Why have people been so reluctant to acknowledge the cost of the covid pandemic? Perhaps the Biden team thought that the economy was so great that they didn't need to?
Counting the costs of the pandemic and the response to it has been unfashionable since day 1.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
Most wives in their 50s aren’t married to the most powerful man in the world with endless exciting foreign travel and glamorous engagements and loads of groveling everywhere. I bet she loves it
Yeah, but she must be baby sitting for half the time. No Donald, don't do that.
Why have people been so reluctant to acknowledge the cost of the covid pandemic? Perhaps the Biden team thought that the economy was so great that they didn't need to?
90% of the world want to forget about covid now. Maybe a brief mention here and there occassionally but psychologically the vast majority want to move on.
@Leon I noted your post earlier where you said you had only been wrong on one thing here. I note others pointing out other occasions where that wasn't true but coincidence would have it that I have just been listening to back broadcasts of More or Less including 11 Sept and they brought up the story of millionaires leaving the country because of Labour. We are argued about it and I think you referred to me as a bit dim.
Well it turns out the story was complete bollocks. The research was nonsense carried out by someone without even the basic knowledge of statistics (who to give him credit came on the show). They looked at linkedin accounts of the super rich (not run of the mill millionaires or even multi millionaires) and of course people who are mobile anyway with homes all over the place. The idiot didn't even understand the concept of a statistical sampling. He pointed out his sample was bigger than many opinion polls and didn't get that it wasn't representative to extrapolate from that the number of millionaires who would leave and in fact it was probably very wrong. He never did get the error because he hadn't a clue about statistics.
To top it all Labour was never mentioned and the poll was done under a Conservative Govt.
You also argued about the supposedly new research on tick and flea medicine impact rivers when a number of us told you it had been a well known fact for years. You stubbornly insisted it was new because Chris Packman said so on Countryfile even though I provided internet links from years before.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
Most misdemeanors don't get charged as felonies for political reasons...
Most failed coups result in prison or execution, but hey some you win, some you lose.
There are 9 local by-elections tomorrow with 5 in Scotland. We have 3 SNP defences in Aberdeenshire and 1 in Moray. There is a Lab defence in Inverclyde and also 1 in Bracknell Forest. The Conservatives are defending in Blackpool and in Wyre. Finally there is a Green defence in Herefordshire.
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
Looking back, it was sheer relief that Biden had gone - the Kamalagasm
Dreadfully misguided in retrospect. She was a painfully weak candidate who only got to where she did coz the Dems were spinelessly blind and in denial about Biden’s dementia
The candidates who could have beaten Trump chose not to stand as they favoured waiting another 4 years. Shame on them.
Not really. Would any of them have beaten Biden in a contested primary ?
And of they had, would it have made any difference ? Whatever advantages they had over Harris might have been offset by the divisions created in the party.
Once Biden decided he was running for a second term, I don't see that there was necessarily a better scenario; an alternative might have been worse.
Fair point. I still say there was an alternative present in which a less unpalatable Dem candidate (Whitmer?) was presented to the electorate, but quite a lot would have had to have gone differently, not least Biden being clear that he was standing for one term only.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
Most misdemeanors don't get charged as felonies for political reasons...
Most failed coups result in prison or execution, but hey some you win, some you lose.
And if they could have proved he attempted a coup they would have done.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
Most wives in their 50s aren’t married to the most powerful man in the world with endless exciting foreign travel and glamorous engagements and loads of groveling everywhere. I bet she loves it
Do you reckon King Charles 3 enjoyed his exciting foreign travel and the glamour and grovelling in Oz recently ?
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Why have people been so reluctant to acknowledge the cost of the covid pandemic? Perhaps the Biden team thought that the economy was so great that they didn't need to?
90% of the world want to forget about covid now. Maybe a brief mention here and there occassionally but psychologically the vast majority want to move on.
But if you're a Democrat and people are nostalgic for how the economy was under Trump why would you not mention it?
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
Looking back, it was sheer relief that Biden had gone - the Kamalagasm
Dreadfully misguided in retrospect. She was a painfully weak candidate who only got to where she did coz the Dems were spinelessly blind and in denial about Biden’s dementia
The candidates who could have beaten Trump chose not to stand as they favoured waiting another 4 years. Shame on them.
Not really. Would any of them have beaten Biden in a contested primary ?
And of they had, would it have made any difference ? Whatever advantages they had over Harris might have been offset by the divisions created in the party.
Once Biden decided he was running for a second term, I don't see that there was necessarily a better scenario; an alternative might have been worse.
Fair point. I still say there was an alternative present in which a less unpalatable Dem candidate (Whitmer?) was presented to the electorate, but quite a lot would have had to have gone differently, not least Biden being clear that he was standing for one term only.
Biden was too stubborn in trying to stay on until it became impossible to deny his age, and the coronation of someone terribly unpopular couldn’t be undone with ‘vibes’.
What is really interesting is that Trump has done well with 18 to 29 year olds.
Same thing has been happening in europe e.g AfD.
I wonder why we have not yet seen that effect here.
There’s clearly a future coalition for Trumpism within younger voters.
At least in part because Farage hasn't (yet) targeted the young, I'd guess. Though could he appeal? Maybe Badenoch could pull that segment to a more mainstream centre-right position.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
The Melania as a hostage wife to Trump is one of the weirdest memes.
She has made her own choices. She chose to marry Trump. We can assume that she's a willing partner.
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
Looking back, it was sheer relief that Biden had gone - the Kamalagasm
Dreadfully misguided in retrospect. She was a painfully weak candidate who only got to where she did coz the Dems were spinelessly blind and in denial about Biden’s dementia
The candidates who could have beaten Trump chose not to stand as they favoured waiting another 4 years. Shame on them.
Not really. Would any of them have beaten Biden in a contested primary ?
And of they had, would it have made any difference ? Whatever advantages they had over Harris might have been offset by the divisions created in the party.
Once Biden decided he was running for a second term, I don't see that there was necessarily a better scenario; an alternative might have been worse.
Fair point. I still say there was an alternative present in which a less unpalatable Dem candidate (Whitmer?) was presented to the electorate, but quite a lot would have had to have gone differently, not least Biden being clear that he was standing for one term only.
Biden was too stubborn in trying to stay on until it became impossible to deny his age, and the coronation of someone terribly unpopular couldn’t be undone with ‘vibes’.
One can blame Biden or one can argue that one of these candidates - Whitmer, Shapiro etc - should have had the guts to force a primary election and then there was a good chance, we now know, that Biden's age would have been revealed in say Feb or March.
Biden should take responsibility for this defeat. Stayed on too long and the Dems had no alternative but to approve an inadequate candidate. The Dems machine should have been talking to him a long time before the end. They saw the same videos that we saw,
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
Most misdemeanors don't get charged as felonies for political reasons...
When a misdemeanour is used to implement a felony in NY, it is a felony. Perhaps he should have avoided tying to manipulate the outcome of an election.
One would expect Chump to know the laws of the State he claims to have been his base for half a century, especially if he employed competent lawyers. But he didn't on both counts; that's down to him.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
OK Rory, but you were confident you were going to be proved right, and you were wrong.
Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK · 2h For the record - I was completely wrong about Kamala Harris. It is heartbreaking that Trump is now the President. https://x.com/RoryStewartUK
The final proof that Kamala was shit was her refusal to do Joe Rogan
By that time it must have been obvious she was in severe danger of losing, and losing partly because she was surprisingly weak with young people, especially men
How do you solve that? Go on Joe Rogan, on his terms, do 3 hours of long chat which may be a disaster but also may charm, persuade and surprise people - esp young men. Trump had the cullions to do it (so did Elon), she did not
She could have changed the game even then, at that late stage. It would have been brave and surprising
But no, she didn’t, out of cowardice she imposed absurd terms Rogan was right to refuse, so she has rightfully lost
What conditions did she impose?
I beleive she wanted Rogan to go to her, and then only for an hour.
Yes, and he rightly said “I never do that, not for anyone, not for Trump, Elon, or Vance, so why for you?” - his whole ethos is that over 3 hours, in his studio, the real person emerges - and he is the most successful podcaster in the world
The Kamala team knew he would refuse, and now their cowardice has served them with defeat
The democrats were trying to get elected on tiktok memes and influencers, which was obviously a flawed idea. You need that plus a whole load of other stuff. Harris was a candidate from another era, it looked like a heavily choreographed act; in contrast the podcasts were a way that the trump campaign gained authenticity and thus appeal to undecided voters.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
You have to net that against his billions of dollars.
I'd already netted the wealth off against the hair, physique and obnoxious personality. That what was just the remaining balance.
But the fact that she IS married to Donald Trump shows the values the wealth and status a bit more than the average wife.
Trump won Catholics by 23% after Kamala was too chicken to attend the Al Smith Dinner.
Biden would have carried the Catholics at least.
This is a election the democrats threw away. Sticking with Biden way too long, and then installing Harris as the defacto canditate when she was no where near good enough.
At least we surivied the last time Trump was president at least. We will do again.
For the democrats to reform after this. 1) Ditch the DEI/woke stuff. it turns the majority off, its as simple as that. You can't win culture wars. 2) Have a response at least for immigration 3) Actually listen to half the country rather than writing them off as racists and bigots.
I expect them to do none of this.
A softer version of this prescription is simply: you have to meet people where they are. If you scold them for not using the “correct” language or having the “correct” views then all you’re actually doing is telling them that you’re not interested in representing them politically. It should not be entirely surprising when these groups end up looking elsewhere for political representation, because all you’ve actually done is tell them that you don’t want them.
You don’t even have to compromise your political principles to do this! To pick a blatantly obvious example: the use of “latinx”. Spanish speakers absolutely /hate/ it: Focus group after focus group confirms this. They’re not averse to the idea behind it, but if you want them to use a gender neutral term like this then you need to use one that at least sounds like it might be Spanish. Latinx grates on the ears of every Spanish speaker & being told that they are bad people for not using it just confirms that you don’t care about their views one iota & if you don’t care to listen to them about this, then you’re clearly not going to listen to them about anything else, are you?
The left have a giant weak spot with this and they show very little signs of doing anything about it.
I don’t think that “woke” stuff wins or loses elections by itself, but it can feed into the perception among everyday voters that the left are not on their side (as they are consistently gaslit into being told that are unreasonable or beyond-the-pale), and therefore helps amplify the messaging of the political right among those groups.
Today is a historic 'event' day that raises huge questions on the US relationships across the globe, tariffs, climate change, immigration, and many other issues not least defence spending including in the UK
Whenever predictions are made in politics never forget 'events' occur to entirely change the narrative
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
Looking back, it was sheer relief that Biden had gone - the Kamalagasm
Dreadfully misguided in retrospect. She was a painfully weak candidate who only got to where she did coz the Dems were spinelessly blind and in denial about Biden’s dementia
The candidates who could have beaten Trump chose not to stand as they favoured waiting another 4 years. Shame on them.
Not really. Would any of them have beaten Biden in a contested primary ?
And of they had, would it have made any difference ? Whatever advantages they had over Harris might have been offset by the divisions created in the party.
Once Biden decided he was running for a second term, I don't see that there was necessarily a better scenario; an alternative might have been worse.
Fair point. I still say there was an alternative present in which a less unpalatable Dem candidate (Whitmer?) was presented to the electorate, but quite a lot would have had to have gone differently, not least Biden being clear that he was standing for one term only.
Oh, I acknowledge things might have been different had Biden voluntarily announced he wasn't running again, before the primaries. I was one of those who shorted him as nominee long before the primaries (which was a very costly error).
But once he decided he was running again, how it played out was pretty well unavoidable, I think. Which is what I said when he announced.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
Christ on a bike.
My bet on Harris was because the priors were conflicting (High female early vote; beneficial to the GOP registration), she was odds against and without the information we now know (Men got out to vote on the day) she was likely the value at higher than even money !
Should have just lumped on Trump given Rory's record lol.
What is really interesting is that Trump has done well with 18 to 29 year olds.
Specifically, younger people without degrees - people who see immigrants taking jobs, crime rising in cities, and hate the excessive wokery.
Dems have to get back to winning the non-college voters.
God knows who will be able to do this for them. Assuming there is some kind of free and fair election in 2028. Perhaps someone none of us has have ever heard of - out in the sticks - like Clinton in 92?
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
You have to net that against his billions of dollars.
I'd already netted the wealth off against the hair, physique and obnoxious personality. That what was just the remaining balance.
But the fact that she IS married to Donald Trump shows the values the wealth and status a bit more than the average wife.
Yeah, must admit surprised she hasn't gone for a divorce by now.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
The Melania as a hostage wife to Trump is one of the weirdest memes.
She has made her own choices. She chose to marry Trump. We can assume that she's a willing partner.
In more searching-for-silver-linings news, at least we get to see her batsh*t insane Christmas decor again…
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
Christ on a bike.
My bet on Harris was because the priors were conflicting (High female early vote; beneficial to the GOP registration), she was odds against and without the information we now know (Men got out to vote on the day) she was likely the value at higher than even money !
Should have just lumped on Trump given Rory's record lol.
I still think those of us who have lost a fair few £ were right in that she was the value bet at the time.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
Hopium, not analysis.
I think these are the kind of issues I mentioned below, and last month.
Without wanting o blow my own trumpet excessively, as I was also amongst those of us who thought things had moved back towards her somewhat in the last week or two, as I mentioned then, democracy against populism is a much more abstract, less emotionally charged brand of hope compared to what Trump was offering. When added to aggression and contempt, too, emotionally you've won.
Also on Youtube it will be interesting how the anti-Trump Meidas Touch network relaunch themselves. For now they've gone quiet.
Having built an audience of 3.5m subscribers, they will not close down.
I'd say they will pivot to a long-term struggle for Usonian democracy, with a focus on whatever coach and fours Trump will try to drive through the Constitution and the Law, plus whatever corrupt shenanigans he and his appointees get up to this time round.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
You have to net that against his billions of dollars.
I'd already netted the wealth off against the hair, physique and obnoxious personality. That what was just the remaining balance.
But the fact that she IS married to Donald Trump shows the values the wealth and status a bit more than the average wife.
Yeah, must admit surprised she hasn't gone for a divorce by now.
Today is a historic 'event' day that raises huge questions on the US relationships across the globe, tariffs, climate change, immigration, and many other issues not least defence spending including in the UK
Whenever predictions are made in politics never forget 'events' occur to entirely change the narrative
It's certainly gonna blow Reeve's budget to pieces if Trump 2.0 actually carries out the articulated plans.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
The Poles, possibly. But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
You have to net that against his billions of dollars.
I'd already netted the wealth off against the hair, physique and obnoxious personality. That what was just the remaining balance.
But the fact that she IS married to Donald Trump shows the values the wealth and status a bit more than the average wife.
Yeah, must admit surprised she hasn't gone for a divorce by now.
Some time ago I did wonder whether Boris's endorsement of Trump might, at least in part, be a hedge against a Trump win. So that there was at least one pro- Ukrainian who might gain an audience. Just a thought.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
Christ on a bike.
My bet on Harris was because the priors were conflicting (High female early vote; beneficial to the GOP registration), she was odds against and without the information we now know (Men got out to vote on the day) she was likely the value at higher than even money !
Should have just lumped on Trump given Rory's record lol.
I still think those of us who have lost a fair few £ were right in that she was the value bet at the time.
Still, the caravan moves on.
Yes. I lost loads on Trump in 2016, and definitely made some stupid overconfident bets. Could have cashed out on the night for a big profit. But this time I think Harris was a value lower.
As I have said previously I am not au fait on US politics so can someone tell me what happens next in the process to install Trump in office?
You were very confident in a Harris victory, but now you know fuck all about US politics?
I was, so maybe that confirms why I know little about US politics
I am amazed and like so many was blind sided maybe by Harris's hype
The initial enthusiasm for Harris was confected. Hindsight and all that.
Looking back, it was sheer relief that Biden had gone - the Kamalagasm
Dreadfully misguided in retrospect. She was a painfully weak candidate who only got to where she did coz the Dems were spinelessly blind and in denial about Biden’s dementia
The candidates who could have beaten Trump chose not to stand as they favoured waiting another 4 years. Shame on them.
Not really. Would any of them have beaten Biden in a contested primary ?
And of they had, would it have made any difference ? Whatever advantages they had over Harris might have been offset by the divisions created in the party.
Once Biden decided he was running for a second term, I don't see that there was necessarily a better scenario; an alternative might have been worse.
Fair point. I still say there was an alternative present in which a less unpalatable Dem candidate (Whitmer?) was presented to the electorate, but quite a lot would have had to have gone differently, not least Biden being clear that he was standing for one term only.
Biden was too stubborn in trying to stay on until it became impossible to deny his age, and the coronation of someone terribly unpopular couldn’t be undone with ‘vibes’.
One can blame Biden or one can argue that one of these candidates - Whitmer, Shapiro etc - should have had the guts to force a primary election and then there was a good chance, we now know, that Biden's age would have been revealed in say Feb or March.
My gas supply is restored, and heating is back on.
Good news.
I'm recovering from what I think is a nasty muscle pull on the side of my trunk. Coughing fit in bed - moved to spare bed so it may have been dust, followed by being unable to sit up without considerable pain. I had to go straight to maximum regime codeine/paracetamol to sleep, never mind get up.
it's sort of less painful 3 days later, but it's going to take a week to recover fully.
Last time I did one of these back in 2020 or so I was flat on my back for more than a week, and thought I had cracked a rib.
Sympathies - it sounds as though you're on the mend, at least. One needs to watch out for reasons once one's over 50 - 9 times out of 10 it's a passing random thing, but it doesn't do to overlook the occasional warning.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
The Poles, possibly. But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
Hopium, not analysis.
I think these are the kind of issues I mentioned below, and last month.
Without wanting o blow my own trumpet excessively, as I was also amongst those of us who thought things had moved back towards her somewhat in the last week or two, as I mentioned then, democracy against populism is a much more abstract, less emotionally charged brand of hope compared to what Trump was offering. When added to aggression and contempt, too, emotionally you've won.
They missed the problem with going on about democracy, when you had dodged the primaries to get appointed as your opponent had clearly won his nomination the old-fashioned way.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
OK Rory, but you were confident you were going to be proved right, and you were wrong.
If Rory had said, "this is what I'm hoping for, but I haven't a clue", all well and good.
What Rory did was dress up his wishful thinking as serious analysis, when he actually hadn't a clue.
I can’t be too harsh on him. I, too, predicted a Harris win, though I would like to hope that wishcasting wasn’t a factor on my side. I did genuinely believe we were seeing a polling error, picked up by Selzer, and that 2022 would hold and the abortion issue would be a big decider on the day. I did not pay enough attention to the economy, or at least I felt that the issue, while salient, had been neutralised by the Harris team somewhat.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
You have to net that against his billions of dollars.
I'd already netted the wealth off against the hair, physique and obnoxious personality. That what was just the remaining balance.
But the fact that she IS married to Donald Trump shows the values the wealth and status a bit more than the average wife.
Yeah, must admit surprised she hasn't gone for a divorce by now.
Maybe she actually likes him?
They don't spend much time together. I suspect that is one of the things she likes most about him.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
You have to net that against his billions of dollars.
I'd already netted the wealth off against the hair, physique and obnoxious personality. That what was just the remaining balance.
But the fact that she IS married to Donald Trump shows the values the wealth and status a bit more than the average wife.
Yeah, must admit surprised she hasn't gone for a divorce by now.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
The Poles, possibly. But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
The Poles are building Europe's strongest army.
And some Germans are reacting hilariously. At a recent security conference (multi lateral), German delegates were upset by the Poles not just following the German (EU) line.
@Leon I noted your post earlier where you said you had only been wrong on one thing here. I note others pointing out other occasions where that wasn't true but coincidence would have it that I have just been listening to back broadcasts of More or Less including 11 Sept and they brought up the story of millionaires leaving the country because of Labour. We are argued about it and I think you referred to me as a bit dim.
Well it turns out the story was complete bollocks. The research was nonsense carried out by someone without even the basic knowledge of statistics (who to give him credit came on the show). They looked at linkedin accounts of the super rich (not run of the mill millionaires or even multi millionaires) and of course people who are mobile anyway with homes all over the place. The idiot didn't even understand the concept of a statistical sampling. He pointed out his sample was bigger than many opinion polls and didn't get that it wasn't representative to extrapolate from that the number of millionaires who would leave and in fact it was probably very wrong. He never did get the error because he hadn't a clue about statistics.
To top it all Labour was never mentioned and the poll was done under a Conservative Govt.
You also argued about the supposedly new research on tick and flea medicine impact rivers when a number of us told you it had been a well known fact for years. You stubbornly insisted it was new because Chris Packman said so on Countryfile even though I provided internet links from years before.
And aside from the huge tit he has just made of himself, his podcast is super-cringe. It reminds me of the Spitting Image puppets of Davids Owen and Steele with one in the other's pocket.
The whole thing revolves around that a*****le Campbell saying something leftist and idiotic and inflammatory and Stewart saying "yes Alastair how clever Alastair absolutely Alastair".
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
The Poles, possibly. But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
he is planning to finish it by 7th january, maybe if tired after inaugruation he will leave it till teh 8th.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
OK Rory, but you were confident you were going to be proved right, and you were wrong.
Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK · 2h For the record - I was completely wrong about Kamala Harris. It is heartbreaking that Trump is now the President. https://x.com/RoryStewartUK
I like Rory a lot but the problem is that he (and people like him, ie the entire political class) have absolutely no realistic and implementable solutions that will even vaguely change the direction of travel in to decline and failure. There comes a point where you have to 'try something else', even if the alternative is superficially horrifying, because it has a chance of working; and as I see it that is where we are with Trump.
I keep using Ukraine as the example because it is something I pay very close attention to. No one can admit that this situation is bad and either the strategy has failed (that Russia is to be beaten), or just pure evil (sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men in a war of attrition for vaguely defined geopolitical puroposes), or just that there is no strategy at all, but the political class have nothing to say about it, it is just business as usual.
Today is a historic 'event' day that raises huge questions on the US relationships across the globe, tariffs, climate change, immigration, and many other issues not least defence spending including in the UK
Whenever predictions are made in politics never forget 'events' occur to entirely change the narrative
It's certainly gonna blow Reeve's budget to pieces if Trump 2.0 actually carries out the articulated plans.
I think the implications for defence will be a big change. We have already had a modest boost to the Defence budget, but I think it will perhaps need far more significant resources with a focus on resilience against anything Trump or future Presidents might do.
I'll be interested in what happens to GCAP in relation to further European and Asian countries.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
You have to net that against his billions of dollars.
I'd already netted the wealth off against the hair, physique and obnoxious personality. That what was just the remaining balance.
But the fact that she IS married to Donald Trump shows the values the wealth and status a bit more than the average wife.
Yeah, must admit surprised she hasn't gone for a divorce by now.
Maybe she actually likes him?
There's plenty of evidence she doesn't, including her absence from pretty much all the campaign trail. But she married him when she must have had a reasonable idea what he was like and he's in his late 70s now. She seems willing enough to endure what she doesn't like for the benefits, and is in a good place to play the long game.
The US is starting to wake up. Will be an interesting few hours.
Not much. It was a clear and convincing victory. Nothing to argue about. The trouble will start if he does what he has threatened to do. But that will be next year.
Everything I can see initially is that it’s the economy.
I don’t see how any Democrat candidate would have been able to turn that around.
But that analysis absolves the Democrats if any agency, or any blame on their own defeat.
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
Clearly the Democrats are to blame. Harris didn’t articulate an argument on the economy which Trump did.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
And aside from the huge tit he has just made of himself, his podcast is super-cringe. It reminds me of the Spitting Image puppets of Davids Owen and Steele with one in the other's pocket.
The whole thing revolves around that a*****le Campbell saying something leftist and idiotic and inflammatory and Stewart saying "yes Alastair how clever Alastair absolutely Alastair".
There's a huge market for it. I have otherwise-sensible family members who have paid money to see them live.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
The Poles, possibly. But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
@Leon I noted your post earlier where you said you had only been wrong on one thing here. I note others pointing out other occasions where that wasn't true but coincidence would have it that I have just been listening to back broadcasts of More or Less including 11 Sept and they brought up the story of millionaires leaving the country because of Labour. We are argued about it and I think you referred to me as a bit dim.
Well it turns out the story was complete bollocks. The research was nonsense carried out by someone without even the basic knowledge of statistics (who to give him credit came on the show). They looked at linkedin accounts of the super rich (not run of the mill millionaires or even multi millionaires) and of course people who are mobile anyway with homes all over the place. The idiot didn't even understand the concept of a statistical sampling. He pointed out his sample was bigger than many opinion polls and didn't get that it wasn't representative to extrapolate from that the number of millionaires who would leave and in fact it was probably very wrong. He never did get the error because he hadn't a clue about statistics.
To top it all Labour was never mentioned and the poll was done under a Conservative Govt.
You also argued about the supposedly new research on tick and flea medicine impact rivers when a number of us told you it had been a well known fact for years. You stubbornly insisted it was new because Chris Packman said so on Countryfile even though I provided internet links from years before.
Trump won Catholics by 23% after Kamala was too chicken to attend the Al Smith Dinner.
Biden would have carried the Catholics at least.
This is a election the democrats threw away. Sticking with Biden way too long, and then installing Harris as the defacto canditate when she was no where near good enough.
At least we surivied the last time Trump was president at least. We will do again.
For the democrats to reform after this. 1) Ditch the DEI/woke stuff. it turns the majority off, its as simple as that. You can't win culture wars. 2) Have a response at least for immigration 3) Actually listen to half the country rather than writing them off as racists and bigots.
I expect them to do none of this.
A softer version of this prescription is simply: you have to meet people where they are. If you scold them for not using the “correct” language or having the “correct” views then all you’re actually doing is telling them that you’re not interested in representing them politically. It should not be entirely surprising when these groups end up looking elsewhere for political representation, because all you’ve actually done is tell them that you don’t want them.
You don’t even have to compromise your political principles to do this! To pick a blatantly obvious example: the use of “latinx”. Spanish speakers absolutely /hate/ it: Focus group after focus group confirms this. They’re not averse to the idea behind it, but if you want them to use a gender neutral term like this then you need to use one that at least sounds like it might be Spanish. Latinx grates on the ears of every Spanish speaker & being told that they are bad people for not using it just confirms that you don’t care about their views one iota & if you don’t care to listen to them about this, then you’re clearly not going to listen to them about anything else, are you?
The left have a giant weak spot with this and they show very little signs of doing anything about it.
I don’t think that “woke” stuff wins or loses elections by itself, but it can feed into the perception among everyday voters that the left are not on their side (as they are consistently gaslit into being told that are unreasonable or beyond-the-pale), and therefore helps amplify the messaging of the political right among those groups.
It's a basic how to make friends and influence people sort of thing.
Today is a historic 'event' day that raises huge questions on the US relationships across the globe, tariffs, climate change, immigration, and many other issues not least defence spending including in the UK
Whenever predictions are made in politics never forget 'events' occur to entirely change the narrative
Yes. The last remnants of the post-1989 world have been buried. Yesterday might also mark the end of the post-1945 world.
Unsettling and worrying. What comes after will not be built by men (and it will be men) of goodwill.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
OK Rory, but you were confident you were going to be proved right, and you were wrong.
If Rory had said, "this is what I'm hoping for, but I haven't a clue", all well and good.
What Rory did was dress up his wishful thinking as serious analysis, when he actually hadn't a clue.
I can’t be too harsh on him. I, too, predicted a Harris win, though I would like to hope that wishcasting wasn’t a factor on my side. I did genuinely believe we were seeing a polling error, picked up by Selzer, and that 2022 would hold and the abortion issue would be a big decider on the day. I did not pay enough attention to the economy, or at least I felt that the issue, while salient, had been neutralised by the Harris team somewhat.
I think that 2022 was widely misinterpreted.
The Republicans enjoyed a lead of 3% over the Democrats, nationwide. That was in line with the polling, and a decentish result. But, it resulted in a far smaller lead (9 seats), than one would typically expect, due to defensive targeting, some defensive gerrymandering, and some loopy Republican candidates in marginal seats.
Likewise, the Republicans missed some Senate and Gubernatorial races due to choosing loopy candidates.
But, the polling was generally accurate, and the overall level of Republican support was there.
I am genuinely surprised anyone is surprised by this result - except, perhaps, by how big it is. Trump owned the fundamentals and most American voters like what he represents. He now controls all levers of power in the US so we will get to see what Trumpism is - and whether it works.
I would be surprised if the full fat tariff plan came in because whatever its long term benefits (dubious) in the short term it will cause a lot of pain to US consumers. What's more, while the US market is very big, the plutocrats who stand behind Trump need bigger markets in order to thrive. People like Elon Musk cannot afford major trade wars.
The empowerment of Putin and the betrayal of Ukraine is different. If that happens, a new and very dangerous chapter in world history opens up. Any analysis of Europe's options that does not factor in Orbán and Fico - and the veto power they currently have inside the EU and NATO - is not worth the paper it's written on. People foolish enough to to fantasise about some sudden European awakening need to wake up. We failed to plan for the high likelihood of a Trump return, we’ll fail to react to it too. Until there’s an actual war, short-term political interest always trumps (geddit) the long-term good. In the UK and everywhere else.
Then you haven't been reading PB too much as few would countenance any thoughts of Trump winning despite many people (me, @rcs1000) posting article upon article explaining Trump's appeal to the masses, usually to much opprobrium.
I have not been on here much but when I have been I have always been surprised people were bullish about Trump losing. I never was. I agree that US voters have agency and they like what Trump is and what he stands for. That never really seemed in much doubt to me. I have always been much more puzzled by his cheerleaders in the UK as the policies he advocates run so contrary to our interests. The claim was he never really meant what he said. Well, now we get to find out. I suspect the tariffs will be less consequential than threatened, if they happen at all; but the abandonment of Ukraine and empowerment of Putin remains a serious concern.
What has Trump said about Ukraine?
Peace on Day One.
Needs a bit of unpicking or are we saying that Peace is not a good thing. And that people should go on fighting because they believe the enemy and the threat of the enemy is such that they must continue.
She's going to have to stand and grin for another few years, unless she has an opt-out clause.
Well, she was beaming with fierce and sincere delight on stage in Fla when Trump made his victory speech
How old is she? 50s? I can imagine she is genuinely overjoyed. She gets to be First Lady all over again, her kids will be the president’s kids again (with all the benefits), her husband avoids jail (inter alia), her fame and income will only multiply. Most wives in their 50s would take that very very happily, as against the alternatives
Most wives in their 50s also aren't married to a narcissist, 78 year old nappy wearing felon.
You have to net that against his billions of dollars.
I'd already netted the wealth off against the hair, physique and obnoxious personality. That what was just the remaining balance.
But the fact that she IS married to Donald Trump shows the values the wealth and status a bit more than the average wife.
Yeah, must admit surprised she hasn't gone for a divorce by now.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
The Poles, possibly. But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
Incidentally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if, now they've won by trans-bashing, that gay-bashing becomes the next thing in the mind of the religious and wider right. Homophobia's never really disappeared, and they're a minority that's traditionally had many problems being accepted.
I really hope I'm wrong, but such people always need a group to hate on. After immigrants, gay people?
Anything is possible. Against it would be the favourite for Sec of State (also in running for NSA) is Ric Grenell, openly gay. If it happens its probably over a 10-20 year cycle rather than in this term.
A little lesson from history: some Jewish groups, such as the German Vanguard and the German Nazi Jews Association, supported the Nazis during their rise to power. Only to later get outlawed and many members put into the camps. Both groups disliked Marxism and Communism more than they feared Hitler's rhetoric against communists and other groups.
Members of minority groups supporting harsh words and actions against other minority groups should consider this.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
OK Rory, but you were confident you were going to be proved right, and you were wrong.
If Rory had said, "this is what I'm hoping for, but I haven't a clue", all well and good.
What Rory did was dress up his wishful thinking as serious analysis, when he actually hadn't a clue.
I can’t be too harsh on him. I, too, predicted a Harris win, though I would like to hope that wishcasting wasn’t a factor on my side. I did genuinely believe we were seeing a polling error, picked up by Selzer, and that 2022 would hold and the abortion issue would be a big decider on the day. I did not pay enough attention to the economy, or at least I felt that the issue, while salient, had been neutralised by the Harris team somewhat.
I think that 2022 was widely misinterpreted.
The Republicans enjoyed a lead of 3% over the Democrats, nationwide. That was in line with the polling, and a decentish result. But, it resulted in a far smaller lead (9 seats), than one would typically expect, due to defensive targeting, some defensive gerrymandering, and some loopy Republican candidates in marginal seats.
Likewise, the Republicans missed some Senate and Gubernatorial races due to choosing loopy candidates.
But, the polling was generally accurate, and the overall level of Republican support was there.
That was probably the tipping point. If there'd be a greater loss of Democratic seats, then Biden wouldn't have gone for a second term.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
OK Rory, but you were confident you were going to be proved right, and you were wrong.
Rory Stewart @RoryStewartUK · 2h For the record - I was completely wrong about Kamala Harris. It is heartbreaking that Trump is now the President. https://x.com/RoryStewartUK
Seeing those 2 Rory Stewart remarks in quick succession suggests the thoughts do follow each other, in which case, it wasn't Kamala Harris he was wrong about, it was the American people.
On Ukraine, which everyone says they fear for now that The Donald is in charge. And some have hoped that the UK "steps up" in place of the US which of course is an instant LOL.
Let's try to take the Putin-appeaser, coward, you're just like Chamberlain bit out and see where we are.
Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate (not having followed every platoon attack and company advance, as some on here were at one point).
With people dying.
Now, I have always said that it is up to the people of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine only as to when or if they decide to negotiate a peace and I still hold to that.
But, at some point the question has to be asked whether it might be better to negotiate a settlement based upon what people want to happen, together with what is happening on the ground.
And of all the POTUSs I think Trump, or his team, might be the person to push that forward.
You may hate the idea but it is logical and consistent to do so.
Same with the Middle East, for that matter.
"Without substantial western aid it looks as though we are more or less in a stalemate"?
With substantial western aid we're more or less in a stalemate!
Without substantial western aid Ukraine will lose, and it will be very bloody.
It's hard to see why Putin would agree to a ceasefire at this point. He must hope that Kharkiv is now obtainable.
What leverage does Trump have over Putin?
I think Putin would probably take a deal with the current territory + Ukraine controlled Kursk. Capturing Kharkiv would not be easy at all.
Putin's made it very clear that, at a minimum, he wants full control of all the oblasts his army holds some of. Which not only means handing him that territory, but lots of territory that Ukraine currently holds. I wouldn't be surprises if he wants Odessa and a land bridge to it and Transnistria as well, turning Ukraine into a landlocked country.
I don't think he budge from those aims. Why should he?
There are plenty of reasons why not, most obviously that he will struggle to impose them on the battlefield, that he's running out of ways to recruit new soldiers, that his casualty rates are appalling and that his economy is overheating. But I agree that he's likely to still try for them.
Trump said he'd easily get peace. but not how he'd get it. He dislikes Big Z and Ukraine. The GOP have stifled weapons supply to Ukraine.
The Trump administration may give Ukraine no choice except to accept, especially if Europe and the rest of the world does not step up. It wouldn't be the first time that major powers have split up smaller countries without those countries' say-so.
The sad thing is, it would not be a lasting peace. Not at all.
Indeed. Europe, including the UK, absolutely needs to step up. However, I see few signs of it doing so. Its leaders prefer to cocoon themselves in wishful thinking and turn their heads away from the threats which assail them because they're too difficult, they're not sure if there's the domestic support for what needs doing, and international structures and relationships would need changing in a way inconvenient to the timescales they're accustomed to.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
The Poles, possibly. But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
The Germans need to rid themselves of the Scholz coalition asap. They need a credible leader who Trump will give the time of day to. The Scholz approach is now a proven failure in terms of European security. Timidity doesnt hack it.
The US is starting to wake up. Will be an interesting few hours.
Not much. It was a clear and convincing victory. Nothing to argue about. The trouble will start if he does what he has threatened to do. But that will be next year.
I'm not suggesting widespread civil unrest or something. Just what kind of narrative starts to develop on platforms like Reddit; how does the left respond?
The big issue, I'd guess, is the gender voting divide. If Trump (or more likely, Vance) makes noises on abortion then the Gilead chat will dominate the discourse. I also think we forget how much smaller an issue Ukraine is in the US compared to here.
Anyway, on to PMQs. Looking forward to seeing how Kemi approaches it. First really interesting new matchup since Boris v Corbyn I think (turned into a bit of a damp squib, but it was interesting to see how Boris would play it).
Comments
Must wear you out eventually.
Well it turns out the story was complete bollocks. The research was nonsense carried out by someone without even the basic knowledge of statistics (who to give him credit came on the show). They looked at linkedin accounts of the super rich (not run of the mill millionaires or even multi millionaires) and of course people who are mobile anyway with homes all over the place. The idiot didn't even understand the concept of a statistical sampling. He pointed out his sample was bigger than many opinion polls and didn't get that it wasn't representative to extrapolate from that the number of millionaires who would leave and in fact it was probably very wrong. He never did get the error because he hadn't a clue about statistics.
To top it all Labour was never mentioned and the poll was done under a Conservative Govt.
So you got that spectacularly wrong @Leon
You also argued about the supposedly new research on tick and flea medicine impact rivers when a number of us told you it had been a well known fact for years. You stubbornly insisted it was new because Chris Packman said so on Countryfile even though I provided internet links from years before.
There are none so blind.....
Trump is master of all he surveys right now.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/presidential-election-2024-red-shift.html
Didn't seem like it.
There’s clearly a future coalition for Trumpism within younger voters.
Plus of course massively impacted by big increases in food and rent.
Who exactly in Europe is in a position to take the lead? Or has the character, conviction and support to be able to do so? It's dismal.
My bet on Harris was a "bet on the american people, on democracy, a bet against populism; it was a bet on hope"
If a Democrat Governor had run on an anti-status quo platform then the Democrats might have escaped Biden's legacy. Or the Democrats might have won the argument as to why Trump's policies would make things worse. Or they might have had better policies for making the next four years better.
Cameron's Conservatives were able to win the 2015GE, despite austerity, because they won the political argument over why it was necessary, and they credibly explained why it would lead to a better future. Successful political campaigns come down to successful messaging. The Democrats didn't have a winning message.
Inflation certainly made their job harder, but defeat was never inevitable.
She has made her own choices. She chose to marry Trump. We can assume that she's a willing partner.
LBJ faced a primary.
One would expect Chump to know the laws of the State he claims to have been his base for half a century, especially if he employed competent lawyers. But he didn't on both counts; that's down to him.
@RoryStewartUK
·
2h
For the record - I was completely wrong about Kamala Harris. It is heartbreaking that Trump is now the President.
https://x.com/RoryStewartUK
To me its simpler, prices went up massively and they blamed the govt and establishment.
William Hague also looks like an utter twat (sorry, more of one).
I don’t think that “woke” stuff wins or loses elections by itself, but it can feed into the perception among everyday voters that the left are not on their side (as they are consistently gaslit into being told that are unreasonable or beyond-the-pale), and therefore helps amplify the messaging of the political right among those groups.
Whenever predictions are made in politics never forget 'events' occur to entirely change the narrative
I was one of those who shorted him as nominee long before the primaries (which was a very costly error).
But once he decided he was running again, how it played out was pretty well unavoidable, I think. Which is what I said when he announced.
My bet on Harris was because the priors were conflicting (High female early vote; beneficial to the GOP registration), she was odds against and without the information we now know (Men got out to vote on the day) she was likely the value at higher than even money !
Should have just lumped on Trump given Rory's record lol.
God knows who will be able to do this for them. Assuming there is some kind of free and fair election in 2028. Perhaps someone none of us has have ever heard of - out in the sticks - like Clinton in 92?
What Rory did was dress up his wishful thinking as serious analysis, when he actually hadn't a clue.
Still, the caravan moves on.
Without wanting o blow my own trumpet excessively, as I was also amongst those of us who thought things had moved back towards her somewhat in the last week or two, as I mentioned then, democracy against populism is a much more abstract, less emotionally charged brand of hope compared to what Trump was offering. When added to aggression and contempt, too, emotionally you've won.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjfEJIVSgkI
Also on Youtube it will be interesting how the anti-Trump Meidas Touch network relaunch themselves. For now they've gone quiet.
Having built an audience of 3.5m subscribers, they will not close down.
I'd say they will pivot to a long-term struggle for Usonian democracy, with a focus on whatever coach and fours Trump will try to drive through the Constitution and the Law, plus whatever corrupt shenanigans he and his appointees get up to this time round.
I expect the government is already seeking out tickets for the next Kid Rock concert at Wembley.
But they don't have the weight of either Germany or France, without whom nothing really significant can happen.
And aside from the huge tit he has just made of himself, his podcast is super-cringe. It reminds me of the Spitting Image puppets of Davids Owen and Steele with one in the other's pocket.
The whole thing revolves around that a*****le Campbell saying something leftist and idiotic and inflammatory and Stewart saying "yes Alastair how clever Alastair absolutely Alastair".
I keep using Ukraine as the example because it is something I pay very close attention to. No one can admit that this situation is bad and either the strategy has failed (that Russia is to be beaten), or just pure evil (sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men in a war of attrition for vaguely defined geopolitical puroposes), or just that there is no strategy at all, but the political class have nothing to say about it, it is just business as usual.
I'll be interested in what happens to GCAP in relation to further European and Asian countries.
Which governor could have run and done better so you think?
Unsettling and worrying. What comes after will not be built by men (and it will be men) of goodwill.
The Republicans enjoyed a lead of 3% over the Democrats, nationwide. That was in line with the polling, and a decentish result. But, it resulted in a far smaller lead (9 seats), than one would typically expect, due to defensive targeting, some defensive gerrymandering, and some loopy Republican candidates in marginal seats.
Likewise, the Republicans missed some Senate and Gubernatorial races due to choosing loopy candidates.
But, the polling was generally accurate, and the overall level of Republican support was there.
Members of minority groups supporting harsh words and actions against other minority groups should consider this.
If there'd be a greater loss of Democratic seats, then Biden wouldn't have gone for a second term.
The big issue, I'd guess, is the gender voting divide. If Trump (or more likely, Vance) makes noises on abortion then the Gilead chat will dominate the discourse. I also think we forget how much smaller an issue Ukraine is in the US compared to here.