I think the risk to Finland and the Baltics is higher with the democrats. If there is no strategic solution in Ukraine you are effectively supporting an endless war of attrition, with limited political will on the part of the US to back. This to my mind is an extremely dangerous outcome. The Biden administration has embarked on a project in Ukraine it has proven repeatedly it doesn't have the motivation to complete, despite it having the resources to do so. How many people have died? 1 million? For what purpose? A war of attrition in the hope of the Russian state collapsing? This strategy has failed. Russia is not collapsing, it is getting stronger, the west is getting weaker. But the strategy in Ukraine never changes, it is an afterthought in the back of the mind of an exhausted empire, an afghanistan like situation.
Disruption to the strategy under Trump comes with very many risks, including the risk that Ukraine would just be abandoned. But I put the risk of that as being low given the evident self interest on the part of the US of maintaining support from its European allies. There are many possible outcomes, including the possibility that the war could actually be escalated to try and create the conditions for a lasting solution, at least insofar as Ukraine is concerned.
I would think very differently if Harris had come out and said the US needed to stop being timid in the face of Russian imperialism. But she seems content with the status quo.
Instead we have seen in the last week, Zelensky railing against the White House, for leaking the secret annexes to his victory plan, and extending only 10% of the military aid approved by Congress. This should disturb everyone here but for some reason I received bullying taunts for raising this story.
Perhaps this is a massive psyop and by the weekend Tomahawks will be raining down on Russian assets. But I see no evidence that Harris would approach things any differently to Biden. It’s long term attritional warfare hoping that Russian elites eventually solve the problem for us. And it’s not at all clear that this is the best strategy for long term peace in Europe.
Re the US election, naturally enough I think Trump will win but thoughts.
Firstly, the clues are in plain sight. You only have to look at how Americans view the country, the Administration and the main concerns (economy / inflation, immigration etc) to see Trump will win. Especially when a lot of Americans view his Administration positively.
Then look at what the early voting data. Ralston (who, BTW, I have a lot of sympathy for) has said the R lead in NV is unprecedented in recent times. Bitzer has said the same for NC. Rurals are showing up but not in urban areas vs 4 years ago. Black voters are not coming out as they need to for the Democrats. Republicans are ahead by nearly 200K in Arizona, by over 800K in Florida. Sure, in states like PA, the Democrats are ahead but their advantage is far less than in 2020.
Then there is the mood music. @williamglenn was pillorised for reposting a tweet ( https://x.com/vickiefornyc/status/1853511569851982213) re a Democrat insider saying the election is lost but the same theme has played out several times in Politico and The Hill over the past 10 days. There are no similar articles on Trump.
Re the three great hopes of the Democrats - women, young voters and Haley Republicans - think again.
One of the most hilarious things has been an almost uniformly audience of men opining women only care about abortion. It is important but, in my conversations, two women 'specific' issues play well for Republicans - the "men in women's sports / locker rooms" argument and illegal immigrants committing crimes against women. Take a look at the New Yorker article on the Laken Riley murder and it is clear it will be a major factor in Georgia.
Re young voters, let's see but I suspect the pandemic has changed many young voters' perceptions about how they see the world and - for young male voters at least - that may not be positive for the Democrats. Joe Rogan endorsing Trump is a major plus but Trump's outreach efforts have targeted young men specifically.
Finally re Haley Republicans, they are not going to vote for Harris and Walz. To many Republicans, they stand for everything they detest. Harris' response on Proposition 36 in CA only reinforces what they thought. Look at the comments here about AZ and the McCain / Haley Republicans (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/arizona-presidential-election-harris-trump.html) - switchover will be minimal.
So where do I think it will go? Essentially a repeat of 2016 - Trump to essentially win all the states he did plus also NV. I think he will get close in Virginia (couldn't resist that for Anabob) and maybe win NH and NM. I think the Senate will be something like 54-46. The House is a bit more uncertain.
PS look out for NY - it won't go Trump but Hochul only beat Zeldin 54-46 in 2022
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
I hear you. For this and his antiWoke credentials I can see the appeal of Trump…
… however for me the many downsides are just too much. His insane economic policies. His chaotic attacks on the western alliance. His likely revenge on Labour Britain (which will be fun to watch as it cripples Starmer but probably bad for UK PLC)
So I hope Trump loses
Pretty much for the same reasons as you I am hoping for a Trump defeat. Also he would be a far greater enabler of Butcher Nethanyahu in the middle east than Harris.
I do not buy all this "end of democracy" bollocks if he wins. But a Trump win would not be good for the world.
Harris is a poor candidate but is far better than the Trumpdozer.
No, she's not.
Gore was a poor candidate; as was Dukakis or Hillary. All had month to prepare their campaigns, and variously gaffed in the home straight. Gore even flubbed his Florida recount call. What missteps has Harris made ?
Being female and a Democrat.
I would say more "being the representative of the incumbent party after a period of high inflation". No voters anywhere have liked the inflationary period, regardless of whether wages have also grown or not, and incumbents of every stripe have been tossed out or hung on by the skin of their teeth. It's a testament to how poor a candidate *Trump* is (and to the state of polarisation in the US) that this election is even close, I think.
Off topic ish, it’s very confusing time wise watching this election from South Korea. Here in Seoul on election day November 5 it is nearly dusk. The bright autumn sun is setting over the mountains and skyscrapers
So I’m thinking Ooh we should start getting exit polls soon. And then I check the time and it is only just gone midnight in Los Angeles. Basically, for is here out east today’s election will be tomorrow. And tomorrow. And tomorrow….
In the southeast, of course, it would have been a 'facking mong'.
(My inlaws, who are from Croydon, are much, much swearier than my family.)
Listen gov. You want some do yer? South London speak. Trumps got it like. I fuckin know like. Know what I mean. I am the font of all knowledge.Yea. Sure do
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
I hear you. For this and his antiWoke credentials I can see the appeal of Trump…
… however for me the many downsides are just too much. His insane economic policies. His chaotic attacks on the western alliance. His likely revenge on Labour Britain (which will be fun to watch as it cripples Starmer but probably bad for UK PLC)
So I hope Trump loses
Pretty much for the same reasons as you I am hoping for a Trump defeat. Also he would be a far greater enabler of Butcher Nethanyahu in the middle east than Harris.
I do not buy all this "end of democracy" bollocks if he wins. But a Trump win would not be good for the world.
Harris is a poor candidate but is far better than the Trumpdozer.
No, she's not.
Gore was a poor candidate; as was Dukakis or Hillary. All had month to prepare their campaigns, and variously gaffed in the home straight. Gore even flubbed his Florida recount call. What missteps has Harris made ?
Being female and a Democrat.
I would say more "being the representative of the incumbent party after a period of high inflation". No voters anywhere have liked the inflationary period, regardless of whether wages have also grown or not, and incumbents of every stripe have been tossed out or hung on by the skin of their teeth. It's a testament to how poor a candidate *Trump* is (and to the state of polarisation in the US) that this election is even close, I think.
That is a big impediment to her electoral chance sure. But lots of previous candidates have been incumbents after high inflation and other economic woes.
The whole worst candidate in history thing is different. There are essentially three people regularly cited as that, two of them are the only two mainstream female candidates and Democrats.
We live in two nations. From my north England perch (rural and industrial town) here are millions of people, of all ages, who would never use the traditional four letter words in public, including the great majority of older people and huge numbers of younger ones. There is a minority who use them a lot. In general the place I notice them most is in PB comments.
Glasgow f*cking waves..
Glaswegians have elevated swearing to an art form. I just re-read How Late it Was, How Late, and I remember when it won the Booker in 1994 eyebrows were raised over the prodigious amount of swearing that it captured. What a book, though.
I expected South Koreans to be 100% pro Harris and anti Trump. Turns out I am wrong
He has a base of support here. South Koreans are generally very pro western and generally VERY pro American - and Trump is seen as a kind of doughty defender of the USA (and hence Korea?) in a way the Dems are not
Or so my Seoul guide (a Dutchman living here and immersed in Korean culture) told me. My Korean female guide on Jeju backed it up
Is he bollocks.
Last time he was in office he tried to shake them down for protection money. The US has been a reliable guarantor of S Korea's security, whoever was in government, for seven decades; a second Trump term puts that into question.
They've been rapidly ramping their defence investment ever since, just in case he gets in and abandons them.
I’m not saying he IS these things, only that two separate people - one Korean, one Dutch - both living in Korea (and very different lives in different places) told me the same thing: there is a weird subset of South Koreans who support Trump because - it seems - they always support Republicans
A poll: Trump has 20% support here. Given Trump’s chumminess with Kim in Pyongyang I am amazed it is in double digits
We live in two nations. From my north England perch (rural and industrial town) here are millions of people, of all ages, who would never use the traditional four letter words in public, including the great majority of older people and huge numbers of younger ones. There is a minority who use them a lot. In general the place I notice them most is in PB comments.
Sounds like a load of bollocks to me. Sorry.
One person being very sweary is 100 times more noticeable than 200 people who are not. So the fact that most people are not sweary doesn't get observed. Wearing no clothes in the street is much the same.
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
Off topic ish, it’s very confusing time wise watching this election from South Korea. Here in Seoul on election day November 5 it is nearly dusk. The bright autumn sun is setting over the mountains and skyscrapers
So I’m thinking Ooh we should start getting exit polls soon. And then I check the time and it is only just gone midnight in Los Angeles. Basically, for is here out east today’s election will be tomorrow. And tomorrow. And tomorrow….
*ominous doomsday sound*
Have you done Korean barbecue yet ?
No. Mainly because I’ve done it many times elsewhere and I did a lot of shabu shabu and DIY mini bbqs in Japan (which work on the same principle)
However I have a proper appetite tonight in Seoul and I might give it a go
Re the US election, naturally enough I think Trump will win but thoughts.
Firstly, the clues are in plain sight. You only have to look at how Americans view the country, the Administration and the main concerns (economy / inflation, immigration etc) to see Trump will win. Especially when a lot of Americans view his Administration positively.
Then look at what the early voting data. Ralston (who, BTW, I have a lot of sympathy for) has said the R lead in NV is unprecedented in recent times. Bitzer has said the same for NC. Rurals are showing up but not in urban areas vs 4 years ago. Black voters are not coming out as they need to for the Democrats. Republicans are ahead by nearly 200K in Arizona, by over 800K in Florida. Sure, in states like PA, the Democrats are ahead but their advantage is far less than in 2020.
Then there is the mood music. @williamglenn was pillorised for reposting a tweet ( https://x.com/vickiefornyc/status/1853511569851982213) re a Democrat insider saying the election is lost but the same theme has played out several times in Politico and The Hill over the past 10 days. There are no similar articles on Trump.
Re the three great hopes of the Democrats - women, young voters and Haley Republicans - think again.
One of the most hilarious things has been an almost uniformly audience of men opining women only care about abortion. It is important but, in my conversations, two women 'specific' issues play well for Republicans - the "men in women's sports / locker rooms" argument and illegal immigrants committing crimes against women. Take a look at the New Yorker article on the Laken Riley murder and it is clear it will be a major factor in Georgia.
Re young voters, let's see but I suspect the pandemic has changed many young voters' perceptions about how they see the world and - for young male voters at least - that may not be positive for the Democrats. Joe Rogan endorsing Trump is a major plus but Trump's outreach efforts have targeted young men specifically.
Finally re Haley Republicans, they are not going to vote for Harris and Walz. To many Republicans, they stand for everything they detest. Harris' response on Proposition 36 in CA only reinforces what they thought. Look at the comments here about AZ and the McCain / Haley Republicans (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/arizona-presidential-election-harris-trump.html) - switchover will be minimal.
So where do I think it will go? Essentially a repeat of 2016 - Trump to essentially win all the states he did plus also NV. I think he will get close in Virginia (couldn't resist that for Anabob) and maybe win NH and NM. I think the Senate will be something like 54-46. The House is a bit more uncertain.
PS look out for NY - it won't go Trump but Hochul only beat Zeldin 54-46 in 2022
Very much appreciate your reasoned arguments as to why Trump will win . Without Dobbs the Dems would be in trouble , I think women will be the deciding factor and especially older white women who grew up with more protections will help give Harris the win . Not long till we find out .
Re the US election, naturally enough I think Trump will win but thoughts.
Firstly, the clues are in plain sight. You only have to look at how Americans view the country, the Administration and the main concerns (economy / inflation, immigration etc) to see Trump will win. Especially when a lot of Americans view his Administration positively.
Then look at what the early voting data. Ralston (who, BTW, I have a lot of sympathy for) has said the R lead in NV is unprecedented in recent times. Bitzer has said the same for NC. Rurals are showing up but not in urban areas vs 4 years ago. Black voters are not coming out as they need to for the Democrats. Republicans are ahead by nearly 200K in Arizona, by over 800K in Florida. Sure, in states like PA, the Democrats are ahead but their advantage is far less than in 2020.
Then there is the mood music. @williamglenn was pillorised for reposting a tweet ( https://x.com/vickiefornyc/status/1853511569851982213) re a Democrat insider saying the election is lost but the same theme has played out several times in Politico and The Hill over the past 10 days. There are no similar articles on Trump.
Re the three great hopes of the Democrats - women, young voters and Haley Republicans - think again.
One of the most hilarious things has been an almost uniformly audience of men opining women only care about abortion. It is important but, in my conversations, two women 'specific' issues play well for Republicans - the "men in women's sports / locker rooms" argument and illegal immigrants committing crimes against women. Take a look at the New Yorker article on the Laken Riley murder and it is clear it will be a major factor in Georgia.
Re young voters, let's see but I suspect the pandemic has changed many young voters' perceptions about how they see the world and - for young male voters at least - that may not be positive for the Democrats. Joe Rogan endorsing Trump is a major plus but Trump's outreach efforts have targeted young men specifically.
Finally re Haley Republicans, they are not going to vote for Harris and Walz. To many Republicans, they stand for everything they detest. Harris' response on Proposition 36 in CA only reinforces what they thought. Look at the comments here about AZ and the McCain / Haley Republicans (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/arizona-presidential-election-harris-trump.html) - switchover will be minimal.
So where do I think it will go? Essentially a repeat of 2016 - Trump to essentially win all the states he did plus also NV. I think he will get close in Virginia (couldn't resist that for Anabob) and maybe win NH and NM. I think the Senate will be something like 54-46. The House is a bit more uncertain.
PS look out for NY - it won't go Trump but Hochul only beat Zeldin 54-46 in 2022
Very much appreciate your reasoned arguments as to why Trump will win . Without Dobbs the Dems would be in trouble , I think women will be the deciding factor and especially older white women who grew up with more protections will help give Harris the win . Not long till we find out .
I expected South Koreans to be 100% pro Harris and anti Trump. Turns out I am wrong
He has a base of support here. South Koreans are generally very pro western and generally VERY pro American - and Trump is seen as a kind of doughty defender of the USA (and hence Korea?) in a way the Dems are not
Or so my Seoul guide (a Dutchman living here and immersed in Korean culture) told me. My Korean female guide on Jeju backed it up
Is he bollocks.
Last time he was in office he tried to shake them down for protection money. The US has been a reliable guarantor of S Korea's security, whoever was in government, for seven decades; a second Trump term puts that into question.
They've been rapidly ramping their defence investment ever since, just in case he gets in and abandons them.
I’m not saying he IS these things, only that two separate people - one Korean, one Dutch - both living in Korea (and very different lives in different places) told me the same thing: there is a weird subset of South Koreans who support Trump because - it seems - they always support Republicans
A poll: Trump has 20% support here. Given Trump’s chumminess with Kim in Pyongyang I am amazed it is in double digits
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
I hear you. For this and his antiWoke credentials I can see the appeal of Trump…
… however for me the many downsides are just too much. His insane economic policies. His chaotic attacks on the western alliance. His likely revenge on Labour Britain (which will be fun to watch as it cripples Starmer but probably bad for UK PLC)
So I hope Trump loses
Here’s the opposite argument, eloquently put by an American Spectator columnist.
In her mind the wokery and immigration outweigh the negatives. She says she’s not really voting *for* Trump, more like she’s voting against the Left.
Hmmm. That is very persuasive
I entirely agree with her analysis: ultimately the greatest, truly civilisational danger comes from the Left, the Dems, the Woke, Labour, all of these repulsive traitors
However I return to my ice floe/polar bear analogy. You are trapped on an ice floe which is slowly heading into warmer waters, in time this will melt and you will drown, for sure - that is the awful drift into Woke madness and darkness
However you are ALSO sharing the ice floe with a hungry polar bear. Trump is the polar bear and your vote is a gun
As the polar bear will probably kill you in the next few minutes, not days or weeks, you have to shoot the polar bear first and THEN think about the whole melting ice floe thing
Your writing is punchier without the cheap-win invective. See your second paragraph which diminishes the point you were making in subsequent paragraphs.
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
No there isn’t - Trump will simply cut off the supply of arms to the Ukraine and Russia will take over. Then wait a few years to rebuild their supplies before moving on to the next part of “mother Russia” that was stolen from Moscow
Which may include Finland.
More the Baltics. Plus a nice big land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Then Poland and East Germany, why stop there? Next stop Paris.
Putin is not going to invade Poland, Germany and France. For a start he knows that will trigger nuclear war and destroy Russia forever
You’re probably joking but it’s still good to keep Putin in perspective
The counterpoint is the one expressed in Yes, Minister. (Which, towards the end, was very definitely a show proposing real political ideas in a comedic way. Was it Jay or Lynn who was actually pretty ideological?)
Nukes are good as a defence against nukes, but they are suicidal to use in any other context, because you get nukes right back.
And an invader doesn't take all they want in one go, they salami slice. So none of the steps is sufficient to justify all our war, but they gain what they want quietly.
The answer Jim Hacker was led to was National Service, but it was just a sitcom and nobody would be dumb enough to propose that, surely?
Putin will not invade Europe. Better for him to get money from China for oil and gas.
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
No there isn’t - Trump will simply cut off the supply of arms to the Ukraine and Russia will take over. Then wait a few years to rebuild their supplies before moving on to the next part of “mother Russia” that was stolen from Moscow
Which may include Finland.
More the Baltics. Plus a nice big land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Then Poland and East Germany, why stop there? Next stop Paris.
Putin is not going to invade Poland, Germany and France. For a start he knows that will trigger nuclear war and destroy Russia forever
You’re probably joking but it’s still good to keep Putin in perspective
The timeline is elastic. Midway through Vance's third or fourth term
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
No there isn’t - Trump will simply cut off the supply of arms to the Ukraine and Russia will take over. Then wait a few years to rebuild their supplies before moving on to the next part of “mother Russia” that was stolen from Moscow
Which may include Finland.
More the Baltics. Plus a nice big land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Then Poland and East Germany, why stop there? Next stop Paris.
Putin is not going to invade Poland, Germany and France. For a start he knows that will trigger nuclear war and destroy Russia forever
You’re probably joking but it’s still good to keep Putin in perspective
The counterpoint is the one expressed in Yes, Minister. (Which, towards the end, was very definitely a show proposing real political ideas in a comedic way. Was it Jay or Lynn who was actually pretty ideological?)
Nukes are good as a defence against nukes, but they are suicidal to use in any other context, because you get nukes right back.
And an invader doesn't take all they want in one go, they salami slice. So none of the steps is sufficient to justify all our war, but they gain what they want quietly.
The answer Jim Hacker was led to was National Service, but it was just a sitcom and nobody would be dumb enough to propose that, surely?
Putin will not invade Europe. Better for him to get money from China for oil and gas.
FWIW: All five of Telegraph's analysts predict Trump win this morning, although saying will be close.
That's the Telegraph - it's wishcasting...
It's also not really true, at least if you read what they right rather than looking at the silly graphics. Rozina Sabur says she has no idea. Tim Stanley and Tony Diver don't really answer the question directly. The other two go for Trump, but hedge.
So, basically, they're as clueless as everybody else.
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
I hear you. For this and his antiWoke credentials I can see the appeal of Trump…
… however for me the many downsides are just too much. His insane economic policies. His chaotic attacks on the western alliance. His likely revenge on Labour Britain (which will be fun to watch as it cripples Starmer but probably bad for UK PLC)
So I hope Trump loses
Here’s the opposite argument, eloquently put by an American Spectator columnist.
In her mind the wokery and immigration outweigh the negatives. She says she’s not really voting *for* Trump, more like she’s voting against the Left.
Hmmm. That is very persuasive
I entirely agree with her analysis: ultimately the greatest, truly civilisational danger comes from the Left, the Dems, the Woke, Labour, all of these repulsive traitors
However I return to my ice floe/polar bear analogy. You are trapped on an ice floe which is slowly heading into warmer waters, in time this will melt and you will drown, for sure - that is the awful drift into Woke madness and darkness
However you are ALSO sharing the ice floe with a hungry polar bear. Trump is the polar bear and your vote is a gun
As the polar bear will probably kill you in the next few minutes, not days or weeks, you have to shoot the polar bear first and THEN think about the whole melting ice floe thing
That is a good analogy but I don't quite see the threat in those terms. It is more like it there is a one in 3 chance that you will be killed immeditately vs near complete certainty that it will happen after a longer wait.
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
FWIW: All five of Telegraph's analysts predict Trump win this morning, although saying will be close.
That's the Telegraph - it's wishcasting...
It's also not really true, at least if you read what they right rather than looking at the silly graphics. Rozina Sabur says she has no idea. Tim Stanley and Tony Diver don't really answer the question directly. The other two go for Trump, but hedge.
So, basically, they're as clueless as everybody else.
We live in two nations. From my north England perch (rural and industrial town) here are millions of people, of all ages, who would never use the traditional four letter words in public, including the great majority of older people and huge numbers of younger ones. There is a minority who use them a lot. In general the place I notice them most is in PB comments.
Glasgow f*cking waves..
Glaswegians have elevated swearing to an art form. I just re-read How Late it Was, How Late, and I remember when it won the Booker in 1994 eyebrows were raised over the prodigious amount of swearing that it captured. What a book, though.
Yeah, Glasgowness was always an uncomfortable fit with the Booker. In an odd way Julia Neuberger’s outrage (How Late It Was is crap and a disgrace that it won) was a great tribute.
Irvine Welsh on R4 having a cosy chat with Kirsty Young atm, cannae imagine Kelman ever succumbing to the Beeb’s siren song.
Yes what was said was wrong but Booker completely screwed up everything and seriously pi**ed off the judge to the extent that I think he was inclined to find in the delivery drivers favour.
one bit that I find interesting from the tribunal
.As the term of abuse is not one relating to a protected characteristic, the case should be viewed in that light in my assessment.
I would have thought 70's slang terms for a disability was a protected characteristic unless disabilities are not protected..
He goes into that a bit further up in the document. Effectively he says although the term originally referenced a protected characteristic, it is so commonly used in parts of the North to have lost that direct connection - hence he concludes it didn't really relate to a protected characteristic.
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
No there isn’t - Trump will simply cut off the supply of arms to the Ukraine and Russia will take over. Then wait a few years to rebuild their supplies before moving on to the next part of “mother Russia” that was stolen from Moscow
Which may include Finland.
More the Baltics. Plus a nice big land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Then Poland and East Germany, why stop there? Next stop Paris.
Putin is not going to invade Poland, Germany and France. For a start he knows that will trigger nuclear war and destroy Russia forever
You’re probably joking but it’s still good to keep Putin in perspective
The timeline is elastic. Midway through Vance's third or fourth term
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
I hear you. For this and his antiWoke credentials I can see the appeal of Trump…
… however for me the many downsides are just too much. His insane economic policies. His chaotic attacks on the western alliance. His likely revenge on Labour Britain (which will be fun to watch as it cripples Starmer but probably bad for UK PLC)
So I hope Trump loses
Here’s the opposite argument, eloquently put by an American Spectator columnist.
In her mind the wokery and immigration outweigh the negatives. She says she’s not really voting *for* Trump, more like she’s voting against the Left.
Hmmm. That is very persuasive
I entirely agree with her analysis: ultimately the greatest, truly civilisational danger comes from the Left, the Dems, the Woke, Labour, all of these repulsive traitors
However I return to my ice floe/polar bear analogy. You are trapped on an ice floe which is slowly heading into warmer waters, in time this will melt and you will drown, for sure - that is the awful drift into Woke madness and darkness
However you are ALSO sharing the ice floe with a hungry polar bear. Trump is the polar bear and your vote is a gun
As the polar bear will probably kill you in the next few minutes, not days or weeks, you have to shoot the polar bear first and THEN think about the whole melting ice floe thing
That is a good analogy but I don't quite see the threat in those terms. It is more like it there is a one in 3 chance that you will be killed immeditately vs near complete certainty that it will happen after a longer wait.
Maybe in the analogy, all you have to kill the polar bear with is a massive fuck-off flamethrower, which significantly accelerates the melting of the ice flow. So you can address the immediate danger but only at the cost of significantly accelerating the long term danger.
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
No there isn’t - Trump will simply cut off the supply of arms to the Ukraine and Russia will take over. Then wait a few years to rebuild their supplies before moving on to the next part of “mother Russia” that was stolen from Moscow
Which may include Finland.
More the Baltics. Plus a nice big land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Then Poland and East Germany, why stop there? Next stop Paris.
Putin is not going to invade Poland, Germany and France. For a start he knows that will trigger nuclear war and destroy Russia forever
You’re probably joking but it’s still good to keep Putin in perspective
The timeline is elastic. Midway through Vance's third or fourth term
Certainly no one can accuse Harris of running a bad campaign . I think she’s done the best she could with the cards she was dealt.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in support of 9% for Harris .
(Full time being about half what these people are apparently working. Beats my current pay and a 35 hour week would be less time than my present full time job, notionally 37.5 hours but I do a chunk more.)
Certainly no one can accuse Harris of running a bad campaign . I think she’s done the best she could with the cards she was dealt.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in 9% for Harris .
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
The latest figures are 1.77m early votes, but that 56-43 margin is still there.
A 13% split. If we again take the last ABC split of women voters favouring Harris by 11%, that is another huge firewall banked by Harris.
I'm calling it at....4.12 Eastern Time on the 5th November:
KAMALA HARRIS WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
In 2020 early voters tended to be Democrats while male Trump voters were more likely to vote on the day. I wouldn't read too much into it
I'm also not sure we can read too much into comparing early voters with 2020, which was a bit sui generis in terms of voter behaviour because of covid.
Certainly no one can accuse Harris of running a bad campaign . I think she’s done the best she could with the cards she was dealt.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in support of 9% for Harris .
It was his Sheffield...
Not a surprise the late breakers have gone for Major Harris.
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
FWIW: All five of Telegraph's analysts predict Trump win this morning, although saying will be close.
That's the Telegraph - it's wishcasting...
It's also not really true, at least if you read what they right rather than looking at the silly graphics. Rozina Sabur says she has no idea. Tim Stanley and Tony Diver don't really answer the question directly. The other two go for Trump, but hedge.
So, basically, they're as clueless as everybody else.
I think we are ahead of the game here compared to them.
For those of us tending Harris we have data that shows the voting demographics are skewing female and that female voters are tending Harris...
Now that may be wishcasting by us but it at least we have figures that back it up and anecdotes that seem to say the same thing...
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
So, this morning I've been reading that the best thing for Ukraine would be the election of the man who was literally impeached for threatening their leader, who has frequently praised Putin and gone out of his way to redirect essential medical equipment from overstretched US hospitals to Putin instead, who has pressured Republicans to block assistance for Ukraine, and who has frequently made his position clear over Ukraine.
And who has a VP candidate who is, if anything, more in that direction, and who is ensuring that all the guardrails that prevent frivolous and unilateral exercise of Presidential whims are absent next time if he should win.
Riiiiggghht.
But it's because the current situation is unwelcome and attritional (no argument there), we leap from "Do something different" to "And maybe we'll somehow get a stable relationship with Russia after they get to swallow Ukraine and learn the lesson that if they keep plugging away, they'll always get away with aggression."
FWIW: All five of Telegraph's analysts predict Trump win this morning, although saying will be close.
That is most reassuring after their 99% failure rate on Budget predictions.
Though Camilla Tominey is quoted as saying "This time last week I was convinced Trump was going to win. Since I've landed here I am increasingly thinking he might not"
Camilla Tominey famously thought that Rishi's campaign was going well.
FWIW: All five of Telegraph's analysts predict Trump win this morning, although saying will be close.
That is most reassuring after their 99% failure rate on Budget predictions.
Though Camilla Tominey is quoted as saying "This time last week I was convinced Trump was going to win. Since I've landed here I am increasingly thinking he might not"
Camilla Tominey famously thought that Rishi's campaign was going well.
Camilla effortlessly makes the case against private education.
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
No there isn’t - Trump will simply cut off the supply of arms to the Ukraine and Russia will take over. Then wait a few years to rebuild their supplies before moving on to the next part of “mother Russia” that was stolen from Moscow
Which may include Finland.
More the Baltics. Plus a nice big land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Then Poland and East Germany, why stop there? Next stop Paris.
Putin is not going to invade Poland, Germany and France. For a start he knows that will trigger nuclear war and destroy Russia forever
You’re probably joking but it’s still good to keep Putin in perspective
Would it though? Against France maybe as it has its own independent nuclear weapons. The others don't though and if Trump pulled out of NATO would he even send troops to defend them if Putin invaded let alone US nukes?
During a match my son's U15 football team was playing against a team from Orpington, one of the opposition players tried to punch the ref and called him a "sp*stic c*nt". I think everyone found the first word far more offensive than the second.
Some lady people find the c-word particularly offensive as an insult because of the whole, you know, down there.
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
In terms of national polling Harris has leads of between 1 and 4 points from all those released in the last few days barring the one Atlas Intel poll which has serious question marks over it .
I think the TIPP will do a final release later this morning but that’s another with a clear Trump agenda .
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
Yes what was said was wrong but Booker completely screwed up everything and seriously pi**ed off the judge to the extent that I think he was inclined to find in the delivery drivers favour.
one bit that I find interesting from the tribunal
.As the term of abuse is not one relating to a protected characteristic, the case should be viewed in that light in my assessment.
I would have thought 70's slang terms for a disability was a protected characteristic unless disabilities are not protected..
He goes into that a bit further up in the document. Effectively he says although the term originally referenced a protected characteristic, it is so commonly used in parts of the North to have lost that direct connection - hence he concludes it didn't really relate to a protected characteristic.
A bit like ****ing idiot today presumably - only not quite so distant from its roots.
Interesting. Booker sure messed up before and after the event, not just in the runup to the tribunal, though that latter includes a prize marrow-size specimen:
"It is unclear why the respondent’s representatives (from a large national firm) had not notified the tribunal as to there being a bundle of 313 pages (a substantial number of which were meeting notes relevant to the case); and 30 pages of fairly dense witness statements. The bundle may have been sent in good time but was not available to me until 9am."
One phrase that is missing is 'Human Resources'. Where I used to work, any disciplinary action would mean the automatic involvement of HR and at least the avoidance of basic errors of procedure.
I also note the effective absence of training of the kind so decried by some on here - eg. when we were discussing universities - against bullying and pawing one's colleagues/staff and so on. One key reason for which is to knock away the excuse that "Nobody told me it was wrong."
@MhariAurora BREAKING: Kemi Badenoch’s shadow cabinet has been announced ahead of its first meeting this morning…
💷 Shadow Chancellor - Mel Stride 🚔Shadow Home - Chris Philp 🌍Shadow Foreign - Priti Patel 🪖Shadow Defence - James Cartildge 🏥Shadow Health - Ed Agar 📚Shadow Education - Laura Trott 🤝Shadow Business - Andrew Griffith 🏠Shadow Housing - Kevin Hollinrake ⚖️Shadow Justice - Robert Jenrick 💰Shadow Work & Pensions - Helen Whately 💡Shadow Energy - Claire Coutinho 📟Shadow Science & Tech - Alan Mak 🏴 Shadow Scotland - Andrew Bowie 🇬🇧 Shadow NI - Alex Burghart 🏴Shadow Wales - Mims Davies 🚂Shadow Transport - Gareth Bacon ♻️Shadow Environment - Victoria Atkins 🎭Shadow Culture - Stuart Andrew
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
I hear you. For this and his antiWoke credentials I can see the appeal of Trump…
… however for me the many downsides are just too much. His insane economic policies. His chaotic attacks on the western alliance. His likely revenge on Labour Britain (which will be fun to watch as it cripples Starmer but probably bad for UK PLC)
So I hope Trump loses
Here’s the opposite argument, eloquently put by an American Spectator columnist.
In her mind the wokery and immigration outweigh the negatives. She says she’s not really voting *for* Trump, more like she’s voting against the Left.
Hmmm. That is very persuasive
I entirely agree with her analysis: ultimately the greatest, truly civilisational danger comes from the Left, the Dems, the Woke, Labour, all of these repulsive traitors
However I return to my ice floe/polar bear analogy. You are trapped on an ice floe which is slowly heading into warmer waters, in time this will melt and you will drown, for sure - that is the awful drift into Woke madness and darkness
However you are ALSO sharing the ice floe with a hungry polar bear. Trump is the polar bear and your vote is a gun
As the polar bear will probably kill you in the next few minutes, not days or weeks, you have to shoot the polar bear first and THEN think about the whole melting ice floe thing
That is a good analogy but I don't quite see the threat in those terms. It is more like it there is a one in 3 chance that you will be killed immeditately vs near complete certainty that it will happen after a longer wait.
Maybe in the analogy, all you have to kill the polar bear with is a massive fuck-off flamethrower, which significantly accelerates the melting of the ice flow. So you can address the immediate danger but only at the cost of significantly accelerating the long term danger.
Does Elon Musk still sell massive flamethrowers, or do we need an even bigger one like Mythbusters did back in the day?
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
The latest figures are 1.77m early votes, but that 56-43 margin is still there.
A 13% split. If we again take the last ABC split of women voters favouring Harris by 11%, that is another huge firewall banked by Harris.
I'm calling it at....4.12 Eastern Time on the 5th November:
KAMALA HARRIS WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
In 2020 early voters tended to be Democrats while male Trump voters were more likely to vote on the day. I wouldn't read too much into it
That's because Trump discouraged early voters in 2020. He isn't now.
Yes. GOP have put much more effort into the early vote and postal vote this year, which is to some extent reflects in the numbers. The question is are these voters who would otherwise have shown up today, or are they previous abstainers? Suspect the answer is somewhere in the middle!
We live in two nations. From my north England perch (rural and industrial town) here are millions of people, of all ages, who would never use the traditional four letter words in public, including the great majority of older people and huge numbers of younger ones. There is a minority who use them a lot. In general the place I notice them most is in PB comments.
Glasgow f*cking waves..
Glaswegians have elevated swearing to an art form. I just re-read How Late it Was, How Late, and I remember when it won the Booker in 1994 eyebrows were raised over the prodigious amount of swearing that it captured. What a book, though.
Yeah, Glasgowness was always an uncomfortable fit with the Booker. In an odd way Julia Neuberger’s outrage (How Late It Was is crap and a disgrace that it won) was a great tribute.
Irvine Welsh on R4 having a cosy chat with Kirsty Young atm, cannae imagine Kelman ever succumbing to the Beeb’s siren song.
Or indeed almost any memoir of life as an Other Rank in the British Army, or on the messdeck of HM Ships.
I also mind that win. Very amused by the indignation of the establishment.
@MhariAurora BREAKING: Kemi Badenoch’s shadow cabinet has been announced ahead of its first meeting this morning…
💷 Shadow Chancellor - Mel Stride 🚔Shadow Home - Chris Philp 🌍Shadow Foreign - Priti Patel 🪖Shadow Defence - James Cartildge 🏥Shadow Health - Ed Agar 📚Shadow Education - Laura Trott 🤝Shadow Business - Andrew Griffith 🏠Shadow Housing - Kevin Hollinrake ⚖️Shadow Justice - Robert Jenrick 💰Shadow Work & Pensions - Helen Whately 💡Shadow Energy - Claire Coutinho 📟Shadow Science & Tech - Alan Mak 🏴 Shadow Scotland - Andrew Bowie 🇬🇧 Shadow NI - Alex Burghart 🏴Shadow Wales - Mims Davies 🚂Shadow Transport - Gareth Bacon ♻️Shadow Environment - Victoria Atkins 🎭Shadow Culture - Stuart Andrew
We need their prices for next Conservative leader after the party has tired of Kemi.
@MhariAurora BREAKING: Kemi Badenoch’s shadow cabinet has been announced ahead of its first meeting this morning…
💷 Shadow Chancellor - Mel Stride 🚔Shadow Home - Chris Philp 🌍Shadow Foreign - Priti Patel 🪖Shadow Defence - James Cartildge 🏥Shadow Health - Ed Agar 📚Shadow Education - Laura Trott 🤝Shadow Business - Andrew Griffith 🏠Shadow Housing - Kevin Hollinrake ⚖️Shadow Justice - Robert Jenrick 💰Shadow Work & Pensions - Helen Whately 💡Shadow Energy - Claire Coutinho 📟Shadow Science & Tech - Alan Mak 🏴 Shadow Scotland - Andrew Bowie 🇬🇧 Shadow NI - Alex Burghart 🏴Shadow Wales - Mims Davies 🚂Shadow Transport - Gareth Bacon ♻️Shadow Environment - Victoria Atkins 🎭Shadow Culture - Stuart Andrew
Robin Walker must be pissed he lost his seat given she has gone for Trott and Stride in senior roles.
He was the Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire before the election - so someone who knows the brief.
and I think once you go beyond the 6 candidates who stood for the leadership, Rishi and Hunt everyone else is going to be in the "who are they" department. The Tories have 120 MPs and many of the ones people know the name of lost their seats..
@Sandpit as someone who enjoys your posts I have been reading your posts putting the other side of the argument re Trump but haven't seen you state that you support him.
Can I ask, are you playing devil's advocate and trying to put the alternative arguments as to why he might win to balance the argument, which you do well, or do you also support him?
Certainly no one can accuse Harris of running a bad campaign . I think she’s done the best she could with the cards she was dealt.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in support of 9% for Harris .
I also think that Harris has it, though she fought a remarkably vague campaign, presumably deliberately - all about a fresh face rather than many concrete commitments. The consistent YouGov leaning to Trump is strange, and probably biased (in the sense that someone has felt it worth the relatively small sum to keep it that way).
Full disclosure: I'm +207 if Harris wins, and -£75 if Trump wins.
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
Re the US election, naturally enough I think Trump will win but thoughts.
Firstly, the clues are in plain sight. You only have to look at how Americans view the country, the Administration and the main concerns (economy / inflation, immigration etc) to see Trump will win. Especially when a lot of Americans view his Administration positively.
Then look at what the early voting data. Ralston (who, BTW, I have a lot of sympathy for) has said the R lead in NV is unprecedented in recent times. Bitzer has said the same for NC. Rurals are showing up but not in urban areas vs 4 years ago. Black voters are not coming out as they need to for the Democrats. Republicans are ahead by nearly 200K in Arizona, by over 800K in Florida. Sure, in states like PA, the Democrats are ahead but their advantage is far less than in 2020.
Then there is the mood music. @williamglenn was pillorised for reposting a tweet ( https://x.com/vickiefornyc/status/1853511569851982213) re a Democrat insider saying the election is lost but the same theme has played out several times in Politico and The Hill over the past 10 days. There are no similar articles on Trump.
Re the three great hopes of the Democrats - women, young voters and Haley Republicans - think again.
One of the most hilarious things has been an almost uniformly audience of men opining women only care about abortion. It is important but, in my conversations, two women 'specific' issues play well for Republicans - the "men in women's sports / locker rooms" argument and illegal immigrants committing crimes against women. Take a look at the New Yorker article on the Laken Riley murder and it is clear it will be a major factor in Georgia.
Re young voters, let's see but I suspect the pandemic has changed many young voters' perceptions about how they see the world and - for young male voters at least - that may not be positive for the Democrats. Joe Rogan endorsing Trump is a major plus but Trump's outreach efforts have targeted young men specifically.
Finally re Haley Republicans, they are not going to vote for Harris and Walz. To many Republicans, they stand for everything they detest. Harris' response on Proposition 36 in CA only reinforces what they thought. Look at the comments here about AZ and the McCain / Haley Republicans (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/arizona-presidential-election-harris-trump.html) - switchover will be minimal.
So where do I think it will go? Essentially a repeat of 2016 - Trump to essentially win all the states he did plus also NV. I think he will get close in Virginia (couldn't resist that for Anabob) and maybe win NH and NM. I think the Senate will be something like 54-46. The House is a bit more uncertain.
PS look out for NY - it won't go Trump but Hochul only beat Zeldin 54-46 in 2022
Certainly no one can accuse Harris of running a bad campaign . I think she’s done the best she could with the cards she was dealt.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in support of 9% for Harris .
I also think that Harris has it, though she fought a remarkably vague campaign, presumably deliberately - all about a fresh face rather than many concrete commitments. The consistent YouGov leaning to Trump is strange, and probably biased (in the sense that someone has felt it worth the relatively small sum to keep it that way).
Full disclosure: I'm +207 if Harris wins, and -£75 if Trump wins.
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
No there isn’t - Trump will simply cut off the supply of arms to the Ukraine and Russia will take over. Then wait a few years to rebuild their supplies before moving on to the next part of “mother Russia” that was stolen from Moscow
Which may include Finland.
More the Baltics. Plus a nice big land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Then Poland and East Germany, why stop there? Next stop Paris.
Putin is not going to invade Poland, Germany and France. For a start he knows that will trigger nuclear war and destroy Russia forever
You’re probably joking but it’s still good to keep Putin in perspective
Would it though? Against France maybe as it has its own independent nuclear weapons. The others don't though and if Trump pulled out of NATO would he even send troops to defend them if Putin invaded let alone US nukes?
He'll go for the Baltics. Small, formerly part of USSR itself, and with largeish Russian minorities. NATO members, but he'll take risk, as he gains enhanced access to Baltic.
We live in two nations. From my north England perch (rural and industrial town) here are millions of people, of all ages, who would never use the traditional four letter words in public, including the great majority of older people and huge numbers of younger ones. There is a minority who use them a lot. In general the place I notice them most is in PB comments.
During a match my son's U15 football team was playing against a team from Orpington, one of the opposition players tried to punch the ref and called him a "sp*stic c*nt". I think everyone found the first word far more offensive than the second.
Some lady people find the c-word particularly offensive as an insult because of the whole, you know, down there.
Several years ago at an away hockey match one of their players accidentally but incompetently lifted the ball into a teenager playing for us, hitting him painfully on the knee. He cried out "ah, you c**t" in pain, rather than the expected apology, the opposition player grabbed the kid by the neck with the words "what did you call me?". It still troubles me to this day that the umpire did nothing when it should have been a red card for violent conduct. As to the case, should have been a disciplinary for not treating a fellow employee with respect.
He was the Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire before the election - so someone who knows the brief.
and I think once you go beyond the 6 candidates who stood for the leadership, Rishi and Hunt everyone else is going to be in the "who are they" department. The Tories have 120 MPs and many of the ones people know the name of lost their seats..
The big advantage this shadow cabinet has is that it mostly passes the "we told you to sling your hooks" test. Even someone like Mel Stride is a relatively fresh face to the electorate.
The bad news is that it does look awfully light on experience. How many of the bigger names turned offers down, if any? (Tom T isn't on the list, for example). It might well be the best shad cab Badenoch can assemble from the people available, but it doesn't exactly inspire. And if there are some big beasts to return in by-elections (Mordaunt, say), where do they slot in?
@MhariAurora BREAKING: Kemi Badenoch’s shadow cabinet has been announced ahead of its first meeting this morning…
💷 Shadow Chancellor - Mel Stride 🚔Shadow Home - Chris Philp 🌍Shadow Foreign - Priti Patel 🪖Shadow Defence - James Cartildge 🏥Shadow Health - Ed Agar 📚Shadow Education - Laura Trott 🤝Shadow Business - Andrew Griffith 🏠Shadow Housing - Kevin Hollinrake ⚖️Shadow Justice - Robert Jenrick 💰Shadow Work & Pensions - Helen Whately 💡Shadow Energy - Claire Coutinho 📟Shadow Science & Tech - Alan Mak 🏴 Shadow Scotland - Andrew Bowie 🇬🇧 Shadow NI - Alex Burghart 🏴Shadow Wales - Mims Davies 🚂Shadow Transport - Gareth Bacon ♻️Shadow Environment - Victoria Atkins 🎭Shadow Culture - Stuart Andrew
We need their prices for next Conservative leader after the party has tired of Kemi.
We need to see who rejoins Westminster at by-elections before that is worth the effort.
A revealing contrast between the way the £285 increase in university tuition fees is being accepted to the tantrums the oldies have had over losing their £200 WFA.
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
The latest figures are 1.77m early votes, but that 56-43 margin is still there.
A 13% split. If we again take the last ABC split of women voters favouring Harris by 11%, that is another huge firewall banked by Harris.
I'm calling it at....4.12 Eastern Time on the 5th November:
KAMALA HARRIS WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Good morning one and all. Mr MM I often disagree with your political views but I have a high regard for your assessment of how elections will go. I sincerely hope you are right this time.
Re the US election, naturally enough I think Trump will win but thoughts.
Firstly, the clues are in plain sight. You only have to look at how Americans view the country, the Administration and the main concerns (economy / inflation, immigration etc) to see Trump will win. Especially when a lot of Americans view his Administration positively.
Then look at what the early voting data. Ralston (who, BTW, I have a lot of sympathy for) has said the R lead in NV is unprecedented in recent times. Bitzer has said the same for NC. Rurals are showing up but not in urban areas vs 4 years ago. Black voters are not coming out as they need to for the Democrats. Republicans are ahead by nearly 200K in Arizona, by over 800K in Florida. Sure, in states like PA, the Democrats are ahead but their advantage is far less than in 2020.
Then there is the mood music. @williamglenn was pillorised for reposting a tweet ( https://x.com/vickiefornyc/status/1853511569851982213) re a Democrat insider saying the election is lost but the same theme has played out several times in Politico and The Hill over the past 10 days. There are no similar articles on Trump.
Re the three great hopes of the Democrats - women, young voters and Haley Republicans - think again.
One of the most hilarious things has been an almost uniformly audience of men opining women only care about abortion. It is important but, in my conversations, two women 'specific' issues play well for Republicans - the "men in women's sports / locker rooms" argument and illegal immigrants committing crimes against women. Take a look at the New Yorker article on the Laken Riley murder and it is clear it will be a major factor in Georgia.
Re young voters, let's see but I suspect the pandemic has changed many young voters' perceptions about how they see the world and - for young male voters at least - that may not be positive for the Democrats. Joe Rogan endorsing Trump is a major plus but Trump's outreach efforts have targeted young men specifically.
Finally re Haley Republicans, they are not going to vote for Harris and Walz. To many Republicans, they stand for everything they detest. Harris' response on Proposition 36 in CA only reinforces what they thought. Look at the comments here about AZ and the McCain / Haley Republicans (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/arizona-presidential-election-harris-trump.html) - switchover will be minimal.
So where do I think it will go? Essentially a repeat of 2016 - Trump to essentially win all the states he did plus also NV. I think he will get close in Virginia (couldn't resist that for Anabob) and maybe win NH and NM. I think the Senate will be something like 54-46. The House is a bit more uncertain.
PS look out for NY - it won't go Trump but Hochul only beat Zeldin 54-46 in 2022
I hope that's wrong, but it's an entirely sound analysis.
Trump has also been targeting African-American voters with his warning that immigrants are taking Black jobs. And Hispanic voters with a similar message.
Re Georgia, and the view that more women out is a positive for Harris. It is worth remembering that Georgia was the site of a particularly high-profile case of an illegal immigrant killing a female student and one that generated a lot of anger.
It might not be abortion that is driving these female voters out.
Yes there’s been a lot of commentary on the Republican side about Laken Riley, and sadly a number of other similar cases that have been mentioned at rallies.
Here’s Megyn Kelly at Trump’s rally last night, endorsing Trump and mentioning both the sad cases of murder and sexual assault by illegals, but also the controversial issue of women’s sports which might also drive turnout among younger women. It’s not necessarily just abortion behind the differential female turnout. https://x.com/megynkellyshow/status/1853643950512316882
But if ALL the polling can agree on one thing this election, it is that there is a significant pro-Harris slant by women voters. Both in enthusiams and actual voting intention.
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
The latest figures are 1.77m early votes, but that 56-43 margin is still there.
A 13% split. If we again take the last ABC split of women voters favouring Harris by 11%, that is another huge firewall banked by Harris.
I'm calling it at....4.12 Eastern Time on the 5th November:
KAMALA HARRIS WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
I would be happier if I were a Democratic organiser in Georgia, than a Republican. But, there are two issues:
1. If turnout matches 2020, there are 750,000 votes still to come on the day. We don't know how those people will break. They might very well overturn a 166,000 vote firewall, among early voters.
2. We don't actually know how women in Georgia split. The split might be better than an 11% margin for Harris, or it might be worse. That's a major source of uncertainty.
You say it's not about race, but I would counter that race is always the elephant in the room in Southern State elections, some of which are close to ethnic headcounts.
Companies that poll Georgia might in fact, be quite correct.
I’ve seen nothing in the stuff overnight that has changed my mind that this will be a Harris win, with Trump taking NV and AZ and Harris the rest.
Trump should take Nevada, it has the highest unemployment rate in the US and probably Georgia which has above average inflation.
Harris will be helped in the blue wall though by the fact inflation in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is below the US average and unemployment in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is also below the US average too
@Sandpit as someone who enjoys your posts I have been reading your posts putting the other side of the argument re Trump but haven't seen you state that you support him.
Can I ask, are you playing devil's advocate and trying to put the alternative arguments as to why he might win to balance the argument, which you do well, or do you also support him?
Personally I’m in the “two worst candidates in living memory” camp. I’d probably write in someone silly.
What I do find quite interesting, following a wide variety of US commentators, that many of the “politically homeless” types are going for Trump this time, which they didn’t do for the last two elections. That’s a lot of what I’ve been sharing on here, as well as the partisan stuff. These people generally voted for Obama in 2012, Hillary or libertarian in 2016, either Biden or libertarian in 2020, and are going to Trump this time on the basis of a both crap libertarian candidate and the wide cross-party group of supporters around Trump, such as RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk, Ron Paul etc.
Maybe. Reform will need a new leader when Nigel Farage retires but that may not be any time soon, and there might be a new Conservative leader before then, and Farage will always be the king across the water as we have seen already.
@Sandpit as someone who enjoys your posts I have been reading your posts putting the other side of the argument re Trump but haven't seen you state that you support him.
Can I ask, are you playing devil's advocate and trying to put the alternative arguments as to why he might win to balance the argument, which you do well, or do you also support him?
Personally I’m in the “two worst candidates of living memory” camp. I’d probably write in someone silly.
What I do find quite interesting, following a wide variety of US commentators, that many of the “politically homeless” types are going for Trump this time, which they didn’t do for the last two elections. That’s a lot of what I’ve been sharing on here, as well as the partisan stuff. These people generally voted for Obama in 2012, Hillary or libertarian in 2016, either Biden or libertarian in 2020, and are going to Trump this time on the basis of a both crap libertarian candidate and the wide cross-party group of supporters around Trump, such as RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk etc.
Certainly no one can accuse Harris of running a bad campaign . I think she’s done the best she could with the cards she was dealt.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in support of 9% for Harris .
I also think that Harris has it, though she fought a remarkably vague campaign, presumably deliberately - all about a fresh face rather than many concrete commitments. The consistent YouGov leaning to Trump is strange, and probably biased (in the sense that someone has felt it worth the relatively small sum to keep it that way).
Full disclosure: I'm +207 if Harris wins, and -£75 if Trump wins.
Certainly no one can accuse Harris of running a bad campaign . I think she’s done the best she could with the cards she was dealt.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in support of 9% for Harris .
I also think that Harris has it, though she fought a remarkably vague campaign, presumably deliberately - all about a fresh face rather than many concrete commitments. The consistent YouGov leaning to Trump is strange, and probably biased (in the sense that someone has felt it worth the relatively small sum to keep it that way).
Full disclosure: I'm +207 if Harris wins, and -£75 if Trump wins.
I’ve seen nothing in the stuff overnight that has changed my mind that this will be a Harris win, with Trump taking NV and AZ and Harris the rest.
Trump should take Nevada, it has the highest unemployment rate in the US and probably Georgia which has above average inflation.
Harris will be helped in the blue wall though by the fact inflation in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is below the US average and unemployment in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is also below the US average too
Certainly no one can accuse Harris of running a bad campaign . I think she’s done the best she could with the cards she was dealt.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in support of 9% for Harris .
I also think that Harris has it, though she fought a remarkably vague campaign, presumably deliberately - all about a fresh face rather than many concrete commitments. The consistent YouGov leaning to Trump is strange, and probably biased (in the sense that someone has felt it worth the relatively small sum to keep it that way).
Full disclosure: I'm +207 if Harris wins, and -£75 if Trump wins.
A revealing contrast between the way the £285 increase in university tuition fees is being accepted to the tantrums the oldies have had over losing their £200 WFA.
The students are students of Martin Lewis and are aware that if the increase affects them at all it would be a marginal impact in 30 years time.
How much you borrow makes no difference to how much you pay back each month; most will never pay it all back. Some will pay none or almost none.
Re the US election, naturally enough I think Trump will win but thoughts.
Firstly, the clues are in plain sight. You only have to look at how Americans view the country, the Administration and the main concerns (economy / inflation, immigration etc) to see Trump will win. Especially when a lot of Americans view his Administration positively.
Then look at what the early voting data. Ralston (who, BTW, I have a lot of sympathy for) has said the R lead in NV is unprecedented in recent times. Bitzer has said the same for NC. Rurals are showing up but not in urban areas vs 4 years ago. Black voters are not coming out as they need to for the Democrats. Republicans are ahead by nearly 200K in Arizona, by over 800K in Florida. Sure, in states like PA, the Democrats are ahead but their advantage is far less than in 2020.
Then there is the mood music. @williamglenn was pillorised for reposting a tweet ( https://x.com/vickiefornyc/status/1853511569851982213) re a Democrat insider saying the election is lost but the same theme has played out several times in Politico and The Hill over the past 10 days. There are no similar articles on Trump.
Re the three great hopes of the Democrats - women, young voters and Haley Republicans - think again.
One of the most hilarious things has been an almost uniformly audience of men opining women only care about abortion. It is important but, in my conversations, two women 'specific' issues play well for Republicans - the "men in women's sports / locker rooms" argument and illegal immigrants committing crimes against women. Take a look at the New Yorker article on the Laken Riley murder and it is clear it will be a major factor in Georgia.
Re young voters, let's see but I suspect the pandemic has changed many young voters' perceptions about how they see the world and - for young male voters at least - that may not be positive for the Democrats. Joe Rogan endorsing Trump is a major plus but Trump's outreach efforts have targeted young men specifically.
Finally re Haley Republicans, they are not going to vote for Harris and Walz. To many Republicans, they stand for everything they detest. Harris' response on Proposition 36 in CA only reinforces what they thought. Look at the comments here about AZ and the McCain / Haley Republicans (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/arizona-presidential-election-harris-trump.html) - switchover will be minimal.
So where do I think it will go? Essentially a repeat of 2016 - Trump to essentially win all the states he did plus also NV. I think he will get close in Virginia (couldn't resist that for Anabob) and maybe win NH and NM. I think the Senate will be something like 54-46. The House is a bit more uncertain.
PS look out for NY - it won't go Trump but Hochul only beat Zeldin 54-46 in 2022
I hope that's wrong, but it's an entirely sound analysis.
Trump has also been targeting African-American voters with his warning that immigrants are taking Black jobs. And Hispanic voters with a similar message.
I think the risk to Finland and the Baltics is higher with the democrats. If there is no strategic solution in Ukraine you are effectively supporting an endless war of attrition, with limited political will on the part of the US to back. This to my mind is an extremely dangerous outcome. The Biden administration has embarked on a project in Ukraine it has proven repeatedly it doesn't have the motivation to complete, despite it having the resources to do so. How many people have died? 1 million? For what purpose? A war of attrition in the hope of the Russian state collapsing? This strategy has failed. Russia is not collapsing, it is getting stronger, the west is getting weaker. But the strategy in Ukraine never changes, it is an afterthought in the back of the mind of an exhausted empire, an afghanistan like situation.
Disruption to the strategy under Trump comes with very many risks, including the risk that Ukraine would just be abandoned. But I put the risk of that as being low given the evident self interest on the part of the US of maintaining support from its European allies. There are many possible outcomes, including the possibility that the war could actually be escalated to try and create the conditions for a lasting solution, at least insofar as Ukraine is concerned.
There is no strategic solution for the Ukraine.
Putin wants Kiev - you can't negotiate if that is the desired end result...
I really don't want to say this to a poster on here but you really don't have the first clue what you are talking about...
I've not doubted the ambitions of Russia. But the analysis on here has been wrong over and over again. It is wishcasting and reassurance which just gets adapted to fit the updated situation, most of the discussion about Ukraine fits this category.
A 'strategic solution' in Ukraine will resolve the problem of Russia continuously starting wars in Eastern Europe. What form that takes is not clear. It seems like everyone is in agreement that the solution is that Russia gets defeated in Ukraine and then gets scared off. But then you keep supporting the party that have repeatedly failed to implement that outcome, despite having every opportunity to do so.
The choice seems to me to be between the Democrats - where Biden has shown he doesn't want Ukraine to lose, but he is scared of Russia losing - and Trump - who fawns over Putin, is also scared of the Russians, but doesn't give a damn about the Ukrainians.
That's not a great choice - there's no-one prepared to support a Ukrainian victory - but it isn't a hard one.
My real disappointment is that the Europeans, including Britain, have seen this day coming, have seen American hesitancy, and have completely and utterly failed to step up themselves. Many countries are made by war, and if the EU has pretensions to nationhood then this was the moment at which it could create itself as a nation prepared to defend its values, its interests and a future member.
It hasn't happened. The European project is bleeding out in the Russo-Ukraine War with the deaths of pro-Europeans denied the weapons to defend themselves.
A revealing contrast between the way the £285 increase in university tuition fees is being accepted to the tantrums the oldies have had over losing their £200 WFA.
It certainly isn't being accepted if the twitter posts I have seen are anything to go by, certainly plenty of students crying betrayal and going Green
My analysis of the election has changed. If I had a vote, it would be for Trump. The defining issue for me is Ukraine. I don't think that the democrats can solve this and I think they will end up gradually losing the war in Ukraine, as the conflict continues on its current trajectory with no apparent strategic direction. This could cause the rapid collapse of more countries, and significant consequential damage. My gut feeling is that Trump would be more likely to find a strategic solution to the issue of conflict with Russia. This puts me at odds with almost everyone, including everyone I know in Finland, but it is my assessment of the situation. There is too much familiarity bias and continuity bias which fuels the assumption that Harris would preserve NATO and the European security arrangement. With Trump there is the possibility of an updated solution to the security question, there is a risk that this fails, but the current direction of travel seems to lead to failure anyway. I have this view even accepting that Trump is a significant threat to democracy itself. But I was influenced a lot by Niall Ferguson's recent comments.
No there isn’t - Trump will simply cut off the supply of arms to the Ukraine and Russia will take over. Then wait a few years to rebuild their supplies before moving on to the next part of “mother Russia” that was stolen from Moscow
Which may include Finland.
More the Baltics. Plus a nice big land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Then Poland and East Germany, why stop there? Next stop Paris.
Putin is not going to invade Poland, Germany and France. For a start he knows that will trigger nuclear war and destroy Russia forever
You’re probably joking but it’s still good to keep Putin in perspective
Would it though? Against France maybe as it has its own independent nuclear weapons. The others don't though and if Trump pulled out of NATO would he even send troops to defend them if Putin invaded let alone US nukes?
He'll go for the Baltics. Small, formerly part of USSR itself, and with largeish Russian minorities. NATO members, but he'll take risk, as he gains enhanced access to Baltic.
Finland and Sweden give Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania a lot more strategic depth, plus the JEF troops including the largest UK overseas deployment which is in Estonia. If Putin did invade rather than subvert, he could lose even without any nuclear escalation. Its a hell of a risk to attack a NATO state directly. Russia is in a terrible mess, and as 10,000 North Koreans are fed into the mincing machine, one wonders if any further escalation might not bring about the collapse of Putin´s regime.
In Tallinn, the general view is that unless stabbed in the back by -say- Trump, we can hold out, and a Finnish/Swedish/Norwegian counter attack would leave St Petersburg and Murmansk incredibly vulnerable, while the Poles can handle Kaliningrad and keep the Suwalki gap open. We do not think the Russians can risk it.
By the way, the Baltics were Illegally occupied by the USSR in 1940, were never legitimately part of the Imperium and were never recognised as Soviet by the US, UK and several other states.
The Russian speaking minority in Estonia and Latvia are increasingly ANTI Putin, to the point that they are joining the Estonian army in order to defend against any Putinist incursion. They already saw what happened to the Russian speakers in Ukraine.
Comments
Instead we have seen in the last week, Zelensky railing against the White House, for leaking the secret annexes to his victory plan, and extending only 10% of the military aid approved by Congress. This should disturb everyone here but for some reason I received bullying taunts for raising this story.
Perhaps this is a massive psyop and by the weekend Tomahawks will be raining down on Russian assets. But I see no evidence that Harris would approach things any differently to Biden. It’s long term attritional warfare hoping that Russian elites eventually solve the problem for us. And it’s not at all clear that this is the best strategy for long term peace in Europe.
Re the US election, naturally enough I think Trump will win but thoughts.
Firstly, the clues are in plain sight. You only have to look at how Americans view the country, the Administration and the main concerns (economy / inflation, immigration etc) to see Trump will win. Especially when a lot of Americans view his Administration positively.
Then look at what the early voting data. Ralston (who, BTW, I have a lot of sympathy for) has said the R lead in NV is unprecedented in recent times. Bitzer has said the same for NC. Rurals are showing up but not in urban areas vs 4 years ago. Black voters are not coming out as they need to for the Democrats. Republicans are ahead by nearly 200K in Arizona, by over 800K in Florida. Sure, in states like PA, the Democrats are ahead but their advantage is far less than in 2020.
Then there is the mood music. @williamglenn was pillorised for reposting a tweet ( https://x.com/vickiefornyc/status/1853511569851982213) re a Democrat insider saying the election is lost but the same theme has played out several times in Politico and The Hill over the past 10 days. There are no similar articles on Trump.
Re the three great hopes of the Democrats - women, young voters and Haley Republicans - think again.
One of the most hilarious things has been an almost uniformly audience of men opining women only care about abortion. It is important but, in my conversations, two women 'specific' issues play well for Republicans - the "men in women's sports / locker rooms" argument and illegal immigrants committing crimes against women. Take a look at the New Yorker article on the Laken Riley murder and it is clear it will be a major factor in Georgia.
Re young voters, let's see but I suspect the pandemic has changed many young voters' perceptions about how they see the world and - for young male voters at least - that may not be positive for the Democrats. Joe Rogan endorsing Trump is a major plus but Trump's outreach efforts have targeted young men specifically.
Finally re Haley Republicans, they are not going to vote for Harris and Walz. To many Republicans, they stand for everything they detest. Harris' response on Proposition 36 in CA only reinforces what they thought. Look at the comments here about AZ and the McCain / Haley Republicans (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/arizona-presidential-election-harris-trump.html) - switchover will be minimal.
So where do I think it will go? Essentially a repeat of 2016 - Trump to essentially win all the states he did plus also NV. I think he will get close in Virginia (couldn't resist that for Anabob) and maybe win NH and NM. I think the Senate will be something like 54-46. The House is a bit more uncertain.
PS look out for NY - it won't go Trump but Hochul only beat Zeldin 54-46 in 2022
Good luck all.
PS yes, this is @MrEd
(My inlaws, who are from Croydon, are much, much swearier than my family.)
The whole worst candidate in history thing is different. There are essentially three people regularly cited as that, two of them are the only two mainstream female candidates and Democrats.
Election spreadsheet.
Does anyone know of any links that I can link to in a Google sheet that will give live numbers from each state for Harris and Trump ?
A poll: Trump has 20% support here. Given Trump’s chumminess with Kim in Pyongyang I am amazed it is in double digits
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2024/10/113_376369.html
And if you want a demonstration of that energy - just look at the votes ALREADY cast in Georgia.
"The polls" have Georgia either too close to call or call it for Trump. Bullshit, I say.
Here's the maths to support my contention that Harris wins Georgia handily. Before today's voting, she already has. It requires only two data points: the actual votes cast as per the official Georgia website - and the latest and last ABC voting intention poll on the split in how men and women will vote.
"The final ABC News/Ipsos poll before Election Day, released on Sunday, found the gender gap among all likely voters to be 16 points. Harris had a 11-point advantage among women, 53% to 42%, while Trump had a 5-point advantage among men, 50% to 45%."
I make no apology for reposting this. It's a betting site. The data is telling us the result, as 56% of the electorate have already voted. Absent a huge surge in voting, there's only 10% or so going to vote today in Georgia.
So here are the likely votes cast already in Georgia, as best we can tell.
Using the latest ABC gender splits, Harris leads by 11% in the 56% of female votes we know have been cast.
ABC says Trump leads by 5% in that 43.8% of male votes we know have been cast.
2.257 million women have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 55.5 = 1.252m female Democrat votes cast
Rep @ 44.5 = 1.004m Republican votes cast
1.765 million men have early voted (fact). ABC says that breaks down:
Dem @ 47.5 = 0.838m male Democrat votes cast
Rep @ 52.5 = 0.926m male Republican votes cast
Democrat total votes cast: 1.252 + 0.838 = 2.090 million
Republican total votes cast 1.004 + 0.926 = 1.930 million
So ABC polling on the gender split says there is a 160,000 Dem firewall after 56% of the electorate have already early voted.
Reminder: Biden won Georgia in 2020 by just 11,779 votes
And in case you think it's just Georgia, that's a fluke - it's not:
Gender split in Pennsylvania is again huge in early voting. As of November 1st:
"More than 1.6 million commonwealth voters have cast early mail-in ballots for the Nov. 5 presidential election. An Inquirer analysis of early ballot returns found that women composed 56% of the early mail-ins, with men trailing at 43%, according to voting data obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State this week."
https://www.inquirer.com/news/early-voting-women-seniors-pennsylvania-20241101.html
The latest figures are 1.77m early votes, but that 56-43 margin is still there.
A 13% split. If we again take the last ABC split of women voters favouring Harris by 11%, that is another huge firewall banked by Harris.
I'm calling it at....4.12 Eastern Time on the 5th November:
KAMALA HARRIS WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
However I have a proper appetite tonight in Seoul and I might give it a go
Around a third of our own electorate would opt for Trump.
Unless it's significantly more than that, I'm not sure it means all that much.
More notably, 20% is 1% more than their own President's current approval rating...
And don't forget there's still a fair proportion of the population which believe in the idea of Korean re-union.
P.S. I like the polar bear analogy.
Seems about right
So he already has.
So, basically, they're as clueless as everybody else.
NEW: Chris Philp is the shadow Home Secretary
Irvine Welsh on R4 having a cosy chat with Kirsty Young atm, cannae imagine Kelman ever succumbing to the Beeb’s siren song.
Barring the unfortunate jobs report which of course had mitigating factors Harris has had some luck .
Gas prices have been falling in the run upto the election , Israel and Iran didn’t run out of control . Major fallout there could have seen gas prices spike and turned the attention more on Trumps alleged “ man of peace “.
Trump ran the campaign we all expected , a hate fest from start to finish . Two things from the last week I think really hurt him. People think everything is baked in but his “ protect women whether they like it or not “ with his past history was a serious error .
The hate rally and Puerto Rico joke has cost him support with Latinos especially in Pennsylvania where polling shows an increase in support of 9% for Harris .
(Full time being about half what these people are apparently working. Beats my current pay and a 35 hour week would be less time than my present full time job, notionally 37.5 hours but I do a chunk more.)
Not a surprise the late breakers have gone for
MajorHarris.For those of us tending Harris we have data that shows the voting demographics are skewing female and that female voters are tending Harris...
Now that may be wishcasting by us but it at least we have figures that back it up and anecdotes that seem to say the same thing...
And who has a VP candidate who is, if anything, more in that direction, and who is ensuring that all the guardrails that prevent frivolous and unilateral exercise of Presidential whims are absent next time if he should win.
Riiiiggghht.
But it's because the current situation is unwelcome and attritional (no argument there), we leap from "Do something different" to "And maybe we'll somehow get a stable relationship with Russia after they get to swallow Ukraine and learn the lesson that if they keep plugging away, they'll always get away with aggression."
Not really sure I follow that.
Camilla Tominey famously thought that Rishi's campaign was going well.
"Oh really? Watch me..."
I think the TIPP will do a final release later this morning but that’s another with a clear Trump agenda .
Interesting. Booker sure messed up before and after the event, not just in the runup to the tribunal, though that latter includes a prize marrow-size specimen:
"It is unclear why the respondent’s
representatives (from a large national firm) had not notified the tribunal as
to there being a bundle of 313 pages (a substantial number of which were
meeting notes relevant to the case); and 30 pages of fairly dense witness
statements. The bundle may have been sent in good time but was not
available to me until 9am."
One phrase that is missing is 'Human Resources'. Where I used to work, any disciplinary action would mean the automatic involvement of HR and at least the avoidance of basic errors of procedure.
I also note the effective absence of training of the kind so decried by some on here - eg. when we were discussing universities - against bullying and pawing one's colleagues/staff and so on. One key reason for which is to knock away the excuse that "Nobody told me it was wrong."
BREAKING:
Kemi Badenoch’s shadow cabinet has been announced ahead of its first meeting this morning…
💷 Shadow Chancellor - Mel Stride
🚔Shadow Home - Chris Philp
🌍Shadow Foreign - Priti Patel
🪖Shadow Defence - James Cartildge
🏥Shadow Health - Ed Agar
📚Shadow Education - Laura Trott
🤝Shadow Business - Andrew Griffith
🏠Shadow Housing - Kevin Hollinrake
⚖️Shadow Justice - Robert Jenrick
💰Shadow Work & Pensions - Helen Whately
💡Shadow Energy - Claire Coutinho
📟Shadow Science & Tech - Alan Mak
🏴 Shadow Scotland - Andrew Bowie
🇬🇧 Shadow NI - Alex Burghart
🏴Shadow Wales - Mims Davies
🚂Shadow Transport - Gareth Bacon
♻️Shadow Environment - Victoria Atkins
🎭Shadow Culture - Stuart Andrew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHB3JuID-rs
I also mind that win. Very amused by the indignation of the establishment.
and I think once you go beyond the 6 candidates who stood for the leadership, Rishi and Hunt everyone else is going to be in the "who are they" department. The Tories have 120 MPs and many of the ones people know the name of lost their seats..
Can I ask, are you playing devil's advocate and trying to put the alternative arguments as to why he might win to balance the argument, which you do well, or do you also support him?
Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer: Mel Stride MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs: Dame Priti Patel MP
Shadow Home Secretary: Chris Philp MP
Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: Alex Burghart MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Defence: James Cartlidge MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Justice: Robert Jenrick MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Education: Laura Trott MP
Shadow Health and Social Care Secretary: Ed Argar MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities: Kevin Hollinrake MP
Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Victoria Atkins MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade: Andrew Griffith MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and Shadow Minister for Equalities: Claire Coutinho MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Helen Whately MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Transport: Gareth Bacon MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport: Stuart Andrew MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology: Alan Mak MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Shadow Minister of State for Energy and Net Zero: Andrew Bowie MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Wales and Shadow Minister for Women: Mims Davies MP
Opposition Chief Whip (Commons): Dame Rebecca Harris MP
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons: Jesse Norman MP
Shadow Leader of the House of Lords: Lord True
Co-Chairmen of the Party: Nigel Huddleston MP & Lord Johnson
Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury: Richard Fuller MP
Also attending
Parliamentary Private Secretary: Julia Lopez MP
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/nov/05/kemi-badenoch-shadow-cabinet-conservatives-robert-jenrick-priti-patel-uk-politics-live
It answered two.
Full disclosure: I'm +207 if Harris wins, and -£75 if Trump wins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W5aKwrsYIM
It’s f***ing bollocks, mate
It still troubles me to this day that the umpire did nothing when it should have been a red card for violent conduct.
As to the case, should have been a disciplinary for not treating a fellow employee with respect.
The bad news is that it does look awfully light on experience. How many of the bigger names turned offers down, if any? (Tom T isn't on the list, for example). It might well be the best shad cab Badenoch can assemble from the people available, but it doesn't exactly inspire. And if there are some big beasts to return in by-elections (Mordaunt, say), where do they slot in?
it doesn't seem legit.
Mr MM I often disagree with your political views but I have a high regard for your assessment of how elections will go.
I sincerely hope you are right this time.
1. If turnout matches 2020, there are 750,000 votes still to come on the day. We don't know how those people will break. They might very well overturn a 166,000 vote firewall, among early voters.
2. We don't actually know how women in Georgia split. The split might be better than an 11% margin for Harris, or it might be worse. That's a major source of uncertainty.
You say it's not about race, but I would counter that race is always the elephant in the room in Southern State elections, some of which are close to ethnic headcounts.
Companies that poll Georgia might in fact, be quite correct.
Harris will be helped in the blue wall though by the fact inflation in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is below the US average and unemployment in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin is also below the US average too
What I do find quite interesting, following a wide variety of US commentators, that many of the “politically homeless” types are going for Trump this time, which they didn’t do for the last two elections. That’s a lot of what I’ve been sharing on here, as well as the partisan stuff. These people generally voted for Obama in 2012, Hillary or libertarian in 2016, either Biden or libertarian in 2020, and are going to Trump this time on the basis of a both crap libertarian candidate and the wide cross-party group of supporters around Trump, such as RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk, Ron Paul etc.
+297.90 Trump, +318.30 Harris
Betfair
-2.01 Trump, +783.18 Harris (Less premium charge)
Harris ECV / Trump popular
- 5 No, +171.50 Yes (Less PC)
New Mexico
Trump +98, Harris -10 (Less PC)
Trump 179 ECVs or less
Yes +867.30, No -15 (Less PC)
Trump 180 - 209 (StarSports)
Yes +440, No -20
Cashed out Harris + 64.5 ECVs
-2.78 Yes or No (Misunderstood/Ambiguous market)
How much you borrow makes no difference to how much you pay back each month; most will never pay it all back. Some will pay none or almost none.
That's not a great choice - there's no-one prepared to support a Ukrainian victory - but it isn't a hard one.
My real disappointment is that the Europeans, including Britain, have seen this day coming, have seen American hesitancy, and have completely and utterly failed to step up themselves. Many countries are made by war, and if the EU has pretensions to nationhood then this was the moment at which it could create itself as a nation prepared to defend its values, its interests and a future member.
It hasn't happened. The European project is bleeding out in the Russo-Ukraine War with the deaths of pro-Europeans denied the weapons to defend themselves.
In Tallinn, the general view is that unless stabbed in the back by -say- Trump, we can hold out, and a Finnish/Swedish/Norwegian counter attack would leave St Petersburg and Murmansk incredibly vulnerable, while the Poles can handle Kaliningrad and keep the Suwalki gap open. We do not think the Russians can risk it.
By the way, the Baltics were Illegally occupied by the USSR in 1940, were never legitimately part of the Imperium and were never recognised as Soviet by the US, UK and several other states.
The Russian speaking minority in Estonia and Latvia are increasingly ANTI Putin, to the point that they are joining the Estonian army in order to defend against any Putinist incursion. They already saw what happened to the Russian speakers in Ukraine.