Howdy, Stranger!

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

Going for the pro Trump UK voters was courageous from Badenoch – politicalbetting.com

124678

Comments

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061

    For some light, or serious, relief, depending on how one views such things, the blind "Balkan Nostradamus", Baba Vanga, also had some interesting thoughts on next year.

    Her record was as bizarrely patchy the original Nostradamus, accurately predicting that the 44fh American President would be an African American, for instance, but she also thought he would be last one.

    Her thoughts for next year do catch the eye, though. "There will be contact with extraterrestrials and telepathy will become a reality."

    Either bizarrely or amusingly, this would happen at "a major sporting event."

    Superbowl is 20 days after 47's inauguration.
    There you go.
    Forget that.

    The World Economic Forum in Davos begins on inauguration.

    I’ll be PB’s man on the spot.
    Lol, WEF are so yesterday's wankers
    They seem incapable of engaging with the world as it is, rather than how they'd like it to be.
    They are strange, unlikeable people in general. SKS loves them
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,388
    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652

    HYUFD said:

    SNAP POLL / 57% of Britons are unhappy about Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election

    Very unhappy: 45%
    Fairly unhappy: 12%
    Neither happy nor unhappy: 19%
    Fairly happy: 9%
    Very happy: 11%

    52% of Reform voters are happy with Trump's win however
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1854171492000334303

    Not a great surprise. Badenoch needs to be very careful.
    I used to think it would cause Trump problems with being chummy with Potion, given the historic antipathy of the Republicans to Russia. But Trump wasn't careful about it and he changed the minds of Republican supporters.

    We have to be careful not to take the public's views as fixed. Given the antipathy towards Labour from Tories she might succeed in changing people's views were she to tie antipathy to Trump to bring a Labour point of view. If she wanted to.

    It's possible the public mood could change. But if it were me I would be very cautious about going all in before we know what Trump 2.0 actually looks like. For example, if you are giving too much support to a man who has imposed significant tariffs on UK exports and made Europe even more vulnerable to Putin, it may not come across well. Of course, if he doesn't do those things it's another matter - but it will also be good news for the government.

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Sandpit said:

    If Trump is actually serious about taking on the vested interests, with things like banning the pharma companies from advertising on TV, will it be Elon Musk that covers all of the massive pharma donations that the Reps and Senators get from that industry?

    It will be... interesting to see what of Trump's "plans" actually now happen. A ban on pharma companies advertising on TV would be welcome, but I imagine would hit 1st Amendment challenges.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874

    HYUFD said:

    @JustinTrudeau
    Congratulations to Donald Trump on being elected President of the United States.

    The friendship between Canada and the U.S. is the envy of the world. I know President Trump and I will work together to create more opportunity, prosperity, and security for both of our nations.

    @EmmanuelMacron
    ·
    6h
    Congratulations, President
    @realDonaldTrump
    . Ready to work together as we did for four years. With your convictions and mine. With respect and ambition. For more peace and prosperity.

    Until the Canadian Libs do a '93 very soon then Trudeau is gone, baby
    I think he will lose but the gap has narrowed a bit in recent polls and Canadians don't like following the US so he will try and pitch himself as an anti Trump leader more than Poilievre to try and stop a Conservative majority
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    Looks like the Dems will hang onto the senate seats in WI and MI. Not clear about PA yet. It would be quite something if they managed to keep the senate seats in the blue wall states despite Harris losing all three.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874
    Phil said:

    The Labour position on IHT on farming is so bizarre that they haven't thought through their own lack of logic.

    They posit there is a £22bn black hole NOW, so they will change the IHT rules in 2026. Now probate takes about a year so no estates will be finalised for IHT before April 2027. BUT "we will give them 10 years to pay", and "3/4 won't pay anything in any case". So by their own logic it will raise 1/4 of fuck all in 13 years time ??? Of course this is unlikely to be true.

    No one has spotted the excellent point by KB slipped in but enormously reassuring. In effect the tax which is outstanding at the change of government will be set aside. This has to be so because of end effects and she might not have meant to say it. But Reform Conservatives and Lib Dems will all be committed to that stance in May 2028.

    Farmers should be pleased by the IHT changes: They get to pass on their land tax free to their heirs by simply giving it to them shortly after retiring whilst the price of farmland drops because eejits like Dyson & Clarkson no longer have any incentive to buy up vast swathes of agricultural land for the tax benefits, which in turn means the farming community might be able to afford to buy land to farm. Win win all round methinks.
    Not when the average farm is worth £2.5 million
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,983
    HYUFD said:



    @EmmanuelMacron
    ·
    6h
    Congratulations, President
    @realDonaldTrump
    . Ready to work together as we did for four years. With your convictions and mine. With respect and ambition. For more peace and prosperity.

    French politicians really do love speaking in semi-colonned lists. This is a classic of the genre, even though he’s fashionably used full
    stops.

    Did it start with liberté; egalité; fraternité or is it a longer tradition I wonder?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Driver said:

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    Bugger me! An HYUFD post I agree with!

    I also agree that Vance is confident, articulate, clever and plausible. He also has no moral compass and so is a shameless political chameleon. Were he to step up to the #1 spot, I am not at all sure what he would stand for or the policies he'd pursue. But economic suicide does not strike me as his taste.
    PS There are some cynics who think Vance will pull Section 4 of the 25th Amendment on Trump
    Would he have a majority of the Cabinet with him?
    How many of them are like Vance, clearly perfectly happy to be Brutus to his Caesar, and how many are like Nadine Dorries to Boris Johnson?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,874

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    If they tip the scales bigly to Vance's advantage, none of that matters - ever again.
    In 2004 Bush won about as big a margin in the popular vote as Trump did yesterday, 4 years later Obama won a landslide.

    Events can change rapidly in politics and if Trump's tariffs hike massively raise inflation further anything can happen
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    Only to some extent. The bigger issue, especially in the US, is that the economic boom and huge lay rises that were driving everything has been mainly seen in just a few small sectors and 90% of average Americans haven't benefited from it, but they've seen the price of eggs go up from $3 for 12 in 2020 to $9 for 12 in 2024.

    I think we have a lesser effect of that here, if you work in one of the chosen sectors like tech, media or finance I think you've probably seen 30-40% pay growth over the last 3-5 years but if you're anywhere else it's 10% pay rises against 25% cumulative inflation.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    @JustinTrudeau
    Congratulations to Donald Trump on being elected President of the United States.

    The friendship between Canada and the U.S. is the envy of the world. I know President Trump and I will work together to create more opportunity, prosperity, and security for both of our nations.

    @EmmanuelMacron
    ·
    6h
    Congratulations, President
    @realDonaldTrump
    . Ready to work together as we did for four years. With your convictions and mine. With respect and ambition. For more peace and prosperity.

    Until the Canadian Libs do a '93 very soon then Trudeau is gone, baby
    I think he will lose but the gap has narrowed a bit in recent polls and Canadians don't like following the US so he will try and pitch himself as an anti Trump leader more than Poilievre to try and stop a Conservative majority
    True, but we are not a million miles from Lib/NDP = Con/Reform 93
    I think a Cinservative majority is highly probable and a very very heavy loss of Lib seats. He's not popular and I see no way he overcomes it. There's not much to like tbf, he's a weasel
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,807

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
  • Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    I was just recalling the pile on @williamglenn and it appears he was right all along

    Just shows how wrong we can be

    The PB assault on anyone who merely presented data favorable to Trump was a fucking disgrace, and those responsible should walk in shame

    It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s fine to call them names if you genuinely have data to contradict them, but far far too often on PB, this year, anyone daring to suggest that Trump had a chance because of X, Y or Z was shouted down and called a quasi-Fascist, Trump-enabling shill and worse, and we all know who they are, and who regularly did this on PB

    We saw a similar process vis a vis the Ukrainian war these last two years. Anyone who dared to suggest “well actually the Ukrainian counter attack isn’t going so good”, or “maybe the Ukes won’t reach the Sea of Azov in two weeks”, was roundly abused and hectored and accused of being a Putinite puppet, or, most hilariously, of “undermining morale on PB”

    Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers
    "Assault" follower by "Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers"

    If you can't take it...

    This has become a bit of a meme on PB, that anyone who posted anything pro-Trump was bullied off the site. I don't recognise that at all. @williamglenn was called out for posting out only pro-Trump stuff, but it was never done with the kind of vitriol you come out with. Almost everyone here was deeply uncertain about the result - including you!
    I suspect BigG.'s original post was as a mischievous dig at me. I called William out on several occasions for only posting Trump favourable polls when the narrative was favourable to Harris. Was he right all along as BigG. suggests? Probably, but he didn't show his workings so it often came across as trolling.

    And as for Leon gaslighting posters for bullying, what a snowflake!
    No - it genuinely was not personal to you, but as most know I did not post much on here as I am not well versed in US politics but in reading the threads I did feel @Williamglenn was criticised and if anyone stood out it was @Anabobazina
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,983

    TimS said:

    I’m on the trans-Pennine “express” (lol) and the whole thing is a hugely compelling argument for why we need NPR.

    Just another example of woke gone mad. Excluding cisgender people was never to going to work, especially in the Pennines.
    Its pronouns are currently “not, moving”.

    Trespassers on the track apparently. I’m waiting for the announcer to say “the trespassers have now been shot by BTP so we should be on our way once the bodies have been cleared from the track”.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,807

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    And 90% of the benefit of that was going to a couple of hundred billionaires. Ironically about half of whom have been funding Trump to ensure they pay less tax.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 492
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Or as my US, now ex-pat, friend puts it "No one wants a $10 tomato"
    their living standards are based on a tacit acceptance of illegal migration, just as they are in Singapore and Middle East with different strata of legal migrants workers
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 8,714
    TimS said:

    I’m on the trans-Pennine “express” (lol) and the whole thing is a hugely compelling argument for why we need NPR.

    TPE run a great train service. In comparison to Northern Rail.
  • Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    But Americans don’t feel it. The economy numbers for Biden and Harris are universally poor.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Mass deportations would damage the economy (as well as brutalising the population). Wages might not go up at all. That's why, for example, the UAE recently introduced a visa amnesty programme.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    But Americans don’t feel it. The economy numbers for Biden and Harris are universally poor.
    Well not enough Americans feel it. That is because of the high levels of inflation on every day things, in particular on things like food. If you are taking your family to McDonalds and dropping $50+, or Five Guys and dropping $120+, its going to be a system shock.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,983

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    The US has been beating the shit out of all other western economies for several years, and more so under Biden than Trump. I just don’t think they notice because unlike here they don’t really pay attention to reference points in neighbouring countries. I’ve never heard an American complaining they’re being outperformed by Canada, for example.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768
    Dopermean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Or as my US, now ex-pat, friend puts it "No one wants a $10 tomato"
    their living standards are based on a tacit acceptance of illegal migration, just as they are in Singapore and Middle East with different strata of legal migrants workers
    Surely America would just import tomatoes from Mexico and other Latin American countries?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,573
    https://x.com/souljagoytellem/status/1854172606318166315

    Men ages 18-29 seem to have shifted near 30 points rightward from 2020, while women ages 18-29 have a less pronounced shift to the right but still extant.
  • Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    But Americans don’t feel it. The economy numbers for Biden and Harris are universally poor.
    Well not enough Americans feel it. That is because of the high levels of inflation, in particular on things like food. If you are taking your family to McDonalds and dropping $50+, or Five Guys and dropping $120+, its going to be a system shock.
    The point I am making is that it really was “the economy, stupid”. Like the UK, where Starmer led on the economy, Harris never did.

    Harris never articulated a view on it. Presumably because she didn’t have one or thought she could overcome it.

    But inflation explains to me younger voters going to Trump.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,630

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    And real wages have been great in the US too. If economic factors are important, it could be just inflation in isolation, which would quite some finding.

    It could mean that as long as Trump keeps inflation low, even if real wages are falling, he gets political credit for it.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    But Americans don’t feel it. The economy numbers for Biden and Harris are universally poor.
    Well not enough Americans feel it. That is because of the high levels of inflation on every day things, in particular on things like food. If you are taking your family to McDonalds and dropping $50+, or Five Guys and dropping $120+, its going to be a system shock.
    Yes if you don't work in tech, finance or media, you've done very well for yourself, if not then it's been a much bigger struggle.
  • Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    Just shows what a bit of the long-dreaded Keynesian boost can do.

    Crucially, though, Biden wasn't able to get through the other half of his programme, that would most visibly have raised living standards rather than just employment and output, but also probably boosted the economy even further.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The voters are all racist and sexist again. That bunch of deplorable garbage.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,983

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    And 90% of the benefit of that was going to a couple of hundred billionaires. Ironically about half of whom have been funding Trump to ensure they pay less tax.
    But median US household income has been outstripping competitors too. Britain would be one of the poorest states in the US if we joined. On a level with Mississippi.

    A result of being the world’s largest oil producer and dominating the global tech industry.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6
    TimS said:

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    The US has been beating the shit out of all other western economies for several years, and more so under Biden than Trump. I just don’t think they notice because unlike here they don’t really pay attention to reference points in neighbouring countries. I’ve never heard an American complaining they’re being outperformed by Canada, for example.
    Also the disparities in the US are much more extreme than Europe. In the US, you pay for everything, you tip for everything. If you aren't on $100k a year, money is constantly going out your pocket at a rapid rate. Its real expensive just to go about your day. But on the flip side, the high end professional sector that produces so much of this wealth, those guys and girls, earn 2-4x what you would get here.

    Also remember just 7 companies have a huge dominating effect on the US stock market and economy overall. And they have been going gangbusters.
  • MaxPB said:

    SMIC is still stuck basically at 14nm which is 3 or 4 gens old already, their "7nm" chip is a rebadged TSMC package. There's no domestic expertise in China to go beyond about 10nm and it's become increasingly difficult for them to steal the tech from the west with all of the sanctions.

    You can do an awful lot with 14nm, though. Not really high end CPUs and GPUs, for sure, but the vast bulk of chips made today are on mature processes. I'm presently working on a design utilising a Intel FPGA that's built on a 55nm process, and this is a current part not an old legacy design.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043

    Looks like the Dems will hang onto the senate seats in WI and MI. Not clear about PA yet. It would be quite something if they managed to keep the senate seats in the blue wall states despite Harris losing all three.

    The Senate candidates were consistently polling better than Harris. The question was always whether that would be a mirage or a reality.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,221
    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768

    MaxPB said:

    SMIC is still stuck basically at 14nm which is 3 or 4 gens old already, their "7nm" chip is a rebadged TSMC package. There's no domestic expertise in China to go beyond about 10nm and it's become increasingly difficult for them to steal the tech from the west with all of the sanctions.

    You can do an awful lot with 14nm, though. Not really high end CPUs and GPUs, for sure, but the vast bulk of chips made today are on mature processes. I'm presently working on a design utilising a Intel FPGA that's built on a 55nm process, and this is a current part not an old legacy design.
    Yes you can, but you can't really be at the cutting edge of AI/LLMs with 14nm which is why China is still trying to source Nvidia chips from alternative sources.
  • Anyway, I'm back on hiatus. Will pop back if hilarious shenanigans or ww3 kick in, otherwise will probably return to posting and engaging in the New Year. Do let me be first to wish you all a Merry Christmas.
    Later.

    And to you - Christmas is nearer than we think, so much so we have already posted our Christmas cards to our Canadian family
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,573
    Harris will deliver a concession speech at 6 p.m. ET
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Mass deportations would damage the economy (as well as brutalising the population). Wages might not go up at all. That's why, for example, the UAE recently introduced a visa amnesty programme.
    Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme, while trying to tell me about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme.

    (Hint. The amnesty requires you to leave the country, and the amnesty itself is from the fines resultant from overstaying).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,176
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I’m on the trans-Pennine “express” (lol) and the whole thing is a hugely compelling argument for why we need NPR.

    Just another example of woke gone mad. Excluding cisgender people was never to going to work, especially in the Pennines.
    Its pronouns are currently “not, moving”.

    Trespassers on the track apparently. I’m waiting for the announcer to say “the trespassers have now been shot by BTP so we should be on our way once the bodies have been cleared from the track”.
    "The trespasser annihilating fixture has been attached to the front of the train. We are ready to proceed"

    image
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    The tipping culture post COVID in the US is absolutely out of control.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,807
    TimS said:

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    And 90% of the benefit of that was going to a couple of hundred billionaires. Ironically about half of whom have been funding Trump to ensure they pay less tax.
    But median US household income has been outstripping competitors too. Britain would be one of the poorest states in the US if we joined. On a level with Mississippi.

    A result of being the world’s largest oil producer and dominating the global tech industry.
    Always a bit skeptical of such comparisons. Does that include healthcare and pensions? Or UK workers getting double the holiday?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768

    TimS said:

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    The US has been beating the shit out of all other western economies for several years, and more so under Biden than Trump. I just don’t think they notice because unlike here they don’t really pay attention to reference points in neighbouring countries. I’ve never heard an American complaining they’re being outperformed by Canada, for example.
    Also the disparities in the US are much more extreme than Europe. In the US, you pay for everything, you tip for everything. If you aren't on $100k a year, money is constantly going out your pocket at a rapid rate. Its real expensive just to go about your day. But on the flip side, the high end professional sector that produces so much of this wealth, those guys and girls, earn 2-4x what you would get here.

    Also remember just 7 companies have a huge dominating effect on the US stock market and economy overall. And they have been going gangbusters.
    I think the going rate for the job I just left was around 3x higher for salary plus a pretty generous bonus structure in the US.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,874
    glw said:

    Well having digested the results from last night I see absolutely no upside for the UK. Trump being reelected is a disaster. I don't see a Trump led US as an ally, much of what Trump intends to do will harm us.

    I suspect that a push to have to UK rejoin the EU will begin quite shortly. It would probably be winnable if it came soon.

    As someone who voted Leave, and still stands by that decision; if the facts change then your opinion should change.

    24th February 2022 made me think we should rejoin EFTA as a minimum.
    Today makes me think rejoining the EU is a good idea now.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    SNAP POLL / 57% of Britons are unhappy about Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election

    Very unhappy: 45%
    Fairly unhappy: 12%
    Neither happy nor unhappy: 19%
    Fairly happy: 9%
    Very happy: 11%

    52% of Reform voters are happy with Trump's win however
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1854171492000334303

    What I take from this poll is it's surprising that as much as around 40% don't mind or are happy.

    The 45% Very unhappy looks the significant number to me. As someone below pointed out, that is a danger for Labour because it is a seam the LibDems and Greens can mine in a way the government cannot. That's another reason why the Tories would do well to keep arm's length from Trump. If they grab him tight, it may help maintain the 2024 anti-Tory coalition.

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    edited November 6

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,176

    HYUFD said:

    @EmmanuelMacron
    ·
    6h
    Congratulations, President
    @realDonaldTrump
    . Ready to work together as we did for four years. With your convictions and mine. With respect and ambition. For more peace and prosperity.

    With your convictions!

    The Macaroon needs to work on his convictions.....
  • MaxPB said:

    TimS said:

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    The US has been beating the shit out of all other western economies for several years, and more so under Biden than Trump. I just don’t think they notice because unlike here they don’t really pay attention to reference points in neighbouring countries. I’ve never heard an American complaining they’re being outperformed by Canada, for example.
    Also the disparities in the US are much more extreme than Europe. In the US, you pay for everything, you tip for everything. If you aren't on $100k a year, money is constantly going out your pocket at a rapid rate. Its real expensive just to go about your day. But on the flip side, the high end professional sector that produces so much of this wealth, those guys and girls, earn 2-4x what you would get here.

    Also remember just 7 companies have a huge dominating effect on the US stock market and economy overall. And they have been going gangbusters.
    I think the going rate for the job I just left was around 3x higher for salary plus a pretty generous bonus structure in the US.
    For my role I’d be paid a huge amount more in the US if I went to California. Expensive though.

    I wouldn’t do it, anyway.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,807

    The tipping culture post COVID in the US is absolutely out of control.

    Indeed some were even tipping a Harris win. Shocking behaviour.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,681
    And of course there is no guarantee that the American people will turn against Trump and his agenda. They knew fully well who it was they were choosing this time. Their support may well be more stubborn than one would like. It certainly has been over the last four years.

    https://www.thebulwark.com/p/what-will-trumps-win-mean
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652

    TimS said:

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    The US has been beating the shit out of all other western economies for several years, and more so under Biden than Trump. I just don’t think they notice because unlike here they don’t really pay attention to reference points in neighbouring countries. I’ve never heard an American complaining they’re being outperformed by Canada, for example.
    Also the disparities in the US are much more extreme than Europe. In the US, you pay for everything, you tip for everything. If you aren't on $100k a year, money is constantly going out your pocket at a rapid rate. Its real expensive just to go about your day. But on the flip side, the high end professional sector that produces so much of this wealth, those guys and girls, earn 2-4x what you would get here.

    Also remember just 7 companies have a huge dominating effect on the US stock market and economy overall. And they have been going gangbusters.

    Yep, a family income of at least $150,000 a year is necessary to live comfortably even in the poorest of the states. It's well over $200,000 in the richer ones.

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    SNAP POLL / 57% of Britons are unhappy about Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election

    Very unhappy: 45%
    Fairly unhappy: 12%
    Neither happy nor unhappy: 19%
    Fairly happy: 9%
    Very happy: 11%

    52% of Reform voters are happy with Trump's win however
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1854171492000334303

    What I take from this poll is it's surprising that as much as around 40% don't mind or are happy.
    57% unhappy is not difficult to turn around.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,176

    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    I was just recalling the pile on @williamglenn and it appears he was right all along

    Just shows how wrong we can be

    The PB assault on anyone who merely presented data favorable to Trump was a fucking disgrace, and those responsible should walk in shame

    It’s fine to disagree with someone, it’s fine to call them names if you genuinely have data to contradict them, but far far too often on PB, this year, anyone daring to suggest that Trump had a chance because of X, Y or Z was shouted down and called a quasi-Fascist, Trump-enabling shill and worse, and we all know who they are, and who regularly did this on PB

    We saw a similar process vis a vis the Ukrainian war these last two years. Anyone who dared to suggest “well actually the Ukrainian counter attack isn’t going so good”, or “maybe the Ukes won’t reach the Sea of Azov in two weeks”, was roundly abused and hectored and accused of being a Putinite puppet, or, most hilariously, of “undermining morale on PB”

    Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers
    "Assault" follower by "Get a fucking grip you insecure mental losers"

    If you can't take it...

    This has become a bit of a meme on PB, that anyone who posted anything pro-Trump was bullied off the site. I don't recognise that at all. @williamglenn was called out for posting out only pro-Trump stuff, but it was never done with the kind of vitriol you come out with. Almost everyone here was deeply uncertain about the result - including you!
    I suspect BigG.'s original post was as a mischievous dig at me. I called William out on several occasions for only posting Trump favourable polls when the narrative was favourable to Harris. Was he right all along as BigG. suggests? Probably, but he didn't show his workings so it often came across as trolling.

    And as for Leon gaslighting posters for bullying, what a snowflake!
    No - it genuinely was not personal to you, but as most know I did not post much on here as I am not well versed in US politics but in reading the threads I did feel @Williamglenn was criticised and if anyone stood out it was @Anabobazina
    All this stuff about gas lighting people over gas lighting...

    Get with the program and install LEDs.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    For some light, or serious, relief, depending on how one views such things, the blind "Balkan Nostradamus", Baba Vanga, also had some interesting thoughts on next year.

    Her record was as bizarrely patchy the original Nostradamus, accurately predicting that the 44fh American President would be an African American, for instance, but she also thought he would be last one.

    Her thoughts for next year do catch the eye, though. "There will be contact with extraterrestrials and telepathy will become a reality."

    Either bizarrely or amusingly, this would happen at "a major sporting event."

    Superbowl is 20 days after 47's inauguration.
    There you go.
    Forget that.

    The World Economic Forum in Davos begins on inauguration.

    I’ll be PB’s man on the spot.
    Lol, WEF are so yesterday's wankers
    They seem incapable of engaging with the world as it is, rather than how they'd like it to be.
    Not uncommon across the political spectrum, tbf.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6
    MaxPB said:

    TimS said:

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    The US has been beating the shit out of all other western economies for several years, and more so under Biden than Trump. I just don’t think they notice because unlike here they don’t really pay attention to reference points in neighbouring countries. I’ve never heard an American complaining they’re being outperformed by Canada, for example.
    Also the disparities in the US are much more extreme than Europe. In the US, you pay for everything, you tip for everything. If you aren't on $100k a year, money is constantly going out your pocket at a rapid rate. Its real expensive just to go about your day. But on the flip side, the high end professional sector that produces so much of this wealth, those guys and girls, earn 2-4x what you would get here.

    Also remember just 7 companies have a huge dominating effect on the US stock market and economy overall. And they have been going gangbusters.
    I think the going rate for the job I just left was around 3x higher for salary plus a pretty generous bonus structure in the US.
    The upside is also not quite unlimited but far far higher. AFAIK, Deepmind genius level researchers aren't on $1 million a year comp in the UK, OpenAI pay that in the US. A lot of tech jobs you can get to say £150k in the UK, but you need to start taking becoming upper management to push far past that. You can do $100k's in the US without that.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    There was some eejit on the radio around 5:30am from the "Black Votes Matter Project" playing the racism and sexism cards as hard as she could.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,807

    And of course there is no guarantee that the American people will turn against Trump and his agenda. They knew fully well who it was they were choosing this time. Their support may well be more stubborn than one would like. It certainly has been over the last four years.

    https://www.thebulwark.com/p/what-will-trumps-win-mean

    Yeah in 2016 it could have been fair to say that Americans didn't know what they were getting themselves in for. This time a third knew but didn't care and another third actively like the chaos and performance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569

    The tipping culture post COVID in the US is absolutely out of control.

    Yeah, that Ann Selzer was way out of line!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Speaking of which, can I DM you about Singapore, South Korea, Japan? I have been invited out there spring 2025 and would like to turn it into a proper trip (not sure I can stretch to $2500 a night accommodation though).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,573
    edited November 6
    Sandpit said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The voters are all racist and sexist again. That bunch of deplorable garbage.
    Did you see the comment from a “Dem strategist” I posted overnight?

    https://x.com/ally_sammarco/status/1854008728673988913

    - White men without college degrees are going to ruin this country

    - Actually, they built the country

    - No, slaves did


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,151

    Harris will deliver a concession speech at 6 p.m. ET

    "I realise that the urgency of betting exchanges that need to settle their markets"
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Mass deportations would damage the economy (as well as brutalising the population). Wages might not go up at all. That's why, for example, the UAE recently introduced a visa amnesty programme.
    Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme, while trying to tell me about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme.

    (Hint. The amnesty requires you to leave the country, and the amnesty itself is from the fines resultant from overstaying).
    https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/uae-visa-amnesty-lifeline-for-illegal-residents-job-seekers-until-oct-30-124090200697_1.html

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has introduced a visa amnesty programme, offering a lifeline to those residing illegally in the country. Running from September 1 to October 30, 2024, this initiative allows individuals to either regularise their status or leave the UAE without incurring penalties.

    Is that inaccurate?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,537

    The tipping culture post COVID in the US is absolutely out of control.

    I've read that some automatic vending machines are now demanding tips.
  • Calling it sexism or racism is ridiculous. Trump had a more diverse coalition of voters than ever.

    He unified them, I believe it was over the economy. Just as Johnson managed in 2019 with Brexit.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,738
    MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    Enough of the public believe Trump did and Trump can, so yes.

    It was a major failure of Harris not to link inflation in the US back to Trump's budget deficits and tax cuts (for billionaires too). And Trump talked about immigration, which voters care about; Harris didn't - or not in a way that chimed.

    Whether Trump can actually fix things is another matter but elections are about competing narratives and Trump, despite all his personal flaws, told a more coherent and - to many voters' minds - compelling one.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,011

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    I at least have the grace to recognise I can't predict what the incoming Trump administration will do.
    You and Sandpit seem to already have decided to go to war against an imaginary opponent.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,768

    MaxPB said:

    TimS said:

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    The US has been beating the shit out of all other western economies for several years, and more so under Biden than Trump. I just don’t think they notice because unlike here they don’t really pay attention to reference points in neighbouring countries. I’ve never heard an American complaining they’re being outperformed by Canada, for example.
    Also the disparities in the US are much more extreme than Europe. In the US, you pay for everything, you tip for everything. If you aren't on $100k a year, money is constantly going out your pocket at a rapid rate. Its real expensive just to go about your day. But on the flip side, the high end professional sector that produces so much of this wealth, those guys and girls, earn 2-4x what you would get here.

    Also remember just 7 companies have a huge dominating effect on the US stock market and economy overall. And they have been going gangbusters.
    I think the going rate for the job I just left was around 3x higher for salary plus a pretty generous bonus structure in the US.
    The upside is also not quite unlimited but far far higher. AFAIK, Deepmind genius level researchers aren't on $1 million a year comp in the UK, OpenAI pay that in the US. A lot of tech jobs you can get to say £150k in the UK, but you need to start taking becoming upper management to push far past that. You can do $100k's in the US without that.
    The going rate is definitely going up though, at my last job we struggled to hire a senior analytics engineer for under £100k, the company has to offer £120-140k to get any takers who were any good. The senior ML engineer was on £160k, I think it's the support roles that are cheaper in the UK than the US by a bigger amount. The big ticket roles are rapidly equalising IMO.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 4,963

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    Andy_JS said:

    The tipping culture post COVID in the US is absolutely out of control.

    I've read that some automatic vending machines are now demanding tips.
    Mrs U was out there last month...tipping on self checkout at the airport shops !!!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,338
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I’m on the trans-Pennine “express” (lol) and the whole thing is a hugely compelling argument for why we need NPR.

    Just another example of woke gone mad. Excluding cisgender people was never to going to work, especially in the Pennines.
    Its pronouns are currently “not, moving”.

    Trespassers on the track apparently. I’m waiting for the announcer to say “the trespassers have now been shot by BTP so we should be on our way once the bodies have been cleared from the track”.
    Often trespassers on the track are suicides by train, but I don't think they like to say so.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    This has worked for Trump. I don't believe it has worked for the US population in that I think they will be worse off in 4 years time.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,759

    Sunak and Kamala had much the same issue. The economy was improving slowly but not quickly enough for Americans to notice.

    Trump asked “do you feel better off than you were four years ago” and most people said no. That is the unifying factor across all groups IMHO.

    We could have all predicted this election on the economy alone. A few people here to their credit did do so.

    I would disagree a bit. US economy has been going really well, the UK economy has been very sluggish.

    "The economy has grown 12.6% under the Biden-Harris Administration, with the lowest average unemployment of any Administration in 50 years, and 16 million jobs created. This demonstrates stronger economic growth than during any other presidential term this century."
    But Americans don’t feel it. The economy numbers for Biden and Harris are universally poor.
    Well not enough Americans feel it. That is because of the high levels of inflation, in particular on things like food. If you are taking your family to McDonalds and dropping $50+, or Five Guys and dropping $120+, its going to be a system shock.
    The point I am making is that it really was “the economy, stupid”. Like the UK, where Starmer led on the economy, Harris never did.

    Harris never articulated a view on it. Presumably because she didn’t have one or thought she could overcome it.

    But inflation explains to me younger voters going to Trump.
    I agree. Trump had a clear lead on the #1 issue, the economy. I thought the obvious negatives around his character and behaviour would outweigh this, but they didn't.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 492

    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    SNAP POLL / 57% of Britons are unhappy about Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election

    Very unhappy: 45%
    Fairly unhappy: 12%
    Neither happy nor unhappy: 19%
    Fairly happy: 9%
    Very happy: 11%

    52% of Reform voters are happy with Trump's win however
    https://x.com/YouGov/status/1854171492000334303

    What I take from this poll is it's surprising that as much as around 40% don't mind or are happy.

    The 45% Very unhappy looks the significant number to me. As someone below pointed out, that is a danger for Labour because it is a seam the LibDems and Greens can mine in a way the government cannot. That's another reason why the Tories would do well to keep arm's length from Trump. If they grab him tight, it may help maintain the 2024 anti-Tory coalition.

    If they're politically engaged enough to be very unhappy then they should be engaged enough to understand the realpolitik situation
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,569
    edited November 6

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Mass deportations would damage the economy (as well as brutalising the population). Wages might not go up at all. That's why, for example, the UAE recently introduced a visa amnesty programme.
    Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme, while trying to tell me about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme.

    (Hint. The amnesty requires you to leave the country, and the amnesty itself is from the fines resultant from overstaying).
    https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/uae-visa-amnesty-lifeline-for-illegal-residents-job-seekers-until-oct-30-124090200697_1.html

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has introduced a visa amnesty programme, offering a lifeline to those residing illegally in the country. Running from September 1 to October 30, 2024, this initiative allows individuals to either regularise their status or leave the UAE without incurring penalties.

    Is that inaccurate?
    “Regularise their status” means that, if they have a ‘job’ at the moment, that their employer agrees to sponsor them for a proper work visa, or that they set themselves up as a company to be self-employed.

    The actual problem they’re trying to solve is exactly the same as happens in the US, that a lot of unskilled workers manage to disappear into the black economy. The “amnesty” means you either get a proper job or leave the country. The regular fine for overstaying is 100dhm/day (£20), which if you’ve been there a year or two in a low-level job becomes impossible to reconcile.

    These amnesties are done every five years or so, with a six month window to apply.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,221

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    The fact you find this “racist” says more about your diseased mind than anything else
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,807
    Driver said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
    I doubt it mattered who they chose, unless they could have somehow convinced Michelle Obama. Some might have lost by a fraction more or a fraction less, but I suspect the rest would all have lost too.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    After 4 years of massive tariffs and even higher inflation, abortion restrictions across red states and mass deportations of immigrants I certainly wouldn't be certain of another GOP victory.

    Plus Trump gets a personal vote from white working males who otherwise don't bother voting, Vance wouldn't
    A lot depends on what policies the Trump administration actually adopts.

    All the "American carnage" stuff is entirely possible - but for now, we just don't know. The first clue will come with the appointments to his administration (as a "minor" example, will RFK Jnr really get to run health policy ?).
    Trump has won the EC, popular vote and his party has won Congress.

    He is going to do exactly what he said with no checks and put 'America First' with handpicked henchmen better prepared to help him this time unlike 2016 when he had some establishment Republicans he has now ignored
    Entirely possible.

    But it's a matter of whim, so it's inherently unpredictable.
    We will see but at least we are now going to almost certainly see MAGA unleashed in tooth and claw, it has a full mandate and all levers of the Federal government in its hands so if it fails and fails badly Trumpism will have nobody to blame but itself
    Absolutely.
    But MAGA is ill defined, and could in practice mean anything.

    For instance, will he content himself with harsh enforcement of border security, and a few deportations - or will he really attempt to deport 10m plus individuals ?

    The former won't have huge economic or social effects; the latter would have enormous implications.

    If Stephen Miller is given the brief, then the latter is a lot more likely.
    So watch for administration appointments.
    Imagine just how much wages can go up, and rents go down, for regular working-class Americans, if those in the country working illegally could actually be deported?
    Mass deportations would damage the economy (as well as brutalising the population). Wages might not go up at all. That's why, for example, the UAE recently introduced a visa amnesty programme.
    Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme, while trying to tell me about the UAE Visa Amnesty Programme.

    (Hint. The amnesty requires you to leave the country, and the amnesty itself is from the fines resultant from overstaying).
    https://www.business-standard.com/finance/personal-finance/uae-visa-amnesty-lifeline-for-illegal-residents-job-seekers-until-oct-30-124090200697_1.html

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has introduced a visa amnesty programme, offering a lifeline to those residing illegally in the country. Running from September 1 to October 30, 2024, this initiative allows individuals to either regularise their status or leave the UAE without incurring penalties.

    Is that inaccurate?
    “Regularise their status” means that, if they have a ‘job’ at the moment, that their employer agrees to sponsor them for a proper work visa, or that they set themselves up as a company to be self-employed.
    So, when you said, "The amnesty requires you to leave the country", you were wrong?
  • Some numbers...

    Harris is currently, with votes still being counted, on 47.4% of the vote. The last UK Prime Minister to get more than 47.4% of the vote was... Harold Wilson in 1966. The last Indian Prime Minister to get more than 47.4% was Nehru in 1957.

    Several US Presidents have won with less than 47.4%: Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43%; Nixon won in 1968 with 43.4%; Cleveland won in 1892 with 45.9%.

    The last US President to win with over 55% of the vote was Reagan in 1984 (58.8%). Nixon in 1972 was the last to top 60% (60.7%).

    But what are we supposed to conclude from that? Clinton and Nixon faced semi-serious third party opponents (Perot lead the polls at one point, and Wallace even carried some states). 1966 was an election where Grimond's Liberals didn't fight half the seats, and other minor parties were VERY minor.

    You can't sensibly compare between situations with significant third and fourth forces at play and those without, nor indeed between Presidential and Parliamentary elections.
  • MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    This has worked for Trump. I don't believe it has worked for the US population in that I think they will be worse off in 4 years time.
    All of them?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,221

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Speaking of which, can I DM you about Singapore, South Korea, Japan? I have been invited out there spring 2025 and would like to turn it into a proper trip (not sure I can stretch to $2500 a night accommodation though).
    Feel free!

    I’m happy to DM with any PBer but I am particularly and forever in your debt because you introduced me to GPT2
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,336
    edited November 6
    WRT the Senate, both Brown in Ohio and Tester in Montana, pulled off very strong performances, relative to Harris. Sadly, the tide was running too strongly against them, in a Presidential election year. Almost certainly, they'd have held on in mid term. With the results in Michigan and Wisconsin, it does show that a Senator can, even now, achieve a significant personal vote.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,928

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    I wonder if that's the thinking in Mozambique.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,782
    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Good, I suddenly got a bit worried about you.

    I didn't agree with you prior to you getting banned and I was one of the people arguing with you, but I thought the argument was fine and didn't deserve a ban. My only reservation was a point made after I posted my support for you. I'm white so I wasn't personally offended. I just argued my point of view of why I thought you were wrong. However it was pointed out to me that if you are not white you might well take offence as several did.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,807
    I, too, am going to take a break from posting, likely until the new year (though not ruling out earlier if something really crazy happens).

    2024 has been a big year with the US election and the GE. I have really enjoyed following the twists and turns. Some of my predictions and bets have been good (in the GE) and some bad (in the US). So a mixed bag.

    But I have been feeling for some time rather overwhelmed with regularly following news and current affairs. Like Brenda from Bristol, perhaps there has been too much politics going on for me, this past period.

    I will dip into the goings-on occasionally, no doubt. I will doubtless lurk from time to time, but in the meantime I will be focussing on Christmas preparations, family and friends, and enjoying some of my other interests.

    I will likely be back once Trump has taken office and Badenoch/the new government have bedded in a bit more.

    Best wishes to all.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    kjh said:

    Leon said:

    Pulpstar said:

    As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.

    2028 Democratic nominee.

    Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.

    Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.

    Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP.
    Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).

    So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
    Vance will win it, easily

    He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
    If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
    I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.

    Just winding you up @leon.
    Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
    Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.

    PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
    I didn’t notice that, apologies

    But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB

    Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
    Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
    What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough

    The fact you find this “racist” says more about your diseased mind than anything else
    Note the wording here: Nigerians in Nigeria. Japanese in Japan. But it's "white British" in Britain. This is racism.

    @TheScreamingEagles why do we have to put up with racism here?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,151

    MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    This has worked for Trump. I don't believe it has worked for the US population in that I think they will be worse off in 4 years time.
    I don't. They're sitting on oodles of all sorts of energy, have tonnes of capital, gas, oil, solar and are a way away from global hotspots.

    I think the US economy is going to become more vertically integrated, their internal consumption is absolutely bonkers and the dollar is still the US dollar . They'll become even richer relative to the rest of the world imo.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,828
    Why the pundits got it wrong: Dominic Sandbrook (of TRiH moonlighting on TRiP's livestream) who had tipped Trump explains what the political pundits missed.

    Two minute video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyIAJCWVxA
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,043

    MaxPB said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    Yes. Electorates tend to say, "Things aren't good now, so I'll vote for the other one."

    This only works if the other one is actually a sensible candidate who can fix why things aren't good.
    Given the overnight result surely you don't mean this?
    This has worked for Trump. I don't believe it has worked for the US population in that I think they will be worse off in 4 years time.
    All of them?
    No, not all of them. I think Trump, Trump's family and Vance are all going to be much, much better off! Maybe a few others... Musk, Thiel...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,681

    Frank Luntz
    @FrankLuntz
    ·
    42m
    Trump won Dearborn, Michigan 42-36 with 18% voting for Jill Stein.

  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,983

    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    I’m on the trans-Pennine “express” (lol) and the whole thing is a hugely compelling argument for why we need NPR.

    Just another example of woke gone mad. Excluding cisgender people was never to going to work, especially in the Pennines.
    Its pronouns are currently “not, moving”.

    Trespassers on the track apparently. I’m waiting for the announcer to say “the trespassers have now been shot by BTP so we should be on our way once the bodies have been cleared from the track”.
    Often trespassers on the track are suicides by train, but I don't think they like to say so.
    Ex-pat American liberals living in Saddleworth perhaps.
  • Driver said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
    The thing though is that I am not sure how compelling it would be to get in a candidate that basically said “the last administration's policies were crap”. Sunak tried that and it failed miserably.
  • Driver said:

    The easiest safe space for Democrats to retreat into to explain this defeat is sexism, and it's the one I expect them to occupy.

    The easiest one is inflation. Govts of right and left have been kicked out worldwide. Ideologies matter less than finances.
    But then they'd have to blame themselves for promoting the VP who was obviously tainted with the Administration's policies.
    I doubt it mattered who they chose, unless they could have somehow convinced Michelle Obama. Some might have lost by a fraction more or a fraction less, but I suspect the rest would all have lost too.
    There are fairly obviously quite a few potential Democrat candidates who'd have been less tied to the administration's record than Harris. Pick a Governor, essentially.

    I'm not saying they'd necessarily have won - any candidate would have pros and cons. But the fact is there are quite a few who wouldn't have had the con of being VP to a somewhat unpopular P.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,049

    Sandpit said:

    Can we now all agree that Trump’s McDonalds stunt was possibly the most effective political campaign idea of the last twenty years?

    It is going to be really interesting to know how effective the podcast blitz was for Trump / Vance. Is this the replacement for flood facebook with ads.
    Yes, I know a few political strategists, the old strategies don't work, content has to be memetastic.

    Something that can be shared/forwarded on WhatsApp/TikTok has more potency.
    The thing about a lot of these podcast, particularly the younger focused ones i.e. not Rogan, they are experts at clipping stuff and getting it trending on TikTok / YouTube shorts.
    Interesting if they have finally found a way to turn it into actual votes.

    Labour had a load of success with viral videos during GE2017 and GE2019 and it didn't make much difference in the end. Obviously the US is different but I am always sceptical of saying engagement = votes
    I think one aspect is that the Democrats and CNN / MSNBC / etc keep saying he is literal Orange Hitler. But all these podcasts he doesn't come across like that, so I think that is probably the effective bit, that able to change perceptions. All that experience with the Apprentice, he knows how to play that game e.g. when he went on Rogan, he was engaging about MMA / UFC, well a big proportion of male 19-30s in the US love their MMA.

    And because its all clipped, any in depth chatter about tariff policy (and all the nonsense he was talking), nobody watches that bit.

    I don't think any of the Labour memes about Tories changed any perceptions. Rishi is extremely rich and so rather out of touch, I mean I don't think anybody is suddenly realising that might be the case.
    I should say, I still think first and overwhelmingly foremost, the economy was what did it for Harris. But the podcasts enabled Trump / Vance to sidestep the MSM and project an alternative version of themselves.
    One expects that the MSM CEOs are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect at four more years of Trump, but in reality last night was the day cable news died.

    Trump won on Twitter and podcasts.
    MSM utterly broken by last night and this campaign.
    However the biggest losers would seem to be Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell who are now their own punchline
    I think it's the making of RS&AC. They are not analysts offering analysis, they are performers offering content. It doesn't matter what they say, just as long as they say it and you consume it. They are I think already making millions and will make more as a result of last night. Rory offers the bien-pensant metropolitan view, and it has an audience and they will pay.

    I prefer lecture format (eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFzpsOr854I ) to podcasts, so I have no need or desire to listen to RS&AC. But many do.
  • Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,960
    edited November 6

    Musk - he took a Big Risk. But this could be the Big Win which takes Tesla - and the cause of electrification - to the next level.

    There is a significant pool of people who not only would not consider an EV but see their very existence as some kind of threat to their manly manhood. But here is Elon, singled out for many minutes of rambling praise in Trump's victory speech. If Trump doesn't abruptly fall out with him (eminently possible) then Musk will be on a MAGA pedestal. His rocketry was pulled out as symbolic of what America can achieve, a positive reason for MAGA to vote DJT.

    So imagine what will happen to Tesla, and to the push to electrify America, with Musk by Trump's side being promoted by The Man. Musk wants to be a gazillionaire, sure, and likes the engineering challenges, sure. But he also very clearly identifies the environmental challenge and is attacking it head on.

    Bringing red America onboard would be huge...

    For all the criticism, Musk has a habit of taking massive gambles and winning....
  • I, too, am going to take a break from posting, likely until the new year (though not ruling out earlier if something really crazy happens).

    2024 has been a big year with the US election and the GE. I have really enjoyed following the twists and turns. Some of my predictions and bets have been good (in the GE) and some bad (in the US). So a mixed bag.

    But I have been feeling for some time rather overwhelmed with regularly following news and current affairs. Like Brenda from Bristol, perhaps there has been too much politics going on for me, this past period.

    I will dip into the goings-on occasionally, no doubt. I will doubtless lurk from time to time, but in the meantime I will be focussing on Christmas preparations, family and friends, and enjoying some of my other interests.

    I will likely be back once Trump has taken office and Badenoch/the new government have bedded in a bit more.

    Best wishes to all.

    Come back soon but enjoy your break
This discussion has been closed.