get them — blaming a “chumocracy”. He describes himself as a “contrarian” and “iconoclast”, and describes MCC as “male, pale and stale”.
Well, he did make the same joke on HIGNFY once that Boris later made about muslim women and letter boxes and which people have been bringing up ever since (albeit he did in character as Prince Charles).
The most foreseeable crisis in existence - Boris and the DUP being obstructive.
Duddridge might as well be more honest though. He's not saying 'For all his faults' etc etc, he is saying 'the faults do not matter to me and I wish they did not matter to anyone else'.
I want there to be an opposition. A decent one, at that. But the Tories do need to do a Starmer-esque lancing of the boil. No doubt they’ll say there weren’t “hard line” enough in electoral defeat
So did Labour when they elected Ed Miliband over David Miliband and Corbyn over Burnham and Cooper.
So dd the Conservatives when they elected William Hague over Ken Clarke and IDS over Clarke and Portillo.
So did Labour when they elected Michael Foot over Dennis Healey.
Parties which lose office almost always move further to the extreme initially
Would cry* if Sunak made the NI deal a confidence matter and expelled all who didn't vote for it. Karma.
* With laughter and joy of course.
I think they ought to be expelled. These people are the scorpion in the fable of the scorpion and the frog. They enjoy causing harm to this country just because it’s in their nature to do so.
Would cry* if Sunak made the NI deal a confidence matter and expelled all who didn't vote for it. Karma.
* With laughter and joy of course.
He won't, he certainly doesn't want 100 Tory MPs going to a new Boris party under FPTP and split his vote.
He will just abandon the NI deal if he can't get it passed by most of his MPs and the DUP and leave Starmer to deal with it as the likely next PM
So nice to know that because Boris wants his old job back and will refuse any deal as a result, that you think Sunak should abandon a deal he presumably thinks is in the best interests of the country, and leave us in limbo for another 12-16 months. Very responsible governance.
The Tories are heading for a long spell in opposition. They seem intent on getting rid of any of the good talent.
Labour 30 point lead by July. Nailed on
Even longer if the ERG push on. They seem utterly disconnected from reality
Completely deluded. Much as I would like to see them trashed, a country does need an effective opposition
Funnily enough yesterday I was thinking we might be at peak Starmer and the Tories would start clawing things back. Sunak was going to do a sensible deal with the EU on the NIP which would reassure the blue wall. Inflation is inevitably coming down. The economy might start bubbling along reasonably. And people would be getting sick and tired of woke bowdlerisation along the lines of the Dahl changes while Labour figures continue to struggle with trans questions.
24 hours later and Boris and the ERG are plotting to nobble Sunak over the NIP making the party look as mad as ever, and the universal hilarity at the Dahl nonsense shows culture wars just don’t fire up the left in Britain in the way they do in the US. I still think inflation falling will take the edge off the poll leads but not by enough. And China looking like providing lethal aid to Russia implies many more years of expensive fuel.
I'm sure Boris would be willing to support a deal. If Sunak protects him from personal consequences over his previous actions.
Would cry* if Sunak made the NI deal a confidence matter and expelled all who didn't vote for it. Karma.
* With laughter and joy of course.
He won't, he certainly doesn't want 100 Tory MPs going to a new Boris party under FPTP and split his vote.
He will just abandon the NI deal if he can't get it passed by most of his MPs and the DUP and leave Starmer to deal with it as the likely next PM
So nice to know that because Boris wants his old job back and will refuse any deal as a result, that you think Sunak should abandon a deal he presumably thinks is in the best interests of the country, and leave us in limbo for another 12-16 months. Very responsible governance.
Just realistic if the Deal will end up as May Deal 2, given Starmer would likely reject it anyway too as not closely aligned enough to the EU
The most foreseeable crisis in existence - Boris and the DUP being obstructive.
Duddridge might as well be more honest though. He's not saying 'For all his faults' etc etc, he is saying 'the faults do not matter to me and I wish they did not matter to anyone else'.
Dudders ought to say “ I do this because I’m an over-promoted twat who enjoys causing harm to my constituents. “. That would be honest.
If Boris, whose behaviour has been instrumental in seeing off 3 of the last 4 Tory PMs already (and he hardly got a chance with Truss), pitches for a fourth decapitation and a return, I guess there goes Sunak's option for Boris to exit in quiet honour to the speech circuit that those HMG lawyers' fees are paying to achieve.
Sunak then has to change track and go for the total obliteration of Johnson, if the material we suspect is there is there, so that even an army of 100s rallied to the Brexit cause can be in no doubt Boris is politically entombed in more concrete than Chernobyl's reactor core.
Would cry* if Sunak made the NI deal a confidence matter and expelled all who didn't vote for it. Karma.
* With laughter and joy of course.
He won't, he certainly doesn't want 100 Tory MPs going to a new Boris party under FPTP and split his vote.
He will just abandon the NI deal if he can't get it passed by most of his MPs and the DUP and leave Starmer to deal with it as the likely next PM
So nice to know that because Boris wants his old job back and will refuse any deal as a result, that you think Sunak should abandon a deal he presumably thinks is in the best interests of the country, and leave us in limbo for another 12-16 months. Very responsible governance.
Absolute gift to Starmer. Yet again a lucky general. He can stand back and tell the Tories to grow up.
None of the strikes are resolved yet either, as far as I can tell. A government committed to doing absolutely nothing about anything.
Comments
That would be the biggest win for the GOP in the popular vote since Reagan's re election in 1984.
Biden certainly should run again if his VP is the alternative on the Democrats side
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3863637-trump-beats-biden-harris-in-2024-matchups-poll/
Remember how we all worried that Momentum would deselect moderate Labour MPs for the crime of insufficient loyalty to the Great Leader? Maybe we were looking at the wrong party.
If this turns into a pattern, the Conservative trudge back to electability gets that bit harder.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-business-hope-end-tory-brexit-rishi-sunak-northern-ireland-protocol-dispute/?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=9faaa9af48-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2023_02_17_06_45&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-9faaa9af48-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]
Only if they have a death wish would Democrats replace Biden with VP Harris in 2024 therefore
Still Morocco for me. Certainly not Switzerland.
If that is the case, then let me ask you this... if Labour had worked more constructively with the Tories during the Brexit referendum, would that have been justifiable if had it kept us in the EU?
It's not as though the Democratic candidates have been especially impressive. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both had the gift of the gab, but not much else. Gore was, in the words of Rich Hood, a slimeball up against a spud. Kerry was a man who voted for that $14 billion before he voted against it. Hilary Clinton was, well, Hilary Clinton. And Biden was Not Donald Trump.
But somehow the Republicans have got themselves into an uncomfortable position where their voting coalition is just big enough to keep them in contention but just too small to win the presidency unless all the stars align.
I'd guess it may play a big part for younger voters but Better Together was just the excrement icing on a cake I no longer liked, reinforcing my near certainty that there was nothing left in the UK for me.
I don't think it's as inevitable as that, but there is a pretty big grain of truth in it.
Still, time to register the website Trump2030.com.
Elections contested on single issues has happened before, as for example in 1910 with the constitutional standoff between the Commons and the Lords over the People's Budget and the Parliament Act.
I think that politicians will find that, if they treat their election as a 100% mandate for everything they promised during the campaign, and don't listen to the public between elections, that they won't win many subsequent elections.
This year, the Republicans polled above 50% on a high turnout, but chose some batshit candidates in marginal seats, so they fell short.
The Republicans did beat Gore and Kerry and Hillary however.
Had the popular vote decided the Presidency then they may have picked McCain in 2000 or Kasich in 2016 who would have had more appeal on the coasts. However as the EC and Midwest and rustbelt swing states determine the Presidency they didn't need to and could win with W Bush and Trump.
Even Trump could still beat Biden in 2024 despite Biden defeating him in 2020 on some polls
I’ve read a fair amount of Kipling, but Dame Marghanita was hardly spot on when she suggested it’s compulsory.
See the many Americans who still prostrate themselves before the orange one.
Deal with recycling manufacturer is largest in club’s history
Name is ‘a bit tongue-in-cheek, a bit schoolboy humour’
The managing director of Bolton’s new stadium sponsors says he hopes its dash of “schoolboy humour” will tie television pundits in knots when its name-change comes into effect this summer.
The naming rights deal with a Bolton-based recyclable building product manufacturer ensures the League One promotion hopefuls will be playing at the Toughsheet Community Stadium for the next five years.
“We’re happy to have a bit of fun with it,” Doug Mercer told the Bolton News. “Obviously the brand name is a bit tongue-in-cheek, a bit schoolboy humour.
“But I can’t wait to see them try and make each other say it on Sky Sports, it’ll be a great laugh!”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/feb/19/dont-like-it-its-toughsheet-bolton-announce-new-stadium-sponsor
That's not really a criticism - generic doesn't mean bad, it just means if you had to draw a Republican candidate, he'd look a lot like him - solid conservative credentials, record as Governor if a big state, nice tan etc.
That looks okay against an elderly sitting President who isn't very popular. Against a similar Democrat, it's not so good as probably Democrats JUST have the edge, and De Santis isn't going to win over a lot of Democrats. But Biden is a problem for Trump and lives rent free in his head.
Firstly, the Democrats have the benefit of the Black vote which is low to mid teens of the American population. Also its turnout level in high even (and actually especially) in low income urban areas, reaching 100% in some wards - remarkable given the propensity of low income voters in non-competitive areas not to bother to vote
The fallacy is that the US Presidential election system encourages spending on swing states
and starving the safe seats of time / funding. It's FPTP on steroids.So for a GOP candidate to spend more time in California may raise the national share
of the vote by let's say c 0.5% (assuming a relatively successful effect) but it makes no sense from an electoral standpoint.
If the US switched to a popular vote system, my guess is the GOP would see a boost in its share just by that alone.
What has happened is that the Republican base has severely narrowed itself and become hollowed out. And it hasn't finished yet. Even in states we think of as Republican territory - Georgia, Arizona, Colorado all spring to mind - they are starting to struggle.
They need to broaden their appeal if they are to start to be frequent contenders for power. But they're doing, as you sort of note, the polar opposite.
It’s interesting that the UK and Irish answers are a bit more whimsical than the others. The question was “if you had to leave your country” and most people have thought about a suitable place of safety, but we’ve thought “where would be nice to move to”.
Indeed West Virginia voted for Carter and Humphrey too but the GOP have won it at every presidential election since 2000
If people in an indy Scotland wanted a referendum on Brexit or returning to the UK or Shetland leaving, fine, I'd want a Scottish government to recognise that, if there were identifiable parties, voters and groups backing them rather than individuals whining on the internet.
The 70s were great.
Also while Biden is in Trump's head, Trump is also certainly in Biden's.
Despite that, as much of the USA has shifted in their direction (Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) ,) as has shifted against them, since Clinton was President
That isn't good enough for them. They need to be at least in contention in far more states, and they simply aren't.
First, electoral patterns evolve - as we see here - and they work two ways. So just in the same way AZ and GA move more D leaning, twenty years ago it would have inconceivable that the likes of Michigan and Wisconsin are not part of a safe Blue Wall.
Second, you could argue that the GOP is actually making inroads into where it needs to go - its biggest gains relatively are in the Hispanic and Asian votes, which are the fastest growing demographics. Where it is losing share is White professional graduates. And, if you look at US higher education enrolment trends over the past ten years, they have started to go into decline - which has interesting long term implications for the Democrat vote.
Wealthy, upper middle class, suburban and expensive areas of cities with lots of graduates have become less conservative and more left liberal but poorer, white working class, rural and ex industrial areas with fewer graduates and more older people have become more conservative
Stephen Fry is the subject of a formal complaint after being accused of making misogynistic and racist jokes at a cricketing dinner at Lord’s.
Speaking in his capacity as president of Marylebone Cricket Club, the actor and comedian allegedly joked about women “shagging” and linked Muslims and terrorists.
One of those present has called for disciplinary action to be taken against him by MCC, calling the comments, for which Fry subsequently refused to apologise, “egregious”.
However, MCC and some other diners have disputed the claims, saying that the apparently misogynistic joke had been misheard and that the one about Muslims was never made.
The complaint was made by Chris Waterman, a member of MCC, who claims that Fry stood up to welcome members to the dinner, saying: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. I suppose they are off shagging’.”
Later, according to Waterman, Fry referred to the Allahakbarries, an amateur cricket team founded by the Peter Pan author JM Barrie. He went on to joke that “the term ‘Allahu akbar’, when used today, was usually followed by a loud bang”.
Fry’s representatives were approached for comment. Guy Lavender, chief executive and secretary of MCC, said that this account “is factually incorrect”.
“The dinner in question was enjoyed by those that attended and we have not received any other complaint from attendees in this regard,” he said
Other diners told The Times that what Fry actually said was: “I had intended to say ‘Good evening, ladies and gentlemen’ but there are no lady members present. Now we can talk about shagging,” and his point was to mock the underrepresentation of women in the club. They said they had not heard the Muslim joke...
...Waterman has also been a divisive figure. A Liberal Democrat adviser, he has previously run for MCC committee positions but failed to get them — blaming a “chumocracy”. He describes himself as a “contrarian” and “iconoclast”, and describes MCC as “male, pale and stale”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stephen-fry-accused-of-making-inappropriate-jokes-at-cricket-dinner-l0s5k8z0x
None of that is commenting on quality - just that if they turned up in a film as a Democrat candidate, that'd be standard and unremarkable. Ditto De Santis as a Republican candidate.
Trump is also significant weaker than in 2020, with ongoing legal peril.
This means fans of compulsory voting have to tell us what happens if on an election for a constituency we get non of the above = 40%, party A = 29% and party b 27%. My suspicion is they will say party A gets it rather than their is a byelection.
They also need to tell us what happens if none of the above wins in 300 constituences....do we really form a government on a majority of the 365 left?
Biden won in 2020 as he could appeal beyond coastal liberals to blue collar voters in the rustbelt, neither Harris nor Newsom can, neither could Hillary in 2016 either. Bill Clinton like Biden had the same rustbelt appeal.
Obama didn't so much but could mobilise huge black turnout to make up for it
On Trump being in Biden's head, no doubt he thinks of himself as the anti-Trumo. But that's a hell of a lot easier to deal with when you've beaten him. Biden just needs to say "remember when I handed your ass back to you in 2020, Don? Good times" and Trump spirals into plate throwing insanity. So that's the campaign strategy.
Pennsylvania is now probably more the key swing state then Florida
But what goes on in people's heads is totally different. All the anecdotal evidence from around Trump is that he cannot believe he lost to that (literally to an extent) and it's all mentally crippling. Biden, meanwhile, is a pretty happy family man who won - doesn't mean he doesn't have thoughts, but it's just not the festering, pustular sore it is with The Donald, and poking it isn't as effective.
Where are you all at?
Labour 30 point lead by July. Nailed on
Plus nothing much happening tonight.
Best get back to work...
FFS he committed crimes in office!
🚨Boris Johnson allies and Brexit Spartans united behind ex-PM tonight
James Duddridge tells me: “For all his faults, I think people are looking at Boris now and thinking: ‘What the f*** did we do?’”
https://twitter.com/DominicPenna/status/1627413844103397380
LATEST with @charleshymas: Rishi Sunak has been forced to ‘pause’ his Protocol deal amid a backlash from senior Tories and the DUP
https://twitter.com/DominicPenna/status/1627426598587695105?
I want there to be an opposition. A decent one, at that. But the Tories do need to do a Starmer-esque lancing of the boil. No doubt they’ll say there weren’t “hard line” enough in electoral defeat
Karma.
* With laughter and joy of course.
24 hours later and Boris and the ERG are plotting to nobble Sunak over the NIP making the party look as mad as ever, and the universal hilarity at the Dahl nonsense shows culture wars just don’t fire up the left in Britain in the way they do in the US. I still think inflation falling will take the edge off the poll leads but not by enough. And China looking like providing lethal aid to Russia implies many more years of expensive fuel.
He will just abandon the NI deal if he can't get it passed by most of his MPs and the DUP and leave Starmer to deal with it as the likely next PM
Duddridge might as well be more honest though. He's not saying 'For all his faults' etc etc, he is saying 'the faults do not matter to me and I wish they did not matter to anyone else'.
So dd the Conservatives when they elected William Hague over Ken Clarke and IDS over Clarke and Portillo.
So did Labour when they elected Michael Foot over Dennis Healey.
Parties which lose office almost always move further to the extreme initially
Sunak then has to change track and go for the total obliteration of Johnson, if the material we suspect is there is there, so that even an army of 100s rallied to the Brexit cause can be in no doubt Boris is politically entombed in more concrete than Chernobyl's reactor core.
There's only one way to sort this. Fight!
None of the strikes are resolved yet either, as far as I can tell. A government committed to doing absolutely nothing about anything.
It worked for BoJo.