NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.
The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.
The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.
“Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .
Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.
In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .
The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.
The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.
With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .
SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.
Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Charisma free politicians like Sir Keir usually become PM by means of a handover (Brown, May, Sunak) rather than having to charm the public (Cameron, Boris). It’s not as if he has any firm policies he’s selling either, just complains about the other lot constantly. I am certain he will struggle during the campaign during interviews and debates. I’ve said that a lot, will be interesting to see if I was right or wrong
How big an outright majority do you think he'll struggle to? Above or below 3 digits?
It looks like he has been gifted a majority by the Tories benching their best player then scoring a couple of own goals, but I’d say below 100, because when the usually uninterested public see lots of him in the campaign they’ll think “I can’t vote for this berk”
Let’s see. The last time the favourite to win the GE was such a wet blanket was 2017, and Theresa May was much shorter in the betting to win a majority, so anything’s possible
We have seen some shocks in recent years, haven't we. But here I really would be - shocked. I think the Lab majority will be 3 digits.
Just thinking, now you're well and truly back on PB we can do a bet if you like to supplement our current one.
We 'cash out' the £300/£100 'Starmer PM post GE' bet at say £250 to me. I think that's slightly in your favour at current prices.
But we don't settle. Instead we do a 'double or quits' on Labour outright majority at the GE.
If it's 100 or above I win £500 If it's below 100 we are Flat
How does that sound?
Sounds like you’ve forgotten that bet is either void or you’ve got it with @rcs1000
Come off it. Why would it be void? It's between me and you.
RCS hasn't agreed to take it. If he does, fine by me, but he hasn't.
You agreed it was either void or you had it with Robert
RCS never replied to that 'netting' proposition of yours. It was left unresolved. If he is happy to take it then fine, but he hasn't said so. So I'm assuming he isn't.
£100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. That's our bet.
No it isn’t. I suggested voiding it or Robert paying you. There was no option to keep it, and you replied
“ Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.”
Of course there's an option to keep it. That's the best option. It's the bet we've done! Me and you.
Let's see what @rcs1000 says. If there's some sort of netting that leaves me having the bet with him, fair enough. But otherwise the bet should stand as is.
Largest Conservative majority is 16% (37% Vs 21% Lab) in Christchurch.
Looking at that spreadsheet you can see the path between the 120 majority forecast and 180 as Blair got in 1997. Too many seats with the Tories just about clinging on as Lab/LD split the vote. In reality so many of those will go to the closest challenger...
Indeed. Do a Full Telegraph on those figures (Lib + Lab plays Con), the blue team ends up with 16 seats.
(Beaconsfield, Boston & Skegness, Brentwood & Ongar, Castle Point, Clacton, Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Louth & Horncastle, Maldon, NE Cambs, Richmond & Northallerton, South Holland & The Deepings, Weald of Kent, Wetherby & Easingwold, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Angus and Perthshire Glens)
Do a fairer Telegraph (Lib + Lab plays Con + RefUK), they get 140 or so.
The Tories seem to be obsessed with 1) immigration and small boats 2) tax cuts and 3) rolling back on net zero
I’ve not seen anything that remotely suggests they get what’s going on in the country at the moment. Stopping the boats won’t impact the person desperately struggling with the cost of living crisis. Tax cuts won’t help with the utterly poor state of public services at the moment. And I’ve seen nothing to suggest that environmental policies aren’t popular with the electorate.
So what are they talking about? Idiots like Frost harping on about what needs to be done should be a massive alarm bell for the party
Immigration is an issue, to be fair. I'm not sure rolling back Net Zero is especially popular.
People do want cost of living addressed and best way is through low interest rates, inflation and higher growth.
Don’t call it “rolling back Net Zero”, call it “Rolling back the escalator on your electricity bills that have been running miles above inflation for more than a decade”.
“The costs of Net Zero ambitions, especially on the working classes” is almost certainly going to be a key issue at the election. Expect Labour to do something for those on benefits, but nothing to those just above, making that latter group even poorer as a result.
Here's the thing: it saves you money.
I challenge the propaganda (on vegan stuff and heat pumps) but solar panels basically give you free power and you're in profit after you've repaid the capital cost in 8-10 years.
Also, free fuel for your electric car too.
We are wired to talk about doom and sacrifice with Net Zero. And people can't seem to help themselves, probably because that's what is valued in our pseudo-Christian culture.
It's such BS. We'd move much faster if we leveraged hope and self-interest.
I don't think it's the pseudo-Christian culture as much as those with interests in oil and gas spending a lot of money to make people think a net zero world will be doom and gloom when, after the initial investment costs for renewables are put in, the upkeep and running costs for sustainable energy is much cheaper than oil and gas. It doesn't help that, under current law, the energy price is link to the dirtiest production method (so each unit is charged based on the cost of coal) so that renewable energy sees more profit (which was supposed to incentivise companies to go renewable to make more money). What it has done instead is force providers who could undercut the competition and therefore get more customers to charge the same and therefore not give consumers any incentive to go to those energy providers that do more heavily rely on renewable sources.
ie we the consumers.
No - fossil fuel companies that have known about the negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere for around 100 years. More CO2 has been emitted since 2008 combined than before 2008 - it is the capitalist mode of production and consumption that is leading to the crisis we are in; it isn't some inevitable externality of progress to have to deal with the negative consequences of CO2. We're already seeing record breaking temperatures and the extreme weather that comes with that - as well as the negative impacts on a whole host of issues that are key to continued societal reproduction. The war in Ukraine hit wheat prices, yes, but so did the droughts in China's and Canada's main wheat producing areas alongside massive flooding in the US's main wheat producing areas - which is also hitting people in the pocket when food prices increase. We cannot argue that we don't have the money to go to Net Zero and even beyond - we don't have the money not to.
The big oil companies and the people they bought - politicians, lobbyists, alternative 'experts' - lied for decades about the climate impact in order to keep the profits flowing.
Was your flight back from Tenerife powered by sugar and spice and all things nice?
I doubt it. Looked like a normal plane to me.
Any other irrelevant questions?
Those beastly oil companies "Big Oil" made you fuck off to Tenerife on your holibobs. Bastards.
My 1st flight for 12 years as it happens. Although even if I were a frequent flier it wouldn't mean that the oil companies didn't systematically lie for decades about the climate impact of their product.
The search for relevance in your comments on this goes on.
Oh. Sozza. So the oil companies told you that there was no climate impact of their product and up until this morning you believed them. And you're a smoker IIRC. I have some bad news for you on that front.
The relevance of my comment is that you spout off bollocks about Big Oil Made Us Do It but you ignore it. Last week you flew to Tenerife and this is post-exposure of the deadly climate impacts of Big Oil.
You hypocritical fucker.
I merely pointed out that the oil companies lied for decades about the climate impact of their product. Surprised such a bland recital of historical fact should get you in such a tizz. Maybe you need a holiday. If so I can definitely recommend Tenerife. Lovely it was.
Can I cycle there?
Should be possible.
Not especially cheap, and likely to take a while, but should be an epic road trip.
Might be best to avoid Yemeni waters for commercial vessels for now tbh.
That means avoiding the Suez Canal. Just not possible.
Every Western navy is on the way there, to make sure the ships have safe passage. That’s why you have a navy in the first place.
And the Hamas-supporters screech about our attacks against Yemen...
(I'm not arguing that our attacks are effective; they may or may not be. Just that the Houthi's actions need to be quashed.)
Countries have a duty to stop genocides - if Yemen believe (like many other nations do) that Israel's actions are tantamount to genocide, they have duty to attempt to blockade Israel and prevent armaments getting in. Blockades seem to be good when the West does it, but not when anyone else does... Of course, the next move would be for a coalition of nations in southern Africa to start monitoring the Cape of Good Hope in a similar way, slowing down shipping even further. I'm sure we'd quickly see the US and UK bombing South Africa. Because this has nothing to do with a "rules based international order" and everything to do with making money and Western interests.
What the Houthis are doing is f-all to do with Israel - it's to do with Iran and Russia's war with the west.
I'm amazed at how easily people on the left back those whose views are utterly counter to leftist, or even socialist, values.
The Houthis are, indeed, mostly bad. Mostly bad actors can sometimes do good things for good reasons; just as mostly good actors can sometimes do bad things for bad reasons. Maybe the Houthis are doing a good thing for a bad reason - I can't read the mind of a collection of people half the world away, only read the public statements they make.
If you're saying firing missiles at civilian ships is a 'good thing' then you've disappeared down a moral black hole.
Israel is bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians and people are saying just that. Indeed, the UK and the US have started bombing Yemen, I'm sure there will be civilians killed in those strikes. How many civilians do we kill with our blockades, our sanctions? No one cares that civilians are dying - they care that Western interests are being threatened, that the free flow of goods is being slowed. The evidence put forward by South Africa the other day has seriously doomer pilled me - the reaction (and, indeed, lack of it) from Western media and powers is telling. At the end of the day, to the West, the non-West is where it's fine if people die violent deaths at the hands of whoever. It's only when a country in the club is threatened that anyone cares. And I no longer care about keeping up the pretence that that is fine to believe. If it doesn't matter that tens of thousands of Palestinian children are being slaughtered, why should I care if some civilian ships are fired on? It's a moral mole hill next to a mountain of corpses.
There was a ceasefire on October 6th, before Hamas decided to go full pogrom, raping women, beheading children, and burning old people alive in their homes. All for being Jewish.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Charisma free politicians like Sir Keir usually become PM by means of a handover (Brown, May, Sunak) rather than having to charm the public (Cameron, Boris). It’s not as if he has any firm policies he’s selling either, just complains about the other lot constantly. I am certain he will struggle during the campaign during interviews and debates. I’ve said that a lot, will be interesting to see if I was right or wrong
How big an outright majority do you think he'll struggle to? Above or below 3 digits?
It looks like he has been gifted a majority by the Tories benching their best player then scoring a couple of own goals, but I’d say below 100, because when the usually uninterested public see lots of him in the campaign they’ll think “I can’t vote for this berk”
Let’s see. The last time the favourite to win the GE was such a wet blanket was 2017, and Theresa May was much shorter in the betting to win a majority, so anything’s possible
We have seen some shocks in recent years, haven't we. But here I really would be - shocked. I think the Lab majority will be 3 digits.
Just thinking, now you're well and truly back on PB we can do a bet if you like to supplement our current one.
We 'cash out' the £300/£100 'Starmer PM post GE' bet at say £250 to me. I think that's slightly in your favour at current prices.
But we don't settle. Instead we do a 'double or quits' on Labour outright majority at the GE.
If it's 100 or above I win £500 If it's below 100 we are Flat
How does that sound?
Sounds like you’ve forgotten that bet is either void or you’ve got it with @rcs1000
Come off it. Why would it be void? It's between me and you.
RCS hasn't agreed to take it. If he does, fine by me, but he hasn't.
You agreed it was either void or you had it with Robert
RCS never replied to that 'netting' proposition of yours. It was left unresolved. If he is happy to take it then fine, but he hasn't said so. So I'm assuming he isn't.
£100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. That's our bet.
No it isn’t. I suggested voiding it or Robert paying you. There was no option to keep it, and you replied
“ Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.”
Of course there's an option to keep it. That's the best option. It's the bet we've done! Me and you.
Let's see what @rcs1000 says. If there's some sort of netting that leaves me having the bet with him, fair enough. But otherwise the bet should stand as is.
Might be best to avoid Yemeni waters for commercial vessels for now tbh.
That means avoiding the Suez Canal. Just not possible.
Every Western navy is on the way there, to make sure the ships have safe passage. That’s why you have a navy in the first place.
And the Hamas-supporters screech about our attacks against Yemen...
(I'm not arguing that our attacks are effective; they may or may not be. Just that the Houthi's actions need to be quashed.)
Countries have a duty to stop genocides - if Yemen believe (like many other nations do) that Israel's actions are tantamount to genocide, they have duty to attempt to blockade Israel and prevent armaments getting in. Blockades seem to be good when the West does it, but not when anyone else does... Of course, the next move would be for a coalition of nations in southern Africa to start monitoring the Cape of Good Hope in a similar way, slowing down shipping even further. I'm sure we'd quickly see the US and UK bombing South Africa. Because this has nothing to do with a "rules based international order" and everything to do with making money and Western interests.
What the Houthis are doing is f-all to do with Israel - it's to do with Iran and Russia's war with the west.
I'm amazed at how easily people on the left back those whose views are utterly counter to leftist, or even socialist, values.
The Houthis are, indeed, mostly bad. Mostly bad actors can sometimes do good things for good reasons; just as mostly good actors can sometimes do bad things for bad reasons. Maybe the Houthis are doing a good thing for a bad reason - I can't read the mind of a collection of people half the world away, only read the public statements they make.
If you're saying firing missiles at civilian ships is a 'good thing' then you've disappeared down a moral black hole.
Israel is bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians and people are saying just that. Indeed, the UK and the US have started bombing Yemen, I'm sure there will be civilians killed in those strikes. How many civilians do we kill with our blockades, our sanctions? No one cares that civilians are dying - they care that Western interests are being threatened, that the free flow of goods is being slowed. The evidence put forward by South Africa the other day has seriously doomer pilled me - the reaction (and, indeed, lack of it) from Western media and powers is telling. At the end of the day, to the West, the non-West is where it's fine if people die violent deaths at the hands of whoever. It's only when a country in the club is threatened that anyone cares. And I no longer care about keeping up the pretence that that is fine to believe. If it doesn't matter that tens of thousands of Palestinian children are being slaughtered, why should I care if some civilian ships are fired on? It's a moral mole hill next to a mountain of corpses.
Don't be an idiot. Houthis are attacking ships that are f-all to do with Israel. They - and Iran - want to shut down the Red Sea, with all the economic consequences that will have for the rest of the world - including us. This can be seen by the fact they've been attacking shipping since 2015/6, including boat-bombs (WBIED). Only the naivest of fools would believe that the Houthis are doing this because of their concern for Palestinians.
You pretend to care about the poor in this country. Your words repeatedly indicate otherwise.
There's also the fact - which appears to sail merrily through your brain - that this is a massive escalation of the conflict.
It’s all very well saying Starmer is crap but he’s heading up a party on course to win over a 100 seat majority, so really he’s done everything right and has been the best leader Labour may have ever had, if they win?
Starmer wants to run the next election as a referendum on the Conservatives.
That might get him a very big majority, but it risks being built on sand.
He's relying on the Tories to hand his first re-election to him on a plate too. I don't think that's beyond the Tories, but it sort of indicates that Starmer is not going to be a PM who is the master of his own destiny.
There's something reminiscent of François Hollande about Starmer.
Charisma free politicians like Sir Keir usually become PM by means of a handover (Brown, May, Sunak) rather than having to charm the public (Cameron, Boris). It’s not as if he has any firm policies he’s selling either, just complains about the other lot constantly. I am certain he will struggle during the campaign during interviews and debates. I’ve said that a lot, will be interesting to see if I was right or wrong
How big an outright majority do you think he'll struggle to? Above or below 3 digits?
It looks like he has been gifted a majority by the Tories benching their best player then scoring a couple of own goals, but I’d say below 100, because when the usually uninterested public see lots of him in the campaign they’ll think “I can’t vote for this berk”
Let’s see. The last time the favourite to win the GE was such a wet blanket was 2017, and Theresa May was much shorter in the betting to win a majority, so anything’s possible
We have seen some shocks in recent years, haven't we. But here I really would be - shocked. I think the Lab majority will be 3 digits.
Just thinking, now you're well and truly back on PB we can do a bet if you like to supplement our current one.
We 'cash out' the £300/£100 'Starmer PM post GE' bet at say £250 to me. I think that's slightly in your favour at current prices.
But we don't settle. Instead we do a 'double or quits' on Labour outright majority at the GE.
If it's 100 or above I win £500 If it's below 100 we are Flat
How does that sound?
Sounds like you’ve forgotten that bet is either void or you’ve got it with @rcs1000
Come off it. Why would it be void? It's between me and you.
RCS hasn't agreed to take it. If he does, fine by me, but he hasn't.
You agreed it was either void or you had it with Robert
RCS never replied to that 'netting' proposition of yours. It was left unresolved. If he is happy to take it then fine, but he hasn't said so. So I'm assuming he isn't.
£100 at 3/1 Starmer to be PM after the GE. That's our bet.
No it isn’t. I suggested voiding it or Robert paying you. There was no option to keep it, and you replied
“ Happy whatever, I mean. We can keep it or we can void it. Your suggestion is also fine by me if it's fine by rcs.”
Of course there's an option to keep it. That's the best option. It's the bet we've done! Me and you.
Let's see what @rcs1000 says. If there's some sort of netting that leaves me having the bet with him, fair enough. But otherwise the bet should stand as is.
You agreed to void it! Have you gone crazy?
Nope. It was left hanging. Nobody replied to me. You didn't. RCS didn't. There was no agreement. That's why I'd like it resolved now.
The YOPers at CCHQ have got hold of photoshop again...
Very effective poster. I mean despicable for several reasons but I'm sure it will be effective.
It's very effective because Labour has no credible response.
Effective in making those thinking of voting Labour sit on their hands come polling day.
I actually don’t think it’s very effective because at worst it begs the question of what Labour’s refugee policy is (nobody knows) and then reminds us what an utter fuck-up the Tories have made of it.
The YOPers at CCHQ have got hold of photoshop again...
Very effective poster. I mean despicable for several reasons but I'm sure it will be effective.
It's very effective because Labour has no credible response.
Effective in making those thinking of voting Labour sit on their hands come polling day.
It fails the first test of advertising, which is whether it can be understood by any idiot with no priors. It's not really clear whether Starmer has an "open door" or is "showing them the door".
The fact he's inside looking into the room, with a beach on the outside makes it look like he's inviting someone to leave.
Hardly 'Labour isn't working" or the Miliband pocket ads. Which were visually visceral in a way that made facts irrelevant.
The YOPers at CCHQ have got hold of photoshop again...
Very effective poster. I mean despicable for several reasons but I'm sure it will be effective.
It's very effective because Labour has no credible response.
Effective in making those thinking of voting Labour sit on their hands come polling day.
I actually don’t think it’s very effective because at worst it begs the question of what Labour’s refugee policy is (nobody knows) and then reminds us what an utter fuck-up the Tories have made of it.
You are assuming people are dreadfully worried about immigration issues, but the truth is they are far more worried about mortgages, inflation, interest rates, nhs, policing and schooling. The immigration issue is important to a narrow band of very particular voters. So why should labour paint a target on themselves rather than focus on the big issues the broad electorate actually cares about.
The poll is significant no doubt and it is possible if tactical voting comes seriously into play that a majority of 120 is perfectly possible. As some have pointed out there is, on this sort of polling a route to something like the 97 result. However these are significant "if's". Given the electoral mountain to climb (125+ for a majority) I'm still remaining cautious in this area. I've stuck at a 30-40 majority for some while and remain there, for now...
Comments
NYT ($) - ‘Would a Call From Tammy Help?’ Pressure Grows in Race to Oust Menendez
In a series of calls, a person in contact with the Senate campaign of Gov. Philip Murphy’s wife pressured a student Democratic group not to endorse her chief rival in the New Jersey race.
The College Democrats of New Jersey were preparing to make an endorsement in one of the country’s most closely watched U.S. Senate primaries when calls began to come in from someone in touch with the campaign of Tammy Murphy, the presumptive front-runner and the wife of the state’s governor.
The caller, a female college student who works as a youth coordinator for the Democratic State Committee, wanted to know what Ms. Murphy’s campaign could do to block the group from endorsing Ms. Murphy’s main rival, Representative Andy Kim.
“Would a call from Tammy help?” the woman said she asked . . .
Then, in a series of calls over the next two hours, the pressure from the caller, Keely Magee, escalated to warnings — about funding and future job prospects for leaders of the College Democrats, according to several people involved in the discussions and a recording of one call.
In an interview, Ms. Magee said the Murphy campaign had not asked her to pressure the group on its behalf. But she acknowledged being aware that members of Ms. Murphy’s campaign staff “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement,” and said she was receiving text messages from a Murphy campaign consultant, Dave Parano. . . .
The effort to stop the endorsement failed. On Wednesday, both the College Democrats of America and the New Jersey chapter issued full-throated endorsements of Mr. Kim, a South Jersey Democrat running against Ms. Murphy for the chance to oust Senator Bob Menendez.
The episode offered a rare, behind-the-scenes look at the high-stakes political battle playing out as New Jersey’s first lady, a first-time candidate, struggles to gain grass-roots traction in her bid to unseat Mr. Menendez, who faces federal bribery charges.
With support from her husband, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, a second-term Democrat, Ms. Murphy has been endorsed by many of the state’s most powerful Democrats and has raised a record amount of contributions in her campaign’s first six weeks. Yet several polls suggest that she continues to trail Mr. Kim by a wide margin. . . .
SSI - Typical New Jersey political hack tactics, of kind that Woodrow Wilson railed against - after snookering & taking advantage of the hacks - back circa 1910.
Gov. Murphy and his wife are a very powerful couple. He is gov of state with one of the most powerful state executives in the nation; she is a top NJ Democratic fundraiser. So far they've parlayed this into endorsements from equally powerful local county political power brokers, this ensuring Mrs Murphy poll position on the 2024 NJ Democratic primary ballot, thanks to Garden State's unique - and inherently corrupt - county ticket system.
Let's see what @rcs1000 says. If there's some sort of netting that leaves me having the bet with him, fair enough. But otherwise the bet should stand as is.
(Beaconsfield, Boston & Skegness, Brentwood & Ongar, Castle Point, Clacton, Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Louth & Horncastle, Maldon, NE Cambs, Richmond & Northallerton, South Holland & The Deepings, Weald of Kent, Wetherby & Easingwold, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Angus and Perthshire Glens)
Do a fairer Telegraph (Lib + Lab plays Con + RefUK), they get 140 or so.
hashtagJustABitOfFun
Not especially cheap, and likely to take a while, but should be an epic road trip.
https://www.directferries.co.uk/ferries_from_tenerife_to_spain.htm#map
If you want someone to blame, maybe start there.
You pretend to care about the poor in this country. Your words repeatedly indicate otherwise.
There's also the fact - which appears to sail merrily through your brain - that this is a massive escalation of the conflict.
I'll c/f to the next thread.
Effective in making those thinking of voting Labour sit on their hands come polling day.
The fact he's inside looking into the room, with a beach on the outside makes it look like he's inviting someone to leave.
Hardly 'Labour isn't working" or the Miliband pocket ads. Which were visually visceral in a way that made facts irrelevant.
Conservatives (Frost, Rees-Mogg, Braverman and express readers): we need to go even further right to lure those left leaning voters back 🤔🤷🤣