politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

Is Donald Trump heading for his Pierre-Charles Villeneuve moment, again? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,546
edited August 2024 in General
Is Donald Trump heading for his Pierre-Charles Villeneuve moment, again? – politicalbetting.com

Trafalgar only has Trump ahead slightly in swing states?Oh it's incredibly over, even the Republican pollsters can't pull through for him pic.twitter.com/OIawpF4Ay4

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    This thread is for you Robert.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    Relative strength of the two as crowd pullers by Cohen.

    https://youtu.be/4zg-2zcKTVE?si=xkQfZ_PcYX_OzBy4

    Of course, crowd size isn't conclusive, especially given how few people live in Montana, but it is instructive that Trump can't fill even small venues in the way he used to.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash
  • eekeek Posts: 30,448
    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    Trump is imprisoned on September 18th when sentencing in New York occurs?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    The Russians.

    They are desperate for Trump to win so he can sell out Ukraine.

    Remember in 2016 after the grab them by the pussy comments became public Wikileaks released stuff to damage Clinton.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,683
    edited August 2024
    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal votes are counted.
    Why would they wait till then?
  • eekeek Posts: 30,448
    ydoethur said:

    Relative strength of the two as crowd pullers by Cohen.

    https://youtu.be/4zg-2zcKTVE?si=xkQfZ_PcYX_OzBy4

    Of course, crowd size isn't conclusive, especially given how few people live in Montana, but it is instructive that Trump can't fill even small venues in the way he used to.

    It's the complete lack of energy at the Trump rally that is equally revealing...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,683
    ydoethur said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal votes are counted.
    Why would they wait till then?
    For " legitimacy". In 2020 Trump was ahead initially and the stop the count narrative quickly gathered pace. I know SCOTUS could have intervened then, but they still retained the last vestiges of fairness, that has subsequently been thrown to the wind.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    And there’s an extremely effective team working with her.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    And there’s an extremely effective team working with her.
    Which would again be, 'is a shrewd judge of character.'
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    I love his sense of humour.

    Somebody tweeted how was it possible that both Harris and Walz were 60.

    Somebody else tweeted

    'Because Tim Walz taught high school.

    Trust me.'

    to which Walz replied with

    ''And supervised the lunchroom for 20 years. You do not leave that job with a full head of hair. Trust me.'

    https://x.com/Tim_Walz/status/1816108360158138598
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    Incidentally, I see Trump had another in-flight emergency yesterday.

    I'm amazed he didn't say that he escaped death by an inch and was saved by an angel resembling Ronald Reagan.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    And there’s an extremely effective team working with her.
    Which would again be, 'is a shrewd judge of character.'
    Indeed. Politics is a team sport. Build the team, win the game. It was the decisive factor in the U.K in July.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,157
    The Whore of Babylon is more fun.

    I think Trump lost his USP
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,610
    edited August 2024
    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,440
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:


    Leon said:

    I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact

    “ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.

    I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....

    His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.

    His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.

    Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.

    Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.

    Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.

    He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.

    Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.

    Tell me where I'm wrong?
    tell it to the marines, why is your bollox right and his wrong. The public will make up their own tiny minds regardless of smarty pants liberals talking mince.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,682
    The Rasmussen scores are basically keeping Trump ahead in the "Top battleground states" on RCP but most other collators, such as 538, no longer use them because they are so partisan and unreliable (they used to have a trick by which their polling got more in line with reality immediately before the election so that they could claim a high accuracy but that has got old).

    The consequence of this difference is that other collators have Harris ahead in the battleground states, albeit by a small margin. RCP still have Trump ahead.

    Our pollsters were all over the place and substantially overstated the Labour share in our election but we are fortunate that they were at least trying to get it right, as opposed to spinning.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    That would elevate Walz though, as the Vice-President elect takes office if the President can't.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    #NotMyKing

    It’s taken 10 days for the King, who prides himself on being a symbol of national unity, to comment.

    In doing so, Charles hasn’t called out the racism and Islamophobia.

    To remain relevant, his officials will need to be more fleet of foot in the future.

    https://x.com/_PeterHunt/status/1821998277526438211
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,282
    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,637
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    #NotMyKing

    It’s taken 10 days for the King, who prides himself on being a symbol of national unity, to comment.

    In doing so, Charles hasn’t called out the racism and Islamophobia.

    To remain relevant, his officials will need to be more fleet of foot in the future.

    https://x.com/_PeterHunt/status/1821998277526438211

    I assumed this chap is from Republic, but no, not a bit of it. Former BBC presentator and still a commentator on royal stuff.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,282
    DavidL said:

    The Rasmussen scores are basically keeping Trump ahead in the "Top battleground states" on RCP but most other collators, such as 538, no longer use them because they are so partisan and unreliable (they used to have a trick by which their polling got more in line with reality immediately before the election so that they could claim a high accuracy but that has got old).

    The consequence of this difference is that other collators have Harris ahead in the battleground states, albeit by a small margin. RCP still have Trump ahead.

    Our pollsters were all over the place and substantially overstated the Labour share in our election but we are fortunate that they were at least trying to get it right, as opposed to spinning.

    Rasmussen had Trump +5% the other day. Whilst the rest had Harris pulling away.

    Uh-huh.

    As outliers go, it was a doozy. Not at all suspicious that it was a result that kept Trump in the game in polling averages...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,371
    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    1) & 2) Yes

    3) is what VP picks are supposed to do.

    Compare with previous VPs of semi normal people - Vance is plain bizarre, like his boss.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,682
    MarqueeMark said:

    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
    If only.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    1) & 2) Yes

    3) is what VP picks are supposed to do.

    Compare with previous VPs of semi normal people - Vance is plain bizarre, like his boss.

    To be fair to Donald Trump his Veep pick in 2016 was the most important Veep pick in history.

    Mike Pence saved America on January 6th 2021.
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 1,046
    Mexicanpete said:

    ydoethur said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal votes are counted.
    Why would they wait till then?
    For " legitimacy". In 2020 Trump was ahead initially and the stop the count narrative quickly gathered pace. I know SCOTUS could have intervened then, but they still retained the last vestiges of fairness, that has subsequently been thrown to the wind.
    All of the Trump appointed justices were in place for the 2020 election and whatever we may think of their subsequent judgements they acted impeccably over Trump's subversion attempts. I see no reason to think they wouldn't do the same this time. If it's a genuine 2000 style toss up then their political inclinations might be more important though.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,681
    The BBC news homepage has removed the King's comment, but a story about a fisherman finding a lost piece of Lego remains on there.

    Hmm.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,046
    Carnyx said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    #NotMyKing

    It’s taken 10 days for the King, who prides himself on being a symbol of national unity, to comment.

    In doing so, Charles hasn’t called out the racism and Islamophobia.

    To remain relevant, his officials will need to be more fleet of foot in the future.

    https://x.com/_PeterHunt/status/1821998277526438211

    I assumed this chap is from Republic, but no, not a bit of it. Former BBC presenter and still a commentator on royal stuff.
    Peter Hunt is an interesting man by the sound of it. His writing credits in his bio are:

    Former BBC correspondent and presenter. Commentator on constitutional and royal issues for outlets including @LBC, @SpecCoffeeHouse, @BBCNews, @Channel4News

    C4 and Spectator Coffee House at once are interesting, though note that Coffee House was always less up itself that the Spectator.

    He also has a very broad follower profile.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    1) & 2) Yes

    3) is what VP picks are supposed to do.

    Compare with previous VPs of semi normal people - Vance is plain bizarre, like his boss.

    I think the accepted terminology is 'weird.'
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,045
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    The Russians.

    They are desperate for Trump to win so he can sell out Ukraine.

    Remember in 2016 after the grab them by the pussy comments became public Wikileaks released stuff to damage Clinton.
    Ah yes, Wikileaks. Who some on here still praise to the heaven...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,364
    edited August 2024
    In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.

    In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.

    Now RCP have Trump ahead of Harris 287 to 251 with similar figures to Trafalgar but Harris ahead in Wisconsin as well as Michigan (likely Walz bounce in upper midwest there)
    https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college

    In 2020 RCP were near spot on forecasting Biden 319 to Trump 219
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html


    Rasmussen were not far off either, they leaned Trump but got his score spot on at 47% just underestimated Biden's share having it at 48%. In 2016 they were spot on in the popular vote giving Hilllary a 2% lead in their final poll
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_nov02
    https://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016/
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    edited August 2024
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:


    Leon said:

    I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact

    “ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.

    I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....

    His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.

    His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.

    Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.

    Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.

    Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.

    He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.

    Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.

    Tell me where I'm wrong?
    @FF43

    For what it is worth I have read his books on this subject, if not all his articles. Possibly a criticism is a tendency towards catastrophism. Unsurprisingly, it is all written in a polemical way with the primary purpose of selling books. Also there is a curious thing in that, after accounting for the situation, the conclusion is that Islam is the problem, other than the other way round: (ie: Western civilisation (or at least parts of it) is an existential threat to Muslims in Europe). But he is right that all is not good and that there is a tendency amongst the establishment/elites to completely avoid grappling with this whole issue/problem, and really the book is best read as a historical account of this phenomenon. To his credit, his final warning is that, unless they do, there will be a fascist revolt which has undoubtedly already emerged, see the situation in parts of Europe.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,364
    edited August 2024
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    #NotMyKing

    It’s taken 10 days for the King, who prides himself on being a symbol of national unity, to comment.

    In doing so, Charles hasn’t called out the racism and Islamophobia.

    To remain relevant, his officials will need to be more fleet of foot in the future.

    https://x.com/_PeterHunt/status/1821998277526438211

    The King correctly condemned aggressive rioters and called for community unity after a phone call with PM Starmer, which was absolutely fine whatever non Tory republicans like you and Peter Hunt with an agenda push
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,682
    MarqueeMark said:

    DavidL said:

    The Rasmussen scores are basically keeping Trump ahead in the "Top battleground states" on RCP but most other collators, such as 538, no longer use them because they are so partisan and unreliable (they used to have a trick by which their polling got more in line with reality immediately before the election so that they could claim a high accuracy but that has got old).

    The consequence of this difference is that other collators have Harris ahead in the battleground states, albeit by a small margin. RCP still have Trump ahead.

    Our pollsters were all over the place and substantially overstated the Labour share in our election but we are fortunate that they were at least trying to get it right, as opposed to spinning.

    Rasmussen had Trump +5% the other day. Whilst the rest had Harris pulling away.

    Uh-huh.

    As outliers go, it was a doozy. Not at all suspicious that it was a result that kept Trump in the game in polling averages...
    What this shows, however, is that polling is playing far too big a role in setting the narrative. In the UK Labour were on for a landslide with 40%+ of the vote. The Tories were, at times. struggling to make 20%. This made Sunak look even more hopeless and useless than he was. The outcome was inevitable. It probably helped the Lib Dems. And it was, by and large, rubbish.

    In the US it is even more dangerous because partisan polling like this is a substantial part of the "stolen election" meme. If Trump was ahead in that polling how did he lose? It was stolen and illegitimate votes, obviously. The chances of Trump accepting defeat this time quietly are low and pollsters such as Rasmussen and Trafalgar will, yet again, play an important part in that.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,744
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:


    Leon said:

    I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact

    “ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.

    I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....

    His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.

    His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.

    Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.

    Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.

    Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.

    He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.

    Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.

    Tell me where I'm wrong?
    He's a pompous arse to boot.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 28,046
    edited August 2024
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    I love his sense of humour.

    Somebody tweeted how was it possible that both Harris and Walz were 60.

    Somebody else tweeted

    'Because Tim Walz taught high school.

    Trust me.'

    to which Walz replied with

    ''And supervised the lunchroom for 20 years. You do not leave that job with a full head of hair. Trust me.'

    https://x.com/Tim_Walz/status/1816108360158138598
    Is there psychological significance in whether people to shave their heads to avoid looking grey, or add an artificial hedge on top to avoid looking grey, or dye their hair to avoid looking grey?

    Unless Kamala has very late natural hair colour, we have one of each in this race. Plus a gibbering school-boy.

    I'm surprised Mr Trump has not come up with "Calamity Kamala" yet. Perhaps he will.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,784
    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    No, it would probably take another term, possibly couple of terms, in government for the GOP to have a Court prepared to do that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,699
    I see the USA got dqed in the relay again lol
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,371
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    1) & 2) Yes

    3) is what VP picks are supposed to do.

    Compare with previous VPs of semi normal people - Vance is plain bizarre, like his boss.

    To be fair to Donald Trump his Veep pick in 2016 was the most important Veep pick in history.

    Mike Pence saved America on January 6th 2021.
    Some would argue that Dan Quayle is actually the New Founding Father.

    For those who don’t know - Pence regarded Quayle as Wise Statesman as former VP (yup, indeed). So phoned him to ask whether to go along with Trumps scheme to steal the election.

    Quayle told him to follow the constitution.

    So Bush I may have made the most important VP pick in history.


    You like potato and I like potato
    You like tomato and I like tomato
    Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,450
    And – let’s face it – most of the Left has been complaining about two-tier policing for years. Only last year, a report by Louise Casey for the Mayor of London found the Met to be “institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic”.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/09/nigel-farage-could-soon-be-devoured-by-the-great-revolution/ (£££)
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,682
    HYUFD said:

    In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.

    In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.

    Now RCP have Trump ahead of Harris 287 to 251 with similar figures to Trafalgar but Harris ahead in Wisconsin as well as Michigan (likely Walz bounce in upper midwest there)
    https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college

    In 2020 RCP were near spot on forecasting Biden 319 to Trump 219
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html


    Rasmussen were not far off either, they leaned Trump but got his score spot on at 47% just underestimated Biden's share having it at 48%. In 2016 they were spot on in the popular vote giving Hilllary a 2% lead in their final poll
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_nov02
    https://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016/

    Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.

    As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,610
    MarqueeMark said:

    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
    Is that explicitly stated in the constitution?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    Malmesbury said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    1) & 2) Yes

    3) is what VP picks are supposed to do.

    Compare with previous VPs of semi normal people - Vance is plain bizarre, like his boss.

    To be fair to Donald Trump his Veep pick in 2016 was the most important Veep pick in history.

    Mike Pence saved America on January 6th 2021.
    Some would argue that Dan Quayle is actually the New Founding Father.

    For those who don’t know - Pence regarded Quayle as Wise Statesman as former VP (yup, indeed). So phoned him to ask whether to go along with Trumps scheme to steal the election.

    Quayle told him to follow the constitution.

    So Bush I may have made the most important VP pick in history.


    You like potato and I like potato
    You like tomato and I like tomato
    Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto
    There was a rather sarcastic news report that began, 'Dan Quayle is probably most famous for not knowing how to spell 'potato.' But now he may be remembered for something a little more positive: helping to save democracy.'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    Benpointer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
    Is that explicitly stated in the constitution?
    Depends on which bits were written by Jefferson and which by Madison.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,371
    ydoethur said:

    Malmesbury said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    1) & 2) Yes

    3) is what VP picks are supposed to do.

    Compare with previous VPs of semi normal people - Vance is plain bizarre, like his boss.

    To be fair to Donald Trump his Veep pick in 2016 was the most important Veep pick in history.

    Mike Pence saved America on January 6th 2021.
    Some would argue that Dan Quayle is actually the New Founding Father.

    For those who don’t know - Pence regarded Quayle as Wise Statesman as former VP (yup, indeed). So phoned him to ask whether to go along with Trumps scheme to steal the election.

    Quayle told him to follow the constitution.

    So Bush I may have made the most important VP pick in history.


    You like potato and I like potato
    You like tomato and I like tomato
    Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto
    There was a rather sarcastic news report that began, 'Dan Quayle is probably most famous for not knowing how to spell 'potato.' But now he may be remembered for something a little more positive: helping to save democracy.'
    The world has changed.

    Given a choice between Trump and Quayle for president - you wouldn’t hesitate one millisecond.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,371
    Benpointer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
    Is that explicitly stated in the constitution?
    The Bible is part of the constitution. There was a Supreme Court ruling last week.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,784
    Perhaps Trump can go on US Strictly (Dancing with the Stars), post November ?
    Already has the spraytan; it worked for Widdecombe; it would give him a whole new set of judges to bitch about.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,683
    ...
    HYUFD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    #NotMyKing

    It’s taken 10 days for the King, who prides himself on being a symbol of national unity, to comment.

    In doing so, Charles hasn’t called out the racism and Islamophobia.

    To remain relevant, his officials will need to be more fleet of foot in the future.

    https://x.com/_PeterHunt/status/1821998277526438211

    The King correctly condemned aggressive rioters and called for community unity after a phone call with PM Starmer, which was absolutely fine whatever non Tory republicans like you and Peter Hunt with an agenda push
    I read Peter Hunt as critiquing the Palace's response and offering advice to pull their socks up.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,371
    edited August 2024
    HYUFD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    #NotMyKing

    It’s taken 10 days for the King, who prides himself on being a symbol of national unity, to comment.

    In doing so, Charles hasn’t called out the racism and Islamophobia.

    To remain relevant, his officials will need to be more fleet of foot in the future.

    https://x.com/_PeterHunt/status/1821998277526438211

    The King correctly condemned aggressive rioters and called for community unity after a phone call with PM Starmer, which was absolutely fine whatever non Tory republicans like you and Peter Hunt with an agenda push
    The protocol is that the monarch vets the message for something that moves into the political sphere. And only does so *after* the political response.

    As the BBC put it


    This follows the pattern seen after the outbreak of riots in 2011, during which Queen Elizabeth didn’t put out any messages, but royal visits took place after calm had been restored.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,888
    edited August 2024
    Could he be heading for his Jacques Villeneuve moment and dating Dannii Minogue?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,487
    A photo of the Ukrainian army in a Russian border village in Belgorod Oblast is doing the rounds this morning, this further incursion being confirmed by Russian sources.

    The 2024 Ukrainian invasion of Russia continues. It's early days, but this could completely transform the dynamics of the land war.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 31,888
    LostPassword said:

    A photo of the Ukrainian army in a Russian border village in Belgorod Oblast is doing the rounds this morning, this further incursion being confirmed by Russian sources.

    The 2024 Ukrainian invasion of Russia continues. It's early days, but this could completely transform the dynamics of the land war.

    It seems fair to me. I regret the people on both sides dying, but if you're going to invade somewhere, you can hardly grumble if the invaded invade back.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,895
    Off topic but I simply have to share this. I've spotted what looks like a genuine rarity! Something as familiar as an old shoe in the world I grew up in but which I haven't seen for many a long year. A draw in test cricket. Yes, really.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,784
    Benpointer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
    Is that explicitly stated in the constitution?
    No. The text, and its amendments, say nothing on that point.

    The 19th Amendment guarantees only the right to vote.
    And the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have guaranteed the constitutional position of women, has never been ratified.

    Most constitutional scholars agree the Constitution allows women Presidents, but not a few argue that an originalist reading would bar them. Certainly the founders are unlikely to have approved a women as President.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,784
    Likely to seriously regret this in November.
    https://x.com/BigBlueWaveUSA/status/1821278360963858530
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,825
    I'm not sure the analogy works.

    At Trafalgar the winner was killed by a sniper.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,371
    edited August 2024
    Nigelb said:

    Benpointer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
    Is that explicitly stated in the constitution?
    No. The text, and its amendments, say nothing on that point.

    The 19th Amendment guarantees only the right to vote.
    And the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have guaranteed the constitutional position of women, has never been ratified.

    Most constitutional scholars agree the Constitution allows women Presidents, but not a few argue that an originalist reading would bar them. Certainly the founders are unlikely to have approved a women as President.
    Especially a woman who has substantial African ancestry.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,032
    another_richard said:

    I'm not sure the analogy works.

    At Trafalgar the winner was killed by a sniper.

    It was after a couple of close misses...
  • booksellerbookseller Posts: 508
    Malmesbury said:

    HYUFD said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    #NotMyKing

    It’s taken 10 days for the King, who prides himself on being a symbol of national unity, to comment.

    In doing so, Charles hasn’t called out the racism and Islamophobia.

    To remain relevant, his officials will need to be more fleet of foot in the future.

    https://x.com/_PeterHunt/status/1821998277526438211

    The King correctly condemned aggressive rioters and called for community unity after a phone call with PM Starmer, which was absolutely fine whatever non Tory republicans like you and Peter Hunt with an agenda push
    The protocol is that the monarch vets the message for something that moves into the political sphere. And only does so *after* the political response.

    As the BBC put it


    This follows the pattern seen after the outbreak of riots in 2011, during which Queen Elizabeth didn’t put out any messages, but royal visits took place after calm had been restored.
    I remember her intervention after the Grenfell fire which felt very different and felt much more genuine and authentic.

    Her comment about it being "difficult to escape a very sombre national mood" was described as unprecedented at the time and felt much more unscripted or planned. And the closest Liz ever came to saying "this is f*cked up"
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,944
    Morris_Dancer said:

    The BBC news homepage has removed the King's comment, but a story about a fisherman finding a lost piece of Lego remains on there.

    Hmm.

    Presumably because lots of people clicked on the Lego story rather than the King one. Presumably because Lego is more interesting than monarchy.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,639
    Let's be honest, to the ardent anti monarchists the King would have been damned if he did make a statement or damned if he didn't.

    If he'd have come out with it at the start there would have been cries of him meddling in politics.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,784
    Malmesbury said:

    Nigelb said:

    Benpointer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Benpointer said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal/overseas votes are counted.
    SCOTUS rules that Harris cannot be President according to the constitution.

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:"
    Throughout, the male shall embrace the female...
    Is that explicitly stated in the constitution?
    No. The text, and its amendments, say nothing on that point.

    The 19th Amendment guarantees only the right to vote.
    And the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have guaranteed the constitutional position of women, has never been ratified.

    Most constitutional scholars agree the Constitution allows women Presidents, but not a few argue that an originalist reading would bar them. Certainly the founders are unlikely to have approved a women as President.
    Especially a woman who has substantial African ancestry.
    Actually the constitutional position of Black Americans is better protected than that of women, if you go by the text alone.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,457
    bondegezou said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    The BBC news homepage has removed the King's comment, but a story about a fisherman finding a lost piece of Lego remains on there.

    Hmm.

    Presumably because lots of people clicked on the Lego story rather than the King one. Presumably because Lego is more interesting than monarchy.
    That lego story does sound interesting
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    numbertwelve said:

    Let's be honest, to the ardent anti monarchists the King would have been damned if he did make a statement or damned if he didn't.

    If he'd have come out with it at the start there would have been cries of him meddling in politics.

    His mother was fine meddling in politics, her intervention during the indyref was a disgrace and I say that as somebody who wanted No to win.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,784
    Fully integrated Franco Italian air defence system.

    From 2025, the Mamba becomes a multi-layered anti-aircraft, anti-ballistic and anti-drone bubble with the SAMP/T NG
    https://x.com/aidefranceukr/status/1822062609132351661
  • A_View_From_Cumbria5A_View_From_Cumbria5 Posts: 634
    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    Malmesbury said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    1) & 2) Yes

    3) is what VP picks are supposed to do.

    Compare with previous VPs of semi normal people - Vance is plain bizarre, like his boss.

    To be fair to Donald Trump his Veep pick in 2016 was the most important Veep pick in history.

    Mike Pence saved America on January 6th 2021.
    Some would argue that Dan Quayle is actually the New Founding Father.

    For those who don’t know - Pence regarded Quayle as Wise Statesman as former VP (yup, indeed). So phoned him to ask whether to go along with Trumps scheme to steal the election.

    Quayle told him to follow the constitution.

    So Bush I may have made the most important VP pick in history.


    You like potato and I like potato
    You like tomato and I like tomato
    Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto
    There was a rather sarcastic news report that began, 'Dan Quayle is probably most famous for not knowing how to spell 'potato.' But now he may be remembered for something a little more positive: helping to save democracy.'
    The world has changed.

    Given a choice between Trump and Quayle for president - you wouldn’t hesitate one millisecond.
    Certainly if I were an American and Quayle were the candidate I would be voting for him. I would not be voting for Trump. I would be voting for Harris as the only candidate who could beat Trump not because I consider her better than the third party candidate, she is not. We saw last month what happens when you vote for token candidates, you get Keir Starmer, not a good thing.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,282
    "If you wondered what 700 glide bombs going up looks like..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1IKy4MUeJ8
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,784
    Trump is still attacking Joe Biden. Just let it go, man.
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1822119661233676650

    He’s retreated to his comfortable place. And that doesn’t include the campaign against Harris.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,744
    FF43 said:

    Nigelb said:


    Leon said:

    I have managed to go my entire life without watching a single minute of "Strictly" and it is my sincere hope that I shall expire with that claim wholly intact

    “ Then shut the fuck up” .… about whomever it was that wrote that crap book.

    I probably shouldn't shut the fuck up, just because I get told to. My beef with Douglas Murray ....

    His many critics focus on Murray's Islamaphobia and racism, to be told that's not the point. Actually it is entirely the point. Murray far from hiding his Islamaphobia, intellectualises it. His only defence can be that Islamaphobia and racism are justified. It's the battle he chooses to fight; we should engage him on it.

    His book, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, is the most significant polemic in the canon of Islamaphobia. The three words of the subtitle distil his argument: Islam is bad; Islamic immigration into Europe is doubly bad; it leads to a loss of identity in Europe and ultimately a cultural death. This trend is abetted by an effete liberal ascendancy who have lost Europe's previous self confidence by questioning cultural assumptions on colonialism etc and denial of the Islamic problem.

    Murray claims to empiricism in his arguments. You observe and from your observations you get to the truth. What I have missed by not reading his book is all the fascinating, or depending on your view dreary, detail on the ways in which Islam is bad. I am sure however that Murray is seeing lots of trees and no woods and therefore not getting to the truth.

    Bad or not, Islam just isn't that important in Europe, certainly not to the extent of causing it to die. Muslims make up 5% of the population and a marginal and not well integrated minority (not least because of the hostility towards them that Murray espouses). They are not imposing their cultural norms, including on homosexuality, onto anyone else. Meanwhile socially conservative elites that Murray is very friendly with, such as Orbán and Meloni do.

    Muslims make up about half of immigration into Europe, but most immigration in Europe is other Europeans including recently many Ukrainians.

    He is also wrong about liberals, of which I am one, lacking self confidence. We may be deluded but to a man and woman we think we're superior to the obscurantism of Putin, the Iranian theocracy and others. If we reject colonialism and slavery it's because we think we are better than that. Meanwhile Murray is the one who thinks Europe is dying. The cultural death is all projection on his part.

    Strip away the intellectual veneer and Douglas Murray"s Islamaphobia and racism is no more justified than his fellow sectarians who trashed the mosque in Southport last week.

    Tell me where I'm wrong?
    I see his polemic on the riots posted yesterday has disappeared. Presumably in the hands of the DPP?
  • A_View_From_Cumbria5A_View_From_Cumbria5 Posts: 634
    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    Malmesbury said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Malmesbury said:

    ydoethur said:

    If nothing else, Walz's selection suggests Harris is a very shrewd judge of character.

    Let's look at what this relative unknown has brought to the ticket so far:

    1) Energy. Look at the bounce and cheeriness. He's obviously thoroughly enjoying every minute and it's infectious.

    2) Humour. Harris has always come across as quite dry, but Walz? He's got them laughing like he's Ronald Reagan.

    3) Loyalty. He's mentioning her in every speech and praising her to the skies.

    And that's even before we get to the back story, the executive experience and the fact his selection has completely wrong-footed the Trump campaign.

    If he can keep this up, he'll be a magnificent asset for the Dems.

    So either she's a brilliant judge of a person, including herself, and picked the perfect candidate for her ticket.

    Or she's lucked out on an epic scale.

    Or both.

    1) & 2) Yes

    3) is what VP picks are supposed to do.

    Compare with previous VPs of semi normal people - Vance is plain bizarre, like his boss.

    To be fair to Donald Trump his Veep pick in 2016 was the most important Veep pick in history.

    Mike Pence saved America on January 6th 2021.
    Some would argue that Dan Quayle is actually the New Founding Father.

    For those who don’t know - Pence regarded Quayle as Wise Statesman as former VP (yup, indeed). So phoned him to ask whether to go along with Trumps scheme to steal the election.

    Quayle told him to follow the constitution.

    So Bush I may have made the most important VP pick in history.


    You like potato and I like potato
    You like tomato and I like tomato
    Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto
    There was a rather sarcastic news report that began, 'Dan Quayle is probably most famous for not knowing how to spell 'potato.' But now he may be remembered for something a little more positive: helping to save democracy.'
    The world has changed.

    Given a choice between Trump and Quayle for president - you wouldn’t hesitate one millisecond.
    Given the choice between Harris and Quayle for president I wouldn't hesitate for a second either
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,122
    Rasmussen is a pollster I take note of unlike Trafalgar....

    It called Bush's victory over Kerry in 2004- but I do think that was also helped my a timely intervention by Osama the Sunday before polling...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    Cracking All Blacks v Argentina match in the rugger.

    Argentina lead 35 - 30 with 10 mins to go.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,457
    JosiasJessop said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    The Russians.

    They are desperate for Trump to win so he can sell out Ukraine.

    Remember in 2016 after the grab them by the pussy comments became public Wikileaks released stuff to damage Clinton.
    Ah yes, Wikileaks. Who some on here still praise to the heaven...
    By 2016 the name should have been "Putin's Hackers" as they weren't a Wiki, and dealt overwhelmingly in hacks rather than leaks.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,732
    Stereodog said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    ydoethur said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Jonathan said:

    Potential game changers for the Republicans?

    Another debate victory
    Harris pulls a Sunak style campaign
    Fire Vance
    Fire himself
    Another assassination attempt.
    A social media storm/riot
    Dirt on his opponents
    Economic crash

    SCOTUS stops the count before the postal votes are counted.
    Why would they wait till then?
    For " legitimacy". In 2020 Trump was ahead initially and the stop the count narrative quickly gathered pace. I know SCOTUS could have intervened then, but they still retained the last vestiges of fairness, that has subsequently been thrown to the wind.
    All of the Trump appointed justices were in place for the 2020 election and whatever we may think of their subsequent judgements they acted impeccably over Trump's subversion attempts. I see no reason to think they wouldn't do the same this time. If it's a genuine 2000 style toss up then their political inclinations might be more important though.
    They may have got radicalized over time. The idea of the loser stealing the election was quite shocking in 2020, but since then it's become normalized.

    PS The most hackish SCOTUS judges seem to be the earlier GOP appointees not the Trump ones. For example Barrett published a dissent about some if the biggest WTFs in the immunity decision.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,282
    Nigelb said:

    Likely to seriously regret this in November.
    https://x.com/BigBlueWaveUSA/status/1821278360963858530

    She can always amend it to the much less embarrassing STRUMPET.....
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,639
    edited August 2024
    tyson said:

    Rasmussen is a pollster I take note of unlike Trafalgar....

    It called Bush's victory over Kerry in 2004- but I do think that was also helped my a timely intervention by Osama the Sunday before polling...

    From what I remember the polls in 2004 were actually all fairly accurate (in general). I think most of them had Bush slightly ahead (though most were MOE, but then the margin was only circa 2 points in the end I believe).

    Looking back there was quite a lot of wishcasting in 2004. I seem to remember a lot of people being convinced Bush wouldn't win simply because it was Bush. I think there is some of that around this time, too, though I think Harris at the moment should be the marginal favourite.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,768
    Nigelb said:

    Likely to seriously regret this in November.
    https://x.com/BigBlueWaveUSA/status/1821278360963858530

    Not weird at all.....
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,129
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Let's be honest, to the ardent anti monarchists the King would have been damned if he did make a statement or damned if he didn't.

    If he'd have come out with it at the start there would have been cries of him meddling in politics.

    His mother was fine meddling in politics, her intervention during the indyref was a disgrace and I say that as somebody who wanted No to win.
    Advised to do so by one David Cameron.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,639
    Nigelb said:

    Likely to seriously regret this in November.
    https://x.com/BigBlueWaveUSA/status/1821278360963858530

    If she ever makes it to the UK she'll be walking around with the equivalent of FART written on her forehead.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    Eabhal said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Let's be honest, to the ardent anti monarchists the King would have been damned if he did make a statement or damned if he didn't.

    If he'd have come out with it at the start there would have been cries of him meddling in politics.

    His mother was fine meddling in politics, her intervention during the indyref was a disgrace and I say that as somebody who wanted No to win.
    Advised to do so by one David Cameron.
    Citation please.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,033
    Anyone else watching the All Blacks getting beaten by the Argies?
  • eekeek Posts: 30,448
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Eabhal said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    numbertwelve said:

    Let's be honest, to the ardent anti monarchists the King would have been damned if he did make a statement or damned if he didn't.

    If he'd have come out with it at the start there would have been cries of him meddling in politics.

    His mother was fine meddling in politics, her intervention during the indyref was a disgrace and I say that as somebody who wanted No to win.
    Advised to do so by one David Cameron.
    Citation please.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/former-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron-says-queen-intervened-in-scottish-independence-vote/2019/09/19/d2224b8a-dace-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,768
    numbertwelve said:

    Nigelb said:

    Likely to seriously regret this in November.
    https://x.com/BigBlueWaveUSA/status/1821278360963858530

    If she ever makes it to the UK she'll be walking around with the equivalent of FART written on her forehead.
    At least the Republicans have kept the same leader for a while. Equivalent Tory fangirl would need a very big forehead to have Boris, Truss, Sunak tattooed and crossed out plus space to fit in the next one.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,978
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.

    In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.

    Now RCP have Trump ahead of Harris 287 to 251 with similar figures to Trafalgar but Harris ahead in Wisconsin as well as Michigan (likely Walz bounce in upper midwest there)
    https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college

    In 2020 RCP were near spot on forecasting Biden 319 to Trump 219
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html


    Rasmussen were not far off either, they leaned Trump but got his score spot on at 47% just underestimated Biden's share having it at 48%. In 2016 they were spot on in the popular vote giving Hilllary a 2% lead in their final poll
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_nov02
    https://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016/

    Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.

    As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
    Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.

    Shapiro would have been the better choice.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,522
    Sandpit said:

    Anyone else watching the All Blacks getting beaten by the Argies?

    Yes.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,371
    numbertwelve said:

    tyson said:

    Rasmussen is a pollster I take note of unlike Trafalgar....

    It called Bush's victory over Kerry in 2004- but I do think that was also helped my a timely intervention by Osama the Sunday before polling...

    From what I remember the polls in 2004 were actually all fairly accurate (in general). I think most of them had Bush slightly ahead (though most were MOE, but then the margin was only circa 2 points in the end I believe).

    Looking back there was quite a lot of wishcasting in 2004. I seem to remember a lot of people being convinced Bush wouldn't win simply because it was Bush. I think there is some of that around this time, too, though I think Harris at the moment should be the marginal favourite.
    This time it’s still on a knife edge - because of the EC, she needs to be a number of points clear in the overall nation vote to be in front.

    Unless we get a really differential turnout.

    Walz was a particularly good pick in several ways - one is that unlike Shapiro, he won’t upset the left hand side of the Democrat base (Gaza)

    The left figure largely in the volunteer and low level party - which is where the turnout engine is.

    Note that Hillary managed to piss off exactly that group.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,786
    Nigelb said:

    Likely to seriously regret this in November.
    https://x.com/BigBlueWaveUSA/status/1821278360963858530

    Oh if I were the tattooist I would take lots of serious legal advice, a waiver signed in blood and still not do it.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,649
    Carnyx said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    #NotMyKing

    It’s taken 10 days for the King, who prides himself on being a symbol of national unity, to comment.

    In doing so, Charles hasn’t called out the racism and Islamophobia.

    To remain relevant, his officials will need to be more fleet of foot in the future.

    https://x.com/_PeterHunt/status/1821998277526438211

    I assumed this chap is from Republic, but no, not a bit of it. Former BBC presentator and still a commentator on royal stuff.
    (a) he'd only have spoken out on Government advice, so blame that republican Starmer and (b) he wouldn't have wanted to take any position that could be misconstrued as vaguely political, lest it affect his unifying message, so calling for calm is quite right
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,784
    New: Two years after Biden signed the Chips Act, $39b in grants is mostly divvied up & firms say they’ll invest 10x that in the US

    I talked to the man in charge — & many others — about what it’ll take to turn those promises into factories

    🧵& free link:
    https://x.com/mackhawk/status/1821883949041275299

    Good thread and linked article.
    One of the big holdups for new fab construction is Republicans blocking permitting exemptions.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 63,649
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.

    In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.

    Now RCP have Trump ahead of Harris 287 to 251 with similar figures to Trafalgar but Harris ahead in Wisconsin as well as Michigan (likely Walz bounce in upper midwest there)
    https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college

    In 2020 RCP were near spot on forecasting Biden 319 to Trump 219
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html


    Rasmussen were not far off either, they leaned Trump but got his score spot on at 47% just underestimated Biden's share having it at 48%. In 2016 they were spot on in the popular vote giving Hilllary a 2% lead in their final poll
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_nov02
    https://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016/

    Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.

    As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
    The bias is on this site.

    This board hates Trump and anything bad for him, and good for Harris, gets about 15 times as much coverage as it should and anything vaguely neutral, let alone positive, gets dismissed.

    Kamala Harris lost in 2020 because, largely, she was seen as on the Left and Biden as the moderate. Don't think for a moment Americans have forgotten that. And she certainly has limitations as a candidate. She's far from home and dry and the VI is mainly due to Democrats firming up.

    I expect the race to narrow as polling day approaches. And Trump could easily still win this.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,732
    Sean_F said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2016 though it was only Trafalgar of the main pollsters who had Trump ahead in the rustbelt states and they were correct, the rest of the pollsters weren't so they can't be dismissed.

    In 2016 even RCP had Hillary ahead 272 EC votes to 266 for Trump, yet Trump won 304 to 227.

    Now RCP have Trump ahead of Harris 287 to 251 with similar figures to Trafalgar but Harris ahead in Wisconsin as well as Michigan (likely Walz bounce in upper midwest there)
    https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/president/2024/no-toss-up/electoral-college

    In 2020 RCP were near spot on forecasting Biden 319 to Trump 219
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/2020_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html


    Rasmussen were not far off either, they leaned Trump but got his score spot on at 47% just underestimated Biden's share having it at 48%. In 2016 they were spot on in the popular vote giving Hilllary a 2% lead in their final poll
    https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_nov02
    https://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016/

    Trump's lead in the no toss up race on RCP is entirely based upon him being given Pennsylvania. If that were to go blue he would lose 268 to 270. Its why, for all his undoubted folksy charm I still worry that Harris chose Walz rather than Shapiro.

    As I said earlier it is seriously misleading to take the "final" polls for Rasmussen in isolation because they are highly biased until very shortly before then come into line. Of course we have seen similar herding in the UK at times as well.
    Trump's lead in Pennsylvania is small, but it seems, consistent.

    Shapiro would have been the better choice.
    If she'd picked Shapiro the news would be all about that woman who committed suicide by stabbing herself repeatedly in the back of the head.
This discussion has been closed.