Howdy, Stranger!

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

This explains why the Selzer poll is different to others – politicalbetting.com

1235710

Comments

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,708
    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
  • Sandpit said:

    Roll on November 6th, when we can finally stop taking about the US presidential election.

    If it’s as close as many of the polls suggest, we’ll be talking about it up to January 6th.

    Hopefully it’s a clear win one way or the other.
    See

    Labour MPs push back against anti-pylon lobbying despite local opposition

    Letter by 61 Labour MPs supports ‘cheapest and most pragmatic’ plan for new electricity infrastructure

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/03/labour-mps-push-back-against-anti-pylon-lobbying-despite-local-opposition

    Thank goodness.

    There’s arguments both ways. Pylons are not exactly beautiful, but then much of the countryside isn’t that beautiful either. If there was infinite money perhaps burying the lines would be best, but we don’t have infinite money.
    How they look is irrelevant.
    No, it’s not. Lots of people believe in beauty and in the intrinsic beauty of the world around them. Maybe you don’t, but others do.
    Yes it is totally irrelevant.

    Rejecting infrastructure because you don’t like how it looks is not grounds for not having it. That’s one of the key reasons everything takes so long.

    HS2, don’t like a train line so we have to build it in a tunnel at massive expense. Should have just said bugger off and build it anyway.

    Phone masts - don’t like how they look. Too bad, we need coverage.

    Houses - don’t like how they look. Too bad, we need houses.

    People that reject things for visual reasons are my least favourite kinds of people.
    Then in 20 years time you look at the mess created in the name of "progress" and gently murmur: "I remember when all this were fields".
    And you think "thank goodness its not still fields anymore" as we now have working infrastructure, places to live, places to work and many other things more important than damned fields.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,320

    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
    They can give detailed demographic statistics before the election is even over, but it takes weeks to count the votes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    a

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Omnium said:

    Space News

    https://news.sky.com/story/british-aviation-pioneer-reaction-engines-crashes-into-administration-13245418

    Reaction Engines (the company attempting to promote the Skylon spaceplane design) has gone under.

    What happened to British engineering that made it consistently fail? (Or at least the aspirational type)

    The US came up with a better idea.
    And a bloke on twitter implemented it better.
    That wasn’t actually the better idea I was thinking of.
    SpaceX merely removed the biggest short/medium term potential market for them, by making conventional rockets a lot cheaper.
    Full reuse of both stages of a large, two stage rocket is probably below $50m million (cost) for 100 tons to orbit. Depending on the design, might drop to $20 million.

    Skylon can’t compete with those numbers. Because of the high cost of development and the high cost of its exotic engines, it can’t fly that cheaply, per ton.

    SpaceX got to cheap launch first. Then used to cheap launch to vastly expand *demand* for cheap launch.

    Blue Origin are now chasing the same goal (New Glenn/Kuiper)
    I know.
    But there will be a market for the new guys if they can get it to work.
    MUCH cheaper and simpler than Skylon (a name which sounds like something from a Bond novel).
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Meanwhile, the weekend Rawnsley:

    The new Tory leader takes charge with a tepid endorsement from her party’s members, two-thirds of her parliamentary colleagues preferring someone else and prominent names declaring that they have no desire to serve in her shadow cabinet.

    In her acceptance speech, she described the task ahead as “tough”, which is an understatement. The July election was the worst result for the Conservative party, both in terms of vote share and seats won, since 1832. I am not among those who think this means the Tories can never recover. They have been pronounced dead and buried in the past only then to rise from the grave. But they are unlikely to start recovering until – and unless – they have an honest reckoning with themselves about their multiple failings in government.

    Surveys suggest that very few voters think the Conservatives lost the election because they were too left wing while the majority of those with an opinion put it down to their incompetence.

    One of the biggest challenges for the new leader of the opposition, and especially when the Tory parliamentary presence is so small, will be persuading voters to pay them any heed. The case made for Mrs Badenoch by her promoters is that she is “box office” with a gift for grabbing attention. What she has often failed to grasp is that there is such a thing as the wrong kind of attention. “Still in development” is the assessment of one reasonably sympathetic senior Tory.

    Conservatives have displayed next to no interest in atoning for all the things voters came to loathe about them. There has never been a comprehensive repudiation of Boris Johnson for debauching standards in public life. Nor has there been an expression of suitably abject contrition for Liz Truss’s calamitous experiment with the economy. Nor have senior Tories had the humility to acknowledge that they left a super-massive black hole in the Treasury’s books. When you have fouled up as badly and as repeatedly as the Conservatives did in government, the first step to redemption with the electorate is to own your blunders and express regret for them.

    Even if voters become persistently discontented with Sir Keir’s government, the Tories are delusional if they imagine that this means the public will simply collapse back into their embrace and tell the Conservatives all is forgiven. Not least because so far the Tories have been almost completely incapable of recognising how much forgiveness they will need before they are taken seriously again. If Kemi Badenoch wants to get a hearing from the British people, she is first going to have to say sorry. And she is going to have to say it a lot.

    I think this is why Badenoch was the better choice. Jenrick was continuity sleaze.

    Kemi's victory speech was clear that big mistakes were made by the Tories in office and that they need to have a long hard look at themselves.

    Her musings in the past that WFP should be scrapped (which she rowed back on when it became Labour policy) and on Maternity pay being too generous shows a real willingness to make deep cuts to welfare and pensions in order to move to a low tax country.

    I wonder if she has the courage to scrap the Triple Lock. She just might.
    Badenoch’s weakness is that she is very tribal, aggressively so. The most successful politicians have the ability to look over the party horizon and sympathise without and understand voters that make other choices. She shares Corbyns disdain for the opposition.
    Evangelical self righteousness makes big tent politics far harder.
    Why do you say Evangelical?

    Badenoch however is not a believer, describing herself as a “cultural Christian”; someone without a personal faith, but whose world view is broadly biblical. It may explain why she supports same-sex marriage, although as Equalities’ Minister, she also applauded Christian MSP Kate Forbes’ right to oppose it.
    https://www.womanalive.co.uk/opinion/who-is-kemi-badenoch-is-she-a-christian-and-would-she-be-a-good-leader-for-the-uk/18159.article
    Kemi is more agnostic Catholic than evangelical. Her husband Hamish is Roman Catholic.


    “My mother’s father. My paternal grandmother was a Muslim, though to be fair she did convert in later life. My family’s sort of Anglican and Methodist. My maternal grandfather was a Methodist reverend.”

    ConHome: “And where did he practice?”

    Badenoch: “In Nigeria. I was born here [in Wimbledon], but I call myself first generation, because I grew up in Nigeria and I chose to come back here. So I’m agnostic really, but I was brought up with cultural Christian values.”

    ConHome: “Have you had your children baptised?”

    Badenoch: “Yes, because I’m married to a Catholic [she and Hamish Badenoch, whose mother emigrated from Ireland, have two children].”

    ConHome: “They’re being brought up as Catholics, are they?”

    Badenoch: “Yes. So I’m an honorary or associate member of the Catholic Church. That’s what I call it.”
    https://conservativehome.com/2017/12/21/interview-kemi-badenoch-im-not-really-left-leaning-on-anything-i-always-lean-right-instinctively/
    I mean she doesn’t believe in God. So the rest is gravy. Let’s not go there again. First time we have had atheists leading both big parties.
    No, agnostics are not atheists and as she is married to a Roman Catholic and bringing up her children as Roman Catholic she is more religious than secular atheist. Even Starmer while an atheist, not even agnostic, is married to a Jewish lady and bringing up his children Jewish.

    Cleverly was an atheist too but was knocked out in the MPs round
    There's a difference between religion-as-culture and religion-as-belief. I realise England is the country that invented Anglicanism to give agnostics a nice place to sit, but even so belief is the dividing line
    Agnostics by definition neither don't believe in God or have belief in God, they are like Independent swing voters on religion and often culturally religious even if not believers.

    Atheists are anti religion as well as not believing in God, active religious believe in God and are culturally religious and worshippers too
    Agnostics generally don’t do religion, however. They might go to Xmas carols, but atheists do that too. They are functionally closer to atheists.
    No they aren't, most atheists never go to any religious service on principle
    You don't know jack.

    Its quite funny how you insist "atheists" do this or that without being one yourself based on your own suppositions and prejudices.

    For an atheist, religion is just fiction. I have no more principled an objection to going to a Christmas Carol service, or Nativity, than I would a principled objection going to a performance of Les Misérables or Wicked.

    I'll as happily go to a singalong of Oh Come All Ye Faithful as I will Defying Gravity.

    There's no principled reason why you need to believe fiction is real to enjoy it.

    Atheists up and down the country will enjoy Christmas Carols this year like every year. Because we're not miserable shits.
    Oh I do know jack, you are an atheist Labour voting, pensioner hater. The fact you might go to the odd school Nativity play or carol service doesn't mean you will be going to church, even at Christmas or Easter
    I'm not a pensioner
    hater, I just think pensioners should be treated the same as everyone else. Get benefits only if they actually need them, and pay the same tax rate as working people (including NI on all their earnings including pensions).

    As for the latter, why would I go to Church? I'll go if I'm invited, eg for a wedding, and have no more an objection to that than any other venue. I'll also go to see my kids perform in Brownies/Guides which is hosted by the Church and their Christmas services has religious elements to it.

    You claimed we object in principle to religious services and won't go to carols etc - that's bollocks. I'll go to a religious service, I'll just think of it as the same as any other fiction - a work of fiction not to be taken seriously.
    You should take it seriously out of respect for those who don’t believe. By that I mean no public guffawing during the service…
    Well you should show some respect and not be rude, absolutely, but then I'd show some respect and not be rude during any other live fiction too. I wouldn't guffaw during The Music of the Night, so why would I guffaw during the Lord's Prayer? Guffaws should be reserved for laughing at things like comedy, which religion is not.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
    They can give detailed demographic statistics before the election is even over, but it takes weeks to count the votes.
    Difference between the secret ballot - how you voted - and whether you voted.
    Not secret at all in most states.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,353

    People would still oppose pylons because they look ugly. Change the law so this cannot even be taken into account

    I agree there should be a law banning ugly pylons.

    http://tloverview.blogspot.com/2016/08/beautiful-pylon-designs.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Next week, you will see people using something called Benford's Law to try to prove election fraud.
    ⛔️These people are wrong⛔️
    I am a scientist who has published on Benford's Law. Let me tell you what it is and why what they are doing is mathematically incorrect. 1/…

    https://x.com/jengolbeck/status/1852523948509905121

    This should be obvious to anyone who knows how it works - or who reads the rest of the thread.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,095

    Scott_xP said:

    @atrupar

    Trump is big mad about the Selzer poll

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1853111961904463922

    "I shouldn't have left" -- Trump now says he shouldn't have left office on January 20, 2021

    Trump is really leaning into pushing baseless preemptive claims of election fraud today, which is how you know he's losing

    Trump is exuding big whiny baby loser energy this morning

    Surely in order to guarantee a win he simply needs to deploy armed militias to Democrat wards across all the swing states, plus some other states that didn't appear to be swing states this morning.
    Are there rules against firing blanks in public?

    Stand behind a polling station with an M16 a fire a round of blanks - that will suppress turnout PDQ

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    edited November 3

    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
    The Secretary of State may well release it.

    In Georgia, for example, we know that 56% of all early voting is by women: https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout (and only 43.8% by men).

    That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.

    Edit to add:
    Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
    Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb

    Do you know he ate it? The bible only mentioned bread and wine


    A pedant writes:
    1) Luke records that Jesus's family - with the young Jesus - went every year to Jerusalem for passover. At passover you eat lamb.
    2) John (but not the other gospels) records the adult Jesus going to Jerusalem for passover in years earlier than the famous final visit.

    Further note: Jesus's closests mates were fishermen, and the feeding of the 5000 included fish. Conclusions can be drawn from all this about whether Jesus was a vegan/veggie. He wasn't.
    Jesus was Indian.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Mr. Eagles, *ahem*.

    You called Verstappen to win? I think you will find, good sir, that another person, who shall remain unMorris Dancered, tipped it.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    algarkirk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    So what the memo is saying is that, if the electorate is the same as 2020, believe Emerson. Really?

    One word. Abortion.
    It is an irony that abortion will lose him an election, an issue he couldn’t really give a toss about.
    Well yes:

    He gave the Christian Right what they wanted, in return for the Presidency in 2016.

    But it is likely costing him the election in 2024.

    And the Christian Right, for what it's worth, are likely to end up with abortion being less restrictive in most States than it was prior to the abolition of Roe v Wade, as voters come out in State after State and vote via ballot propositions for legal abortion with much later terms than lawmakers had ever envisaged.
    Karma of a sort. IMHO both Roe v Wade and massively curtailed abortion are/were wrong. It is obviously a matter for voters and legislators, not the constitution and courts. Where to balance the competing rights of mothers and the unborn does not admit of some single obvious answer. Neither science nor religion have any special insight into the matter, and those who think the answer is obvious or easy have not understood the question.
    I agree that Roe v Wade was a terrible decision, and issues like abortion rights are clearly for legislators not courts.

    On the other hand... one only had to look to either opinion polls to see that legal abortion is broadly popular, and that the consequences of repealing the law were highly unlikely to be what its proponents expected.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,231

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
    I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it. :)
    Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
    I'm not anti-woke so why would I?

    I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
    How do you feel about cannibalism?
    Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
    What on earth is a girl scout.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,851

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
    I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it. :)
    Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
    I'm not anti-woke so why would I?

    I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
    How do you feel about cannibalism?
    Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
    What on earth is a girl scout.
    Don't call me scout.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578

    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
    Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb

    Do you know he ate it? The bible only mentioned bread and wine


    A pedant writes:
    1) Luke records that Jesus's family - with the young Jesus - went every year to Jerusalem for passover. At passover you eat lamb.
    2) John (but not the other gospels) records the adult Jesus going to Jerusalem for passover in years earlier than the famous final visit.

    Further note: Jesus's closests mates were fishermen, and the feeding of the 5000 included fish. Conclusions can be drawn from all this about whether Jesus was a vegan/veggie. He wasn't.
    Jesus was Indian.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tw7LIykvBw
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,794

    To fair to Labour they probably do think it’s weird to have a black and female leader.
    Godsdammit, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her weird: it's rude and it's going to come back and bite them. they should go with "intense" (which is true)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    viewcode said:

    To fair to Labour they probably do think it’s weird to have a black and female leader.
    Godsdammit, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her weird: it's rude and it's going to come back and bite them. they should go with "intense" (which is true)
    I’m not sure they ought to call her anything.
    Why not just watch how she does first ?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,794
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    To fair to Labour they probably do think it’s weird to have a black and female leader.
    Godsdammit, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her weird: it's rude and it's going to come back and bite them. they should go with "intense" (which is true)
    I’m not sure they ought to call her anything.
    Why not just watch how she does first ?
    Hmmm. You're being reasonable again, aren't you... :)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    edited November 3
    rcs1000 said:

    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
    The Secretary of State may well release it.

    In Georgia, for example, we know that 56% of all early voting is by women: https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout (and only 43.8% by men).

    That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.

    Edit to add:
    Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
    Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ?
    (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)

    (edit)
    I see someone has spotted that.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,095
    algarkirk said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
    Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb

    Do you know he ate it? The bible only mentioned bread and wine


    A pedant writes:
    1) Luke records that Jesus's family - with the young Jesus - went every year to Jerusalem for passover. At passover you eat lamb.
    2) John (but not the other gospels) records the adult Jesus going to Jerusalem for passover in years earlier than the famous final visit.

    Further note: Jesus's closests mates were
    fishermen, and the feeding of the 5000
    included fish. Conclusions can be drawn
    from all this about whether Jesus was a
    vegan/veggie. He wasn't.
    Just because he attended Passover it doesn’t mean he ate lamb. Perhaps he just had unleavened bread?

    And you can’t access because eat fish in some varieties of vegetarianism

    (And I know, I’m just having fun)

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    To fair to Labour they probably do think it’s weird to have a black and female leader.
    Godsdammit, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her weird: it's rude and it's going to come back and bite them. they should go with "intense" (which is true)
    I’m not sure they ought to call her anything.
    Why not just watch how she does first ?
    Her existence upsets them. The Thing That Should Not Be.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    edited November 3
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
    The Secretary of State may well release it.

    In Georgia, for example, we know that 56% of all early voting is by women: https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout (and only 43.8% by men).

    That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.

    Edit to add:
    Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
    Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ?
    (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
    It does.

    @rcs1000 tips Georgia for Harris

    Fill ya boots; I reckon Kamala should be about 1.5, not 2,.74.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,800
    edited November 3
    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,772
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
    The Secretary of State may well release it.

    In Georgia, for example, we know that 56% of all early voting is by women: https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout (and only 43.8% by men).

    That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.

    Edit to add:
    Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
    Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ?
    (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
    Harris to me feels value across the board. The two I’m less confident about are NV and AZ. AZ should be good for her with the abortion ballot, buts she’s polling the worst there out of the swing states, and I think that has to count for something.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,800
    Phil said:

    IanB2 said:

    RobD said:

    People would still oppose pylons because they look ugly. Change the law so this cannot even be taken into account

    It’s simple. If you want to control what is built, you have to own the land.
    In two months travelling around the US, I only came across one solar farm. It was on the hillside of the French Broad river, right across from the Lover’s Leap trail viewpoint, and had created an unsightly scar on the hillside, and as a north facing slope the solar panels had to be installed facing back upslope.

    As a visiting European, I was left thinking why they had built it there, at a spot that in any other country would be treated as a beauty spot, and sub optimal since the panels were all facing upslope.

    But of course, in planning-free US, there is no ‘they’. Presumably whoever owned that land along the hillside by the scenic French Broad river just decided to build a solar farm, and went ahead and did it, leaving hikers to the beauty spot across the valley sitting there lookout at it.

    Meanwhile I drove 6,608 miles across the US through landscapes often devoid of any interest or attractiveness, and never saw another solar farm.
    There’s an awful lot of the USA. You can easily miss these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States#Large-scale_PV_facilities
    Certainly a lot in Southern California, especially around Palm Springs.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
    The Secretary of State may well release it.

    In Georgia, for example, we know that 56% of all early voting is by women: https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout (and only 43.8% by men).

    That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.

    Edit to add:
    Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
    Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ?
    (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
    It does.

    @rcs1000 tips Georgia for Harris

    Fill ya boots; I reckon Kamala should be about 1.5, not 2,.74.
    I already have, somewhat.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MikeL said:

    North Carolina:
    Votes already cast: 4,440k
    2020 total vote: 5,524k

    2024 Gender split so far: Women 55, Men 44

    How can they know what the gender split is?
    The Secretary of State may well release it.

    In Georgia, for example, we know that 56% of all early voting is by women: https://sos.ga.gov/page/election-data-hub-turnout (and only 43.8% by men).

    That's a staggering difference (27% more votes from women than men), and I can't see how Trump can possibly win Georgia if that gender split holds into election day.

    Edit to add:
    Sorry: that's 27.9% more votes from women than men. That gender split should be sending absolute terror through the hearts of Republicans.
    Does that not make it look rather good value at the moment ?
    (Harris c.2.74 on Betfair, looks pretty crazy from whoever’s offering those odds.)
    Harris to me feels value across the board. The two I’m less confident about are NV and AZ. AZ should be good for her with the abortion ballot, buts she’s polling the worst there out of the swing states, and I think that has to count for something.
    Today’s polling (and Robert’s notes on inflation) suggest as much.
    But Georgia offers some of the longer odds, and looks a good bet.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 21,794
    edited November 3
    I've put my initial writeup of Nevada up in the toilets. Points to note are
    • By any criterion: polls, early voting, voter registration, Trump is in the lead
    • Surprisingly, total early votes are *less* than in 2020 (the mix has changed but the total is less). Does this means anything?
    • Rurals are turning out: urbans are not
    • Nevada has an abortion referendum on election day
    Anybody want a link to backstage, please let me know.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,095
    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    In America “President” is a title

    So all former incumbents are “President X”

    But there is only one “the President”

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited November 3

    Mr. Eagles, *ahem*.

    You called Verstappen to win? I think you will find, good sir, that another person, who shall remain unMorris Dancered, tipped it.

    I tipped it before you.

    At 11.43.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,851
    rcs1000 said:

    I tried to put a bet on Georgia with Spreadex at £100/point. They limited me to £2.50.

    :lol:

    Which way?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,800



    Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?

    What on earth is a girl scout.
    Girl scout cookies are one of a number of American culinary disappointments.

    Mom's Apple Pie is not made of mothers though it has plenty of apples and is a pie. Shrimp 'N Grits has very little grit or even gravel in it while Biscuits and Gravy doesn't as far as I've seen, contain a single custard cream, digestive, rich tea or chocolate hobnob.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477
    edited November 3

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
    I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it. :)
    Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
    I'm not anti-woke so why would I?

    I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
    How do you feel about cannibalism?
    Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
    What on earth is a girl scout.
    Aren’t Brownies and Guides girl Scouts?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928

    rcs1000 said:

    I tried to put a bet on Georgia with Spreadex at £100/point. They limited me to £2.50.

    :lol:

    Which way?
    Buying Harris.

    Actually, there are better odds elsewhere, so I shan't complain too much.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 9,848

    If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them delicious.

    Problem with that argument is explained by Michael Flanders in the Reluctant Cannibal;

    If God hadn’t meant us to eat people, he wouldn’t have made them of meat
    Thats why amazon sells the cannibals cookbook
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    The Mail has a vox pox quote about Birmingham from a "Fabrication engineer".

    That sounds like an old world job that could mean something completely different in the digital/AI era.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

    Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,700
    Mr. Eagles, "I think I might back Hamilton and Verstappen for the race." Hmm. One might be generous and say this vague musing counts.

    An annoying thing is that my bet was actually at 15 but the odds had slipped to 13 by the time I tipped it due to finally getting bored waiting for Ladbrokes to get a move on.
  • Mr. Eagles, "I think I might back Hamilton and Verstappen for the race." Hmm. One might be generous and say this vague musing counts.

    An annoying thing is that my bet was actually at 15 but the odds had slipped to 13 by the time I tipped it due to finally getting bored waiting for Ladbrokes to get a move on.

    Qualifying had just ended or about to end.

    I was waiting for the markets to wake up.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,424

    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

    Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
    I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,851
    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

    Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
    I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
    I think this applies to Bishop as well.
  • Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

    Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
    I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
    I would have joined the diplomatic corp if after post ambassadorship people still had to address me as 'Your Excellency'.

    Your Excellency and a GCMG are the only two titles I've ever wanted.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,960
    Voting here in Washington state (and other states, no doubt) can be complex. Which is illustrated by our Voter's Pamphlets, put out by the state. Here, for example, is my main one: https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/Voters Pamphlet 2024 - Edition 07 - King - North and Eastside.pdf

    The candidates begin on page 40. Most of the preceding pages are taken up by statewide initiatives. (Simplifying, we could say they are intended to reverse some of Governor Inslee's principal "achievements".)

    There are 10 presidential tickets to choose from. (I rather like the expressions on the pictures chosen by the Loser's campaign.)

    The religious and ethnic variety of the candidates is remarkable. (There is even a candidate who emigrated from the UK.)

    But wait, there's more. Counties also put out voter guides for local candidates and initiatives. Mine, from King County (Seattle and most suburbs) is 40 pages long.

    If you want to see any of them, start here: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/2024-general-election-voters-guide
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,707

    People would still oppose pylons because they look ugly. Change the law so this cannot even be taken into account

    I agree there should be a law banning ugly pylons.

    http://tloverview.blogspot.com/2016/08/beautiful-pylon-designs.html
    There are no ugly pylons, every pylon is beautiful. If you cannot see it the ugliness is inside yourself.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    So what the memo is saying is that, if the electorate is the same as 2020, believe Emerson. Really?

    One word. Abortion.
    It is an irony that abortion will lose him an election, an issue he couldn’t really give a toss about.
    Well yes:

    He gave the Christian Right what they wanted, in return for the Presidency in 2016.

    But it is likely costing him the election in 2024.

    And the Christian Right, for what it's worth, are likely to end up with abortion being less restrictive in most States than it was prior to the abolition of Roe v Wade, as voters come out in State after State and vote via ballot propositions for legal abortion with much later terms than lawmakers had ever envisaged.
    Karma of a sort. IMHO both Roe v Wade and massively curtailed abortion are/were wrong. It is obviously a matter for voters and legislators, not the constitution and courts. Where to balance the competing rights of mothers and the unborn does not admit of some single obvious answer. Neither science nor religion have any special insight into the matter, and those who think the answer is obvious or easy have not understood the question.
    I agree that Roe v Wade was a terrible decision, and issues like abortion rights are clearly for legislators not courts.

    On the other hand... one only had to look to either opinion polls to see that legal abortion is broadly popular, and that the consequences of repealing the law were highly unlikely to be what its proponents expected.
    Yes. That's where the Karma all round comes in.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited November 3
    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    End of the Enlightenment latest...

    "Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."

    Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360

    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

    Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
    I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
    I think this applies to Bishop as well.
    Yes. A bishop is a bishop in two potential ways: S/he is a member of the order of bishops in virtue of their consecration. This is, more or less indelible and is for life. They might also be Bishop of Barchester or wherever, which post is highly delible and temporary.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    Watching the NFL, and so far there have been 2 commercials for Trump, both of them explicitly aimed at men, trying to convince them that voting for Donny is the manly thing to do.

    Maybe this is a good marketing strategy based on the expected viewer profile, but I can't help thinking that those voters are not the ones he needs to reach to win...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    ...

    End of the Enlightenment latest...

    "Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."

    Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570

    It's all going a little bit Ayatollah Khomeini.
  • ...

    End of the Enlightenment latest...

    "Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."

    Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570

    It's all going a little bit Ayatollah Khomeini.
    Sure thing.
  • ...

    End of the Enlightenment latest...

    "Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."

    Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570

    It's all going a little bit Ayatollah Khomeini.
    It's utterly Shi'ite.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477

    End of the Enlightenment latest...

    "Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."

    Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570

    Eh? What vaccines are being considered for a ban?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,480

    biggles said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    God doesn't eat meat!
    Uh yes he does, the passover meal for starters was lamb
    No, he doesn't. Show me a video of him eating meat, then!
    With AI you can't guarantee it's authentic footage.😂
    God was an earlier adopter of technology. He did write the commandments on a tablet so there would be video footage. I understand he movies in mysterious ways.
    He was also an early user of Apples so you can’t access because we’ve been kick out of the walled garden
    Bit keen on nepotism though. Clogs to clogs in three generations.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    Do Americans really find SNL funny?
  • algarkirk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    So what the memo is saying is that, if the electorate is the same as 2020, believe Emerson. Really?

    One word. Abortion.
    It is an irony that abortion will lose him an election, an issue he couldn’t really give a toss about.
    Well yes:

    He gave the Christian Right what they wanted, in return for the Presidency in 2016.

    But it is likely costing him the election in 2024.

    And the Christian Right, for what it's worth, are likely to end up with abortion being less restrictive in most States than it was prior to the abolition of Roe v Wade, as voters come out in State after State and vote via ballot propositions for legal abortion with much later terms than lawmakers had ever envisaged.
    Karma of a sort. IMHO both Roe v Wade and massively curtailed abortion are/were wrong. It is obviously a matter for voters and legislators, not the constitution and courts. Where to balance the competing rights of mothers and the unborn does not admit of some single obvious answer. Neither science nor religion have any special insight into the matter, and those who think the answer is obvious or easy have not understood the question.
    I agree that Roe v Wade was a terrible decision, and issues like abortion rights are clearly for legislators not courts.

    On the other hand... one only had to look to either opinion polls to see that legal abortion is broadly popular, and that the consequences of repealing the law were highly unlikely to be what its proponents expected.
    Yes. That's where the Karma all round comes in.
    Karma! Redneck backward bollocks. Hopefully what goes around comes around.
  • ...

    End of the Enlightenment latest...

    "Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."

    Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570

    It's all going a little bit Ayatollah Khomeini.
    Pete Tong.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    darkage said:

    My gut feeling is that Harris is going to win. Circumstantially the narrative about female voters is extremely persuasive.

    Yes. I agree!
    I'd say in any normal year this would be a clear Republican win.

    Trump is a drag on the ticket except he channels a sentiment in his base that other Republicans can't touch, but at the expense of independents.
    Key strategy behind Trumps mega-MAGA negative campaigning, is to DEPRESS turnout among Independents, especially women.

    Note that turnout among Inds is almost always LOWER anyway than it is among registered or self-IDed Dems & Reps. So the Trump/Vance/(Putin) ticket has something to work with here.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    @viewcode

    From the NYTimes polling in Nevada:

    "The Times/Siena poll does reflect the Republican advantage in early voting. Republicans have a two-point edge by party registration among early voters in the Times/Siena poll in Nevada, but early voters overall nonetheless say they back Ms. Harris by five points, as she has a wide lead among unaffiliated voters who cast early ballots."
  • Chris said:

    Chris said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Half of all food at National Trust cafes will be vegan within 2 years in a move backed by two third of members. 57,498 voted in favour and 20,111 against"

    Sunday Times page 13

    At least not 100% which I would not be surprised some of the woke NT wanted
    How long before they have to revisit that, when piles of vegan food goes to waste and punters can't get their shepherds pie and bacon sarnies...
    Yes, just ensure you eat meat when go to NT properties or cream filled scones and cakes and leave the vegan options to the vegans or don't eat there at all if none left
    That's right. You make sure you do your patriotic duty against "woke", by eating something you wouldn't have wanted to eat otherwise, or vice versa, to the extent of going hungry if there's nothing non-vegan available. So long as it makes you happy.
    I've been on a carnivore diet for over 12 months now and never been healthier for it. :)
    Sorry, but I'd be more impressed if you felt you were going to sacrifice your health in the war against "woke".
    I'm not anti-woke so why would I?

    I'm just not interested in veganism/vegetarianism, think its not tasty, unhealthy and won't choose it. I object to others wanting to force their choices on me, but I have zero concerns whatsoever if others want to make other choices to me - that's freedom.
    How do you feel about cannibalism?
    Are your girl scout cookies made from real girls scouts?
    What on earth is a girl scout.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qsYKKxdRaU
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,960
    I should have mentioned in that post on voter's guides that Washington state has a "top two" primary system. Occasionally, that results in two of the same party facing each other in a general election. For example, this year, in House district 9, incumbent Adam Smith faces Melissa Chaudhry. Both are Democrats.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_(Washington_politician)

    (There have been a couple of races, where it looked to me as if the usual minority party put up two candidates in a crowded race, hoping both would slip through to the general election. But I may be too cynical.)
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928

    darkage said:

    My gut feeling is that Harris is going to win. Circumstantially the narrative about female voters is extremely persuasive.

    Yes. I agree!
    I'd say in any normal year this would be a clear Republican win.

    Trump is a drag on the ticket except he channels a sentiment in his base that other Republicans can't touch, but at the expense of independents.
    Well yes:

    Incumbents are being kicked out everywhere, because inflation has exceeded wage growth.

    This should be an easy win for the Republicans - especially when you add in issues like chaos at the border - but as it is, I would now make Harris the slight favorite.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,707

    https://x.com/amy_siskind/status/1853065830893781003

    One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what Ann Selzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris.

    Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.

    I like this story but then the question is: How did Selzer get them to talk?
  • ...

    End of the Enlightenment latest...

    "Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."

    Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570

    It's all going a little bit Ayatollah Khomeini.
    It's utterly Shi'ite.
    Its always Sunni in Philadelphia.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.

    56% women.

    If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    ...
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.

    56% women.

    If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
    Where do Atlasintel sit on the Hot 100?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257
    edited November 3
    Good afternoon.

    I’ve been expecting a Kamala win throughout this campaign, based on demographic turn-out differentials and get out the vote operations. I felt a bit nauseous a week or so ago, but for now I’m very content whereas my american friends and colleagues are terrified.

    Let’s see.

    Today’s anti-fluoridation and anti-vax comments are just one of the innumerable reasons he is not fit for any sort of political office. That many supposedly educated people (Osborn’s investment banking friends, people like Niall Ferguson, certain quarters of the Tory Party) disagree is profoundly depressing.

    Speaking of the Tories, Badenoch’s reported overture to Houchen may be her first mistake. Sunak basically lost the election when he appointed Braverman to Home Secretary. It indicated a lack of seriousness about governance. I appreciate Badenoch needs to shore up her support in a much-reduced party, but any hope of electoral fortune in 2029 needs to be based on a clear-eyed understanding of why they’ve just been rejected.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

    Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
    I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
    I think this applies to Bishop as well.
    Yes. A bishop is a bishop in two potential ways: S/he is a member of the order of bishops in virtue of their consecration. This is, more or less indelible and is for life. They might also be Bishop of Barchester or wherever, which post is highly delible and temporary.
    Most people would consider clinging on to your job title after you've retired is a bit knobbish.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,317
    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    My gut feeling is that Harris is going to win. Circumstantially the narrative about female voters is extremely persuasive.

    Yes. I agree!
    I'd say in any normal year this would be a clear Republican win.

    Trump is a drag on the ticket except he channels a sentiment in his base that other Republicans can't touch, but at the expense of independents.
    Well yes:

    Incumbents are being kicked out everywhere, because inflation has exceeded wage growth.

    This should be an easy win for the Republicans - especially when you add in issues like chaos at the border - but as it is, I would now make Harris the slight favorite.
    Accepting the fact that he controls the base of the party, he should have chosen a better VP - probably Haley.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257
    edited November 3
    BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    Maybe, maybe not. But Trump and the PB Trump
    Arse Lickers do seem somewhat rattled. Perhaps it’s just ordinary pre-election nerves. We’ll see.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,743

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    Trump has a point when you listen to that clip.

    Iowa wasn`t even in question and suddenly a pollster comes up with a very different result to every other pollster with a completely different methodology, two days before the election. He is not the only conspiracy theorist out there.
  • stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    In America “President” is a title

    So all former incumbents are “President X”

    But there is only one “the President”

    I believe its related to the military?

    In the UK all military officers of Major and above get to keep their title for life, so a retired Major or General can still go by that title.

    In the USA I believe all members of the military get to keep their rank for life, not just officers.

    As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, that privilege is extended to the President.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    Maybe, maybe not. But Trump and the PB Trump
    Arse Lickers do seem somewhat rattled. Perhaps it’s just ordinary pre-election nerves. We’ll see.
    Not sure why it is arse licking to present the opposite case re the polls

    You do seem to have a problem with people who don't present your favoured view.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,095

    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

    Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
    I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
    I would have joined the diplomatic corp if after post ambassadorship people still had to address me as 'Your Excellency'.

    Your Excellency and a GCMG are the only
    two titles I've ever wanted.
    I’m not one for titles, but a friend of mine is a Serene Highness, which is pretty cool

  • ToryJimToryJim Posts: 4,185
    edited November 3

    https://x.com/amy_siskind/status/1853065830893781003

    One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what Ann Selzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris.

    Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.

    I like this story but then the question is: How did Selzer get them to talk?
    Could it just be she didn’t weight them away by past vote recall etc
  • ...

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.

    56% women.

    If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
    Where do Atlasintel sit on the Hot 100?
    22nd
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,095

    ...

    End of the Enlightenment latest...

    "Asked Sunday whether banning certain vaccines would be an option during a second term, the former president didn’t rule it out."

    Trump doesn't rule out banning vaccines if he becomes president: 'I'll make a decision'
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-banning-vaccines-president-rfk-fluoride-rcna178570

    It's all going a little bit Ayatollah Khomeini.
    It's utterly Shi'ite.
    The future’s Sunni, the future’s Orange
  • BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.

    He did it on a big wheel at Alton Towers.
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.

    56% women.

    If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
    Get that in terms of the GA numbers and the like. They do look positive for Harris by split.

    One thing I don't think we know yet though re the gender split is whether the heavy Republican spend on trans issues - which is specifically targeted at the white suburban women Harris needs - is having an effect. It didn't in 2022 but the Republicans seem confident it is working with swing voters.

    My point is that assuming the only gender-specific issue that is motivating women to vote is abortion might be right but, if - and it's a big if - the Republican strategy on trans issues is having an impact, the gender gap might be a more nuanced affair.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,800

    BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.

    At the moment, frankly, they are being ignored. BBC and SKY seem happy to think only in terms of the old duopoly - Labour and the Conservatives. The LDs, Reform and the Greens are being completely sidelined at present.

    Just to help you and anyone else out, the LD frontbench team as follows:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontbench_Team_of_Ed_Davey
  • rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    The AtlasIntel numbers look really good for Trump, but I find them very hard to reconcile with (say) the Georgia early voting data.

    56% women.

    If that holds - and we're already at 55% turnout, so that means three quarters of all votes have already been cast - I can't see how he possibly wins Georgia.
    Wow. Trump has done it based on this. Who would have ever guessed this?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578

    BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.

    They just need to gain 250 seats to govern :lol:
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069

    algarkirk said:

    Eabhal said:

    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    No, this seems to be an American quirk, where you keep your most senior title in perpetuity. For example, I've heard H Clinton referred to numerous times as "Secretary Clinton" in respect of her time as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.

    Obviously, where there is potential for confusion it's not unusual for "former" to be prepended, but it's not a controversial thing. I'd make a point of calling Trump former President Trump mainly because I'm British, and it's what I'm used to, and only partly because it would annoy him.
    I presumed it was because it's seen as a rank, like we continue to call some senior military officers "Major" even in retirement.
    I think this applies to Bishop as well.
    Yes. A bishop is a bishop in two potential ways: S/he is a member of the order of bishops in virtue of their consecration. This is, more or less indelible and is for life. They might also be Bishop of Barchester or wherever, which post is highly delible and temporary.
    Most people would consider clinging on to your job title after you've retired is a bit knobbish.
    Au contraire.

    Retired bishops (and retired clergy in general) are exemplars of the active semi-retirement we need more of to stop the pension system collapsing.

    If it weren't for all the people who can go round blessing things without needing a stipend, the church would be in even more trouble than it is.
  • BTW, I see that Ed Davey appointed a new front bench in September by the way. Who knew? The Lib Dems are nowhere near being treated as a party with the potential to govern.

    They just need to gain 250 seats to govern :lol:
    Not many then.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,477

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Definitely freaked out by the Iowa poll.

    Trump on Iowa Poll: It is called suppression. They suppress. And it actually should be illegal.

    https://x.com/TimOBrien/status/1853155546494574630

    He is presumably also freaked out by the NYTimes/Siena polls today.
    Evening PB.

    What are those particular polls saying.?
    Final NYT/Siena battleground poll results

    Arizona: Trump +4

    Georgia: Harris +1

    Michigan: Trump +1

    Nevada: Harris +3

    North Carolina: Harris +3

    Pennsylvania: Even

    Wisconsin: Harris +3
    Slightly different from the AtlasIntel polls:

    AZ - Trump +6

    NV - Trump +6

    GA - Trump +2

    PA - Trump +2

    MI - Trump +2

    NC - Trump +2

    WI - Trump +1

    Should Trump be freaked out by the NYT polls or Harris by the AtlasIntel polls?
    Maybe, maybe not. But Trump and the PB Trump
    Arse Lickers do seem somewhat rattled. Perhaps it’s just ordinary pre-election nerves. We’ll see.
    Not sure why it is arse licking to present the opposite case re the polls

    You do seem to have a problem with people who don't present your favoured view.
    I still make Trump favourite, based on the polling. But there are many Trump Arse Lickers, right here on PB.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    edited November 3

    Voting here in Washington state (and other states, no doubt) can be complex. Which is illustrated by our Voter's Pamphlets, put out by the state. Here, for example, is my main one: https://www.sos.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/Voters Pamphlet 2024 - Edition 07 - King - North and Eastside.pdf

    The candidates begin on page 40. Most of the preceding pages are taken up by statewide initiatives. (Simplifying, we could say they are intended to reverse some of Governor Inslee's principal "achievements".)

    There are 10 presidential tickets to choose from. (I rather like the expressions on the pictures chosen by the Loser's campaign.)

    The religious and ethnic variety of the candidates is remarkable. (There is even a candidate who emigrated from the UK.)

    But wait, there's more. Counties also put out voter guides for local candidates and initiatives. Mine, from King County (Seattle and most suburbs) is 40 pages long.

    If you want to see any of them, start here: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/voters/2024-general-election-voters-guide

    The layout of that document is like the installation instructions that come with your new dishwasher, which no-one ever reads. Along with energy ratings, it has the required notice in twenty languages of the danger of being electrocuted if you wire it up wrongly.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,190
    edited November 3
    ToryJim said:

    Evening all. On Tuesday where is the best place to watch the results.

    https://x.com/amy_siskind/status/1853065830893781003

    One reason pollsters might be failing to pick up what Ann Selzer picked up in Iowa, is a lot of women are afraid to say they are voting for Harris.

    Sharing stories yesterday after knocking doors in Pennsylvania, can't tell you the number of canvassers who had wives standing in the background while speaking to the husband and having them mouth something to the effect that they were voting for Harris. Or if they answered the door, they pretended to not say who they were voting for out loud and then whispered they were voting for Harris. It's kind of heartbreaking actually.

    I like this story but then the question is: How did Selzer get them to talk?
    Could it just be she didn’t weight them away by past vote recall etc
    Politicalbetting.com (no joke!)

    Last time around Mysticrose and Alastair Hutton were very helpful. Alastair operated a countdown to crossover after Trump initially took the lead (stop the count!) it was very handy for shredded nerves like mine.

    Remember kids the early results go to the GOP because counting in a small rural Pennsylvania community is less time consuming than an inner city Philadelphia count.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    viewcode said:

    I've put my initial writeup of Nevada up in the toilets. Points to note are


    • By any criterion: polls, early voting, voter registration, Trump is in the lead
    • Surprisingly, total early votes are *less* than in 2020 (the mix has changed but the total is less). Does this means anything?
    • Rurals are turning out: urbans are not
    • Nevada has an abortion referendum on election day
    Anybody want a link to backstage, please let me know.
    Quick comments:

    > Trump MAY (emphasis on conditional) in the lead based on EV & party reg, it's sure NOT a given.

    > DJT's public efforts to hobble USPS in 2020 had effect of GREATLY enouraging Democrats from sea to shining sea to vote EARLY; this factor NOT present in 2024.

    > Rural turnout is almost always higher than urban, and that is especially true of absentee & early voting.

    > Nevada abortion referendum is on the ballot for ALL voters, NOT just for EDay voters.

    > Note that rapidity with which voters return vote-by-mail ballots AND turn out for early voting, is affected by things on the ballot (races or measures) that many voters need to research and/or think about (not necessarily the same thing!) before they are ready to cast their vote(s).

    As to the last point, here in WA State ballot returns in our all vote-by-mail election in 2024, are lagging significantly behind 2020 at same point: 64.9% on Friday before EDay in 2020 versus 47.3% last Friday.

    https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/data-research/election-data-and-maps/ballot-return-statistics

    Likely several reasons for this but clearly (at least to me) a major one, is the presence of 4 major statewide initiatives at the top of the ballot this year - to repeal carbon tax, capital gains tax, long-term care tax AND restrictions on natural gas - is slowing voters down until they have some notion as to what's what. In stark contrast, in 2020 just one statewide measure, to repeal state sex education requirements, which were upheld (approved) by a 57% to 43% landslide.

    Not sure of ballot mesure situation in Nevada this year, just sayin' stuff on ballot other that presidential race CAN make a big difference in return rates.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 8,095

    stodge said:

    Nigelb said:

    Cope, or planning to go with the steal narrative ?

    CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
    https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1852908753110310915

    The fascinating thing about the memo is all the references to "President" Trump yet not a single reference to President Biden. I'm no expert but I believe there can only be one POTUS at a time - now, it may be possible, even if one is no longer actually POTUS to be referred to as President but doesn't that require a "Former" in front of it so it's Former President Obama, Former President Bush, even Former President Carter so presumably Former President Trump?

    I presume his acolytes, wishing to enjoy his favour and not wanting to remind him he lost in 2020, still refer to him as President Trump and sycophantic broadcasters like RSBN likewise but the rest of us need to call him for what he is, a Former President.
    In America “President” is a title

    So all former incumbents are “President X”

    But there is only one “the President”

    I believe its related to the military?

    In the UK all military officers of Major and above get to keep their title for life, so a retired Major or General can still go by that title.

    In the USA I believe all members of the military get to keep their rank for life, not just officers.


    As commander-in-chief of the armed forces, that privilege is extended to the President.
    Also Senators and Congressmen. Not sure if they have military standing. I suspect it is simply an 18th century British convention that we updated at some point
Sign In or Register to comment.