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
Going off last time, that’s not impossible. Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
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?
More to the point. What makes it special re Selzer that other polling companies can't get women to talk
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.
Looking at the new line-up, it’s notable that Daisy Cooper has taken “Treasury”, despite any obvious leanings in that direction before, presumably because she’s a decent media performer.
Sarah Olney and Christine Jardine have been demoted, but retain frontbench positions. Wera Hobhouse, Richard Foord and Sarah Green have been dumped altogether (I’m surprised about Green, she seemed very presentable).
Big roles for new MPs Callum Miller (Foreign Affairs), and Lisa Smart (Home). Callum was a senior civil servant, but I’m not sure what Smart’s done to deserve the role. Helen Morgan, who came in with the Shropshire by-election, takes Health, so she must have impressed.
Layla Moran, Jamie Stone, and Alistair Carmichael all now head Select Committees.
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
Heart of the matter.
Past vote weighting helps, as long as this time's voters look similar to last time's. Normally , that's a helpful assumption. If that's not the case, you will make things worse. On July 4, the best UK polls came from firms just doing a random sample, not reweighting a pseudo-ramrom sample.
Given the whole abortion thing, and the people we're seeing in the early voting queues, it seems likely that the 2024 voters will look pretty different to previous elections.
According to Atlas Intel (yes, I know) among men Trump leads by 8 (52-44) while among women Harris is ahead by only 4 (50-46). Independents are breaking 49-43 to Trump as well.
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
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.
I don't think Selzer is going to change her methodology to favour one party. That does not make sense.
What is probably more true though is that polling - and the betting markets - are stopping becoming 'neutral' and are increasingly seen as another front in the political campaigning wars. There is a logic to that. If you think one side is winning, the other side's voters might think "what's the point?". Alternatively, you might say things are looking good to boost your morale.
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
Going off last time, that’s not impossible. Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
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
Going off last time, that’s not impossible. Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
I don't know - would Badenoch's Conservatives support a minority Liberal Democrat administration? I think someone should ask her.
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
Going off last time, that’s not impossible. Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
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.
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
Going off last time, that’s not impossible. Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
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
Heart of the matter.
Past vote weighting helps, as long as this time's voters look similar to last time's. Normally , that's a helpful assumption. If that's not the case, you will make things worse. On July 4, the best UK polls came from firms just doing a random sample, not reweighting a pseudo-ramrom sample.
Given the whole abortion thing, and the people we're seeing in the early voting queues, it seems likely that the 2024 voters will look pretty different to previous elections.
Yup, just seen an interview with the lady herself. Her point was that polling is about seeing what is happening now and that requires trying to understand the current electorate and their intentions and past vote recall does nothing to aid that. She said her approach has worked well so far but that it only works until it doesn’t.
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.
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.
I recall with some fondness a couple of Trumpers who were initially quite boorishly triumphant then became tetchier as the night went on, and then had an epic meltdown in the morning. Can’t recall their names but I daresay they may still be around with new identities.
"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."
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
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.
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.
See Doctor Liam Fox.
That is a qualification, not a job title. On that basis you could claim "doctor" to be more justifiable than "professor" for retired academics
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
Going off last time, that’s not impossible. Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
Farage will do a deal!
With??
Davey. A joke.
Ultimately he would do a deal with the Tories. I doubt they would do one with him unless there is no other way to get power in the future.
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
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.
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
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.
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
Going off last time, that’s not impossible. Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
Farage will do a deal!
With??
Davey. A joke.
Ultimately he would do a deal with the Tories. I doubt they would do one with him unless there is no other way to get power in the future.
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.
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
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.
See Doctor Liam Fox.
That is a qualification, not a job title. On that basis you could claim "doctor" to be more justifiable than "professor" for retired academics
Medical doctors don't have doctorates.
Perhaps we should refer to them as medics rather than doctors to avoid this confusion.
Those of us who are professional engineers don't replace the Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Mx in front of our name with "Eng".
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.
See Doctor Liam Fox.
That is a qualification, not a job title. On that basis you could claim "doctor" to be more justifiable than "professor" for retired academics
There's the situation where a retired academic has emeritus status or similar, being given limited facilities for completing their research as emeritus professors - usually email, library access, and so on in exchange for helping out when their specialist knowledge is needed.
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
Heart of the matter.
Past vote weighting helps, as long as this time's voters look similar to last time's. Normally , that's a helpful assumption. If that's not the case, you will make things worse. On July 4, the best UK polls came from firms just doing a random sample, not reweighting a pseudo-ramrom sample.
Given the whole abortion thing, and the people we're seeing in the early voting queues, it seems likely that the 2024 voters will look pretty different to previous elections.
The other side of the coin - as pointed out before - is how much Trump and Vance's targeting of young men via podcasts actually works. Again, these are not the sorts of voters who would be captured in traditional models or past recall.
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.
See Doctor Liam Fox.
That is a qualification, not a job title. On that basis you could claim "doctor" to be more justifiable than "professor" for retired academics
Medical doctors don't have doctorates.
Perhaps we should refer to them as medics rather than doctors to avoid this confusion.
Those of us who are professional engineers don't replace the Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Mx in front of our name with "Eng".
Some medical doctors do. Friend of mine was a surgeon in a very well-known institution. He was always Mr Friend until he actually completed a research doctorate in an aspect of his work, when he became a pukka Doctor.
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.
In fact, the early results aren't all pro GOP.
Georgia Sec of State Raffensperger said on Friday Newsnight that the entire Georgia early vote (approx 75% of total vote) will have been counted and tabulated by 8pm ET on Tuesday and will all be put into public running vote totals at 8pm ET.
8pm ET is going to be a very, very dramatic moment!
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.
See Doctor Liam Fox.
That is a qualification, not a job title. On that basis you could claim "doctor" to be more justifiable than "professor" for retired academics
Medical doctors don't have doctorates.
Perhaps we should refer to them as medics rather than doctors to avoid this confusion.
Those of us who are professional engineers don't replace the Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Mx in front of our name with "Eng".
"Medical doctors don't have doctorates." - Some do, but most "true" (non-medical) doctors eschew the title in everyday life
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
Heart of the matter.
Past vote weighting helps, as long as this time's voters look similar to last time's. Normally , that's a helpful assumption. If that's not the case, you will make things worse. On July 4, the best UK polls came from firms just doing a random sample, not reweighting a pseudo-ramrom sample.
Given the whole abortion thing, and the people we're seeing in the early voting queues, it seems likely that the 2024 voters will look pretty different to previous elections.
The other side of the coin - as pointed out before - is how much Trump and Vance's targeting of young men via podcasts actually works. Again, these are not the sorts of voters who would be captured in traditional models or past recall.
How much is it working, given current male - female voting splits?
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
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.
"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."
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
Are you assigning every GOP registration to Trump? (FWIW I do think Trump takes NV)
Away from the US for a moment - extraordinary scenes in Valencia this afternoon and while the european conservative website has its own view, the truth is King Felipe VI, the national Government (PSOE) and the city council (PP) have all come in for anger and abuse from the victims of the catastrophic flooding.
Both the Spanish Prime Minister and the City Council leader were also attacked with mud and other debris.
It's hard not to feel sympathy - the warning system seems to have been activated far too late and relief efforts seem haphazard, poorly organised and relaint on enthusiastic volunteers. Where are the armed forces and the trained professional rescuers? I have seen videos of rescue personnel going into flooded underground garages to look for anyone who drowned in their car.
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.
I recall with some fondness a couple of Trumpers who were initially quite boorishly triumphant then became tetchier as the night went on, and then had an epic meltdown in the morning. Can’t recall their names but I daresay they may still be around with new identities.
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
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.
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.
In fact, the early results aren't all pro GOP.
Georgia Sec of State Raffensperger said on Friday Newsnight that the entire Georgia early vote (approx 75% of total vote) will have been counted and tabulated by 8pm ET on Tuesday and will all be put into public running vote totals at 8pm ET.
8pm ET is going to be a very, very dramatic moment!
"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."
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
The question is how do the others break. I believe the others are disproportionately young so could be disproportionately Harris.
If they break 60/40 to Harris then its 538,280 to Harris and 522,549 to Trump. A Harris lead of 15,730
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.
In fact, the early results aren't all pro GOP.
Georgia Sec of State Raffensperger said on Friday Newsnight that the entire Georgia early vote (approx 75% of total vote) will have been counted and tabulated by 8pm ET on Tuesday and will all be put into public running vote totals at 8pm ET.
8pm ET is going to be a very, very dramatic moment!
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
Heart of the matter.
Past vote weighting helps, as long as this time's voters look similar to last time's. Normally , that's a helpful assumption. If that's not the case, you will make things worse. On July 4, the best UK polls came from firms just doing a random sample, not reweighting a pseudo-ramrom sample.
Given the whole abortion thing, and the people we're seeing in the early voting queues, it seems likely that the 2024 voters will look pretty different to previous elections.
The other side of the coin - as pointed out before - is how much Trump and Vance's targeting of young men via podcasts actually works. Again, these are not the sorts of voters who would be captured in traditional models or past recall.
How much is it working, given current male - female voting splits?
If the election is won based on the gender that can be organised, turn out, fill in forms correctly and remember to do it all - then its not my own sex that I'd be backing to win that.
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
Have you been to New Orleans? You must go. The French Quarter festival, which is in April, is maybe your best bet.
Mardi gras is in February or March. Is that what you mean?
nope the website is here https://frenchquarterfest.org/ - it was originally designed to bring locals back into the area after refurbishment works..
Yes.
The weather is better (less awfully humid) than the more famous jazz festival. And it has a “hometown” feel which makes for a more positive vibe. Local restaurants set up food truck operations so you can sample some very good stuff relatively affordably.
I kind of suspect Mardi Gras is just a hellish tourist experience so I’ve avoided that one. New Orleans is generally over-touristed, a bit like Venice.
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
"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."
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
You need to pop your reading glasses on and re-read RCS's point.
He didn't say Harris had a 5 point lead with unaffiliated voters, but a "wide" lead with unaffiliated voters which translated to a 5 point lead overall.
I don't know if that's correct... but you have certainly misinterpreted the point being made.
Another thing about the polls . They’re using historical gender splits and aren’t factoring in an increase in female vote . The GOP need lots of men to turnout on Election Day .
"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."
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
The question is how do the others break. I believe the others are disproportionately young so could be disproportionately Harris.
If they break 60/40 to Harris then its 538,280 to Harris and 522,549 to Trump. A Harris lead of 15,730
Impossible to know until we start to get counts.
Moderate Rep are snorkelling. They will express surprise and disgust with their MAGA friends, at a result their own actions created, whilst laughing inside. There is only 1 way Ralston could see this if he tried, and that is, if so much of the expected final vote is already cast, how come so much polling this week still gives the state to Kam?
The Rumsfields and Bush Tribes were in the Big Teepee in 2016 - and it was a bit much to expect them to come out against a sitting President from their party. But they are outside the tent now. The Lincoln Project has more bite in this election than before.
"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."
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
You need to pop your reading glasses on and re-read RCS's point.
He didn't say Harris had a 5 point lead with unaffiliated voters, but a "wide" lead with unaffiliated voters which translated to a 5 point lead overall.
I don't know if that's correct... but you have certainly misinterpreted the point being made.
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.
Don't we have pretty clear polling evidence that women are opting for Harris by a significant margin?
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
Using the term "Former" is fine - Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson and Sunak are all "Former" Prime Ministers. It tends to be the case these days there's no going back - Wilson is the only individual since 1945 who served two non-consecutive terms as Prime Minister.
"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."
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
The question is how do the others break. I believe the others are disproportionately young so could be disproportionately Harris.
If they break 60/40 to Harris then its 538,280 to Harris and 522,549 to Trump. A Harris lead of 15,730
Impossible to know until we start to get counts.
Moderate Rep are snorkelling. They will express surprise and disgust with their MAGA friends, but laughing inside. There is only 1 way Ralston could see this if he tried, and that is, if so much of the expected final vote is already cast, how come so much polling this week still gives the state to Kam?
Yes good point . I think it’s a reluctance perhaps on Ralstons part to accept that indies are going heavily for Harris . These late higher quality polls in Nevada with lots of early voting should be more accurate as at least 2/3 of the sample would have voted already .
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
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.
Also, early voting this year (4.03m) is at over 80% of the total vote in 2020 (4.96m). The GOP will have a hell of a mountain to climb to GOTV on Tuesday to overhaul the Dem lead from early voting.
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.
Given a choice between what is essentially a niche issue about the scope and process for gender transition, and the very serious and imminent issues, literally life and death issues, caused by the lack of gynaecological care following a demented Supreme Court ruling backed by Trump, which one do you think women will prioritise?
I mean, I'm obviously not a woman, but I don't think that's difficult choice.
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.
The LibDems have some very high quality people in the new intake of MPs. Just read their CVs. Puts the Tories to shame. https://www.libdems.org.uk/people
They are operating under the radar at the moment as they put in place their constituency operations to ensure they serve their constituents well and keep the seat.
But they will have a big impact on Westminster through membership of select Committees. They don't need to be visible to the general public yet. But they will be to Government and Opposition.
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
Truss lost her Norfolk seat on one of the biggest swings against an incumbent in UK history, she isn't coming back unless on a Bernard Matthews Turkey ad
I would just suggest to Labour and Lib Dem supporters, do not expect Kemi to say things to please you as you are not her audience
I expect her targets to be convert some from Reform and definitely conservatives who abstained or even voted Labour at the GE
She will likely be quite controversial, but as I warned yesterday it would be unwise to underestimate her and certainly suggesting she is 'weird' when you see some on the Labour benches is not the best adjective for her
I would not be surprised if the first problem Starmer faces this week will be demands for Dawn Butler to lose the whip
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.
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
Truss lost her Norfolk seat on one of the biggest swings against an incumbent in UK history, she isn't coming back unless on a Bernard Matthews Turkey ad
Shades of 2020 US blue shift in the Moldova results tonight. Sandu is still a smidge behind the Putinist at 90% counted, but the last 10% looks like being overwhelmingly for her (diaspora and Chisinau)
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
Using the term "Former" is fine - Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Truss, Johnson and Sunak are all "Former" Prime Ministers. It tends to be the case these days there's no going back - Wilson is the only individual since 1945 who served two non-consecutive terms as Prime Minister.
In the case of TRUSS, she will always be Prime Minister TRUSS to many, both in their heads - and their hearts.
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.
Also, early voting this year (4.03m) is at over 80% of the total vote in 2020 (4.96m). The GOP will have a hell of a mountain to climb to GOTV on Tuesday to overhaul the Dem lead from early voting.
"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."
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
The question is how do the others break. I believe the others are disproportionately young so could be disproportionately Harris.
If they break 60/40 to Harris then its 538,280 to Harris and 522,549 to Trump. A Harris lead of 15,730
Impossible to know until we start to get counts.
Moderate Rep are snorkelling. They will express surprise and disgust with their MAGA friends, but laughing inside. There is only 1 way Ralston could see this if he tried, and that is, if so much of the expected final vote is already cast, how come so much polling this week still gives the state to Kam?
Yes good point . I think it’s a reluctance perhaps on Ralstons part to accept that indies are going heavily for Harris . These late higher quality polls in Nevada with lots of early voting should be more accurate as at least 2/3 of the sample would have voted already .
I’m talking about GOP registered going for Harris, in the secret freedom of their personal vote. Not all GOP tribes are inside Trumps tent like they were before.
If you are moderate Republican, wanting an end to Trump and MAGA and go back to the good old days, you have been waiting for the opportunity this Super Tuesday brings you, for a very long time. After all, it is only the very first rule of all politics since the year dot - you only make your move when the time is right.
Should we even be thinking in terms of it as Dem v Rep election, only asking how are Indy’s breaking? Just how many invisible silent GOP assassins of their own Presidential candidate do we think are out there - smiling sweetly at GOP canvassers and pollsters all along?
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
Truss lost her Norfolk seat on one of the biggest swings against an incumbent in UK history, she isn't coming back unless on a Bernard Matthews Turkey ad
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
Going off last time, that’s not impossible. Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
Farage will do a deal!
If Farage swept the white working class and lower middle class Leave seats Boris won in 2019 by a landslide but Labour won by a landslide in July you could even see a scenario where Farage ends up PM in a hung parliament with Kemi offered to be his DPM.
A Kemi Tories mainly left with the soft Leave wealthier middle class seats in the South and Outer London and rural seats in Scotland Farage and Reform can't reach but which Farage would need to get to 326+ (with the remaining DUP and TUV MPs backing him too). Remain seats still staying Labour or LD or SNP but fewer in number than Leave seats
I think we can almost guarantee that the most accurate pollster in 2020 won’t be the most accurate pollster in 2024. Polling is too much of a crap shoot, no matter how scientific pollsters try to be.
With respect to usage of title President for former POTUSs, the custom - NOT law - in USA is that they are called "President Truman", "President Eisenhower", etc., etc. Zero need to specify "former President" unless you happen to feel like it; clear enough (except to Trumpites!) who IS current versus former.
On the other hand, "The President" refers ONLY to the current one, except perhaps to their personal entourag . . . or (sigh) MAGA-maniacs.
Note interesting example/exception (maybe) of Theordore Roosevelt, who after leaving the White House replaced by his hand-picked successor (but future rival) William Howard Taft, requested journalists & others to refer to him as "Colonel Roosevelt". Which was his highest military rank during his brief - but celebrated - service in the Spanish American War as commanding officer of his "Rough Riders" officially 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry.
Which brings me (and maybe you) to subject of use of military titles by FORMER (or inactive) members of the American military.
Again, no law (that I know of anyway) on subject, but custom from the Revolutionary War forward, has been to former officers by their last/highest rank IF they desire it (or don't object too strenuously).
This being especially customary in Southern states, particularly in 19th-early 20th centuries.
Note that "Kentucky Colonels" were & still are extension of that custom, with the Governor of the great Bluegrass State having authority to appoint whomever (with or without actual military service) as a "honorary" colonel of state militia; most famous example being Colonel Sanders.
Some other states (mostly Southern) adopted same practice. With the great (and landlocked) Cornhusker State doing an interesting - and deliberately amusing - take on this, via gubernatorial appointment as Admiral of the Nebraska Navy.
One ancedote from late-19th century, was an election in Mississippi for Congress, where the two candidates were a former Confederate general versus a former CSA private
At a debate, the Gen. made great play of the fact that he was commanding the Rebels at (I think) the Battle of Corinth. To which his opponent replied (I paraphrase), that the General was indeed present on that battlefield, he could attest to that personally . . . because he'd also been there . . . guarding the General's tent.
"If you were also a general, then vote for him. But if you were a private - then vote for me!"
Here’s the state of play: Several people close to Netanyahu have been arrested, or are preparing to be, for sharing embellished or fabricated intel to @JewishChron & @BILD designed to scupper a hostage deal. 1/4
It used to be the IBD/TIPP poll . It’s now only ranked 120 and its site is just one long anti Harris diatribe so that does put a question mark over its results .
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
Truss lost her Norfolk seat on one of the biggest swings against an incumbent in UK history, she isn't coming back unless on a Bernard Matthews Turkey ad
Today while driving around Pewsey Vale and Salisbury Plain delivering parcels, I've mostly been listening to fab NOLA band Tuba Skinny
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
Here’s the state of play: Several people close to Netanyahu have been arrested, or are preparing to be, for sharing embellished or fabricated intel to @JewishChron & @BILD designed to scupper a hostage deal. 1/4
I hear what he's saying but also, Emerson has Trump +10 in Iowa while Selzer has Harris +3. At least one of them is methodically flawed and not to be trusted!
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
Truss lost her Norfolk seat on one of the biggest swings against an incumbent in UK history, she isn't coming back unless on a Bernard Matthews Turkey ad
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.
(narrator: this fact has underpinned British sitcoms such as Fawlty Towers and especially Dad's Army)
One of the BBC's many irritating quirks is to refer to then-prime minister Thatcher in connection with the Falklands War, as if they don't trust their readers to realise the Blessed Margaret isn't PM any more. Though I'd cut them some slack if they mention then-prime minster Truss in reference to QEII's funeral as it threatens to become a really tricky pub quiz question for future generations.
TRUSS may yet stage a sensational return. I suspect Kemi is already looking over her shoulder, where a grimacing titan is lurking in the gloom.
Truss lost her Norfolk seat on one of the biggest swings against an incumbent in UK history, she isn't coming back unless on a Bernard Matthews Turkey ad
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.
Given a choice between what is essentially a niche issue about the scope and process for gender transition, and the very serious and imminent issues, literally life and death issues, caused by the lack of gynaecological care following a demented Supreme Court ruling backed by Trump, which one do you think women will prioritise?
I mean, I'm obviously not a woman, but I don't think that's difficult choice.
I hear what he's saying but also, Emerson has Trump +10 in Iowa while Selzer has Harris +3. At least one of them is methodically flawed and not to be trusted!
Could just be one has a rogue sample. But yes, one of them has to be wrong.
I hear what he's saying but also, Emerson has Trump +10 in Iowa while Selzer has Harris +3. At least one of them is methodically flawed and not to be trusted!
Emerson has had a GOP lean this whole election cycle . And that poll was commissioned by RCP a site that pretends to give an unbiased polling outlook but is another Trump sycophant.
Comments
Can’t see Davey going into coalition though. Especially not the Conservatives!
Sarah Olney and Christine Jardine have been demoted, but retain frontbench positions. Wera Hobhouse, Richard Foord and Sarah Green have been dumped altogether (I’m surprised about Green, she seemed very presentable).
Big roles for new MPs Callum Miller (Foreign Affairs), and Lisa Smart (Home). Callum was a senior civil servant, but I’m not sure what Smart’s done to deserve the role. Helen Morgan, who came in with the Shropshire by-election, takes Health, so she must have impressed.
Layla Moran, Jamie Stone, and Alistair Carmichael all now head Select Committees.
Past vote weighting helps, as long as this time's voters look similar to last time's. Normally , that's a helpful assumption. If that's not the case, you will make things worse. On July 4, the best UK polls came from firms just doing a random sample, not reweighting a pseudo-ramrom sample.
Given the whole abortion thing, and the people we're seeing in the early voting queues, it seems likely that the 2024 voters will look pretty different to previous elections.
Nationally they have 49-47 to Trump.
All of their videos seem to be live recordings, many of them on the street, like this one. No microphones or amplifiers, just great music and a quite fantastic voice
Going Back Home - Tuba Skinny live on Royal St
https://youtu.be/bBINhDYXoEg
What is probably more true though is that polling - and the betting markets - are stopping becoming 'neutral' and are increasingly seen as another front in the political campaigning wars. There is a logic to that. If you think one side is winning, the other side's voters might think "what's the point?". Alternatively, you might say things are looking good to boost your morale.
You must go. The French Quarter festival, which is in April, is maybe your best bet.
It's not enough.
According to Ralston at 02/11/2024 16:45 it was Dem 357504, Rep 402032, Oth 301293, Total 1060829
If we reassign others to Dem/Rep 52.5/47.5 we get Dem 515683, Rep 545146, Oth 0, Total 1060829. Not only does she have to pull more down from the others but her turnout has to start, y'know, turning out.
When I next make it to the US I'll definitely be going
https://x.com/Info_Rosalie/status/1852921202567688416
Perhaps we should refer to them as medics rather than doctors to avoid this confusion.
Those of us who are professional engineers don't replace the Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms/Mx in front of our name with "Eng".
Georgia Sec of State Raffensperger said on Friday Newsnight that the entire Georgia early vote (approx 75% of total vote) will have been counted and tabulated by 8pm ET on Tuesday and will all be put into public running vote totals at 8pm ET.
8pm ET is going to be a very, very dramatic moment!
Away from the US for a moment - extraordinary scenes in Valencia this afternoon and while the european conservative website has its own view, the truth is King Felipe VI, the national Government (PSOE) and the city council (PP) have all come in for anger and abuse from the victims of the catastrophic flooding.
Both the Spanish Prime Minister and the City Council leader were also attacked with mud and other debris.
It's hard not to feel sympathy - the warning system seems to have been activated far too late and relief efforts seem haphazard, poorly organised and relaint on enthusiastic volunteers. Where are the armed forces and the trained professional rescuers? I have seen videos of rescue personnel going into flooded underground garages to look for anyone who drowned in their car.
If they break 60/40 to Harris then its 538,280 to Harris and 522,549 to Trump. A Harris lead of 15,730
Impossible to know until we start to get counts.
The weather is better (less awfully humid) than the more famous jazz festival. And it has a “hometown” feel which makes for a more positive vibe. Local restaurants set up food truck operations so you can sample some very good stuff relatively affordably.
I kind of suspect Mardi Gras is just a hellish tourist experience so I’ve avoided that one. New Orleans is generally over-touristed, a bit like Venice.
https://x.com/keiranpedley/status/1853172999148720566
He didn't say Harris had a 5 point lead with unaffiliated voters, but a "wide" lead with unaffiliated voters which translated to a 5 point lead overall.
I don't know if that's correct... but you have certainly misinterpreted the point being made.
Does Kemi start on Wednesday?
The Rumsfields and Bush Tribes were in the Big Teepee in 2016 - and it was a bit much to expect them to come out against a sitting President from their party. But they are outside the tent now. The Lincoln Project has more bite in this election than before.
This may well narrow the gap in registrations which will in turn change how much the Dems need to win the Indies by.
No Ralston update today yet - but he should be doing one.
Blue Moon Of Kentucky
https://youtu.be/tM8ZnbS1nhU
I mean, I'm obviously not a woman, but I don't think that's difficult choice.
Most accurate 2020 national pollster TIPP has it Trump 49% Harris 48% today.
https://tippinsights.com/tipp-tracking-day-21-trump-edges-ahead-with-two-days-until-decision-day/'
Just read their CVs. Puts the Tories to shame.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/people
They are operating under the radar at the moment as they put in place their constituency operations to ensure they serve their constituents well and keep the seat.
But they will have a big impact on Westminster through membership of select Committees. They don't need to be visible to the general public yet. But they will be to Government and Opposition.
I would just suggest to Labour and Lib Dem supporters, do not expect Kemi to say things to please you as you are not her audience
I expect her targets to be convert some from Reform and definitely conservatives who abstained or even voted Labour at the GE
She will likely be quite controversial, but as I warned yesterday it would be unwise to underestimate her and certainly suggesting she is 'weird' when you see some on the Labour benches is not the best adjective for her
I would not be surprised if the first problem Starmer faces this week will be demands for Dawn Butler to lose the whip
https://x.com/noelreports/status/1853177879737389088?s=46
Same shift happened in the referendum a few weeks ago. Fingers crossed.
If you are moderate Republican, wanting an end to Trump and MAGA and go back to the good old days, you have been waiting for the opportunity this Super Tuesday brings you, for a very long time. After all, it is only the very first rule of all politics since the year dot - you only make your move when the time is right.
Should we even be thinking in terms of it as Dem v Rep election, only asking how are Indy’s breaking? Just how many invisible silent GOP assassins of their own Presidential candidate do we think are out there - smiling sweetly at GOP canvassers and pollsters all along?
A Kemi Tories mainly left with the soft Leave wealthier middle class seats in the South and Outer London and rural seats in Scotland Farage and Reform can't reach but which Farage would need to get to 326+ (with the remaining DUP and TUV MPs backing him too). Remain seats still staying Labour or LD or SNP but fewer in number than Leave seats
On the other hand, "The President" refers ONLY to the current one, except perhaps to their personal entourag . . . or (sigh) MAGA-maniacs.
Note interesting example/exception (maybe) of Theordore Roosevelt, who after leaving the White House replaced by his hand-picked successor (but future rival) William Howard Taft, requested journalists & others to refer to him as "Colonel Roosevelt". Which was his highest military rank during his brief - but celebrated - service in the Spanish American War as commanding officer of his "Rough Riders" officially 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry.
Which brings me (and maybe you) to subject of use of military titles by FORMER (or inactive) members of the American military.
Again, no law (that I know of anyway) on subject, but custom from the Revolutionary War forward, has been to former officers by their last/highest rank IF they desire it (or don't object too strenuously).
This being especially customary in Southern states, particularly in 19th-early 20th centuries.
Note that "Kentucky Colonels" were & still are extension of that custom, with the Governor of the great Bluegrass State having authority to appoint whomever (with or without actual military service) as a "honorary" colonel of state militia; most famous example being Colonel Sanders.
Some other states (mostly Southern) adopted same practice. With the great (and landlocked) Cornhusker State doing an interesting - and deliberately amusing - take on this, via gubernatorial appointment as Admiral of the Nebraska Navy.
One ancedote from late-19th century, was an election in Mississippi for Congress, where the two candidates were a former Confederate general versus a former CSA private
At a debate, the Gen. made great play of the fact that he was commanding the Rebels at (I think) the Battle of Corinth. To which his opponent replied (I paraphrase), that the General was indeed present on that battlefield, he could attest to that personally . . . because he'd also been there . . . guarding the General's tent.
"If you were also a general, then vote for him. But if you were a private - then vote for me!"
Guess who won THAT election!
Here’s the state of play: Several people close to Netanyahu have been arrested, or are preparing to be, for sharing embellished or fabricated intel to @JewishChron &
@BILD designed to scupper a hostage deal. 1/4
https://x.com/bentreyf/status/1852395060425368007
I met him a few times at gigs when I lived in London. We're Facebook friends
Trump is a sex offender.
Pope is a Catholic.
Bear shits in woods.
See
https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/rc/fso6c65gry42.png
LOL the same brownshirt JD Vance protege was responsible for both the "eating pets" lie and putting Tony Hinchliffe on the card at Nazipalozza
https://x.com/LemieuxLGM/status/1853157631990604271