Howdy, Stranger!

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

Punters largely staying with Trump in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited February 4 in General
imagePunters largely staying with Trump in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

There are so many issues and court cases concerning Trump that it is very hard to monitor.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,182
    edited January 29
    1st, like Nikki at the GOP convention?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,706
    'Deep State'? Isn't that just a creation of the MAGA imagination?

    If the 'Deep State' Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near the White House in the first place.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,695
    edited January 29
    Third.
    Am I the only one who is bored by Trump V Biden?
    John Bolton spouting bollocks about "only language they understand" yet again.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,706
    Michelle Obama is the rising prospect, I see.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,695
    dixiedean said:

    Third.
    Am I the only one who is bored by Trump V Biden?
    John Bolton spouting bollocks about "only language they understand" yet again.

    He isn't content to have Americans at risk from Mediaval religious fanatics.
    Ha ha ha.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514
    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,258
    Anyone but Trump or Biden
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 30,706
    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 42,838
    Foxy said:

    'Deep State'? Isn't that just a creation of the MAGA imagination?

    If the 'Deep State' Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near the White House in the first place.

    The best argument against the existence of a "Deep State" is that there is no evidence of competency in government to suggest they could manage to organise a piss up in a brewery let alone a complex conspiracy.
    In Chiswick, the Fullers Brewery complex has a big event space.

    So the story goes, an event there ran out of beer. Since it is separate from the actual brewery, no one had access. So no more beer.

    So they failed at organising a pissup in a brewery.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    It would be good to hear from @Yokes on the Iran situation. It sounds like the US is planning to respond tonight but will it be enough?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,126

    Michelle Obama is the rising prospect, I see.

    The problem with 5% interest rates is that if some single person has a theory about a long shot about something that's a year away the market won't correct the price because although it's irrational to back, it's also not really rational to lay.

    If they haven't already I expect one of the crypto markets will start offering yield on your stake, which should fix this.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    President Palin?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    What match-up would give Americans the best choice between two contrasting philosophies, and would also allow them to pick someone who is not mentally... in decline?

    I'd go for Buttigieg vs Haley.

    Or, if we want someone from the MAGA side of the tracks, how about Buttigieg vs Vance? (Albeit Vance is a charisma free zone, so maybe we could find someone more interesting... Hawley?)
  • Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    'Deep State'? Isn't that just a creation of the MAGA imagination?

    If the 'Deep State' Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near the White House in the first place.

    Of course, if the Deep State existed Trump* would never have been President, and ISPs would have banned access to 4Chan/QAnon.

    * I mean the "Deep State" as envisaged by Trump/QAnon
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    dixiedean said:

    Third.
    Am I the only one who is bored by Trump V Biden?
    John Bolton spouting bollocks about "only language they understand" yet again.

    Is it English?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,126

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    Polymarket currently has "any other Republican politician" (other than the people who competed in the primary + Kanye) at 0.4 cents - 0.6 cents. I think this is interesting because there are lots of ways for Trump to fall over - death, illness, jail, disqualification - but still beat Nicki Haley in delegates. If that happens I can't see his delegates choosing one of the failed primary candidates. They're more likely to pick either a direct Trump proxy like Ivanka or Donald Jr or some other Trump-endorsed MAGA loyalist.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    rcs1000 said:

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    What match-up would give Americans the best choice between two contrasting philosophies, and would also allow them to pick someone who is not mentally... in decline?

    I'd go for Buttigieg vs Haley.

    Or, if we want someone from the MAGA side of the tracks, how about Buttigieg vs Vance? (Albeit Vance is a charisma free zone, so maybe we could find someone more interesting... Hawley?)
    What do Buttigieg and Haley disagree on?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,532
    FPT

    stodge said:

    FPT - although @Pagan2 got some pushback for his stance, I have sympathy for it, even if I disagree: if he were to vote for a party he considers as terrible (but slightly less terrible than the others), that party would count his vote as a positive endorsement and (if it won) towards a mandate in favour of its manifesto.

    Which I can see as very much grating if you disagree with it all. The right to vote, in my eyes, has to include the right not to vote (and not to need one to jump through hoops to avoid voting, either).

    Yes but in order to have a positive abstention or vote for None of the Above (NOTA) recorded, you have to as, it were, vote. Abstaining by not voting is one thing but to register a positive vote against all the candidates is something else.

    That should be allowed - the ballot paper shpuld have the option NOTA or similar. Should there be a threshold in any constitiuency which, if reached by NOTA, would force a re-run of the elecrion? Presumably, if NOTA gets more "votes" then any of the other candidates, we can say the election is voided.
    Better - if NOTA wins, all the previous candidates are barred from the re-run.
    Now THAT could actively earn abstention votes.
    And incentivise those who feel as Pagan2 does to have something to vote for with the prospect of actually causing some kind of change. Especially if the losing parties are also banned from the rerun
    If there was a none of the above box I would resume voting ....I only stopped voting in 2010 before that I voted every election and then realised there was nothing to vote for that could change things away from the current consensus and I am sorry the differences between parties is a difference of degrees not a whole different direction one is stay steer NE, one N and one NW....they agree on the general direction....those of us wanting to steer south don't get a look in.

    No spoiling my vote doesn't cut it because it might be a mere mistake. A box telling them all to get fucked absolutely does
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751

    rcs1000 said:

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    What match-up would give Americans the best choice between two contrasting philosophies, and would also allow them to pick someone who is not mentally... in decline?

    I'd go for Buttigieg vs Haley.

    Or, if we want someone from the MAGA side of the tracks, how about Buttigieg vs Vance? (Albeit Vance is a charisma free zone, so maybe we could find someone more interesting... Hawley?)
    What do Buttigieg and Haley disagree on?
    Haley says there's no racism in the US today. Buttigieg would disagree.
  • NickyBreakspearNickyBreakspear Posts: 657
    edited January 29
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,532

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    President Palin?
    Michael would be great and younger (just) than Joe.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,565

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    President Palin?
    Around the World in 80+ Years.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    President Palin?
    Michael would be great and younger (just) than Joe.
    But ineligible as not American born.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    rcs1000 said:

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    What match-up would give Americans the best choice between two contrasting philosophies, and would also allow them to pick someone who is not mentally... in decline?

    I'd go for Buttigieg vs Haley.

    Or, if we want someone from the MAGA side of the tracks, how about Buttigieg vs Vance? (Albeit Vance is a charisma free zone, so maybe we could find someone more interesting... Hawley?)
    What do Buttigieg and Haley disagree on?
    Abortion?

    Climate change?

    I mean, you could ask the same about Biden and Trump, except they clearly don't disagree on abortion. Both Biden and Trump, after all, are American economic nationalists who want to use the power of the Federal government to increase manufacturing in the US. And now Biden has - belatedly - changed his mind on the Southern border, the difference has narrowed yet further.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 13,744

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    Polymarket currently has "any other Republican politician" (other than the people who competed in the primary + Kanye) at 0.4 cents - 0.6 cents. I think this is interesting because there are lots of ways for Trump to fall over - death, illness, jail, disqualification - but still beat Nicki Haley in delegates. If that happens I can't see his delegates choosing one of the failed primary candidates. They're more likely to pick either a direct Trump proxy like Ivanka or Donald Jr or some other Trump-endorsed MAGA loyalist.
    I think that is absolutely spot on.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 57,808
    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 6,751
    Reporting on the DUP deal to return to Stormont from the BBC (with commentary by me):

    Limiting divergence with EU rules, so lessening the amount of checks needed on goods (will Tory MPs decry this betrayal of Brexit?)

    New legislation to strengthen "unfettered access" for Northern Ireland goods going to Great Britain (which means what?)

    Renaming a proposed green lane - the one used for goods going from Great Britain destined for sale in Northern Ireland - to the "UK Internal Market Lane" (LOL)

    A new body that could promote trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK (spaff some public money up the wall?)
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619
    Are we aiming for "most new threads in the space of an evening".

    Or is it just that I got a 'first' before TSE?

    :: suspicious eyes emoji ::
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,243
    dixiedean said:

    Third.
    Am I the only one who is bored by Trump V Biden?
    John Bolton spouting bollocks about "only language they understand" yet again.

    Yes, it is boring. The Democrats should have chosen a different candidate, which probably would have forced the Republicans to do the same.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,572
    edited January 29

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    It seems to me that swing back won’t be as dramatic as usual, given the change in leaders.

    Labour inclined voters like Rishi better than Boris, but won’t vote for him
    Cameroon Tories ditto
    Boris’s first time 2019 Tories feel betrayed
    Not much to separate Sunak & Sir Keir on charisma

    I think the only realistic hope the Tories have is people seeing a lot of Starmer on tv being grilled about u-turns, and getting flustered/angry. It’s low key happened before and he’s never really been under the microscope from an awkward interviewer. But even that is probably not enough

    The unrealistic hope is ditching Sunak, manoeuvring Boris into an unloseable seat & making him leader again. He would dominate the campaign and Labour would be put on the back foot

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
    Some of those do like a big stretch: Marcus Fysh got almost twice the votes of the LibDem candidate in Yeovil last time around. Now, can I see a 16,000 majority cut to a 5,000 one? Sure. But there's no meaningful Labour vote to squeeze, so Conservatives staying home is going to no way cut it.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 43,514
    Senegal out in the AFCON.

    This is a gloriously unpredictable tournament.

    Think DRC and Angola are good long shot bets, and here anything can happen.

    Some great football and the VAR works without being intrusive.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,311
    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Third.
    Am I the only one who is bored by Trump V Biden?
    John Bolton spouting bollocks about "only language they understand" yet again.

    Yes, it is boring. The Democrats should have chosen a different candidate, which probably would have forced the Republicans to do the same.
    Biden has proved he can beat Trump, the GOP would still have chosen Trump regardless unless the SC removes him from ballots or he is jailed in one of his criminal trials
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619
    Foxy said:

    'Deep State'? Isn't that just a creation of the MAGA imagination?

    If the 'Deep State' Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near the White House in the first place.

    The best argument against the existence of a "Deep State" is that there is no evidence of competency in government to suggest they could manage to organise a piss up in a brewery let alone a complex conspiracy.
    I was thinking the other day about the privatised water companies and realised we can't even organise a water in a water, never mind a piss up in a brewery.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
    Some of those do like a big stretch: Marcus Fysh got almost twice the votes of the LibDem candidate in Yeovil last time around. Now, can I see a 16,000 majority cut to a 5,000 one? Sure. But there's no meaningful Labour vote to squeeze, so Conservatives staying home is going to no way cut it.
    I'm now having flashbacks to being in "The Yeovil Centre" as a child and am now even more disinclined to vote libdem.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,619

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    President Palin?
    I'm still holding out for a Kanye vs. Oprah election. It felt like a fever dream a just a few fleeting years ago, and yet... now?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,536
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    I share your scepticism re 54 seats.

    If that MRP were to be believed, we would be going from a situation where the LDs got under 2% of the seats with 12% of the GB vote share in 2019, to one where they get over 8% of the seats with a reduced 11% of the vote share in 2024. Not far from a proportional result.

    It would take a truely remarkable concentration of their vote to achieve 54 seats in those circumstances, enough to almost eliminate the bias of FPTP against small parties. And other evidence says that there isn't such a concentration happening to the required degree. Look at R&W's "Blue Wall" polling which contains many of their target seats - the LDs were at 24% in the latest R&W Blue Wall polling, compared to the 27% they achieved at GE 2019 on a 12% national vote share.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
    Some of those do like a big stretch: Marcus Fysh got almost twice the votes of the LibDem candidate in Yeovil last time around. Now, can I see a 16,000 majority cut to a 5,000 one? Sure. But there's no meaningful Labour vote to squeeze, so Conservatives staying home is going to no way cut it.
    Yeovil ought to be a prime target for them, but they're not doing well enough nationally.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,865
    The Stonehaven MRP is a few months old now but fairly decent, I think. Not as plausible as YouGov’s but streets ahead of Electoral Calculus. Initially it had an issue in that it was massively overstating the Greens in rural Blue Wall seats - don’t know if that was ever corrected.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
    Some of those do like a big stretch: Marcus Fysh got almost twice the votes of the LibDem candidate in Yeovil last time around. Now, can I see a 16,000 majority cut to a 5,000 one? Sure. But there's no meaningful Labour vote to squeeze, so Conservatives staying home is going to no way cut it.
    Torbay: 17,700 Tory majority over the LibDems. 6,500 Labour vote to squeeze.

    But that isn't going to be squeezed. Not happening.

    North Devon: 15,500 Tory majority over LibDems. 5,000 Labour vote to squeeze.

    Again, that is going to increase, not get squeezed.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    I share your scepticism re 54 seats.

    If that MRP were to be believed, we would be going from a situation where the LDs got under 2% of the seats with 12% of the GB vote share in 2019, to one where they get over 8% of the seats with a reduced 11% of the vote share in 2024. Not far from a proportional result.

    It would take a truely remarkable concentration of their vote to achieve 54 seats in those circumstances, enough to almost eliminate the bias of FPTP against small parties. And other evidence says that there isn't such a concentration happening to the required degree. Look at R&W's "Blue Wall" polling which contains many of their target seats - the LDs were at 24% in the latest R&W Blue Wall polling, compared to the 27% they achieved at GE 2019 on a 12% national vote share.
    Nationally, the Labour vote is way up on 2019. If that isn't happening in these LibDem target seats too, then - why?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,909

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
    Living in one of these seats, and having close family or business ties to 4 or 5 others meaning I stay relatively often makes me think it isn't too outlandish at all....
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 18,985
    Foxy said:

    Senegal out in the AFCON.

    This is a gloriously unpredictable tournament.

    Think DRC and Angola are good long shot bets, and here anything can happen.

    Some great football and the VAR works without being intrusive.

    Was a good match tonight. I’ve watched most of the evening games.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,536
    Foxy said:

    Senegal out in the AFCON.

    This is a gloriously unpredictable tournament.

    Think DRC and Angola are good long shot bets, and here anything can happen.

    Some great football and the VAR works without being intrusive.

    I had the pleasure of watching the WBA v Wolves game at the weekend. In the FA Cup 4th round so no VAR, the first time I've watched my team live for many years without there being VAR present. It was liberating to be able to totally celebrate two goals without having one eye on whether there would be the dreaded "VAR review" flashed up. And guess what, the standard of refereeing was just fine with real matters of dispute in the entire game, far better than the farcical decision making we see week in and week out in the Premier League.

    Unless they can improve the standard, or change to operating VAR in the way it is done more successfully in international tournaments, I'm for now in the "get rid of VAR" camp, at least for everything bar offside.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    dixiedean said:

    Third.
    Am I the only one who is bored by Trump V Biden?
    John Bolton spouting bollocks about "only language they understand" yet again.

    Yes, it is boring. The Democrats should have chosen a different candidate, which probably would have forced the Republicans to do the same.
    Biden has proved he can beat Trump, the GOP would still have chosen Trump regardless unless the SC removes him from ballots or he is jailed in one of his criminal trials
    Even then, I think.

    In that situation sure they'd lose, but no worse and probably better than not choosing him, such is his hold on the base.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004

    'Deep State'? Isn't that just a creation of the MAGA imagination?

    If the 'Deep State' Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near the White House in the first place.

    That's just how powerful his support is, it overcame even that.

    Then he someone managed to have the greatest presidency in US history, simultaneous to the deep state preventing him from doing even more awesome things and then rigging the election against him.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    edited January 29
    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    There would be something rather amusing about getting the same percentage as 2019 but quintupling their seats, but even with FPTP, where your vote can go up and your seats down, that does sound improbable.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
    Some of those do like a big stretch: Marcus Fysh got almost twice the votes of the LibDem candidate in Yeovil last time around. Now, can I see a 16,000 majority cut to a 5,000 one? Sure. But there's no meaningful Labour vote to squeeze, so Conservatives staying home is going to no way cut it.
    Yeovil ought to be a prime target for them, but they're not doing well enough nationally.
    I don't know: I think that's the kind of Brexity South West seat that used to be the LDs bread and butter, but that they will now really struggle in.

    Go back to the state of the parties in local elections prior to the 1997 election: at that time, the LDs controlled pretty much all the (non-urban) councils in the South West. Now - sure - there are some islands of strength there. But they're not doing that well. (I grant you that South Somerset, home of Yeovil, is one of the areas they are doing pretty well in.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    I share your scepticism re 54 seats.

    If that MRP were to be believed, we would be going from a situation where the LDs got under 2% of the seats with 12% of the GB vote share in 2019, to one where they get over 8% of the seats with a reduced 11% of the vote share in 2024. Not far from a proportional result.

    It would take a truely remarkable concentration of their vote to achieve 54 seats in those circumstances, enough to almost eliminate the bias of FPTP against small parties. And other evidence says that there isn't such a concentration happening to the required degree. Look at R&W's "Blue Wall" polling which contains many of their target seats - the LDs were at 24% in the latest R&W Blue Wall polling, compared to the 27% they achieved at GE 2019 on a 12% national vote share.
    I guess Scotland is a counterpoint: in 2017, the LibDems got 4 out 59 seats (7%) off 6.8% of the vote. (Albeit in 2019, they increased their vote share by 2.5 percentage points and got the same number of seats.)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 57,808
    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    I reckon she stays until the donors give up. As you say - what has she to lose? You are probably right that is Super Tuesday.

    Godspeed to her. She maybe v conservative but she isn't Trump 2.0 bat bonkers.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
    Some of those do like a big stretch: Marcus Fysh got almost twice the votes of the LibDem candidate in Yeovil last time around. Now, can I see a 16,000 majority cut to a 5,000 one? Sure. But there's no meaningful Labour vote to squeeze, so Conservatives staying home is going to no way cut it.
    Yeovil ought to be a prime target for them, but they're not doing well enough nationally.
    I don't know: I think that's the kind of Brexity South West seat that used to be the LDs bread and butter, but that they will now really struggle in.

    Go back to the state of the parties in local elections prior to the 1997 election: at that time, the LDs controlled pretty much all the (non-urban) councils in the South West. Now - sure - there are some islands of strength there. But they're not doing that well. (I grant you that South Somerset, home of Yeovil, is one of the areas they are doing pretty well in.)
    The South West is in an odd place right now. You have areas where Labour remain nowhere in Locals, but holding onto second places in the last two Parliamentary elections, no mere flash in the pan.

    The two will obviously point to different elections on their leaflets come the General Election, but I have no idea whether Labour surging nationally will see them retain their place as main challengers but lose out on victory, or if the LDs will be able to capitalise based on local support and resources to sneak a few extra seats.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    There would be something rather amusing about getting the same percentage as 2019 but quintupling their seats, but even with FPTP, where your vote can go up and your seats down, that does sound improbable.
    Yep: look, I think the LDs will have a decent evening because their vote will be little changed on 2019, while a substantial minority of Conservatives will stay home, and Labour voters will be much more likely to vote tactically.

    That points to them getting their seat numbers back into the 20s. If they do get 11% this time around, I'd reckon they'll probably end up with 18-22 seats.

    I'm a little more optimistic on their ultimate vote share, and think they'll probably get something like 13%, maybe 14% on a really good day, which puts them in the 26-29 seat range.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    Looking at some election stuff and, random fact, but apparently Islington North is the smallest constituency in the UK, by area, over 1500x smaller than the largest.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837
    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,243
    kle4 said:

    Looking at some election stuff and, random fact, but apparently Islington North is the smallest constituency in the UK, by area, over 1500x smaller than the largest.

    Yes it's been the smallest seat in area since 1983.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    edited January 30

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    Here's hoping. His whole strategy in the trial appeared to be to rant outside it everyday to ensure his supporters saw it all as completely rigged, but even if he has 90% of them locked in to that explanation that 10% who were not would still be crucial, so long as Biden can remain upright for the next 10 months.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    kle4 said:

    Looking at some election stuff and, random fact, but apparently Islington North is the smallest constituency in the UK, by area, over 1500x smaller than the largest.

    At 2.2 square miles, Kensington is actually the smallest constituency in the UK. The largest is Ross, Skye and Lochaber at 4,709 square miles: more than 2,000x larger.

    Kensington also has many more constituents!
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,243
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Looking at some election stuff and, random fact, but apparently Islington North is the smallest constituency in the UK, by area, over 1500x smaller than the largest.

    At 2.2 square miles, Kensington is actually the smallest constituency in the UK. The largest is Ross, Skye and Lochaber at 4,709 square miles: more than 2,000x larger.

    Kensington also has many more constituents!
    Kensington must have under-taken Islington North pretty recently in that case.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Looking at some election stuff and, random fact, but apparently Islington North is the smallest constituency in the UK, by area, over 1500x smaller than the largest.

    At 2.2 square miles, Kensington is actually the smallest constituency in the UK. The largest is Ross, Skye and Lochaber at 4,709 square miles: more than 2,000x larger.

    Kensington also has many more constituents!
    I am disgusted that the good nerds of wikipedia have not kept things up to date in that case.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    Here's hoping. His whole strategy in the trial appeared to be to rant outside it everyday to ensure his supporters saw it all as completely rigged, but even if he has 90% of them locked in to that explanation that 10% who were not would still be crucial, so long as Biden can remain upright for the next 10 months.
    The Democrats have to get across the message: Trump's woes are down to his myriad personality defects. They are solely down to him being a lying, cheating fraudster rapist. His woes have not been brought about by Biden, but by a series of Grand Jury indictments. He is not fit to do business; he is not fit to be President.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    edited January 30
    Andy_JS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Looking at some election stuff and, random fact, but apparently Islington North is the smallest constituency in the UK, by area, over 1500x smaller than the largest.

    At 2.2 square miles, Kensington is actually the smallest constituency in the UK. The largest is Ross, Skye and Lochaber at 4,709 square miles: more than 2,000x larger.

    Kensington also has many more constituents!
    Kensington must have under-taken Islington North pretty recently in that case.
    The difference in size is pretty small (both are tiny!), but it would appear to have happened around a decade ago when Kensington lost Hyde Park to the Cities of London and Westminster: https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/areas/E14000768/

    Note: Hyde Park doesn't actually have any people in it, so the difference is essentially symbolic.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    I couldn't agree more: every court case reinforces his message that the elites are trying to prevent ordinary people having a voice. Had there been no court cases, we might well have been looking at a DeSantis victory in Iowa, and a Haley one in New Hampshire.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,004
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    I couldn't agree more: every court case reinforces his message that the elites are trying to prevent ordinary people having a voice. Had there been no court cases, we might well have been looking at a DeSantis victory in Iowa, and a Haley one in New Hampshire.
    And yet what can you do? He does appear to have committed crimes in several ways, that had to be addressed .

    It's all McDonnells fault really - he accepted Trump was culpable for Jan 6th but did not act, that's worse than those who did not see him as culpable.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    Nancy Pelosi tells pro-Palestinian protesters to "go back to China where your headquarters is". The paranoia about foreign interference is becoming a serious problem.

    https://x.com/halalflow/status/1752021755995025689
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837
    edited January 30

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,069
    edited January 30
    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    MoonRabbits reply part 1

    The kelner article clearly answers BJO question a few threads 7 hours back, though Tbf PBers replying to John did so well enough - why this group of pollsters have lead at 14 or less, and this group pushing 20s or beyond. Kelner calls it purity v reality, best summoned up in his Opinium paragraph.

    “Opinium is one company that adopts the reality approach. This is why it regularly reports lower leads than most other companies. Its new year poll for the Observer is typical. Its unadjusted “purity” figures showed Labour on 44 per cent, 20 points ahead of the Conservatives. But its “reality” adjustments—to turnout, don’t knows etc—reduced Labour’s support by three percentage points, and added the same amount to the Tories. The outcome: Labour’s lead as reported by the Observer, six points lower at 14 per cent.”

    If you are looking at a 14 (that you don’t realise already “presumes what will really happen” with a Wapping 6% swing to the Conservatives) and you thinking voters actually said 14 and there’s some swingback still to come, then of course this is abysmal news if you’re Conservatives - those smaller polls are not what voters are actually saying - the actual figure are like Opiniums pure 20 point margins, is same as the other “pure figure” pollsters, only with 3 taken off Labour and added to the Tories based on “reality”.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,069
    edited January 30

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    MoonRabbits reply part 1

    The kelner article clearly answers BJO question a few threads 7 hours back, though Tbf PBers replying to John did so well enough - why this group of posters have lead at 14 or less, and this group pushing 20s or beyond. Kelner calls it purity v reality, best summoned up in his Opinium paragraph.

    “Opinium is one company that adopts the reality approach. This is why it regularly reports lower leads than most other companies. Its new year poll for the Observer is typical. Its unadjusted “purity” figures showed Labour on 44 per cent, 20 points ahead of the Conservatives. But its “reality” adjustments—to turnout, don’t knows etc—reduced Labour’s support by three percentage points, and added the same amount to the Tories. The outcome: Labour’s lead as reported by the Observer, six points lower at 14 per cent.”

    If you are looking at a 14 (that you don’t realise already “presumes what will really happen” with a Wapping 6% swing to the Conservatives) and you thinking voters actually said 14 and there’s some swingback still to come, then of course this is abysmal news if you’re Conservatives - those smaller polls are not what voters are actually saying - the actual figure are like Opiniums pure 20 point margins, is same as the other “pure figure” pollsters, only with 3 taken off Labour and added to the Tories based on “reality”.
    I’m not sure reality is good term for it, for it suggests… reality. And this brings me to areas of obvious vice in Kelners Purity/Reality Theory. The presumption there will be this level of swingback because it “always” happens. ‘past Conservative governments at the end of a full term have consistently gained ground in the months approaching election day.’

    Yet in 97 it didn’t happen Peter. The reality is, here and there you can get an election where historical precedents end up in the bin, no matter how often it had previously consistently happened - to pick those odd ones, which I insist you can do, you must at same time be more creative and wide ranging in your thinking about what is patently different in the psychological make up of each election.

    I can give you two good examples, firstly, votes outside the big 3 totalled 6% in 97, and 20% or more in today’s polls. Is the 3 off labour and all of it added onto the Tories making it a reality poll, yet the 11% for Ref and 8% green are pure figures in the same poll? You expect it to be 11 and 8 in the PV? Where you tell us the Reality Margin is 14%, you’ve got an elephant in the room Peter, asking you where he fits into “reality swingback theory”. 8 off that 11 ref onto Tory, with Greens staying put, and you got yourself a 6% reality lead for Labour, likewise, keep the ref where they are and add 6 from greens to Labours reality for a new Reality of 20% deficit for Tories on election day. At this election, so unlike previous examples, You’ve got this elephant standing in the middle of your theory Peter.

    Another example for Peter, “what was the reasoning for previous swingback”. In the 10 years leading up to 92 the voters trusted the Conservatives very consistently every year on economy, law and order, defence etc etc, so it wan’t what was going on in the months up to voting day that created Swingback, but the record over the previous 10 years. Which in comparison, are the voters minds in a different place today about the last 10 years, or perhaps completely opposite minded, hence we shouldn’t presume the historical swingback.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Look: I agree that the actions around the last election, where he organized slates of fake electors, should disqualify him from ever holding office again. His disdain for democratic norms is incredibly dangerous.

    But that doesn't mean that some of the court cases don't stink of political vindictiveness. Like the hush money payments case: I mean "falsifying business records"? Come on.

    And, of course, he is able to portray them all as vindictiveness, when many of his crimes are - as you note - very serious.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
    edited January 30

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    OK, 10-15% differences in valuations are fine.

    20x differences are not.

    And whether Deutche Bank lost money is irrelevant. If you claim $100m of assets so you can borrow $20m, and it later turns out you only have $5m of assets, then you are guilty of wire fraud and material misrepresentation irrespective of whether you eventually repaid the money.

    (Indeed, the lower interest rate you paid is obtaining pecuniary advantage via... errr... lying.)

    But even if you take the Trump side entirely at face value, and argue there is no attempt to defraud when he submitted valuations to banks, he is still guilty of wire fraud when he made his property tax submissions.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    He inflated the size of his properties. He inflated their worth. He got preferential rates on loans that would not be available to somebody not committing that fraud. So he committed fraud on Deutsche Bank. He also committed fraud on all those voters who played by the rules - and didn't get loans at those rates. Those who struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Those who lost their businesses.

    There is a vast trail of evidence that over a period of many years, he gave very low valuations for property taxes and very high valuations on the very same properties for obtaining loans.

    Fraud. On a massive scale.

    Read about it in remarkable detail in the judgment when it is handed down. Then come back and shill for Trump. He'll be needing some new lawyers then. You can act for him.

    Just don't expect any thanks. Or any payment.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,243
    The latest from Matt Goodwin.

    "Matt Goodwin
    @GoodwinMJ

    Rishi Sunak should save his party and the country by offering the British people a referendum on reducing mass immigration. It is the only thing that would give him a chance at the looming election. Here's why"

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1751918630613225988
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420
    edited January 30

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    He inflated the size of his properties. He inflated their worth. He got preferential rates on loans that would not be available to somebody not committing that fraud. So he committed fraud on Deutsche Bank. He also committed fraud on all those voters who played by the rules - and didn't get loans at those rates. Those who struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Those who lost their businesses.

    There is a vast trail of evidence that over a period of many years, he gave very low valuations for property taxes and very high valuations on the very same properties for obtaining loans.

    Fraud. On a massive scale.

    Read about it in remarkable detail in the judgment when it is handed down. Then come back and shill for Trump. He'll be needing some new lawyers then. You can act for him.

    Just don't expect any thanks. Or any payment.
    Just don't expect it to shift the polls against Trump, otherwise I'm afraid you'll work yourself up into an even bigger state of hysteria.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Look: I agree that the actions around the last election, where he organized slates of fake electors, should disqualify him from ever holding office again. His disdain for democratic norms is incredibly dangerous.

    But that doesn't mean that some of the court cases don't stink of political vindictiveness. Like the hush money payments case: I mean "falsifying business records"? Come on.

    And, of course, he is able to portray them all as vindictiveness, when many of his crimes are - as you note - very serious.
    He will always portray them as vindictiveness. He has no ability to accept any responsibility for his actions. Because to do so would mean you could question his probity on everything that has been laid at his door. Every crime and misdemeanour. Rightly so. He is an amoral sociopath. He has no concept of a justice that should apply to him. That is for the little people.

    If you want to question why politicians deserve no respect, then Exhibit A: Donald Trump.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,506
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,837

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    He inflated the size of his properties. He inflated their worth. He got preferential rates on loans that would not be available to somebody not committing that fraud. So he committed fraud on Deutsche Bank. He also committed fraud on all those voters who played by the rules - and didn't get loans at those rates. Those who struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Those who lost their businesses.

    There is a vast trail of evidence that over a period of many years, he gave very low valuations for property taxes and very high valuations on the very same properties for obtaining loans.

    Fraud. On a massive scale.

    Read about it in remarkable detail in the judgment when it is handed down. Then come back and shill for Trump. He'll be needing some new lawyers then. You can act for him.

    Just don't expect any thanks. Or any payment.
    Just don't expect it to shift the polls against Trump, otherwise I'm afraid you'll work yourself up into an even bigger state of hysteria.
    No hysteria my end.

    And it is already moving the polls. Otherwise Haley wouldn't still be in the race, raising millions. Watch the vox pops. Those people voting Haley are going to vote Biden, if the alternative is Trump.
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,865
    Andy_JS said:

    The latest from Matt Goodwin.

    "Matt Goodwin
    @GoodwinMJ

    Rishi Sunak should save his party and the country by offering the British people a referendum on reducing mass immigration. It is the only thing that would give him a chance at the looming election. Here's why"

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1751918630613225988

    What’s the question going to be?

    “Do you agree that Rishi really should stop the boats and that voting ‘Yes’ will magically make him capable of doing so?”
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,420

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    He inflated the size of his properties. He inflated their worth. He got preferential rates on loans that would not be available to somebody not committing that fraud. So he committed fraud on Deutsche Bank. He also committed fraud on all those voters who played by the rules - and didn't get loans at those rates. Those who struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Those who lost their businesses.

    There is a vast trail of evidence that over a period of many years, he gave very low valuations for property taxes and very high valuations on the very same properties for obtaining loans.

    Fraud. On a massive scale.

    Read about it in remarkable detail in the judgment when it is handed down. Then come back and shill for Trump. He'll be needing some new lawyers then. You can act for him.

    Just don't expect any thanks. Or any payment.
    Just don't expect it to shift the polls against Trump, otherwise I'm afraid you'll work yourself up into an even bigger state of hysteria.
    No hysteria my end.

    And it is already moving the polls. Otherwise Haley wouldn't still be in the race, raising millions. Watch the vox pops. Those people voting Haley are going to vote Biden, if the alternative is Trump.
    Jan. 26-28 - Morning Consult: Trump - 81% - 18% - Haley: Trump +63
    Jan. 23-25 - Morning Consult: Trump - 81% - 17% - Haley: Trump +64
    Jan. 24 - Morning Consult: Trump - 81% - 18% - Haley: Trump +63

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/

    Jan. 26-28 - Morning Consult: Biden - 42% - 44% - Trump: Trump +2
    Jan. 23-25 - Morning Consult: Biden - 42% - 44% Trump: Trump +2
    Jan. 22-24 - Ipsos: Biden - 34% - 39% - Trump: Trump +5

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,126

    Nancy Pelosi tells pro-Palestinian protesters to "go back to China where your headquarters is". The paranoia about foreign interference is becoming a serious problem.

    https://x.com/halalflow/status/1752021755995025689

    You are so easily led.

    This is an organization called Code Pink. It defends the internment of Uighurs. It's run by a former Chinese Communist Party member in Shanghai. He shares an office with a company dedicated to educating foreigners about the miracles that China has created on the world stage.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-singham-china-propaganda.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485

    Michelle Obama is the rising prospect, I see.

    It's largely Republicans who are suggesting this is a thing.
    It seems extremely unlikely.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    edited January 30

    'Deep State'? Isn't that just a creation of the MAGA imagination?

    If the 'Deep State' Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near the White House in the first place.

    It's a pejorative term - in Trump's case what it means is the normal operation of the criminal justice system and the rule of law.
    Things he is not fond of.

    It is interesting how Mike has adopted his rhetorical approach. That's how propaganda works.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Anyone but Trump or Biden

    What match-up would give Americans the best choice between two contrasting philosophies, and would also allow them to pick someone who is not mentally... in decline?

    I'd go for Buttigieg vs Haley.

    Or, if we want someone from the MAGA side of the tracks, how about Buttigieg vs Vance? (Albeit Vance is a charisma free zone, so maybe we could find someone more interesting... Hawley?)
    What do Buttigieg and Haley disagree on?
    Abortion?

    Climate change?

    I mean, you could ask the same about Biden and Trump, except they clearly don't disagree on abortion. Both Biden and Trump, after all, are American economic nationalists who want to use the power of the Federal government to increase manufacturing in the US. And now Biden has - belatedly - changed his mind on the Southern border, the difference has narrowed yet further.
    No, you couldn't.

    They disagree massively on climate change.
    Biden has spent billions on developing renewable industries; Trump would actively sabotage them..

    Trump is anti NATO; Biden a strong supporter.

    Trump would likely abandon Taiwan.

    They differ hugely on redistributive taxation; the size of the state; environmental regulation; gun control ... the list goes on.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    edited January 30

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    He inflated the size of his properties. He inflated their worth. He got preferential rates on loans that would not be available to somebody not committing that fraud. So he committed fraud on Deutsche Bank. He also committed fraud on all those voters who played by the rules - and didn't get loans at those rates. Those who struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Those who lost their businesses.

    There is a vast trail of evidence that over a period of many years, he gave very low valuations for property taxes and very high valuations on the very same properties for obtaining loans.

    Fraud. On a massive scale.

    Read about it in remarkable detail in the judgment when it is handed down. Then come back and shill for Trump. He'll be needing some new lawyers then. You can act for him.

    Just don't expect any thanks. Or any payment.
    Just don't expect it to shift the polls against Trump, otherwise I'm afraid you'll work yourself up into an even bigger state of hysteria.
    No hysteria my end.

    And it is already moving the polls. Otherwise Haley wouldn't still be in the race, raising millions. Watch the vox pops. Those people voting Haley are going to vote Biden, if the alternative is Trump.
    One interesting thing about the contest is Trump's desperation to get Haley to drop out ahead of South Carolina.

    Given his strong lead in the polls, and that it's only a month away, why demanx the party units behind him immediately ?

    A possible explanation is that he wants the undisputed support of the party before more shit emerges.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    edited January 30
    On that score, if this is true, then Trump is guilty of tax evasion on a massive scale.

    I am interested to see how Justice Engoron and NY AG Letitia James address Donald Trump’s apparent unlawful $50+ million “debt parking” scheme that financial monitor Judge Barbara Jones (Ret.) smoked out. In short, when debt is forgiven it is treated as income, so wealthy people often would rather acquire the forgiven debt and “park” it somewhere and pay it down on favorable terms to avoid the immediate tax hit. When Deutsche Bank and Fortress forgave huge amounts of Trump’s debt after being sued by Trump for the disastrous Chicago skyscraper deal, it appears from the data that is now out in the public that Trump pretended that a company called Chicago Unit Acquisitions (owned 100 percent by Trump) acquired the debt and was servicing the “springing loan” with himself (Donald Trump). The financial monitor found that this $50+million loan between the Trump-owned shell company and Trump never existed so it appears that Deutsche and Fortress simply forgave the underlying debt and to avoid paying taxes on the forgiveness Trump lied and pretended the debt was being parked at his shell company in a non-existent loan with himself. I need more data to fully form my opinion that is an unlawful debt parking scheme, but it appears to have the hallmarks of one.
    https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1751824473702141989
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,126
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    He inflated the size of his properties. He inflated their worth. He got preferential rates on loans that would not be available to somebody not committing that fraud. So he committed fraud on Deutsche Bank. He also committed fraud on all those voters who played by the rules - and didn't get loans at those rates. Those who struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Those who lost their businesses.

    There is a vast trail of evidence that over a period of many years, he gave very low valuations for property taxes and very high valuations on the very same properties for obtaining loans.

    Fraud. On a massive scale.

    Read about it in remarkable detail in the judgment when it is handed down. Then come back and shill for Trump. He'll be needing some new lawyers then. You can act for him.

    Just don't expect any thanks. Or any payment.
    Just don't expect it to shift the polls against Trump, otherwise I'm afraid you'll work yourself up into an even bigger state of hysteria.
    No hysteria my end.

    And it is already moving the polls. Otherwise Haley wouldn't still be in the race, raising millions. Watch the vox pops. Those people voting Haley are going to vote Biden, if the alternative is Trump.
    One interesting thing about the contest is Trump's desperation to get Haley to drop out ahead of South Carolina.

    Given his strong lead in the polls, and that it's only a month away, why demanx the party units behind him immediately ?

    A possible explanation is that he wants the undisputed support of the party before more shit emerges.
    There's that but I think parties always want their primary to wrap up quickly if possible, and the person who's winning definitely always wants that. Even if the opponent is at the margins, the contest damages the leader and you risk the supporters of the opponent digging in against the winner. This happened to both Obama (PUMA) and Hillary Clinton (Bernie woz robbed by the DNC etc etc). There's a reason why Trump kept talking about Bernie Sanders in that campaign.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 60,485
    .

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    He inflated the size of his properties. He inflated their worth. He got preferential rates on loans that would not be available to somebody not committing that fraud. So he committed fraud on Deutsche Bank. He also committed fraud on all those voters who played by the rules - and didn't get loans at those rates. Those who struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Those who lost their businesses.

    There is a vast trail of evidence that over a period of many years, he gave very low valuations for property taxes and very high valuations on the very same properties for obtaining loans.

    Fraud. On a massive scale.

    Read about it in remarkable detail in the judgment when it is handed down. Then come back and shill for Trump. He'll be needing some new lawyers then. You can act for him.

    Just don't expect any thanks. Or any payment.
    Just don't expect it to shift the polls against Trump, otherwise I'm afraid you'll work yourself up into an even bigger state of hysteria.
    No hysteria my end.

    And it is already moving the polls. Otherwise Haley wouldn't still be in the race, raising millions. Watch the vox pops. Those people voting Haley are going to vote Biden, if the alternative is Trump.
    One interesting thing about the contest is Trump's desperation to get Haley to drop out ahead of South Carolina.

    Given his strong lead in the polls, and that it's only a month away, why demanx the party units behind him immediately ?

    A possible explanation is that he wants the undisputed support of the party before more shit emerges.
    There's that but I think parties always want their primary to wrap up quickly if possible, and the person who's winning definitely always wants that. Even if the opponent is at the margins, the contest damages the leader and you risk the supporters of the opponent digging in against the winner. This happened to both Obama (PUMA) and Hillary Clinton (Bernie woz robbed by the DNC etc etc). There's a reason why Trump kept talking about Bernie Sanders in that campaign.
    So early in the contest ?
    I don't recall anyone ever suggesting a candidate who just got over 40% of the vote drop out at this stage.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,126
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    A "dubious case"? Oh FFS - he's been found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. He doesn't get to stand apart from that, because he was President. He's getting what anybody else would get - justice. That the value he will get to lose is commensurate with the level of that fraud - that is justice.

    This is not petty political vindictiveness. It is as a result of Grand Jury charges, brought and then proved in court. Trump deserves all the tonnage of shit that is about to descend upon him.

    And that is before we get on to January 6th. Where the mob he whipped up tried to cheat his way to not giving up office. Where democracy was at risk. Where people died - all for the vanity of a man who just cannot concede that he is a loser.
    Whom did he defraud?

    Deutsche Bank offered him loans and did their own due diligence on the security he put up. Valuations of illiquid real estate are always somewhat subjective. What he did isn't fraud.
    He inflated the size of his properties. He inflated their worth. He got preferential rates on loans that would not be available to somebody not committing that fraud. So he committed fraud on Deutsche Bank. He also committed fraud on all those voters who played by the rules - and didn't get loans at those rates. Those who struggled to keep their businesses afloat. Those who lost their businesses.

    There is a vast trail of evidence that over a period of many years, he gave very low valuations for property taxes and very high valuations on the very same properties for obtaining loans.

    Fraud. On a massive scale.

    Read about it in remarkable detail in the judgment when it is handed down. Then come back and shill for Trump. He'll be needing some new lawyers then. You can act for him.

    Just don't expect any thanks. Or any payment.
    Just don't expect it to shift the polls against Trump, otherwise I'm afraid you'll work yourself up into an even bigger state of hysteria.
    No hysteria my end.

    And it is already moving the polls. Otherwise Haley wouldn't still be in the race, raising millions. Watch the vox pops. Those people voting Haley are going to vote Biden, if the alternative is Trump.
    One interesting thing about the contest is Trump's desperation to get Haley to drop out ahead of South Carolina.

    Given his strong lead in the polls, and that it's only a month away, why demanx the party units behind him immediately ?

    A possible explanation is that he wants the undisputed support of the party before more shit emerges.
    There's that but I think parties always want their primary to wrap up quickly if possible, and the person who's winning definitely always wants that. Even if the opponent is at the margins, the contest damages the leader and you risk the supporters of the opponent digging in against the winner. This happened to both Obama (PUMA) and Hillary Clinton (Bernie woz robbed by the DNC etc etc). There's a reason why Trump kept talking about Bernie Sanders in that campaign.
    So early in the contest ?
    I don't recall anyone ever suggesting a candidate who just got over 40% of the vote drop out at this stage.
    I don't know if they've suggested it but they definitely want them to. If Obama had beaten Hillary there I think he'd have started to say it? Maybe she'd have held on until until SC to see if Bill could still win over the black people, but that would have been it.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,190
    I find it interesting how little discussion there’s been here on the growing confrontation with Iran. Not as much of a focus in the media as I’d have thought either. As for the markets…
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,437
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    I couldn't agree more: every court case reinforces his message that the elites are trying to prevent ordinary people having a voice. Had there been no court cases, we might well have been looking at a DeSantis victory in Iowa, and a Haley one in New Hampshire.
    It’s a little like the boy who cried wolf. While there may be something in some of the cases, so much more of it comes across as nakedly politically motivated by partisan actors.

    It all reinforces Trump’s message to his supporters, and even to some floating voters, that the apparatus of the State can be politicised and *they* can come for whoever they want.
  • @NickyBreakspear - re LD seats.

    Yes, the figure is high, but I can at least report from Tewkesbury that they do have a squeak here. The incumbent, Laurence Robertson, is standing down and the Yellow Peril did well in the locals.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,632
    Foxy said:

    'Deep State'? Isn't that just a creation of the MAGA imagination?

    If the 'Deep State' Trump wouldn't have got anywhere near the White House in the first place.

    The best argument against the existence of a "Deep State" is that there is no evidence of competency in government to suggest they could manage to organise a piss up in a brewery let alone a complex conspiracy.
    That’s what they want you to think….
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,072
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    Doesn't look remotely like Haley is gonna throw the towel in just yet.

    With no one else staying in she might as well. She only has a chance in the event of a Trump coronary, but despite her not really bringing out the strong attacks on Trump until quite recently (she couldn't if she wanted as much support as she managed), it's not as though she will still have a career when he wins, he won't forgive the things she has said and she cannot offer him anything to change that.

    So if she is actually trying to stop Trump (even if she cannot say that), then she should stay in as long as she can afford it, because it drives him nuts.

    I'd assume in reality she will try to stay in until Super Tuesday, then roll in behind him.
    Within the next 72 hours, Trump is going to lose his ability to do business in New York, have a close-on half billion loss of wealth - and also lose his much-vaunted mantle of being some business genius. He's just going to be shown up for the tawdry huckster he is.

    Some scales are going to fall from eyes, so Haley might as well stay in.
    The idea that a court decision on a dubious case will "show him up" is wishful thinking. It's more likely to show the New York legal system up.

    https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-business-law-courts-banks-lending-punishment-2ee9e509a28c24d0cda92da2f9a9b689
    I couldn't agree more: every court case reinforces his message that the elites are trying to prevent ordinary people having a voice. Had there been no court cases, we might well have been looking at a DeSantis victory in Iowa, and a Haley one in New Hampshire.
    It’s a little like the boy who cried wolf. While there may be something in some of the cases, so much more of it comes across as nakedly politically motivated by partisan actors.

    It all reinforces Trump’s message to his supporters, and even to some floating voters, that the apparatus of the State can be politicised and *they* can come for whoever they want.
    It'll only come across as "nakedly politically motivated by partisan actors" if you are blind enough to think Trump isn't a massive criminal and fraudster who is not exactly nice to women he interacts with.

    For everyone else, it seems that those who think Trump's Trials are "nakedly politically motivated by partisan actors" might well be protecting a criminal for nakedly politically reasons.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,243

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Foxy said:

    Interesting article by Peter Kellner on the different leads by different pollsters:

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/elections/election-countdown/64633/is-labours-lead-as-big-as-the-polls-suggest

    He mentions a new pollster, Stonehaven. I don't recollect seeing any of their polls.
    New one to me also.

    https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/insights/the-next-uk-election-more-2017-than-1997

    They did a MRP poll in November 2023


    No way do the LibDems get 54 seats on 11% of the vote. If they get 11% of the vote, then I'd be staggered if they got more than 30.

    I'm going to go out on a flyer and say they'll end up doing slightly better, percentage-wise, than the polls think, and end up on 13%. And I think they get 26-29 seats.
    Does look high.

    These are the Lib Dem seats

    Bath
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chesham and Amersham
    Chippenham
    Didcot and Wantage
    Eastbourne
    Eastleigh
    Esher and Walton
    Farnham and Bordon
    Frome and East Somerset
    Glastonbury and Somerton
    Godalming and Ash
    Guildford
    Hazel Grove
    Henley and Thame
    Honiton and Sidmouth
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Melksham and Devizes
    Mid Dorset and North Poole
    Newton Abbot
    North Cornwall
    North Cotswolds
    North Devon
    North Dorset
    North Shropshire
    Oxford West and Abingdon
    Richmond Park
    South Cambridgeshire
    South Cotswolds
    South Devon
    St Albans
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton and Wellington
    Tewkesbury
    Thornbury and Yate
    Tiverton and Minehead
    Torbay
    Twickenham
    Wells and Mendip Hills
    West Dorset
    Westmorland and Lonsdale
    Wimbledon
    Winchester
    Witney
    Woking
    Yeovil
    Edinburgh West
    Mid Dunbartonshire
    North East Fife
    Orkney and Shetland

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18DWPXekPxvWpe6F9c2UTX4b8aCxwT3Em/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103480920087627714998&rtpof=true&sd=true
    It does look like a lot.

    But on the other hand, a quick skim doesn't seem to throw up any absolute howlers of a "no way is that happening" sort. If Ed Davey's agents did "accidentally" leave a list of their target seats behind the cistern in the gents at Westminster's third dingiest pub for someone in Labour to "accidentally" pick up, it would probably look a lot like this. And a good night for the Lib Dems is getting 45% or so in 45 seats, and naff all elsewhere. It's all about efficiency.

    And if the Conservatives are going to collapse, why shouldn't our besandled chums have some of the fun?
    Some of those do like a big stretch: Marcus Fysh got almost twice the votes of the LibDem candidate in Yeovil last time around. Now, can I see a 16,000 majority cut to a 5,000 one? Sure. But there's no meaningful Labour vote to squeeze, so Conservatives staying home is going to no way cut it.
    Torbay: 17,700 Tory majority over the LibDems. 6,500 Labour vote to squeeze.

    But that isn't going to be squeezed. Not happening.

    North Devon: 15,500 Tory majority over LibDems. 5,000 Labour vote to squeeze.

    Again, that is going to increase, not get squeezed.
    Tewekebsury - Tories 58% of the vote. Lib Dems 21% of the vote. 22,000 behind. In a Brexit seat.

    I’m filing that under ‘somebody was smoking something good.’

    Incidentally even in a very bad result for the Tories I expect them to regain North Shropshire.
This discussion has been closed.