Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Conflicts of interest – politicalbetting.com

1457910

Comments

  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,227
    Andy_JS said:

    I think a lot of the opponents of Donald Trump have been very self-indulgent in the way they've responded to his popularity. They've responded to him in ways that have made them feel good but were never going to do actually do anything to dent his popularity, whereas they could have done other things that wouldn't have felt so good but might have actually dealt with the underlying reasons for his popularity.

    Getting fined a $100m for defaming a woman he was adjudged to have raped (either with a digit or his penis) will deal with his popularity. Certainly with women independents.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102

    WTF. Now it’s “Has Welby resigned yet?”

    It's come as news to me, just seeing it on front of DT. Welby is being told to resign for trying to make Vennells Bishop of London in 2017. 😟

    What was it about this woman’s mercurial multi talents that had the establishment falling over each other?

    I understand the theory- Welby is treating the ongoing problems of the CofE as a management consultancy problem. And Vennells combined priesthood with top business experience. In a slightly different way, it's why Sarah Mullally got the gig instead.

    But even without the Horizon issues, Vennells really would have been a very odd appointment. Not quite Hadrian VII, but pretty bonkers.
    Has he tried selling Jesus? The Romans bought the Nazarene for 30 pieces of silver and have been selling him ever since. God rot them….
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500
    File this one under the law of the internet that all causes must be joined together for some reason - I'm not even going to ask why it's to do with capitalism, because I wish to preserve my brain cells.

    “When we finally deal that final blow to destroy Israel. When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism.”

    -Manolo De Los Santos speaking at The People’s Forum in NYC.

    https://nitter.net/JCAndersonNYC/status/1746908368021725630#m
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    edited January 15

    Off topic, but I think many of you will like the new Miss America -- and be surprised at her day job. (I'm not mentioning it, because I want to give as many as possible the chance to discover it for themselves. More fun that way.)

    "...Miss Colorado Madison Marsh was crowned Miss America, becoming the first active-duty military service member to win the title in the pageant's nearly 100-year history, according to the U.S. Air Force.

    Marsh, 22, is a second lieutenant in the Air Force and recently graduated from the Air Force Academy in Colorado..."


    https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/us-air-force-officer-makes-history-miss-america-106379088

    As I said the other day: USAF dress blues: an underrated dress uniform. Now worn by an actual Miss USA. That and Stargate mean that they have the cool sewn up... :)
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,760

    ydoethur said:

    It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.

    The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?

    246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?

    And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/20e6f36875400c0af6487d2c6058e9b5eb3b11f1/0_0_1582_1036/master/1582.jpg?width=700&dpr=2&s=none

    1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.

    Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.

    1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.

    1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
    …just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.

    And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
    1920s but NOT 1930s.

    Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.

    Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.

    National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
    Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
    Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.

    There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
    Ramsey Macdonald was retained as (increasingly titular) Prime Minister, as Conservative seal of assurance that the National government was "truly" national, and not just Tory-Tory-Tory.

    Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
    Something doesn’t seem right. If he’s not a Tory, why would he go along with it? If the Tories have 470 of 615 seats, you should be His Majesty’s opposition, try to hold them to account by asking the questions government would prefer not asked in public so they can get away with being rubbish.
    Good question. But it WAS a national-international economic-financial crisis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Government_(United_Kingdom)

    Note that Australian Labor Party also split, on same lines, with former Labour Treasurer becoming Prime Minister of mostly conservative (something no Oz party ever calls itself) government, under new United Australia Party / Country Party coalition.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Australia_Party
    If it’s a crisis like that, even more reason to have an able opposition from bench, outside the tent, who can ask probing questions of what you are up to.
    Who said they didn't. Certainly an opposition, able or not.

    Note that in 1940 (as in 1916) the UK formed a wartime Coalition government, with virtually no formal opposition. But pretty high level of "probing questions" to put it mildly.

    In Australia, where the Australian Labor Party had previously split over conscription, with former Lab PM retaining office as part of mostly conservative coalition, the ALP resisted efforts to be recruited into a WW2 wartime coalition similar to UK's. And eventually emerged as governing party, just in time for war with Japan from December 1940.

    Before attempting to apply theory to crisis, take note of the facts of the crisis.
    “ Before attempting to apply theory to crisis, take note of the facts of the crisis.”

    Is that you ticking me off? Seems to me 470 out of 615 Tories had this Macdonald chap stuffed, and were operating him like a sock puppet.
  • Options

    Welsh anti-20mph Facebook groups are being run by, er, a Tory councillor in Sunderland who supports 20mph in his own ward:

    https://twitter.com/WillHayCardiff/status/1746942241950560337

    Dirty tricks on social media? Who'd have thunk it?
    So when we keep being reassured that 20mph is Drakeford Labour's terrible policy which has got lot of people angry, we know that the angry people organiser is a Sunderland Tory in favour of 20mph limits.

    They think people are stupid.
    You are better than that silly remark

    Indeed I have supported the 20mph policy but not its implementation which even Drakeford's successors have promised to review

    I live in Wales and experience not only the practical issues but the widespread anger in every day conversations, which you do not living in the NE of E Scotland

    I could post multiple links to conversations not only with politicians, but the police, the bus companies, the taxi companies, and many more who accept the blanket change from 30mph to 20mph was just wrong
    What is silly about it? Most people don't do politics. And they are massively prone to influence by other people like them on social media. Except here we see that some of the social media protests aren't by people like them. Done to incite them from far away.

    Are some people upset by it? Yes. Has it caused issues? Absolutely. But like the ULEZ row its all mouth by the gobby, trying to whip up a mob to then be manipulated to vote Tory against their interests.

    BTW we have 20mph limits in Scotland. On Primary Routes like the A68. It slows me down when driving to England. Big deal. They are needed. And I don't need Tory councillors from hundreds of miles away to shit stir opposition to them. And neither do you.

    I know you have cut your ties with the Tories despite drifting along off their bow. But surely you can see that 20mph-loving Tory councillors in Sunderland should not be creating Facebook groups to channel opposition to 20mph limits in Wales.
    Remember too, until the Uxbridge by-election Andrew R T Davies and his band of derelicts were four square behind 20mph.

    TBF to BigG the implementation has been very poor.
    Thank you for your comments which we both agree on and let's hope the forthcoming review irons out the anomalies

    We also agree on Andrew RT Davies
    You post so many considered things and we all genuinely care for your health. I just don’t get why when presented with evidence you describe it as “nonsense”.

    A stack of Welsh anti 20 mph Facebook groups. Set up and modded by Sunderland Tories. You can’t deny it because it’s fact. Even if you agree with them, is there nothing you consider off about English Tories from 200 miles away beavering away to whip up opinions by pretending to be local? They’re not even in Wales.
    I am not denying it - just it is irrelevant to what is happening here in Wales

    When the Welsh Labour government, Plaid, Transport bosses, local authorities and even @Mexicanpete and myself, who both actually live here in Wales and experience it, agree the implementation has been poor and a review is happening, then they are irrelevant to what is really happening here
    And this from Chris Bryant who is definitely not a conservative

    BBC News - Wales' 20mph speed limit: Top Labour MP calls for review
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67377048
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,544
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500

    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.

    That's why he wins. Because no matter how much he belittles and insults his GOP opponents (I won't say rivals, they never were), they will always come to heel. Even Christie has not said he will vote against Trump, just that he won't vote for him.

    Of course, you cannot come out openly against Trump and still have a career in the party, so its understandable, but it must be so disheartening - a lot of them love him, but even the ones who obviously hate him have to say they love him.

    Nobody knows, so here goes. My prediction: Trump wins Iowa big, DeSantis gets out and endorses Trump. Trump wins New Hampshire, Haley gets out and endorses Trump. And it’s over. Of course it was always over because it never really began. This was always only Trump’s race.

    https://nitter.net/WalshFreedom/status/1746886735689125903#m
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    Andy_JS said:
    That the official map.

    Possible that in some place, AP or other journos on site might get results sooner. We will see!
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    edited January 15
    How in god's name have they backed themselves into this corner?


    Simon Clarke MP
    @SimonClarkeMP

    This result would represent a disaster for @Conservatives and our country.

    The time for half measures is over.

    We either deliver on small boats or we will be destroyed.


    ====

    For all his massive faults Johnson would not have ended up in this undeliverable and yet cast iron promise mess for his party.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    kle4 said:

    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.

    That's why he wins. Because no matter how much he belittles and insults his GOP opponents (I won't say rivals, they never were), they will always come to heel. Even Christie has not said he will vote against Trump, just that he won't vote for him.

    Of course, you cannot come out openly against Trump and still have a career in the party, so its understandable, but it must be so disheartening - a lot of them love him, but even the ones who obviously hate him have to say they love him.

    Nobody knows, so here goes. My prediction: Trump wins Iowa big, DeSantis gets out and endorses Trump. Trump wins New Hampshire, Haley gets out and endorses Trump. And it’s over. Of course it was always over because it never really began. This was always only Trump’s race.

    https://nitter.net/WalshFreedom/status/1746886735689125903#m
    Personally, my interest in predictions is nil. Actual results are what matter now - pundits & punters be damned.

    (But not PBers!)
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500
    edited January 15

    How in god's name have they backed themselves into this corner?


    Simon Clarke MP
    @SimonClarkeMP

    This result would represent a disaster for @Conservatives and our country.

    The time for half measures is over.

    We either deliver on small boats or we will be destroyed.


    ====

    For all his massive faults Johnson would not have ended up in this undeliverable and yet cast iron promise mess for his party.

    It's too late for them now anyway - they could deliver on small boats, and they won't get credit for it as the intended audience has already jumped, er, boat.

    That's not to say play it safe centrism is a guaranteed success, it probably isn't anymore, just that there comes a point where even if you could suddenly do and say all the right things, you won't get rewarded. And likewise someone else may benefit even if they don't really do or say anything much at all.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    If Clarke is to be believed the next government of the UK should be decided on whether a few 1000s people made it across the channel in rubber dinghies or not over the course of an entire year.


    I shall retire to Bedlam.


  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    kle4 said:

    How in god's name have they backed themselves into this corner?


    Simon Clarke MP
    @SimonClarkeMP

    This result would represent a disaster for @Conservatives and our country.

    The time for half measures is over.

    We either deliver on small boats or we will be destroyed.


    ====

    For all his massive faults Johnson would not have ended up in this undeliverable and yet cast iron promise mess for his party.

    It's too late for them now anyway - they could deliver on small boats, and they won't get credit for it as the intended audience has already jumped, er, boat.

    That's not to say play it safe centrism is a guaranteed success, it probably isn't anymore, just that there comes a point where even if you could suddenly do and say all the right things, you won't get rewarded. And likewise someone else may benefit even if they don't really do or say anything much at all.
    It's certainly late for them. Very, very late.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815

    ydoethur said:

    It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.

    The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?

    246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?

    And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/20e6f36875400c0af6487d2c6058e9b5eb3b11f1/0_0_1582_1036/master/1582.jpg?width=700&dpr=2&s=none

    1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.

    Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.

    1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.

    1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
    …just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.

    And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
    1920s but NOT 1930s.

    Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.

    Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.

    National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
    Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
    Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.

    There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
    Ramsey Macdonald was retained as (increasingly titular) Prime Minister, as Conservative seal of assurance that the National government was "truly" national, and not just Tory-Tory-Tory.

    Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
    Something doesn’t seem right. If he’s not a Tory, why would he go along with it? If the Tories have 470 of 615 seats, you should be His Majesty’s opposition, try to hold them to account by asking the questions government would prefer not asked in public so they can get away with being rubbish.
    Good question. But it WAS a national-international economic-financial crisis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Government_(United_Kingdom)

    Note that Australian Labor Party also split, on same lines, with former Labour Treasurer becoming Prime Minister of mostly conservative (something no Oz party ever calls itself) government, under new United Australia Party / Country Party coalition.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Australia_Party
    If it’s a crisis like that, even more reason to have an able opposition from bench, outside the tent, who can ask probing questions of what you are up to.
    Who said they didn't. Certainly an opposition, able or not.

    Note that in 1940 (as in 1916) the UK formed a wartime Coalition government, with virtually no formal opposition. But pretty high level of "probing questions" to put it mildly.

    In Australia, where the Australian Labor Party had previously split over conscription, with former Lab PM retaining office as part of mostly conservative coalition, the ALP resisted efforts to be recruited into a WW2 wartime coalition similar to UK's. And eventually emerged as governing party, just in time for war with Japan from December 1940.

    Before attempting to apply theory to crisis, take note of the facts of the crisis.
    “ Before attempting to apply theory to crisis, take note of the facts of the crisis.”

    Is that you ticking me off? Seems to me 470 out of 615 Tories had this Macdonald chap stuffed, and were operating him like a sock puppet.
    Not arguing with your last point. Only with notion that coalition is always a crock, if that's what your arguing.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    edited January 15

    WTF. Now it’s “Has Welby resigned yet?”

    It's come as news to me, just seeing it on front of DT. Welby is being told to resign for trying to make Vennells Bishop of London in 2017. 😟

    What was it about this woman’s mercurial multi talents that had the establishment falling over each other?

    I understand the theory- Welby is treating the ongoing problems of the CofE as a management consultancy problem. And Vennells combined priesthood with top business experience. In a slightly different way, it's why Sarah Mullally got the gig instead.

    But even without the Horizon issues, Vennells really would have been a very odd appointment. Not quite Hadrian VII, but pretty bonkers.
    That's interesting.

    So we conclude that the Church of England is better than the Cabinet Office at not appointing the wrong people :smile: .

    They seem to have got the correct one with Sarah Mullaly.

    As an aside, there has only been one Bishop of London since 1663 who was not already a Bishop, and he was the Dean of Carlisle in the 1860s - which makes sense for such an important position, in what is probably the most innovative Diocese in the Church of England over the last 35 years.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,227
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    kle4 said:

    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.

    That's why he wins. Because no matter how much he belittles and insults his GOP opponents (I won't say rivals, they never were), they will always come to heel. Even Christie has not said he will vote against Trump, just that he won't vote for him.

    Of course, you cannot come out openly against Trump and still have a career in the party, so its understandable, but it must be so disheartening - a lot of them love him, but even the ones who obviously hate him have to say they love him.

    Nobody knows, so here goes. My prediction: Trump wins Iowa big, DeSantis gets out and endorses Trump. Trump wins New Hampshire, Haley gets out and endorses Trump. And it’s over. Of course it was always over because it never really began. This was always only Trump’s race.

    https://nitter.net/WalshFreedom/status/1746886735689125903#m
    The lights are going out all over the US. It may be some time before they are lit again.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500
    It's the self pity bit that I'd find particularly wearing, but in fairness and despite this reporter's conclusions they actually still seem to love it

    https://nitter.net/mckaycoppins/status/1746912328593842538#m
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,544

    Andy_JS said:
    That the official map.

    Possible that in some place, AP or other journos on site might get results sooner. We will see!
    Is CNN any good with results?
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,872

    How in god's name have they backed themselves into this corner?


    Simon Clarke MP
    @SimonClarkeMP

    This result would represent a disaster for @Conservatives and our country.

    The time for half measures is over.

    We either deliver on small boats or we will be destroyed.


    ====

    For all his massive faults Johnson would not have ended up in this undeliverable and yet cast iron promise mess for his party.

    Wasn't the Rwanda policy something Boris came up with in the dying days of his Premiership?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    NBC live blog - DeSantis will make appearances tonight at two different caucus sites in Dubuque, a campaign spokesperson told NBC News.

    Notably, Dubuque is a heavily Catholic area. It could be the DeSantis campaign sensed he had an appeal in that community.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339
    @LeftieStats
    🚨 NEW: YouGov MRP shows that the Greens would easily HOLD Brighton Pavilion with a reduced majority

    🟩 GRN 49% (-8)
    🟥 LAB 32% (+4)
    🟧 LD 10% (+9)*
    🟦 CON 7% (-4)

    *LDs did not stand in 2019 due to an electoral pact; boundary changes mean that *on paper* they won 0.9%

    https://nitter.net/LeftieStats/status/1746947856785887375#m
  • Options
    YokesYokes Posts: 1,208
    Two longshot feelings, one of which my gut thinks will occur

    Biden steps down from running (no idea how that plays out)
    A genuinely credible person of GOP stock will run as a 3rd party candidate
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    According to NBC, doors at caucus locations start opening at 4pm for 7pm meetings.

    NBC pundit also says, that back in 2016, first results from GOP caucuses (with same start time) came in shortly after 7.30pm.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    It's the self pity bit that I'd find particularly wearing, but in fairness and despite this reporter's conclusions they actually still seem to love it

    https://nitter.net/mckaycoppins/status/1746912328593842538#m

    I don't think they do love it, and I think (hope) that he'll get slaughtered at a general election, which would be good for democracy.

    Trump used to put on a pretence of speaking up for the disenfranchised etc - now he doesn't, all pretence has gone and its all "woe is me", everything is about him and him alone.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,109
    viewcode said:

    Off topic, but I think many of you will like the new Miss America -- and be surprised at her day job. (I'm not mentioning it, because I want to give as many as possible the chance to discover it for themselves. More fun that way.)

    "...Miss Colorado Madison Marsh was crowned Miss America, becoming the first active-duty military service member to win the title in the pageant's nearly 100-year history, according to the U.S. Air Force.

    Marsh, 22, is a second lieutenant in the Air Force and recently graduated from the Air Force Academy in Colorado..."


    https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/us-air-force-officer-makes-history-miss-america-106379088

    As I said the other day: USAF dress blues: an underrated dress uniform. Now worn by an actual Miss USA. That and Stargate mean that they have the cool sewn up... :)
    Taking that back on topic, one theme emerging in the USA is Donald Trump's behaviour and potential exploitation of ownership of beauty pageants in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s - including such thing as breezing into the backroom at Teenage pageants where competitors down to their mid teens changing outfits and topless or nude.

    No idea whether this one will break though.
  • Options

    According to NBC, doors at caucus locations start opening at 4pm for 7pm meetings.

    NBC pundit also says, that back in 2016, first results from GOP caucuses (with same start time) came in shortly after 7.30pm.

    What time should we expect results UK time?

    Is it worth staying up for or not really?
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
  • Options
    kle4 said:

    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.

    That's why he wins. Because no matter how much he belittles and insults his GOP opponents (I won't say rivals, they never were), they will always come to heel. Even Christie has not said he will vote against Trump, just that he won't vote for him.

    Of course, you cannot come out openly against Trump and still have a career in the party, so its understandable, but it must be so disheartening - a lot of them love him, but even the ones who obviously hate him have to say they love him.

    Nobody knows, so here goes. My prediction: Trump wins Iowa big, DeSantis gets out and endorses Trump. Trump wins New Hampshire, Haley gets out and endorses Trump. And it’s over. Of course it was always over because it never really began. This was always only Trump’s race.

    https://nitter.net/WalshFreedom/status/1746886735689125903#m
    There's a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the general election.

    He may win the nomination, but I think he'll really struggle in the general.

    Biden beat him once already, and Trump is an even worse candidate now than he was then.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815

    According to NBC, doors at caucus locations start opening at 4pm for 7pm meetings.

    NBC pundit also says, that back in 2016, first results from GOP caucuses (with same start time) came in shortly after 7.30pm.

    What time should we expect results UK time?

    Is it worth staying up for or not really?
    No earlier than 1.30am for very first, very sporadic results.

    Probably not until after 3am for more substantial numbers, or even later. Depends on turnout, how things are run at hundreds of caucus sites, possible glitches, etc.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,905
    Yokes said:

    Two longshot feelings, one of which my gut thinks will occur

    Biden steps down from running (no idea how that plays out)
    A genuinely credible person of GOP stock will run as a 3rd party candidate

    Liz Cheney?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518

    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.

    Talking of profiles in courage.

    SEN. JONI ERNST, 1/11/2021: Jan. 6 was an “insurrection,” “anarchy,” and “America and her people cannot stand for it in any form.”

    SEN. JONI ERNST, 1/14/2024: No objection to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 convicts. “I am not opposed to that. That is a president's prerogative.”

    https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1747035371387441447
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    MattW said:

    viewcode said:

    Off topic, but I think many of you will like the new Miss America -- and be surprised at her day job. (I'm not mentioning it, because I want to give as many as possible the chance to discover it for themselves. More fun that way.)

    "...Miss Colorado Madison Marsh was crowned Miss America, becoming the first active-duty military service member to win the title in the pageant's nearly 100-year history, according to the U.S. Air Force.

    Marsh, 22, is a second lieutenant in the Air Force and recently graduated from the Air Force Academy in Colorado..."


    https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/us-air-force-officer-makes-history-miss-america-106379088

    As I said the other day: USAF dress blues: an underrated dress uniform. Now worn by an actual Miss USA. That and Stargate mean that they have the cool sewn up... :)
    Taking that back on topic, one theme emerging in the USA is Donald Trump's behaviour and potential exploitation of ownership of beauty pageants in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s - including such thing as breezing into the backroom at Teenage pageants where competitors down to their mid teens changing outfits and topless or nude.

    No idea whether this one will break though.
    There is no longer anything approaching a national audience for Miss America, etc.

    VERY different from when I was a kid, for sure,.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500

    kle4 said:

    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.

    That's why he wins. Because no matter how much he belittles and insults his GOP opponents (I won't say rivals, they never were), they will always come to heel. Even Christie has not said he will vote against Trump, just that he won't vote for him.

    Of course, you cannot come out openly against Trump and still have a career in the party, so its understandable, but it must be so disheartening - a lot of them love him, but even the ones who obviously hate him have to say they love him.

    Nobody knows, so here goes. My prediction: Trump wins Iowa big, DeSantis gets out and endorses Trump. Trump wins New Hampshire, Haley gets out and endorses Trump. And it’s over. Of course it was always over because it never really began. This was always only Trump’s race.

    https://nitter.net/WalshFreedom/status/1746886735689125903#m
    There's a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the general election.

    He may win the nomination, but I think he'll really struggle in the general.

    Biden beat him once already, and Trump is an even worse candidate now than he was then.
    He is, and I hope you are right.

    But if it is close again, there are more people primed to defy the law and reject valid outcomes this time - last time they were seemingly caught out, and many stood their ground. This time it is a major part of Republican belief that they were cheated last time and there were ways to prevent that.

    Not all election deniers won election in key places, such as in Arizona, but most of them are election deniers.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,500
    edited January 16
    Nigelb said:

    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.

    Talking of profiles in courage.

    SEN. JONI ERNST, 1/11/2021: Jan. 6 was an “insurrection,” “anarchy,” and “America and her people cannot stand for it in any form.”

    SEN. JONI ERNST, 1/14/2024: No objection to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 convicts. “I am not opposed to that. That is a president's prerogative.”

    https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1747035371387441447
    Politics requires flexibility sometimes, we all know that. But when they contrast their past statements with now, with what has become normalised to them, how do they feel I wonder? Is fleeting power worth that?

    Given you can count on one hand the number of firmly opposed prominent never Trumpers (not including those who criticise him but will vote for him), the answer apparently is yes.
  • Options
    YokesYokes Posts: 1,208

    Had a really dispiriting conversation earlier, with someone I care deeply about, on the subject of the Hamas executions of the two hostages. For me, the deliberate killing of the two hostages is qualitatively very different to unintended civilian casualties that are happening in Gaza during the Israeli war with Hamas. The intent to kill someone who is unarmed, and under your control, is so much more chilling, even though Israel are doubtless not taking as much care for Gazan civilian lives as they ought.

    But my interlocutor did not see it this way. They felt that Israel almost wanted these executions - to justify its war, and because they weren't trying that hard to rescue hostages. They agree with the South African submission to the ICJ, that Israel is committing genocidal acts in Gaza, rather than fighting a war of self-defence following the October 7th attack. They displayed wuite a degree of conspiratorial thinking about the October 7th attacks, that Israel purposefully provoked them, and seem to take it as read that Israel's war aim is to empty Gaza of all Palestinians, one way or another.

    Am I hopelessly naive about Israel's intentions, or have I talked to someone who has swallowed the narrative of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories?

    Such conspiracy ignores the clear public knowledge of Israeli government policy in practice under Netanyahu since 2022, which was all about keeping Gaza down to the 'acceptable level of violence' status, ie keep the nuisance to a minimum. This could be seen most clearly in the increased number of work permits getting handed to Gazans to work in Israel. Whatever the criticism of that scheme it, on paper at least, it aimed to support the keep things quiet approach. You also had what Israeli officials thought was a bit of an understanding with Hamas about what the ground rules were. Netanyahu talked big but preferred a quiet life when it came to Gaza before October 7th landed and changed the strategy.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,227
    edited January 16
    You can't make this shit up....

    Trump not on the NV primary ballot because he didn't put in the paperwork!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrDDi1qCsoc&ab_channel=DavidPakmanShow
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,953
    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:


    Jon McGregor
    @jon_mcgregor

    If you want an idea of the granular awfulness of this country's deliberate move to a 'small state', check out Nottingham's enforced budget cuts in this consultation document, which asks us to respond, line by line, to a series of horrible suggestions:

    https://t.co/ocJGe1TDOP

    Have to question "deliberate". Much like Blackadder's theory for the cause of World War One, it was just too much effort not to move to a dismally small state.

    Three drivers of the collapse of local government, which is about to sweep competent councils.

    First was the backdoor austerity after 2010, with central government cutting topline spending without taking responsibility for how to do it.

    Next was the introduction of a referendum cap on council tax rises. Again, councils were left with responsibility but no power.

    But the elephant in the room is social care. You know how the British electorate have complained about every attempt to put social care on a viable basis because We Hate Tax Rises? The pressure has landed on councils, and they're about to collapse as a result.

    Democracy may be a better system than the alternatives, but it can still be a blooming awful system, especially when voters demand something for nothing.
    Theresa May is no particular hero of mine, but her approach to dementia care was to be applauded. But the electorate thought otherwise sadly. It wasn't even a real tax.
    Politically she should have not mentioned it and just done it afterwards. Yes there'd have been arguments about mandate afterwards, but so what? People don't halt their objections to a government policy because they laid it out in their manifesto, they ignore that or they say the mandate is no longer there or does not apply for some reason.

    Of course, there's no guarantee she would have gotten over the line, with enough votes to push through something that unpopular, had she not included it in the campaign, other things would have come up, but it was a mistaken attempt at honesty.
    The electorate had no real say in dementia care as it had been dropped before polling day. It was blamed by Lynton Crosby to divert attention from the godawful campaign he ran. In any case, my own view is the biggest factor was the two terrorist outrages during the election campaign, and the Prime Minister's denial that axing 10,000 police officers played any part in making Britain less safe.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
    UN Security Council voted for "police action" (Harry Truman's less-than-immortal phrase) against North Korean invasion of South Korea, because USSR was boycotting Security Council at the time.

    Perhaps conveniently for purposes of Stalin's grand strategy, By tying US, UK, etc. down in (to quote Douglas MacArthur) a land war in Asia?
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,760

    ydoethur said:

    It’s all getting ridiculously heated for a Monday evening. Moving the subject along, let’s do what PB does best - political history.

    The chart the Telegraph published this morning. What is the background behind each of those historical massive losses of seats?

    246 losses in 1906? What short of slay your firstborn policy upset everyone? And how did the incoming winners react to such a win?

    And how many years did it take to be in power again when chucked out with a hammering - probably a lot quicker than we presume, 5-15 years, less than a generation?

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/20e6f36875400c0af6487d2c6058e9b5eb3b11f1/0_0_1582_1036/master/1582.jpg?width=700&dpr=2&s=none

    1906 was Tariff Reform. The British were obsessed with Free Trade which they claimed made food cheaper. A suggestion by the Unionists to tax wheat imports was received like a cup of cold sick.

    Also, the Liberals weren't 'incoming winners.' 1905 was the last time a majority government resigned without losing a general election first.

    1905 (when they left, before the election) they were back in under ten years, as part of a wartime coalition. They would probably have returned to power in 1915 anyway but it isn't certain.

    1945 was six years. 1966 was 4. 1997 was, well...
    …just 13 years, and a Tory returned to Downing Street.

    And I was surprised how many hammerings Conservatives had in the 20’s and 30’s, I always thought they did largely okay in this period. It makes the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 look very volatile. Maybe even a fickle electorate?
    1920s but NOT 1930s.

    Tories had good luck to lose (but not by much) the May 1929 general election . . . just months before Wall Street laid its infamous egg.

    Labour had bad luck to win . . . and split asunder attempting to deal with emerging impacts of global Great Depression.

    National government elected 1931 led (sorta) by same old PM Ramsey Macdonald (Labour > National Labour) but dominated by Conservatives until May 1940. After which Tories still dominated the Coalition government until 1945 general election.
    Conservatives in power outright leading up to the war I think. Though the chart has them losing 84 seats in 1935.
    Wait. Hold on. Ignore my post. This is crazy.

    There’s two Liberal Parties and Two Labour parties, they each have a “National” doppelgänger.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_United_Kingdom_general_election

    The Tories have 470 out of 615 in 1931 but it’s not a Tory government or Primeminister. That is utterly bonkers.
    Ramsey Macdonald was retained as (increasingly titular) Prime Minister, as Conservative seal of assurance that the National government was "truly" national, and not just Tory-Tory-Tory.

    Mostly a vote catcher for most politicos, but a genuine aspiration for many voters, and some politicos.
    Something doesn’t seem right. If he’s not a Tory, why would he go along with it? If the Tories have 470 of 615 seats, you should be His Majesty’s opposition, try to hold them to account by asking the questions government would prefer not asked in public so they can get away with being rubbish.
    Good question. But it WAS a national-international economic-financial crisis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Government_(United_Kingdom)

    Note that Australian Labor Party also split, on same lines, with former Labour Treasurer becoming Prime Minister of mostly conservative (something no Oz party ever calls itself) government, under new United Australia Party / Country Party coalition.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Australia_Party
    If it’s a crisis like that, even more reason to have an able opposition from bench, outside the tent, who can ask probing questions of what you are up to.
    Who said they didn't. Certainly an opposition, able or not.

    Note that in 1940 (as in 1916) the UK formed a wartime Coalition government, with virtually no formal opposition. But pretty high level of "probing questions" to put it mildly.

    In Australia, where the Australian Labor Party had previously split over conscription, with former Lab PM retaining office as part of mostly conservative coalition, the ALP resisted efforts to be recruited into a WW2 wartime coalition similar to UK's. And eventually emerged as governing party, just in time for war with Japan from December 1940.

    Before attempting to apply theory to crisis, take note of the facts of the crisis.
    “ Before attempting to apply theory to crisis, take note of the facts of the crisis.”

    Is that you ticking me off? Seems to me 470 out of 615 Tories had this Macdonald chap stuffed, and were operating him like a sock puppet.
    Not arguing with your last point. Only with notion that coalition is always a crock, if that's what your arguing.
    I wasn’t actually. But I’m tempted to 😈

    Is national coalition in time of crisis not always a fallacy? Because if you don’t have “official opposition” an opposition to everyone in power inside the tent will just naturally form up anyway? It did in UK Parliament even before two party system. It’s neither here nor there you benefit opportunistically from political instability and economic crises, it could be ideological - in 1931 to 1935 you could have ideological or moral objections to the economic and financial measures the National Government is pursuing, so like I said, opposition naturally forms up.

    It happens on PB quite naturally. Those who think Sunak’s government has taken a firm line giving hootee a bloody nose, that should put a stop to their mischief versus those who think the government have merely made the situation worse poking a hornets nest they have no intention or even ability to actually deal with. Likewise, if anyone thinks Shapps speech about needing to elect a government for the prelude to war with China, Russia and Iran in five years will have more people returning back to the Conservatives, I’m in opposition to that thought - I think hearing that makes people much less likely to vote Tory.
  • Options
    YokesYokes Posts: 1,208

    Yokes said:

    Two longshot feelings, one of which my gut thinks will occur

    Biden steps down from running (no idea how that plays out)
    A genuinely credible person of GOP stock will run as a 3rd party candidate

    Liz Cheney?
    I dont know but there is 30% at least of the GOP voter base that really dont like Trump, probably more again tolerate him. Some kind of non entity might take 3%, a bigger player will take more. I dont think enthusiasm for Trump is as high as is made out.

    The problem is that Bidens enthusiasm rating reads as 'moribund'. There is a gap there, but credible people need to fill it.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518

    MattW said:

    viewcode said:

    Off topic, but I think many of you will like the new Miss America -- and be surprised at her day job. (I'm not mentioning it, because I want to give as many as possible the chance to discover it for themselves. More fun that way.)

    "...Miss Colorado Madison Marsh was crowned Miss America, becoming the first active-duty military service member to win the title in the pageant's nearly 100-year history, according to the U.S. Air Force.

    Marsh, 22, is a second lieutenant in the Air Force and recently graduated from the Air Force Academy in Colorado..."


    https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/culture/story/us-air-force-officer-makes-history-miss-america-106379088

    As I said the other day: USAF dress blues: an underrated dress uniform. Now worn by an actual Miss USA. That and Stargate mean that they have the cool sewn up... :)
    Taking that back on topic, one theme emerging in the USA is Donald Trump's behaviour and potential exploitation of ownership of beauty pageants in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s - including such thing as breezing into the backroom at Teenage pageants where competitors down to their mid teens changing outfits and topless or nude.

    No idea whether this one will break though.
    There is no longer anything approaching a national audience for Miss America, etc.

    VERY different from when I was a kid, for sure,.
    I didn't know they still had it.
    Real 20thC relic - bit like us.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,760
    viewcode said:

    @LeftieStats
    🚨 NEW: YouGov MRP shows that the Greens would easily HOLD Brighton Pavilion with a reduced majority

    🟩 GRN 49% (-8)
    🟥 LAB 32% (+4)
    🟧 LD 10% (+9)*
    🟦 CON 7% (-4)

    *LDs did not stand in 2019 due to an electoral pact; boundary changes mean that *on paper* they won 0.9%

    https://nitter.net/LeftieStats/status/1746947856785887375#m

    And neck and neck in the Bristols central seat to oust Labour front bencher that I tipped green to win like 18 flipping months ago on PB when it was like 66 trillion to 1 to happen, and then had to weather full ridicule of Nick palmer for saying so.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,576
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Profiles in Courage 2024

    NYT live blog - Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, who has come under withering attack from Donald Trump after endorsing Ron DeSantis, said that she would support Trump if he wins the nomination. “I’m a Republican,” Reynolds said on Fox News. “And all of the candidates running are going to be better than what we have.”

    SSI - Note that the (co-)author of "Profiles in Courage" picked his chief POTUS opponent, to be his running mate in 1960.

    That's why he wins. Because no matter how much he belittles and insults his GOP opponents (I won't say rivals, they never were), they will always come to heel. Even Christie has not said he will vote against Trump, just that he won't vote for him.

    Of course, you cannot come out openly against Trump and still have a career in the party, so its understandable, but it must be so disheartening - a lot of them love him, but even the ones who obviously hate him have to say they love him.

    Nobody knows, so here goes. My prediction: Trump wins Iowa big, DeSantis gets out and endorses Trump. Trump wins New Hampshire, Haley gets out and endorses Trump. And it’s over. Of course it was always over because it never really began. This was always only Trump’s race.

    https://nitter.net/WalshFreedom/status/1746886735689125903#m
    There's a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the general election.

    He may win the nomination, but I think he'll really struggle in the general.

    Biden beat him once already, and Trump is an even worse candidate now than he was then.
    He is, and I hope you are right.

    But if it is close again, there are more people primed to defy the law and reject valid outcomes this time - last time they were seemingly caught out, and many stood their ground. This time it is a major part of Republican belief that they were cheated last time and there were ways to prevent that.

    Not all election deniers won election in key places, such as in Arizona, but most of them are election deniers.
    No, they aren't election deniers. They don't deny an election happened, like Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust happened. They differ about what the result was, but that's very different from denying that it took place.

    Same with calling people who are sceptical about global warming "climate deniers", as if they deny that a climate exists. People who use phrases like "election denier" sound almost as silly as those who reject the certified results.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,477
    Yokes said:

    Yokes said:

    Two longshot feelings, one of which my gut thinks will occur

    Biden steps down from running (no idea how that plays out)
    A genuinely credible person of GOP stock will run as a 3rd party candidate

    Liz Cheney?
    I dont know but there is 30% at least of the GOP voter base that really dont like Trump, probably more again tolerate him. Some kind of non entity might take 3%, a bigger player will take more. I dont think enthusiasm for Trump is as high as is made out.

    The problem is that Bidens enthusiasm rating reads as 'moribund'. There is a gap there, but credible people need to fill it.
    Perhaps an opportunity for a more mainstream political outsider in the mould of Carly Fiorina in 2016.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518
    Saddest quote of the night so far.

    “A lot of people have counted us out and so if we can exceed those expectations that should be a storyline,” says Asa Hutchinson.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815

    You can't make this shit up....

    Trump not on the NV primary ballot because he didn't put in the paperwork!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrDDi1qCsoc&ab_channel=DavidPakmanShow

    Yes, it was deliberate. Because under Nevada Republican Party rules, ANY candidate who filed for the state presidential primary, is INELIGIBLE to be awarded any delegates to Republican National Convention from Nevada - which will be awarded solely on basis of results of Nevada Republican CAUCUSES.

    The fix is in for Trump . . . and NOT just in Nevada . . .
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,953
    Pagan2 said:

    I think the Tory stewardship of Ofcom has been excellent and has got the UK into being the leader in FTTP build. They didn't do it directly of course but they were very up for splitting off Openreach which certainly helped.

    ... after sneering at Labour for its broadband plans, they decided maybe Jezza was onto something after all.
    Because corbyns broadband plans were shit...it was a one size fits all policy whereas I can choose a company that optimizes for what I need whether is down speed upspeed or ping....not what the state decided I needed, Jezza can go shove his head up his butt
    There is a difference between thinking Conservative broadband policy is better than Labour would have done, and believing governments should not involve themselves in broadband provision at all.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,477
    Nigelb said:

    Saddest quote of the night so far.

    “A lot of people have counted us out and so if we can exceed those expectations that should be a storyline,” says Asa Hutchinson.

    Ryan Binkley doesn't even merit a photograph on the ABC results board:

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/iowa-caucus-results/story?id=105590219
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    NYT live blog - Preparing for the state's only living-room-based caucus in Silver City [Mills County], Mayor Sharon McNutt unpacks coffee mugs from her dishwasher, reminisces and predicts turnout will be affected by the frosty weather. She estimates a crowd of about 30 to 35 people, down from 50 in 2016.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,339

    viewcode said:

    @LeftieStats
    🚨 NEW: YouGov MRP shows that the Greens would easily HOLD Brighton Pavilion with a reduced majority

    🟩 GRN 49% (-8)
    🟥 LAB 32% (+4)
    🟧 LD 10% (+9)*
    🟦 CON 7% (-4)

    *LDs did not stand in 2019 due to an electoral pact; boundary changes mean that *on paper* they won 0.9%

    https://nitter.net/LeftieStats/status/1746947856785887375#m

    And neck and neck in the Bristols central seat to oust Labour front bencher that I tipped green to win like 18 flipping months ago on PB when it was like 66 trillion to 1 to happen, and then had to weather full ridicule of Nick palmer for saying so.
    Indeed. If they can resurrect the electoral pact with the Libs they would win it.

    @LeftieStats
    🚨 NEW: YouGov MRP shows a close contest in Bristol Central. The current MP is Thangam Debbonaire (LAB).

    🟥 LAB 42% (-18)
    🟩 GRN 38% (+12)
    🟧 LD 10% (+10)*
    🟦 CON 9% (-4)

    *Did not stand in 2019 due to electoral pact with Greens

    https://nitter.net/LeftieStats/status/1746916263413100850#m
  • Options
    YokesYokes Posts: 1,208

    Yokes said:

    Yokes said:

    Two longshot feelings, one of which my gut thinks will occur

    Biden steps down from running (no idea how that plays out)
    A genuinely credible person of GOP stock will run as a 3rd party candidate

    Liz Cheney?
    I dont know but there is 30% at least of the GOP voter base that really dont like Trump, probably more again tolerate him. Some kind of non entity might take 3%, a bigger player will take more. I dont think enthusiasm for Trump is as high as is made out.

    The problem is that Bidens enthusiasm rating reads as 'moribund'. There is a gap there, but credible people need to fill it.
    Perhaps an opportunity for a more mainstream political outsider in the mould of Carly Fiorina in 2016.
    I think the opposite, they need to be in the system. If someone put a gun to the head, I think Haley would be No.1 target for those looking to find an alternative runner. I dont think she'd be short of money backing her.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,102

    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
    UN Security Council voted for "police action" (Harry Truman's less-than-immortal phrase) against North Korean invasion of South Korea, because USSR was boycotting Security Council at the time.

    Perhaps conveniently for purposes of Stalin's grand strategy, By tying US, UK, etc. down in (to quote Douglas MacArthur) a land war in Asia?
    Korea was a strategic disaster for the USSR - the headlong disarmament program the US was on was stopped in its tracks. Then completely reversed.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    As Iowa Republican caucus results come in tonight, and are posted on map of all 99 counties, may be helpful to compare with map of 2016 final GOP caucus results by county:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_Republican_Presidential_Caucuses_Election_Results_by_County,_2016.svg
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815

    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
    UN Security Council voted for "police action" (Harry Truman's less-than-immortal phrase) against North Korean invasion of South Korea, because USSR was boycotting Security Council at the time.

    Perhaps conveniently for purposes of Stalin's grand strategy, By tying US, UK, etc. down in (to quote Douglas MacArthur) a land war in Asia?
    Korea was a strategic disaster for the USSR - the headlong disarmament program the US was on was stopped in its tracks. Then completely reversed.
    Did I say it was a SMART strategy?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,544
    I used to have the BBC's 1992 and 1996 US presidential election night shows on VHS video, but whether they're still around or not I'm not sure. I don't think they're on YouTube, except the start and end of the 1992 show.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Ff3IG0Vd8
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    edited January 16
    NYT live blog - Joyce Krebs, a Republican voter in Webster County tells NBC News that she will not be heading to the caucus tonight because of the slick road conditions. “[The snow has] been drifting again this afternoon,” Krebs said. “I would love to and would have enjoyed it. It’s just not a good idea.”

    Disappointed, Krebs said that she would have caucused for Trump tonight. She said that in 2016 she did take part in the caucus and backed Ted Cruz.

    SSI - Don't be surprised IF a car is now speeding Ms Krebs's way, to wisk her to caucus and back . . . via snowmobile.

    Early update re: Republican caucus coordinator on campus of University of Iowa, who expressed concern that weather would decrease youth turnout, especially those planning to walk to caucus.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,544
    It would make more sense to have a primary in Iowa and a caucus in Florida, due to the weather.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    Andy_JS said:

    I used to have the BBC's 1992 and 1996 US presidential election night shows on VHS video, but whether they're still around or not I'm not sure. I don't think they're on YouTube, except the start and end of the 1992 show.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Ff3IG0Vd8

    Personally watched election nights during the Golden Age of American TV, certainly for major-network TV news.

    Choice of ABC, CBS, NBC. At least where we lived; some had less, very few more.

    Generally for regular news CBS with Walter Cronkite was #1 but for Presidential election nights top dogs were David Brinkley and Chet Huntley on NBC, with John Chancellor as reporter and later anchor.

    Chancellor got his big break while reporting live from floor of 1968 Democratic convention. Including on-air altercation with over-zealous security while filming a state delegation's impromptu caucus.
  • Options
    Ok I've got CNN, Fox, result maps, so all ready to go :smiley: just going to look for some non-paywalled live blogs now.

    For my money, CNN (along with ABC Australia) is one of the best election night shows in the Anglosphere.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518

    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
    viewcode said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:


    @lizziedearden

    🚨Breaking: The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has conducted a legal assessment of the UK government's new Rwanda treaty and bill - and concludes the scheme still violates international law🚨

    File under #WhatAFuckingSurprise
    I think it's a terrible and immoral plan, but even I do not find the ponderings of UN agencies to have any particular moral or persuasive weight.

    I'm not about to suggesting junking the entire current diplomatic world order or anything, despite a certain backsliding the world's in a better state now than most times, but I do think 'UN says X' brings little to domestic or, often, even international disagreements, and that is a very very bad sign for its future development.
    A UN which has a "Security Council" member who has invaded a neighbour and has a veto over effective sanction is utterly unfit for purpose in the 21st century.

    The Korean War is on the phone. I don't knw what they're saying but I think it's Chinese.
    UN Security Council voted for "police action" (Harry Truman's less-than-immortal phrase) against North Korean invasion of South Korea, because USSR was boycotting Security Council at the time.

    Perhaps conveniently for purposes of Stalin's grand strategy, By tying US, UK, etc. down in (to quote Douglas MacArthur) a land war in Asia?
    Korea was a strategic disaster for the USSR - the headlong disarmament program the US was on was stopped in its tracks. Then completely reversed.
    Turned the tables somewhat with Vietnam, though.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518
    edited January 16
    Andy_JS said:

    It would make more sense to have a primary in Iowa and a caucus in Florida, due to the weather.

    Make more sense not to have caucuses at all. They're a pretty bizarre, nor very democratic historical curiosity. IMO, anyhow.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    edited January 16
    NYT live blog - In Grinnell (Poweshiek County), a college town roughly 50 miles east of Des Moines, turnout is much higher than expected. So much so that the caucus site here — a high school cafeteria — is running out of registration forms for first-time caucusgoers.

    SSI - Possible that some of these are Democrats, coming to vote for - my guess is - Haley.

    Note this is a one Republican, one vote election; including RFONs = Republicans For One Night.

    So turnout matters . . . as does WHO is turning out.

    Now 7.03pm in Iowa.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402


    It was when he lost the Iowa caucuses 8 years ago that Trump first cried "fraud".
  • Options
    MPartridgeMPartridge Posts: 157
    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    NBC live blog is doing excellent job IMHO including reports from caucus, and "super-caucus" locations.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/iowa-election-2024-live-updates-rcna133678
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,953

    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%

    If that reflects the eventual result, I'd expect DeSantis to have withdrawn before most of PB is up for breakfast. If DeSantis is merely second or third, then he will have a couple of days' grace.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%

    If that reflects the eventual result, I'd expect DeSantis to have withdrawn before most of PB is up for breakfast. If DeSantis is merely second or third, then he will have a couple of days' grace.
    I think that is just with Independents?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,477

    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%

    It's not good for Haley if she's only 1 point ahead of Ramaswamy.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    In general in the 2016 caucuses

    > Ted Cruz carried mostly rural counties with above-average percentages of evangelicals

    > Donald Trump carried most of the rest of the rural counties, along with some mid-size and larger

    > Marco Rubio carried six larger, more urban/suburban counties with more college-educated, including Des Moines city, University of Iowa, and Iowa State Univesity.

    Keep your eyes on 2016 Cruz counties, and the Big Six that went for Little Marco.
  • Options
    MPartridgeMPartridge Posts: 157

    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%

    If that reflects the eventual result, I'd expect DeSantis to have withdrawn before most of PB is up for breakfast. If DeSantis is merely second or third, then he will have a couple of days' grace.
    I think that is just with Independents?
    My apologies, it seems that is the case
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,067

    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%

    Whose is that ?

    Desantis and Haley were vying for second according to CNN, so it's not theirs
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    NYT live blog - Organizers are racing to set up extra chairs at Scotch Ridge Presbyterian Church in Carlisle [Warren County], where the fellowship hall is packed. The parking lot filled up well before 6:30 p.m. here, and caucusgoers are parked on the side of the road.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518
    rcs1000 said:



    It was when he lost the Iowa caucuses 8 years ago that Trump first cried "fraud".

    Today he was claiming he'd won Iowa twice.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    It's Haley 20.6%, DeSantis 19.4% overall (NBC) - based on their gender split.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It would make more sense to have a primary in Iowa and a caucus in Florida, due to the weather.

    Make more sense not to have caucuses at all. They're a pretty bizarre, nor very democratic historical curiosity. IMO, anyhow.
    A bit like the House of Lords?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    Screw the "entrance polls" - except for demographics & issues that is.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518
    This is somewhat alarming, if it is to be taken at all seriously.

    Is Kim Jong Un Preparing for War?
    https://www.38north.org/2024/01/is-kim-jong-un-preparing-for-war/
    The situation on the Korean Peninsula is more dangerous than it has been at any time since early June 1950. That may sound overly dramatic, but we believe that, like his grandfather in 1950, Kim Jong Un has made a strategic decision to go to war. We do not know when or how Kim plans to pull the trigger, but the danger is already far beyond the routine warnings in Washington, Seoul and Tokyo about Pyongyang’s “provocations.” In other words, we do not see the war preparation themes in North Korean media appearing since the beginning of last year as typical bluster from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea..
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    First results, 3 counties, from NYT

    Donald J. Trump
    151 76.3%
    Ron DeSantis
    24 12.1%
    Nikki Haley
    13 6.6%
    Vivek Ramaswamy
    8 4.0%
    Chris Christie
    1 0.5%
    Ryan Binkley
    1 0.5%
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815

    First results, 3 counties, from NYT

    Donald J. Trump
    151 76.3%
    Ron DeSantis
    24 12.1%
    Nikki Haley
    13 6.6%
    Vivek Ramaswamy
    8 4.0%
    Chris Christie
    1 0.5%
    Ryan Binkley
    1 0.5%

    More results coming in, no compete counties, appears to be from scattered, small rural precincts.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402

    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%

    It's not good for Haley if she's only 1 point ahead of Ramaswamy.
    It's not a good poll for anyone except Ramaswamy!
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    NYT has numbers from 5 counties, official state GOP site from 4.

    Likely AP reporters getting numbers as they are being fed into state reporting system by local GOP organizers.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,477

    First results, 3 counties, from NYT

    Donald J. Trump
    151 76.3%
    Ron DeSantis
    24 12.1%
    Nikki Haley
    13 6.6%
    Vivek Ramaswamy
    8 4.0%
    Chris Christie
    1 0.5%
    Ryan Binkley
    1 0.5%

    Stop the count!
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,067
    rcs1000 said:

    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%

    It's not good for Haley if she's only 1 point ahead of Ramaswamy.
    It's not a good poll for anyone except Ramaswamy!
    Where is Ramaswamy going to get these votes from ?
    Doesn't match anyone else's entrance poll. Whose poll is this ?
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    According to NYT, Trump now 3rd in Johnson Co - Iowa City = U of Iowa.

    However, just one precinct

    Haley 18 votes
    DeSantis14
    Trump 5
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Entrance poll

    Trump 47%
    Haley 20%
    Ramaswany 19%
    Desantis 14%

    It's not good for Haley if she's only 1 point ahead of Ramaswamy.
    It's not a good poll for anyone except Ramaswamy!
    Where is Ramaswamy going to get these votes from ?
    Doesn't match anyone else's entrance poll. Whose poll is this ?
    It's a subset - independent voters.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,518

    Nigelb said:

    Andy_JS said:

    It would make more sense to have a primary in Iowa and a caucus in Florida, due to the weather.

    Make more sense not to have caucuses at all. They're a pretty bizarre, nor very democratic historical curiosity. IMO, anyhow.
    A bit like the House of Lords?
    If you like.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,067
    Trump declared the winner before Asa Hutchinson gets a single vote
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    AP just declared Donald Trump winner of Iowa Republican precinct caucuses

    As in coming in first - NOT a surprise.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    AP just declared Donald Trump winner of Iowa Republican precinct caucuses

    As in coming in first - NOT a surprise.

    You could get a 2% return two days ago.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,567
    edited January 16
    Philip Bump gives us this reminder: "It’s also worth remembering that, in 2016, Donald Trump never hit 50 percent in a state primary or caucus until his (then) home state of New York in mid-April."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/15/iowa-caucus-live-updates/#link-D2AFLIE335FCLFCPMMKWZEIQYI
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    NYT has Trump leading in 9 counties, and Haley in 1 county, out of 99.

    Highest total county percent reported is Hancock Co with 9% reported.

    BTW, I transposed number for DeSantis / Haley in that Johnson Co pct, he's 1st, she's 2nd
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,477

    AP just declared Donald Trump winner of Iowa Republican precinct caucuses

    As in coming in first - NOT a surprise.

    It feels like quite a big moment for him to win his first electoral test since 2020 convincingly.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,388

    Philip Bump gives us this reminder: "It’s also worth remembering that, in 2016, Donald Trump never hit 50 percent in a state primary or caucus until his (then) home state of New York in mid-April."
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/15/iowa-caucus-live-updates/#link-D2AFLIE335FCLFCPMMKWZEIQYI

    Whatever happened to that Marco Rubio guy?

    Made a lot of money off him
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,544

    Andy_JS said:

    I used to have the BBC's 1992 and 1996 US presidential election night shows on VHS video, but whether they're still around or not I'm not sure. I don't think they're on YouTube, except the start and end of the 1992 show.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Ff3IG0Vd8

    Personally watched election nights during the Golden Age of American TV, certainly for major-network TV news.

    Choice of ABC, CBS, NBC. At least where we lived; some had less, very few more.

    Generally for regular news CBS with Walter Cronkite was #1 but for Presidential election nights top dogs were David Brinkley and Chet Huntley on NBC, with John Chancellor as reporter and later anchor.

    Chancellor got his big break while reporting live from floor of 1968 Democratic convention. Including on-air altercation with over-zealous security while filming a state delegation's impromptu caucus.
    I'm a big fan of Walter Cronkite. First encountered him on the Spaceship Earth ride in Orlando, Florida, in about 1988.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,815
    Real question re: Trump winning "convincingly" is, will he break 50%. With anything less being less than convincing.

    Second question, naturally, is who comes in 2nd place?
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,544

    According to NYT, Trump now 3rd in Johnson Co - Iowa City = U of Iowa.

    However, just one precinct

    Haley 18 votes
    DeSantis14
    Trump 5

    You'd expect this to be one of Trump's weakest area?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,402
    The interesting questions are:

    (a) what is Trump's share?
    And
    (b) who comes second?

    If Trump gets more than 60% and anyone other than Haley is second, then this is all over

    On the other hand, if Trump does not clear the 50 percent hurdle, and Haley is a decent second, then things are setup nicely for New Hampshire.
This discussion has been closed.