If the electoral college is anywhere close to even then Trump wins anyway, because he has the mob and the Supreme Court on his side.
Are you saying that if for instance the result is 271-267 to Harris with Harris winning WI, PA and GA and Trump winning the other 4 swing states, then Trump will win by overturning the GA result? He tried that last time and didn't succeed. Yes he has the SC on side but he's not the incumbent President. He would contest the result of course. But would he actually succeed?
If he can get a case to the Supreme Court, he almost certainly would. And the Supreme Court decides what cases it wants to take.
I believe you are correct. Is is a fairly reasonable bet that the SC overturns as many states as it takes to furnish a Trump win, particularly in the event that Trump wins the popular vote and loses the College.
If, say, Harris wins 350 EC votes, they can’t overturn it.
If it’s close to a tie, they’ll put their thumb on the scales for Trump.
Trump won't win the popular vote and lose the electoral college, that scenario is a massive outlier, if it's close and there is any scope for argument over who won a state (or even appointment of electors) then the majority in the SC will tie itself in knots to favour Trump. It's the Democrats own fault, Biden should have attempted to rebalance the SC, and there are SC justices who by accepted ethical norms should have been disqualified.
Suppose the SC does overturn results in a couple of States to get Trump over the line. What is the possibility of civil resistance? I don't think this has been really discussed.
It has been discussed.
It's an unknowable. Depends on how egregious the steal is.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
Four years ago PBers were also saying that the SC would give the election to Trump.
Not saying it couldn't happen.
But anyone saying events are guaranteed in any manner of ways is being foolish.
I feel 'meh' about a lot of issues, but this is one that I would almost be prepared to actually protest about. Yes historically countries, nations, whatever around the world did bad things. And most nations have had bad things done to them. Yes the world is unequal and we all should try to make it less so.
But the idea that ONE injustice, and one alone is the worst thing ever and now it must be paid for is a nonsense.
If the losing candidate does not concede (almost certain with Trump), or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges) (Again almost certain), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress.
January 6, 2025—Congress counts the electoral votes Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
If any objections to the electoral votes are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one-fifth of the members of the House and one-fifth of the Senators. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection(s) under procedures set out in Federal law. Only two grounds for objection are acceptable: that the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a Certificate of Ascertainment, or that the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.
If no Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution the House of Representatives decides the Presidential election. If necessary, the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from among the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State having one vote. (The District of Columbia does not vote because it doesn't have voting members in the House of Representatives.)
If no Vice Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority or the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment the Senate elects the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing between the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. Each Senator would have one vote.
I hope that the people who are essentially saying that Trump is lying about ceasing support for Ukraine, not following NATO Article 5 and imposing tariffs on all imports are right. He is certainly a liar, so there is a chance.
I think a good rule of thumb is to assume that people who say hateful things are being entirely sincere.
When Trump calls opponents “vermin”, says of immigrants “they’re not humans, they’re animals”, speaks of “ bad genes”, he’s saying what he truly believes.
I hope that international leaders have given some serious thoughts about how to exploit Trump's massive personal flaws. For example Ukraine could say that any missiles sent by the US will be renamed 'Trump's Massive Vengeance' or make him the first ever Grand High Poobah of NATO.
Whereas the UK Labour party has decided to annoy Trump because a few people wanted to partake in electoral tourism.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
So am I looking in from across the Atlantic, nonetheless the result will have a bearing on how we roll over here
Harris has been confident, witty, sure footed and positive. An absolute mirror image of her opponent. See his Al Smith speech.
It might not be enough.
Has the revelation that Trump likes Hitler moved the market at all?
Why would it?
Consider all the other revelations about Trump and what they did to his polling numbers.
Suppose the SC does overturn results in a couple of States to get Trump over the line. What is the possibility of civil resistance? I don't think this has been really discussed.
However, the rednecks have got more weapons than the tofu-munchers.
Just scrap the Commonwealth. South Africa and India have left and the rest don't matter, apart from the old White Dominions and the nations still under the Crown. We are linked with the Dominions via Aukus or NATO, so that's all fine
The rest literally just see it as a grift, and a way of guilt-tripping a weak Britain and a weak Labour government that just gave away the Chagos and will make us pay for the privilege. Fuck it, them, all of it
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
So am I looking in from across the Atlantic, nonetheless the result will have a bearing on how we roll over here
Harris has been confident, witty, sure footed and positive. An absolute mirror image of her opponent. See his Al Smith speech.
It might not be enough.
Has the revelation that Trump likes Hitler moved the market at all?
It got some media attention but it wasn’t wall to wall coverage . Very few people are undecided about Trumps character , this just reinforces the view amongst those who hate him .
It’s really about motivating your base . The story really only got attention in the last two days , so we’ll see if there’s any effect on the next few polls .
I feel 'meh' about a lot of issues, but this is one that I would almost be prepared to actually protest about. Yes historically countries, nations, whatever around the world did bad things. And most nations have had bad things done to them. Yes the world is unequal and we all should try to make it less so.
But the idea that ONE injustice, and one alone is the worst thing ever and now it must be paid for is a nonsense.
Once you start apologising for what one group of dead people did to another group of dead people (eg Blair over the Irish Famine), you get endless grifters demanding similar apologies. And once you give apologies, then they start demanding the moolah.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
A minor thing in the face of Trump II and an England collapse, but has TwitterX deactivated its translation option for non English tweets? Pitfa if so.
If the losing candidate does not concede (almost certain with Trump), or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges) (Again almost certain), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress.
January 6, 2025—Congress counts the electoral votes Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
If any objections to the electoral votes are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one-fifth of the members of the House and one-fifth of the Senators. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection(s) under procedures set out in Federal law. Only two grounds for objection are acceptable: that the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a Certificate of Ascertainment, or that the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.
If no Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution the House of Representatives decides the Presidential election. If necessary, the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from among the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State having one vote. (The District of Columbia does not vote because it doesn't have voting members in the House of Representatives.)
If no Vice Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority or the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment the Senate elects the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing between the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. Each Senator would have one vote.
I was extremely surprised that you are now a Trump supporter @Pulpstar. What happened?
I feel 'meh' about a lot of issues, but this is one that I would almost be prepared to actually protest about. Yes historically countries, nations, whatever around the world did bad things. And most nations have had bad things done to them. Yes the world is unequal and we all should try to make it less so.
But the idea that ONE injustice, and one alone is the worst thing ever and now it must be paid for is a nonsense.
Once you start apologising for what one group of dead people did to another group of dead people (eg Blair over the Irish Famine), you get endless grifters demanding similar apologies. And once you give apologies, then they start demanding the moolah.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
I feel 'meh' about a lot of issues, but this is one that I would almost be prepared to actually protest about. Yes historically countries, nations, whatever around the world did bad things. And most nations have had bad things done to them. Yes the world is unequal and we all should try to make it less so.
But the idea that ONE injustice, and one alone is the worst thing ever and now it must be paid for is a nonsense.
Once you start apologising for what one group of dead people did to another group of dead people (eg Blair over the Irish Famine), you get endless grifters demanding similar apologies. And once you give apologies, then they start demanding the moolah.
Have we asked the Danes and Norwegians for reparations for the Viking invasions or the French for the Norman Conquest yet? If not, why not?
I hope that the people who are essentially saying that Trump is lying about ceasing support for Ukraine, not following NATO Article 5 and imposing tariffs on all imports are right. He is certainly a liar, so there is a chance.
I think a good rule of thumb is to assume that people who say hateful things are being entirely sincere.
When Trump calls opponents “vermin”, says of immigrants “they’re not humans, they’re animals”, speaks of “ bad genes”, he’s saying what he truly believes.
I hope that international leaders have given some serious thoughts about how to exploit Trump's massive personal flaws. For example Ukraine could say that any missiles sent by the US will be renamed 'Trump's Massive Vengeance' or make him the first ever Grand High Poobah of NATO.
Whereas the UK Labour party has decided to annoy Trump because a few people wanted to partake in electoral tourism.
You do realise that parties worldwide have been campaigning for international sister parties for years?
Did this incredible revelation come as news to you? Were you ignorant of it previously?
If the losing candidate does not concede (almost certain with Trump), or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges) (Again almost certain), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress.
January 6, 2025—Congress counts the electoral votes Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
If any objections to the electoral votes are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one-fifth of the members of the House and one-fifth of the Senators. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection(s) under procedures set out in Federal law. Only two grounds for objection are acceptable: that the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a Certificate of Ascertainment, or that the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.
If no Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution the House of Representatives decides the Presidential election. If necessary, the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from among the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State having one vote. (The District of Columbia does not vote because it doesn't have voting members in the House of Representatives.)
If no Vice Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority or the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment the Senate elects the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing between the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. Each Senator would have one vote.
I was extremely surprised that you are now a Trump supporter @Pulpstar. What happened?
I don't see any support for Trump there; just a statement of facts.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I wouldn't style it as reparations, but favourable terms of trade and development Aid to less developed countries within the Commonwealth seems entirely reasonable.
If the losing candidate does not concede (almost certain with Trump), or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges) (Again almost certain), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress.
January 6, 2025—Congress counts the electoral votes Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
If any objections to the electoral votes are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one-fifth of the members of the House and one-fifth of the Senators. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection(s) under procedures set out in Federal law. Only two grounds for objection are acceptable: that the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a Certificate of Ascertainment, or that the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.
If no Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution the House of Representatives decides the Presidential election. If necessary, the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from among the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State having one vote. (The District of Columbia does not vote because it doesn't have voting members in the House of Representatives.)
If no Vice Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority or the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment the Senate elects the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing between the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. Each Senator would have one vote.
I was extremely surprised that you are now a Trump supporter @Pulpstar. What happened?
I don't see any support for Trump there; just a statement of facts.
And Good Morning to one and all.
No. He was asked by @TimS this week and he said he supported Trump. He used to be a LibDem Remainer!
Just scrap the Commonwealth. South Africa and India have left and the rest don't matter, apart from the old White Dominions and the nations still under the Crown. We are linked with the Dominions via Aukus or NATO, so that's all fine
The rest literally just see it as a grift, and a way of guilt-tripping a weak Britain and a weak Labour government that just gave away the Chagos and will make us pay for the privilege. Fuck it, them, all of it
'They've turned the flag waving piccanninie weans of the Commonwealth against us!'
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
That's all true. And it's also doing an injustice to the modern generation, who had f-all to do with events 200 or more years ago.
But it appeals to two groups: *) Those whose countries have failed, often since independence, and want someone to blame for their own failures; preferably if that blame comes with billions of quid; *) Those in the UK who think we are uniquely the bad guys and should be punished for it.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
If the losing candidate does not concede (almost certain with Trump), or if there is any uncertainty around the result (for instance, caused by recounts and/or potential legal challenges) (Again almost certain), then the market will be settled on the winner decided by Congress, on the date on which the Electoral College votes are counted in a joint session of Congress.
January 6, 2025—Congress counts the electoral votes Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
If any objections to the electoral votes are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one-fifth of the members of the House and one-fifth of the Senators. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection(s) under procedures set out in Federal law. Only two grounds for objection are acceptable: that the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a Certificate of Ascertainment, or that the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.
If no Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution the House of Representatives decides the Presidential election. If necessary, the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from among the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State having one vote. (The District of Columbia does not vote because it doesn't have voting members in the House of Representatives.)
If no Vice Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority or the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment the Senate elects the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing between the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. Each Senator would have one vote.
I was extremely surprised that you are now a Trump supporter @Pulpstar. What happened?
I don't see any support for Trump there; just a statement of facts.
And Good Morning to one and all.
No. He was asked by @TimS this week and he said he supported Trump. He used to be a LibDem Remainer!
Ah, I didn't see that; I'm not here permanently. I was looking at the post in front of me at the time.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
Harris has been solid but if they could have executed it I think they'd have been better with one of the mid-western governors like Gretchen Whitmer. Harris is basically polling where the hypothetical polls were putting her and other candidates hypothetically polled higher.
That said Harris has been competent, not gaffed and won the debate, and it's unknowable how Whitmer or whoever would have performed.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Following an unbroken eight-year stretch of White male presidents...
Delete the word 'white' and it's an unbroken 236 year stretch.
Surely as only 4/236 Obama should be combined into “other” on the pie chart?
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
I don't object to Musk spending money, it's his twisting of the Twitter feed to endlessly spam us with Trumpist posts that's the problem. It's a level of advertising and propaganda that couldn't be bought by anyone else.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
That's all true. And it's also doing an injustice to the modern generation, who had f-all to do with events 200 or more years ago.
But it appeals to two groups: *) Those whose countries have failed, often since independence, and want someone to blame for their own failures; preferably if that blame comes with billions of quid; *) Those in the UK who think we are uniquely the bad guys and should be punished for it.
Many of those countries that have failed are just using the UK as a punchbag. Take Jamaica for example , when the Brits left they had a functioning railway , decent education and healthcare . Now it’s a cesspit of gang violence .
The failure of European leaders - in France, the UK and Germany especially - to plan adequately for a possible second Trump presidency is unforgivable. It has been a complete dereliction of duty. It's been clear for at least two years, probably longer, that Trump had a decent chance of winning, yet we have done nothing on this side of the Atlantic to prepare for it despite knowing his views on both NATO and Ukraine. History will not be kind.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
I don't object to Musk spending money, it's his twisting of the Twitter feed to endlessly spam us with Trumpist posts that's the problem. It's a level of advertising and propaganda that couldn't be bought by anyone else.
Bezos, Ellison, the Waltons, Zuckerberg, Page and Gates could all probably do it.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
I don't object to Musk spending money, it's his twisting of the Twitter feed to endlessly spam us with Trumpist posts that's the problem. It's a level of advertising and propaganda that couldn't be bought by anyone else.
Bezos, Ellison, the Waltons, Zuckerberg, Page and Gates could all probably do it.
Bezos has the WaPo, and has been rather hands-off with it. It is incomparable to what Musk is doing.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
I don't object to Musk spending money, it's his twisting of the Twitter feed to endlessly spam us with Trumpist posts that's the problem. It's a level of advertising and propaganda that couldn't be bought by anyone else.
Bezos, Ellison, the Waltons, Zuckerberg, Page and Gates could all probably do it.
Bezos has the WaPo, and has been rather hands-off with it. It is incomparable to what Musk is doing.
@Foxy said "couldn't", not wouldn't ! I always try and argue what's said, not guess what posters mean.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
I would really, really like to see one of those winners make, from the money, a donation to the Dems.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
In the circumstances, absolutely.
What you're really wishing for is that history be rewritten, starting several years ago. That's just not reality. And I think she's a far better candidate than you give her credit for (FWIW). Pretty well any of the alternatives would have struggled to easily beat Trump, for much the same reasons.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
They can vote how they like after they've got Musk's money. The publicity he's bought with the stunt has paid off way more than the cost to him. If Starmer gave me a million quid tommorow I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
In the circumstances, absolutely.
What you're really wishing for is that history be rewritten, starting several years ago. That's just not reality. And I think she's a far better candidate than you give her credit for (FWIW). Pretty well any of the alternatives would have struggled to easily beat Trump, for much the same reasons.
The Dems have been making poor decisions with candidate picks pretty much since 2016. Yes, I'm wishing the last 8 years of Dem decisions had gone differently. But none of their decisions made where they are now inevitable: even 9 months ago they could have ended up with a better candidate. I accept they're stuck with her now. But I'm angry that they've ended up here. I do accept there wasn't a second Obama (or even a John Kerry) waiting in the wings and you can't conjure a winner up out of nowhere.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
They can vote how they like after they've got Musk's money. The publicity he's bought with the stunt has paid off way more than the cost to him. If Starmer gave me a million quid tommorow I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
So you think it's acceptable to do this during an election period? You'd have no trouble with it happening in the UK?
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Although just to make clear I think what Musk is doing is so close to buying votes that it is illegal or should be if it isn't.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Indeed.
I wasn't so much highlighting the issue - the importance of money - which may or may not have electoral advantages (possibly more at primary level to get a candidate noticed).
Rather the hypocrisy of some people then complaining if the other side gets a big donation.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
I think Trump has his best chance ever of winning the national popular vote.
However I also think Harris could still win the EC by holding the Midwest swing states and Pennsylvania and the Great Lakes where Obama is campaigning heavily in states he won. While Walz also has appeal in states like Wisconson.
Arizona and Nevada are likely going Trump due to his gains with Latinos so I think the alternative Sun Belt path is dead for Harris and unless she gets the black vote up to 2020 levels for her she will find it hard to hold Georgia too though that looks closer.
Remember the recent Fox poll with Trump ahead 50-48% US wide by Harris leading by 6% in the battlegrounds
Unilever has finally put the ESG/DEI crap to bed it looks like, hopefully the rest of the FTSE will follow suit and companies start to concentrate on profits and shareholder returns instead of nonsense that makes it more difficult to make money and deliver for investors.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I think Gretchen Whitmer was my preference, and I think Pete Butteigeig (sp?) too. Gavin Newsom was always mentioned but to my mind he was probably an even less attractive candidate than Harris. There must be other, surely?
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
Or a female black John Kerry, though had Kerry won Ohio in 2004 he would have won the EC despite losing the popular vote 48% to 50% for Bush
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
In the circumstances, absolutely.
What you're really wishing for is that history be rewritten, starting several years ago. That's just not reality. And I think she's a far better candidate than you give her credit for (FWIW). Pretty well any of the alternatives would have struggled to easily beat Trump, for much the same reasons.
...then the Dems need to get better alternatives, yes?
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
Short answer is yes. All of the above would have been better.
But James Clyburn made it pretty clear "anyone but Harris" was off the table.
The failure of European leaders - in France, the UK and Germany especially - to plan adequately for a possible second Trump presidency is unforgivable. It has been a complete dereliction of duty. It's been clear for at least two years, probably longer, that Trump had a decent chance of winning, yet we have done nothing on this side of the Atlantic to prepare for it despite knowing his views on both NATO and Ukraine. History will not be kind.
If Trump wins Ukraine will either have to get nuclear weapons or except partition. European leaders are not going to give Zelensky the weapons he needs to defeat Putin outright, nor allow him to join NATO.
Apart from Poland the biggest initial supporter of Zelensky in terms of weapons was Boris and Starmer will just follow Scholz and Macron and dither and not do much on Ukraine. He certainly won't allow Zelensky to send missiles into Russia without US approval
Unilever has finally put the ESG/DEI crap to bed it looks like, hopefully the rest of the FTSE will follow suit and companies start to concentrate on profits and shareholder returns instead of nonsense that makes it more difficult to make money and deliver for investors.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Suppose the SC does overturn results in a couple of States to get Trump over the line. What is the possibility of civil resistance? I don't think this has been really discussed.
Despite the blatantly political nature of the court they are by virtue of being legal professionals a bit cannier than your standard politco, so I don't think they would overturn to get Trump over the line (though they seem more willing to lean on the scales for him than they did in 2020, see the immunity decision). But if they did I don't think there would be much civil resistance. A lot of protests, maybe even a few riots, but when 50% of the country would already be on board with the court doing that, and a large additional percentage unwilling to act contrary to what is purported to be the legal process even if they disagree with it, there would just be a lot of wailing and upset.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Don't forget as a Yorkshireman there's got to be a payout for the harrying of the north in 1069-70.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Although just to make clear I think what Musk is doing is so close to buying votes that it is illegal or should be if it isn't.
How can you buy votes in a secret ballot? The voters might just take your money, and vote the wrong way, the double-crossing swine.
Given than governments of all stripes pretty much everywhere dole out money to their voters (e.g. right now, we have a budget black hole caused by Labour signing up for big pay rises for the public sector), although it's pretty morally dubious, I can't see how that sort of bribery can be stopped.
Musk doling out cash for signing some meaningless petition merely ensures everyone knows the petition is particularly meaningless - I can't see how it changes a single vote in the actual Presidential election.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
They can vote how they like after they've got Musk's money. The publicity he's bought with the stunt has paid off way more than the cost to him. If Starmer gave me a million quid tommorow I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
So you think it's acceptable to do this during an election period? You'd have no trouble with it happening in the UK?
Well I'm not a train driver so I'm unlikely to experience it tbh.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
What about the treatment of the English by the Normans, eh?
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Harrying, though no doubt it was pretty harrowing.
The optics of dumping Harris after Biden stood down would have been terrible for the Dems .
If Biden had stood down in time for the primaries then things may have been different . I’ve been a huge fan of Gretchen Whitmer and I think she would have been a very good candidate .
The Dems have made the best of a difficult situation and I like Harris and think she’s run a good campaign . Certainly they would have zero chance with Biden still leading the campaign .
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Those two statements are not incompatible. In fact they are compatible if you assume money gets you the election. They are both saying the same thing.
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
Although just to make clear I think what Musk is doing is so close to buying votes that it is illegal or should be if it isn't.
How can you buy votes in a secret ballot? The voters might just take your money, and vote the wrong way, the double-crossing swine.
Given than governments of all stripes pretty much everywhere dole out money to their voters (e.g. right now, we have a budget black hole caused by Labour signing up for big pay rises for the public sector), although it's pretty morally dubious, I can't see how that sort of bribery can be stopped.
Musk doling out cash for signing some meaningless petition merely ensures everyone knows the petition is particularly meaningless - I can't see how it changes a single vote in the actual Presidential election.
How can doling out free food or gifts be proven to actually affect someone's secret ballot? But there are often rules against treating regardless. We tend to be a bit cautious around the appearance of improper behaviour in elections.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Any UK government spending taxpayers money on reparations not the NHS and public services would be swiftly thrown out by furious voters. There might be a case for private settlements by wealthy mainly aristocratic families who inherited money from the slave trade plus a few old companies with slave profits from old even the King making a donation but that is it
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
Short answer is yes. All of the above would have been better.
But James Clyburn made it pretty clear "anyone but Harris" was off the table.
I don't think there was time for anyone else.
And I do wonder if Harris encouraged Biden to keep going long enough for herself to become the only possible replacement.
If the Dems had wanted a genuine contest to replace Biden then that decision needed to be made last year.
The optics of dumping Harris after Biden stood down would have been terrible for the Dems .
If Biden had stood down in time for the primaries then things may have been different . I’ve been a huge fan of Gretchen Whitmer and I think she would have been a very good candidate .
The Dems have made the best of a difficult situation and I like Harris and think she’s run a good campaign . Certainly they would have zero chance with Biden still leading the campaign .
Yes, the timing was such that they had little option, there really was not time for the kind of party infighting to resolve a winner that americans are used to. She was at least theoretically on the ticket for the primaries albeit as merely the VP, unless she immediately announced she was not going to put herself forward there would have been an internal war, so it was best option they had.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Don't forget as a Yorkshireman there's got to be a payout for the harrying of the north in 1069-70.
I’ll have a few claims.
My ex wife has Irish roots so I might go for that angle for my kids.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
Short answer is yes. All of the above would have been better.
But James Clyburn made it pretty clear "anyone but Harris" was off the table.
I don't think there was time for anyone else.
And I do wonder if Harris encouraged Biden to keep going long enough for herself to become the only possible replacement.
If the Dems had wanted a genuine contest to replace Biden then that decision needed to be made last year.
That would be very ruthless indeed, perhaps that will indeed come out from Biden in future years.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Don't forget as a Yorkshireman there's got to be a payout for the harrying of the north in 1069-70.
Do we know what troops were involved in William the Bastard's army? Were they the men he brought over at Hastings (and perhaps subsequently) or did they include Southern English?
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
I think the Axis powers bear most of the responsibility for famines in WWII.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
It's worse than that, since the process of who would get what and why would be a complete mess, even if it were agreed that there was a case for reparations at all.
It's about getting the acceptance of more performative flagellation, I don't think campaigners are as concerned with the details after that point.
"While I am not one to take part in the political prediction industry — recently ballooned by mysterious crypto investments gambling on a Donald Trump victory — today I am pulling my stool up to the political poker table to throw my chips all in: America, it will all be OK. Ms. Harris will be elected the next president of the United States. Of this, I am certain."
(Posted yesterday but just in case anyone missed it).
I'm sure he's lovely and visits his Mum regularly, but it's hopecasting. He does make a good point (Harris has lots of money) but I don't know it's conclusive
Its strange, we've been continually told that Harris has a big advantage because she has a lot more money.
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
Money does not equal victory.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
Bypassing the middleman The big losers with Musk's style are the TV networks, no wonder there's a hoo hah about it.
Well, no. Leaving all that aside, the giving money to registered voters, including a million dollars to one person a day, is utterly wrong. Hopefully you'd agree with that.
They can vote how they like after they've got Musk's money. The publicity he's bought with the stunt has paid off way more than the cost to him. If Starmer gave me a million quid tommorow I certainly wouldn't vote for him.
So you think it's acceptable to do this during an election period? You'd have no trouble with it happening in the UK?
Well I'm not a train driver so I'm unlikely to experience it tbh.
a) That's a totally different thing. b) That occurred after the GE.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think Harris is a perfectly fine candidate. Who would you have had instead?
I wonder if the Dems would have done better with a governor as candidate.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
I suggest relatively few are "I might vote Harris, I might vote Trump" and more are "I've an idea who I favour but I'm not that enthused".
I suggest it shows a problem in the polling. In reality 2x as many as that 18% will not get around to voting. Turnout the last time around was 66.1%. So the election turns on who of those who expressed a preference can't be arsed. Isn't democracy wonderful?
that's one reason why this is a brutally difficult election to call. Harris is enthusing certain groups. Trump inspires an almost messianic fervour in others. Other races and the multiple abortion ballots may have a bearing as well.
One reason I think Harris should still be favourite is because Trump's base seems to be much less enthused than last time while hers has every reason to turn out to stop him.
But it's far too close to call.
It should be a shoo in based on the CVs of the two Presidential candidates, although even on here we have a very decent pro-Trump showing and a few posts each day explaining how poor a candidate Harris appears to be. I didn't have high hopes for Harris although during her candidacy, with caveats, she has proven a revelation.
Is America or even the PB right (who thankfully don't get to vote) ready for a Woman of colour President?
Has she? My impression is that she's been vacuous. Which is still, from this perspective, better than what Trump (or even Biden, in his dotage) offers. But compared to pretty much any candidate from either side before 2016 she's been depressingly lacking in reasons to want her as preaident. (From my perspective - and I accept I am seeing the election from 5000 miles away.) America is ready for a non-white woman president - but perhaps not yet for a non-white woman who is there for reasons of her colour and her gender rather than her quality as a candidate.
I've seen a lot of posts saying Harris is a poor candidate but none with any clear explanation.
The USA is clearly very misogynistic as evidenced by the current battle over abortion rights, incels and the young male following of toxic misogynistic social media personalities.
So I wouldn't agree that the USA is ready for a woman president (unlike other countries in America), the evidence is that they'll elect a white male media personality with no previous political or legislative experience over a highly experienced female candidate.
Claiming that highly experienced candidate is a diversity pick just underlines the case that her opponents are racist and sexist.
She was very clearly appointed as veep because the Dems feel that a white male president needs a non-white female veep. We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available. I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate. To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
In the circumstances, absolutely.
What you're really wishing for is that history be rewritten, starting several years ago. That's just not reality. And I think she's a far better candidate than you give her credit for (FWIW). Pretty well any of the alternatives would have struggled to easily beat Trump, for much the same reasons.
Kamala Harris has been good. for much of this campaign. Funny, charismatic, quick on her feet, confident and expansive.
The Democrat programme itself has not been quite as expansive as her, I would really say.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
What about the treatment of the English by the Normans, eh?
To be fair there, in England the language used by the royals downwards (!) has had considerable Saxon influence. Ever since Chaucer.
Oh for goodness sake the Telegraph has lost the plot. Every single day another budget scare story. Some have to be true as otherwise there will be nothing Reeves can do, but the headlines are bizarre panic. It is like @leon on steroids.
Are they trying to compete with the Express on Princess Diana and House prices.
Unilever has finally put the ESG/DEI crap to bed it looks like, hopefully the rest of the FTSE will follow suit and companies start to concentrate on profits and shareholder returns instead of nonsense that makes it more difficult to make money and deliver for investors.
These things can be done in moderation. You can change processes and the like to take account of such concerns, without hiring expensive consultants, making lots of changes to your business, or seeking an award from some random 'charity' which will praise you for meeting their own criteria, which just has all the ingredients for a grift.
So the consensus here this morning is that if Harris wins the Electoral College by only a small margin and it gets to the SC then Trump will ultimately win the election. If this is an accurate assessment then it accounts for the betting. Two candidates are neck and neck in the polls but one is clear odds on (though drifting a bit) to win.
Four years ago PBers were also saying that the SC would give the election to Trump.
Not saying it couldn't happen.
But anyone saying events are guaranteed in any manner of ways is being foolish.
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
Given the horrific treatment my antecedents experienced from the British invasion in Pakistan/India I would accept Blenheim Palace and an annual tribute of £10 million as fair reparations.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
How about the treatment my antecedents in West Wales experienced from the Normans and their English soldiery?
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The Welsh did okay, the Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis suffered worse, things like the Bengal Famine.
Point taken.
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
What about the treatment of the English by the Normans, eh?
To be fair there, in England the language used by the royals downwards (!) has had considerable Saxon influence. Ever since Chaucer.
Thank goodness King John was so crap, really forced the Anglo-Norman nobility to focus more on the local lingo.
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
Nearly four million died on Britain’s watch, there has to be a reckoning even if it wasn’t malicious.
Why do our generation need to pay a 'reckoning' for stuff that happened a generation or two ago? Let alone stuff that happened longer ago.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
Because the UK profited from the invasion and occupation of India.
Mr. F, to be fair, Japan doesn't have a self-hating Metropolitan middle class that might buckle and pay reparations, so they don't have to put up with this bullshit.
Comments
It's the Democrats own fault, Biden should have attempted to rebalance the SC, and there are SC justices who by accepted ethical norms should have been disqualified.
It's an unknowable. Depends on how egregious the steal is.
Not saying it couldn't happen.
But anyone saying events are guaranteed in any manner of ways is being foolish.
But the idea that ONE injustice, and one alone is the worst thing ever and now it must be paid for is a nonsense.
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/key-dates
January 6, 2025—Congress counts the electoral votes
Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The Vice President, as President of the Senate, presides over the count and announces the results of the Electoral College vote. The President of the Senate then declares which persons, if any, have been elected President and Vice President of the United States.
If any objections to the electoral votes are made, they must be submitted in writing and be signed by at least one-fifth of the members of the House and one-fifth of the Senators. If objections are presented, the House and Senate withdraw to their respective chambers to consider the merits of the objection(s) under procedures set out in Federal law. Only two grounds for objection are acceptable: that the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a Certificate of Ascertainment, or that the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given.
If no Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution the House of Representatives decides the Presidential election. If necessary, the House would elect the President by majority vote, choosing from among the three candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. The vote would be taken by State, with each State having one vote. (The District of Columbia does not vote because it doesn't have voting members in the House of Representatives.)
If no Vice Presidential candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes (a majority or the 538 available votes), under the 12th Amendment the Senate elects the Vice President. If necessary, the Senate would elect the Vice President by majority vote, choosing between the two candidates who received the greatest number of electoral votes. Each Senator would have one vote.
The rest literally just see it as a grift, and a way of guilt-tripping a weak Britain and a weak Labour government that just gave away the Chagos and will make us pay for the privilege. Fuck it, them, all of it
It’s really about motivating your base . The story really only got attention in the last two days , so we’ll see if there’s any effect on the next few polls .
years?
Did this incredible revelation come as news to you? Were you ignorant of it previously?
And Good Morning to one and all.
We've had this argument before - and others have pointed out that appointing the veep for what they represent rather than who they are is nothing new: there have been veeps appointed to reassure the evangelical vote, or the rust belt, or whatever. And yes, of all the non-white women the Dems had available, Harris was probably the best. But she's now inherited the nomination - and it's far from clear that she was the best candidate available.
I do consider her one of the worst candidates of my lifetime, after Trump and, Hillary (better on the surface, but good grief could she alienate people). I don't think it's pro-Trump to say any of this. One of the reasons I'm so angry is that I very much don't want Trump to win, and he's going to because the Dems are so in hock to the equality agenda that they haven't picked an election-winning candidate.
To be clear, I don't consider Harris a bad person or even objectively bad at politics. She is almost certainly making a better fist of it than, for example, I would. I am like the football fan who complains bitterly about player x being picked again when player x, while possibly out of his depth in team y, is still a professional footballer and better at football than almost everyone watching him. But is she the really the best the Dems could have come up with to win this election?
I think the past is best left there. I mean you can look back across the history of many nations and find terrible injustices , where does it end ?
https://youtu.be/I5VaPQflLq0?si=Pm7o4Dss8WA766S9
Then Musk spends a few million and the same people furiously claim he's buying the election.
But it appeals to two groups:
*) Those whose countries have failed, often since independence, and want someone to blame for their own failures; preferably if that blame comes with billions of quid;
*) Those in the UK who think we are uniquely the bad guys and should be punished for it.
But it is how the money is being spent. 'Traditional' US campaigning via ground game and media advertising, versus buying voters.
His is an odd move, though.
Now the advantage might be overstated but that's for the 'experts' to discuss.
That said Harris has been competent, not gaffed and won the debate, and it's unknowable how Whitmer or whoever would have performed.
A hereditary dukedom would seal the deal for me.
Mind, to be fair, the ancient Welsh could, and did, fight among themselves!
The point the Harris supporters are saying, I guess, is money is key and aren't we doing well and then Musk comes along and the criticism (valid or not) is a) his money is not legitimate by the way it is used (buying votes) and b) distorts because it is a single source (probably not as valid as I am sure the Democrats have big donors).
Don't see the issue. Both statements are valid particularly from a biased cohort.
What you're really wishing for is that history be rewritten, starting several years ago. That's just not reality.
And I think she's a far better candidate than you give her credit for (FWIW). Pretty well any of the alternatives would have struggled to easily beat Trump, for much the same reasons.
Beshear, Shapiro, Whitmer, Cooper would have been possibilities.
Harris has done better than expected and better than Biden would have done but she seems to me the Dem equivalent of Dan Quayle or possibly a modern Walter Mondale.
I accept they're stuck with her now. But I'm angry that they've ended up here.
I do accept there wasn't a second Obama (or even a John Kerry) waiting in the wings and you can't conjure a winner up out of nowhere.
I wasn't so much highlighting the issue - the importance of money - which may or may not have electoral advantages (possibly more at primary level to get a candidate noticed).
Rather the hypocrisy of some people then complaining if the other side gets a big donation.
https://x.com/AccountableGOP/status/1849222312119202092
https://x.com/AndreasKoureas_/status/1651658656331472919
Not my period, but I don't hear the counter-argument raised too much.
Also, the Harrowing of the North led to the death (from memory of Marc Morris' book on the Norman Conquest) of about 75% of the people there.
A pissing contest of historical grievance is useful only for those trying to guilt trip self-hating morons. Everybody has ancestors who perpetrated and suffered terrible things.
However I also think Harris could still win the EC by holding the Midwest swing states and Pennsylvania and the Great Lakes where Obama is campaigning heavily in states he won. While Walz also has appeal in states like Wisconson.
Arizona and Nevada are likely going Trump due to his gains with Latinos so I think the alternative Sun Belt path is dead for Harris and unless she gets the black vote up to 2020 levels for her she will find it hard to hold Georgia too though that looks closer.
Remember the recent Fox poll with Trump ahead 50-48% US wide by Harris leading by 6% in the battlegrounds
https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/fox-news-poll-trump-harris-october-16
You moved countries though before you had to change your language. I'd suggest the cultural domination was and is, in the end, at least as important.
But James Clyburn made it pretty clear "anyone but Harris" was off the table.
Apart from Poland the biggest initial supporter of Zelensky in terms of weapons was Boris and Starmer will just follow Scholz and Macron and dither and not do much on Ukraine. He certainly won't allow Zelensky to send missiles into Russia without US approval
Given than governments of all stripes pretty much everywhere dole out money to their voters (e.g. right now, we have a budget black hole caused by Labour signing up for big pay rises for the public sector), although it's pretty morally dubious, I can't see how that sort of bribery can be stopped.
Musk doling out cash for signing some meaningless petition merely ensures everyone knows the petition is particularly meaningless - I can't see how it changes a single vote in the actual Presidential election.
If Biden had stood down in time for the primaries then things may have been different . I’ve been a huge fan of Gretchen Whitmer and I think she would have been a very good candidate .
The Dems have made the best of a difficult situation and I like Harris and think she’s run a good campaign . Certainly they would have zero chance with Biden still leading the campaign .
Or we used to.
And I do wonder if Harris encouraged Biden to keep going long enough for herself to become the only possible replacement.
If the Dems had wanted a genuine contest to replace Biden then that decision needed to be made last year.
And if so, what other things need a reckoning for? has Germany fully 'reckoned' with WW2? Japan certainly has not. Why are we unique in that we need to pay reparations?
My ex wife has Irish roots so I might go for that angle for my kids.
So-called ‘spousal exemption’ likely in the firing line of Rachel Reeves’s Budget"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/inheritance/15bn-inheritance-tax-relief-rachel-reeves-slash/
It's about getting the acceptance of more performative flagellation, I don't think campaigners are as concerned with the details after that point.
b) That occurred after the GE.
That was a really weird comparison to make...
The Democrat programme itself has not been quite as expansive as her, I would really say.
That’s it.
Are they trying to compete with the Express on Princess Diana and House prices.
Give back the Koh-i-Noor for starters.