I was convinced that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination, and would then flame out badly against almost any Republican candidate.
But I suspect that Hillary would destroy Trump.
Anyone would destroy Trump. Indeed, for the sake of the US and the world, they would have to. I'd even back Bernie Sanders over Trump. An egomaniac with his finger on the button ...
I think with the latest revelations that federal inspectors general want a criminal probe into Hillary's server is increasing the probability that she will not survive to the end of the nomination process though, and the chances that a Biden or other mainstream Dem candidate will enter the race to challenge her. Her trustworthiness numbers are already horrid, and if they get significantly worse, the bigwigs in the party must surely start the recruitment process for a new frontrunner.
Hillary remains the only Democratic contendor competitive with the GOP top tier next year (although Trump is the exception who would even lose to Sanders). If you are concerned about Hillary's emails you will not be voting for her anyway and I doubt any 'probe' is going to see her heading for the jailhouse! Though if she does win I would not be surprised if we got Watergate 2
One thing's for sure, the Tories will never reintroduce grammar schools, because it would mean their children might face a bit of competition for the top jobs. The only way it might happen is if the other parties have a complete change of mind on the subject, which could happen in about 25-30 years' time, with a bit of luck.
What a yucky comment. It's also staggeringly ignorant - support for the reintroduction of grammar schools is very high amongst Conservative members and supporters. (Wrongly, in my view, for the reason I've already given).
Perhaps you were confusing Conservatives with Guardian staff?
One thing's for sure, the Tories will never reintroduce grammar schools, because it would mean their children might face a bit of competition for the top jobs. The only way it might happen is if the other parties have a complete change of mind on the subject, which could happen in about 25-30 years' time, with a bit of luck.
What a yucky comment. It's also staggeringly ignorant - support for the reintroduction of grammar schools is very high amongst Conservative members and supporters. (Wrongly, in my view, for the reason I've already given).
Perhaps you were confusing Conservatives with Guardian staff?
Some of the worst areas for GCSE results eg Knowsley, Nottingham etc are comprehensive, some of the best are selective, data can be presented on the other side just as well
But the way the FT presents the data is pretty clear: someone with a parental income in the 1st percentile gets a score of x in "Selectivia" and y and "The Rest".
In other words, they strip out the effect of having wealthy successful parents (and all that comes with that). This is particularly important because in wealthy areas with no grammar schools, a lot more kids go to private schools.
The major selling point of grammar schools is that they help poor kids achieve. I don't think the data backs that up.
My daughter is 7. She's top of her class in a nice (if slightly odd) private school. When she's 10, she'll sit the 11+ for Henrietta Barnett. Hopefully she'll get in. But she will have a massive advantage over the average 10 year old sitting that test. She's in a class of 10 or 11 kids, with a huge amount of personal support. As she gets closer to 11 (and Common Entrance or the Henrietta Barnett exam) she'll have practice test after practice test all administered by the school. If my daughter was at the local state school, she wouldn't have that.
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that very few poor kids make it into Henrietta Barnett. Cynically, all that school does is reduce the school fee bills of middle class parents. That's not social mobility, that's a tax break.
So what, if we don't have grammars we will still have Eton won't we! You have selection for university, selection for jobs, I fail to see why it is such a problem in a few schools, especially if only at 14 or 16
I suspect, and I could be wrong, that very few poor kids make it into Henrietta Barnett. Cynically, all that school does is reduce the school fee bills of middle class parents. That's not social mobility, that's a tax break.
We need to start again.
Gove did start again, it's working... State schools with low expectations and persistently poor attainment and progress must now shape up or be taken over... The establishment don't like it but Grove rightly saw that the interest of kids in such schools comes first...
One thing's for sure, the Tories will never reintroduce grammar schools, because it would mean their children might face a bit of competition for the top jobs. The only way it might happen is if the other parties have a complete change of mind on the subject, which could happen in about 25-30 years' time, with a bit of luck.
Cameron is not very effusive on them but most Tory voters and members back grammars and UKIP is even more strongly so
I was convinced that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination, and would then flame out badly against almost any Republican candidate.
But I suspect that Hillary would destroy Trump.
Anyone would destroy Trump. Indeed, for the sake of the US and the world, they would have to. I'd even back Bernie Sanders over Trump. An egomaniac with his finger on the button ...
I think with the latest revelations that federal inspectors general want a criminal probe into Hillary's server is increasing the probability that she will not survive to the end of the nomination process though, and the chances that a Biden or other mainstream Dem candidate will enter the race to challenge her. Her trustworthiness numbers are already horrid, and if they get significantly worse, the bigwigs in the party must surely start the recruitment process for a new frontrunner.
Hillary remains the only Democratic contendor competitive with the GOP top tier next year (although Trump is the exception who would even lose to Sanders). If you are concerned about Hillary's emails you will not be voting for her anyway and I doubt any 'probe' is going to see her heading for the jailhouse! Though if she does win I would not be surprised if we got Watergate 2
I agree the probe is unlikely to see her go to jail, but it will maintain the steady drip drip drip of news undermining her trustworthiness. True, a hard core of supporters will stick with her regardless. But there is ample evidence that ServerGate has already cost her on this parameter, and there are whispers in the back rooms and corridors of the Dem establishment wondering at what time will it be right to go into panic mode.
Hillary cannot win on a core voter strategy (no-one can in the US) so she can't afford to let her trustworthiness numbers go too low. That number has a floor, true, but if that number goes below a certain threshold, she'll start losing Dem funders and key endorsements on the basis of her not being able to win the general.
I was convinced that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination, and would then flame out badly against almost any Republican candidate.
But I suspect that Hillary would destroy Trump.
Anyone would destroy Trump. Indeed, for the sake of the US and the world, they would have to. I'd even back Bernie Sanders over Trump. An egomaniac with his finger on the button ...
I think with the latest revelations that federal inspectors general want a criminal probe into Hillary's server is increasing the probability that she will not survive to the end of the nomination process though, and the chances that a Biden or other mainstream Dem candidate will enter the race to challenge her. Her trustworthiness numbers are already horrid, and if they get significantly worse, the bigwigs in the party must surely start the recruitment process for a new frontrunner.
Hillary remains the only Democratic contendor competitive with the GOP top tier next year (although Trump is the exception who would even lose to Sanders). If you are concerned about Hillary's emails you will not be voting for her anyway and I doubt any 'probe' is going to see her heading for the jailhouse! Though if she does win I would not be surprised if we got Watergate 2
I agree the probe is unlikely to see her go to jail, but it will maintain the steady drip drip drip of news undermining her trustworthiness. True, a hard core of supporters will stick with her regardless. But there is ample evidence that ServerGate has already cost her on this parameter, and there are whispers in the back rooms and corridors of the Dem establishment wondering at what time will it be right to go into panic mode.
Hillary cannot win on a core voter strategy (no-one can in the US) so she can't afford to let her trustworthiness numbers go too low. That number has a floor, true, but if that number goes below a certain threshold, she'll start losing Dem funders and key endorsements on the basis of her not being able to win the general.
The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton has been on the scene so long, most people have a set view of her. I get the impression most Americans think the entire political class is corrupt, so they just put that to one side and focus on who they think would run the economy better. If it comes down to a question of whether people want Bush economics or Clinton economics, the Democrats will easily win.
One of my new York finance friends tells me Michael Bloomberg will run if it's Hillary vs a wingnut Republican. If he does run, do you think he'd stand a chance?
And who do you think he'd damage more: Hillary out the Republican?
Big surprise: the Times front page reports that "foreign crime lords are pushing up house prices by using property to launder billions". It was only a matter of time before this became a serious problem IMO.
Big surprise: the Times front page reports that "foreign crime lords are pushing up house prices by using propoerty to launder money". It was only a matter of time before this became a serious problem IMO.
So much for all that nonsense of a silly rules on a transactions of a few thousand pounds and enormous paperwork to open a child's bank account.... when transactions in the millions go on unchecked.
The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton has been on the scene so long, most people have a set view of her. I get the impression most Americans think the entire political class is corrupt, so they just put that to one side and focus on who they think would run the economy better. If it comes down to a question of whether people want Bush economics or Clinton economics, the Democrats will easily win.
It is true that Clinton has been around so long her numbers are hard to move. But that applies more to improving your image rather than damaging it. Any politician no matter how well known can have a catastrophic loss of support given the right scandal. In Hillary's case, she is more scandal-proof as the family have been through so many. But she is not immune to the drip-fed negative stories about her trustworthiness, detachment from normal people, or self-entitlement.
For economics, I think you are simply wrong. The mood is very much against tax and spend, and against public sector fat cats with better healthcare and pensions than most Americans. And ObamaCare premium hikess, tax claw-backs and fines are set to hit hard this and next year. The recovery is seen as not helping the poor or middle class, and Hillary is seen as a third Obama term and hence tarred with that brush. In addition, Hillary is seen as having lots of detailed policy suggestions (although virtually nothing new) but no big idea. I don't have the detailed polling to hand, but I am pretty sure the GOP leads on economic issues.
One of my new York finance friends tells me Michael Bloomberg will run if it's Hillary vs a wingnut Republican. If he does run, do you think he'd stand a chance?
And who do you think he'd damage more: Hillary out the Republican?
I was convinced that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination, and would then flame out badly against almost any Republican candidate.
But I suspect that Hillary would destroy Trump.
Anyone would destroy Trump. Indeed, for the sake of the US and the world, they would have to. I'd even back Bernie Sanders over Trump. An egomaniac with his finger on the button ...
I think with the latest revelations that federal inspectors general want a criminal probe into Hillary's server is increasing the probability that she will not survive to the end of the nomination process though, and the chances that a Biden or other mainstream Dem candidate will enter the race to challenge her. Her trustworthiness numbers are already horrid, and if they get significantly worse, the bigwigs in the party must surely start the recruitment process for a new frontrunner.
Hillary remains the only Democratic contendor competitive with the GOP top tier next year (although Trump is the exception who would even lose to Sanders). If you are concerned about Hillary's emails you will not be voting for her anyway and I doubt any 'probe' is going to see her heading for the jailhouse! Though if she does win I would not be surprised if we got Watergate 2
I agree the probe is unlikely to see her go to jail, but it will maintain the steady drip drip drip of news undermining her trustworthiness. True, a hard core of supporters will stick with her regardless. But there is ample evidence that ServerGate has already cost her on this parameter, and there are whispers in the back rooms and corridors of the Dem establishment wondering at what time will it be right to go into panic mode.
Hillary cannot win on a core voter strategy (no-one can in the US) so she can't afford to let her trustworthiness numbers go too low. That number has a floor, true, but if that number goes below a certain threshold, she'll start losing Dem funders and key endorsements on the basis of her not being able to win the general.
Unless the GOP nominate Trump Hillary is the Dems ONLY chance of winning next year after 8 years in the White House, so if she is not the candidate it will almost certainly be President Jeb Bush. However, she has a low ceiling but a high floor, even after these 'revelations' she still has a clear but narrow lead on most polls, her opponents loathe her, her supporters love her, there is no middle ground with Hillary and of course being the first woman president helps her with the womens' vote too
One of my new York finance friends tells me Michael Bloomberg will run if it's Hillary vs a wingnut Republican. If he does run, do you think he'd stand a chance?
And who do you think he'd damage more: Hillary out the Republican?
First, I don't think the US is ready for a third party to win a presidential election, so Bloomberg would have to run as a Democrat if he wants to win.
The Democratic party is moving to the left. On most issues, Bloomberg is an old-fashioned Dixiecrat or old-fashioned New England GOPer. i.e. a centrist. If he ran as a third party, my guess is he'd make little dent in either party's core, but would take away more of the floating voters the GOP would hope to snag than those in the Dems' sights. So I think a third party run by him (or Trump) would help the Dems considerably, probably almost guaranteeing a Dem win.
I wonder what the UN would have said about beatings at my Boys' Grammar School in the 1970s when boys received six of the best and remained bruised for a good three weeks after being punished.
It's very rare a single piece changes my mind on something, but this did.
Yet the only state schools which consistently challenge the top private schools in the league tables are grammar schools. I would not impose selection wholesale but I don't see why parents cannot open new grammars just as they can ballot to close them under present rules or open a free school. I would not just have selection at 11, but 6th form entry too where grammars are open
Because I'm not sure it is culturally healthy to segregate the perceived "intelligent" from the rest of their peers.
Well Eton does, Winchester does, St Paul's does, all having competitive entrance exams, I don't see why it is so wrong in the state sector. Though as I said I would leave most selection until 16 and preparation for university
As always, it is good for a minority, but not good for those left behind. And I don't think it is helpful having the intelligent as an "other" group in society.
That's why I prefer setting: it allows lessons to be set at the appropriate level of academic rigour for individuals, while preserving a cohesive cohort in other matters
Charles, I went to an armed forces comprehensive school for a while. There were 20 sets in my year! However, House activities and non-academic activities were setted across academic abilities (or in the case of sports, all together), and each academic subject was setted differently. Thus there was a lot of interaction between pupils across all ranges of academic ability. It worked well for me (I can understand if it worked less well for others) but administratively it must have been a nightmare.
I had a similar structure at my community based school. Optimises the outcome for each child - surely the purpose of education! Administratively complex - but only really once a year when everything is calculated for the next year - and I suspect you need some spare capacity to create the flexibility, but a worthwhile investment
The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton has been on the scene so long, most people have a set view of her. I get the impression most Americans think the entire political class is corrupt, so they just put that to one side and focus on who they think would run the economy better. If it comes down to a question of whether people want Bush economics or Clinton economics, the Democrats will easily win.
It is true that Clinton has been around so long her numbers are hard to move. But that applies more to improving your image rather than damaging it. Any politician no matter how well known can have a catastrophic loss of support given the right scandal. In Hillary's case, she is more scandal-proof as the family have been through so many. But she is not immune to the drip-fed negative stories about her trustworthiness, detachment from normal people, or self-entitlement.
For economics, I think you are simply wrong. The mood is very much against tax and spend, and against public sector fat cats with better healthcare and pensions than most Americans. And ObamaCare premium hikess, tax claw-backs and fines are set to hit hard this and next year. The recovery is seen as not helping the poor or middle class, and Hillary is seen as a third Obama term and hence tarred with that brush. In addition, Hillary is seen as having lots of detailed policy suggestions (although virtually nothing new) but no big idea. I don't have the detailed polling to hand, but I am pretty sure the GOP leads on economic issues.
The Clinton years were the best years for the US economy in living memory, a growing economy, high stock values, and a balanced budget, the Clinton brand helps Hillary, a generic Democrat would probably lose next year
The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton has been on the scene so long, most people have a set view of her. I get the impression most Americans think the entire political class is corrupt, so they just put that to one side and focus on who they think would run the economy better. If it comes down to a question of whether people want Bush economics or Clinton economics, the Democrats will easily win.
It is true that Clinton has been around so long her numbers are hard to move. But that applies more to improving your image rather than damaging it. Any politician no matter how well known can have a catastrophic loss of support given the right scandal. In Hillary's case, she is more scandal-proof as the family have been through so many. But she is not immune to the drip-fed negative stories about her trustworthiness, detachment from normal people, or self-entitlement.
For economics, I think you are simply wrong. The mood is very much against tax and spend, and against public sector fat cats with better healthcare and pensions than most Americans. And ObamaCare premium hikess, tax claw-backs and fines are set to hit hard this and next year. The recovery is seen as not helping the poor or middle class, and Hillary is seen as a third Obama term and hence tarred with that brush. In addition, Hillary is seen as having lots of detailed policy suggestions (although virtually nothing new) but no big idea. I don't have the detailed polling to hand, but I am pretty sure the GOP leads on economic issues.
The Clinton years were the best years for the US economy in living memory, a growing economy, high stock values, and a balanced budget, the Clinton brand helps Hillary, a generic Democrat would probably lose next year
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
It seems that the Labour Party, in some respects, is heading back in the direction of the 1980s, but this does not have to be as far back as the point at which the SDP broke away. The task is not to turn back but instead look forward to the creation of Next Labour.
This will not be easy given that Labour lost a lot of its more centrist members during the Miliband years. These people hailed from our three previous election victories, they were people who celebrated Labour’s success and liked what we did in government. Not surprisingly they got the message that they were less welcome in the Miliband phase of Labour’s journey. Put this loss together with the influx of mainly young new members who liked the Miliband message (and in many cases barely remember Labour winning an election) and you can understand why such a churn has taken place in the party. Our job now is to re-kindle a thirst for winning. To bring progressive left values and policies into government you need a modern mindset and electoral credibility.
This theory about how "centrist members" have left the party, doesn't square with the fact that that YouGov poll the other day, when people were asked to recall who they voted for in 2010, David Miliband had a commanding lead. Though Corbyn was in any case taking a sizeable chunk even out of the 2010 David vote.
I wonder what the UN would have said about beatings at my Boys' Grammar School in the 1970s when boys received six of the best and remained bruised for a good three weeks after being punished.
I was at boarding school in the 1960s, had 6 of the best several times, and the bruises (colloquially 'stripes') disappeared in a few days just like any other normal bruise.
It was a badge of honor - you'd dash from your housemaster's study to the bog, and drop your pants to show off your stripes.
The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton has been on the scene so long, most people have a set view of her. I get the impression most Americans think the entire political class is corrupt, so they just put that to one side and focus on who they think would run the economy better. If it comes down to a question of whether people want Bush economics or Clinton economics, the Democrats will easily win.
It is true that Clinton has been around so long her numbers are hard to move. But that applies more to improving your image rather than damaging it. Any politician no matter how well known can have a catastrophic loss of support given the right scandal. In Hillary's case, she is more scandal-proof as the family have been through so many. But she is not immune to the drip-fed negative stories about her trustworthiness, detachment from normal people, or self-entitlement.
For economics, I think you are simply wrong. The mood is very much against tax and spend, and against public sector fat cats with better healthcare and pensions than most Americans. And ObamaCare premium hikess, tax claw-backs and fines are set to hit hard this and next year. The recovery is seen as not helping the poor or middle class, and Hillary is seen as a third Obama term and hence tarred with that brush. In addition, Hillary is seen as having lots of detailed policy suggestions (although virtually nothing new) but no big idea. I don't have the detailed polling to hand, but I am pretty sure the GOP leads on economic issues.
The Clinton years were the best years for the US economy in living memory, a growing economy, high stock values, and a balanced budget, the Clinton brand helps Hillary, a generic Democrat would probably lose next year
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Not to any greater degree than Jeb Bush has to pander to the social conservative and Tea Party right, so they will cancel each other out. Both remain the centrist candidates for their party's nominations
The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton has been on the scene so long, most people have a set view of her. I get the impression most Americans think the entire political class is corrupt, so they just put that to one side and focus on who they think would run the economy better. If it comes down to a question of whether people want Bush economics or Clinton economics, the Democrats will easily win.
It is true that Clinton has been around so long her numbers are hard to move. But that applies more to improving your image rather than damaging it. Any politician no matter how well known can have a catastrophic loss of support given the right scandal. In Hillary's case, she is more scandal-proof as the family have been through so many. But she is not immune to the drip-fed negative stories about her trustworthiness, detachment from normal people, or self-entitlement.
For economics, I think you are simply wrong. The mood is very much against tax and spend, and against public sector fat cats with better healthcare and pensions than most Americans. And ObamaCare premium hikess, tax claw-backs and fines are set to hit hard this and next year. The recovery is seen as not helping the poor or middle class, and Hillary is seen as a third Obama term and hence tarred with that brush. In addition, Hillary is seen as having lots of detailed policy suggestions (although virtually nothing new) but no big idea. I don't have the detailed polling to hand, but I am pretty sure the GOP leads on economic issues.
The Clinton years were the best years for the US economy in living memory, a growing economy, high stock values, and a balanced budget, the Clinton brand helps Hillary, a generic Democrat would probably lose next year
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Not to any greater degree than Jeb Bush has to pander to the social conservative and Tea Party right, so they will cancel each other out. Both remain the centrist candidates for their party's nominations
You are shifting the discussion. The issue was whether Hillary would benefit from Bill's economic legacy. It had nothing to do with Jeb.
I wonder what the UN would have said about beatings at my Boys' Grammar School in the 1970s when boys received six of the best and remained bruised for a good three weeks after being punished.
I was at boarding school in the 1960s, had 6 of the best several times, and the bruises (colloquially 'stripes') disappeared in a few days just like any other normal bruise.
It was a badge of honor - you'd dash from your housemaster's study to the bog, and drop your pants to show off your stripes.
Well maybe - but there is a difference between a few days and three weeks! Reports like this sometimes make me ponder the cases of sexual abuse relating to Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris where cases have been brought to court several decades after particular incidents occurred. Could guys still bring actions against their former schoolmasters for physical abuse dating back to the 1960s and 1970s if they believe themselves to have been punished unreasonably severely? Apparently some boys did bleed after a caning - I would have thought the potential for legal action was there!
I don't know if anyone, bar the redoubtable Jon Cruddas, thought on May 8th that it would be this bad for Labour. But they now seem in despair as bad as that realised by the Lib Dems more rapidly.
I wonder what the UN would have said about beatings at my Boys' Grammar School in the 1970s when boys received six of the best and remained bruised for a good three weeks after being punished.
I was at boarding school in the 1960s, had 6 of the best several times, and the bruises (colloquially 'stripes') disappeared in a few days just like any other normal bruise.
It was a badge of honor - you'd dash from your housemaster's study to the bog, and drop your pants to show off your stripes.
Well maybe - but there is a difference between a few days and three weeks! Reports like this sometimes make me ponder the cases of sexual abuse relating to Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris where cases have been brought to court several decades after particular incidents occurred. Could guys still bring actions against their former schoolmasters for physical abuse dating back to the 1960s and 1970s if they believe themselves to have been punished unreasonably severely? Apparently some boys did bleed after a caning - I would have thought the potential for legal action was there!
At my school senior prefects could cane with housemasters permission.
If I sued I'd make a fortune - I was there 10 years
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
For comments he made 8 years ago. I know it's not acceptable to use that word, but a more appropriate response would be to have him do public outreach work on race relations, rather than sack him, particularly as he sounds genuinely contrite.
Still, I am sure he has enough stashed away that he hardly needs to work for next month's rent.
I wonder what the UN would have said about beatings at my Boys' Grammar School in the 1970s when boys received six of the best and remained bruised for a good three weeks after being punished.
I was at boarding school in the 1960s, had 6 of the best several times, and the bruises (colloquially 'stripes') disappeared in a few days just like any other normal bruise.
It was a badge of honor - you'd dash from your housemaster's study to the bog, and drop your pants to show off your stripes.
Well maybe - but there is a difference between a few days and three weeks! Reports like this sometimes make me ponder the cases of sexual abuse relating to Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris where cases have been brought to court several decades after particular incidents occurred. Could guys still bring actions against their former schoolmasters for physical abuse dating back to the 1960s and 1970s if they believe themselves to have been punished unreasonably severely? Apparently some boys did bleed after a caning - I would have thought the potential for legal action was there!
At my school senior prefects could cane with housemasters permission.
If I sued I'd make a fortune - I was there 10 years
Yes - but it would be a matter of whether it was excessive or not. With hindsight some of the boys punished at my school should have taken themselves to the local A & E Hospital Dept . If the doctors took the view that they had been unreasonably beaten the boys could then have presented their report to the police with a view to commencing proceedings - though parental support would have to have been forthcoming too.
I don't know if anyone, bar the redoubtable Jon Cruddas, thought on May 8th that it would be this bad for Labour. But they now seem in despair as bad as that realised by the Lib Dems more rapidly.
Perhaps the difference being that the Lib Dems can console themselves that events were external and beyond their control, whereas Labour’s problems this week have been entirely self-inflicted.
For comments he made 8 years ago. I know it's not acceptable to use that word, but a more appropriate response would be to have him do public outreach work on race relations, rather than sack him, particularly as he sounds genuinely contrite.
Still, I am sure he has enough stashed away that he hardly needs to work for next month's rent.
He is 61 and I suspect no longer has a high profile in WWE.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
If you google "Hillary flip flops" you'll find all you need to know. She's a flip flop machine.
But if you were following the campaign you would already know that.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
The problem the Republicans have is that Clinton has been on the scene so long, most people have a set view of her. I get the impression most Americans think the entire political class is corrupt, so they just put that to one side and focus on who they think would run the economy better. If it comes down to a question of whether people want Bush economics or Clinton economics, the Democrats will easily win.
It is true that Clinton has been around so long her numbers are hard to move. But that applies more to improving your image rather than damaging it. Any politician no matter how well known can have a catastrophic loss of support given the right scandal. In Hillary's case, she is more scandal-proof as the family have been through so many. But she is not immune to the drip-fed negative stories about her trustworthiness, detachment from normal people, or self-entitlement.
For economics, I think you are simply wrong. The mood is very much against tax and spend, and against public sector fat cats with better healthcare and pensions than most Americans. And ObamaCare premium hikess, tax claw-backs and fines are set to hit hard this and next year. The recovery is seen as not helping the poor or middle class, and Hillary is seen as a third Obama term and hence tarred with that brush. In addition, Hillary is seen as having lots of detailed policy suggestions (although virtually nothing new) but no big idea. I don't have the detailed polling to hand, but I am pretty sure the GOP leads on economic issues.
The Clinton years were the best years for the US economy in living memory, a growing economy, high stock values, and a balanced budget, the Clinton brand helps Hillary, a generic Democrat would probably lose next year
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Not to any greater degree than Jeb Bush has to pander to the social conservative and Tea Party right, so they will cancel each other out. Both remain the centrist candidates for their party's nominations
You are shifting the discussion. The issue was whether Hillary would benefit from Bill's economic legacy. It had nothing to do with Jeb.
Well of course she will as it is all part of the Clinton brand, a few populist lines to Democrats in the primaries will not change that
Where the 'brand' matters is with floating voters, not the two bases. I sincerely doubt that floating voters in the US confuse Bill's brand with Hillary's.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
The one demographic the Dems have really lost since 2012 is the blue collar worker in Ohio and the mid-west. Look at the polling.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
The one demographic the Dems have really lost since 2012 is the blue collar worker in Ohio and the mid-west. Look at the polling.
But that is the area Hillary does best in, she trounced Obama in Ohio, WV and Pennsylvania and with white working class whites, while she does worse relative to Obama in Colorado and Iowa where he beat her in 2008
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
The one demographic the Dems have really lost since 2012 is the blue collar worker in Ohio and the mid-west. Look at the polling.
But that is the area Hillary does best in, she trounced Obama in Ohio, WV and Pennsylvania and with white working class whites, while she does worse relative to Obama in Colorado and Iowa where he beat her in 2008
It's where she does best in the nomination process against other Dems, but not where she will do best against the GOP.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
The one demographic the Dems have really lost since 2012 is the blue collar worker in Ohio and the mid-west. Look at the polling.
But that is the area Hillary does best in, she trounced Obama in Ohio, WV and Pennsylvania and with white working class whites, while she does worse relative to Obama in Colorado and Iowa where he beat her in 2008
It's where she does best in the nomination process against other Dems, but not where she will do best against the GOP.
No, it follows, Hillary is still leading Ohio polls for example while trailing in Colorado. She will do better with whites than obama, especially white working class women, but worse with blacks and some educated suburbanites
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
The one demographic the Dems have really lost since 2012 is the blue collar worker in Ohio and the mid-west. Look at the polling.
But that is the area Hillary does best in, she trounced Obama in Ohio, WV and Pennsylvania and with white working class whites, while she does worse relative to Obama in Colorado and Iowa where he beat her in 2008
It's where she does best in the nomination process against other Dems, but not where she will do best against the GOP.
No, it follows, Hillary is still leading Ohio polls for example while trailing in Colorado. She will do better with whites than obama, especially white working class women, but worse with blacks and some educated suburbanites
She will still do better against the GOP in California and New York than in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Against Rubio or Walker, I doubt she will win Ohio.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
The one demographic the Dems have really lost since 2012 is the blue collar worker in Ohio and the mid-west. Look at the polling.
But that is the area Hillary does best in, she trounced Obama in Ohio, WV and Pennsylvania and with white working class whites, while she does worse relative to Obama in Colorado and Iowa where he beat her in 2008
It's where she does best in the nomination process against other Dems, but not where she will do best against the GOP.
No, it follows, Hillary is still leading Ohio polls for example while trailing in Colorado. She will do better with whites than obama, especially white working class women, but worse with blacks and some educated suburbanites
She will still do better against the GOP in California and New York than in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Against Rubio or Walker, I doubt she will win Ohio.
You have already mentioned that and the presidency will not be determined by Hillary's emails
Don't think so - the story was only posted late last night eastern time. The NYT re-posted it with some subtle changes after complaints from the Clinton campaign.
If - and it's a big if - there is a criminal enquiry, or even worse a special prosecutor, then the emails are the one thing that could derail her campaign. From CNN to Fox that's the almost universal opinion.
You have already mentioned that and the presidency will not be determined by Hillary's emails
Don't think so - the story was only posted late last night eastern time. The NYT re-posted it with some subtle changes after complaints from the Clinton campaign.
If - and it's a big if - there is a criminal enquiry, or even worse a special prosecutor, then the emails are the one thing that could derail her campaign. From CNN to Fox that's the almost universal opinion.
Well the special prosecutor did not destory her husband did he, short of her being hauled away in handcuffs voters who are still backing her are not going to switch over her emails, end of story.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
The one demographic the Dems have really lost since 2012 is the blue collar worker in Ohio and the mid-west. Look at the polling.
But that is the area Hillary does best in, she trounced Obama in Ohio, WV and Pennsylvania and with white working class whites, while she does worse relative to Obama in Colorado and Iowa where he beat her in 2008
It's where she does best in the nomination process against other Dems, but not where she will do best against the GOP.
No, it follows, Hillary is still leading Ohio polls for example while trailing in Colorado. She will do better with whites than obama, especially white working class women, but worse with blacks and some educated suburbanites
She will still do better against the GOP in California and New York than in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Against Rubio or Walker, I doubt she will win Ohio.
You'd expect Walker to outperform Clinton in the Midwest. If he doesn't win Ohio he will have lost the presidency.
Except that, in order to pander to the leftward direction of the party, she is disavowing virtually all of Bill's legacy, in particular his positions on benefits and the role and size of government.
Can you link to where she has disavowed this?
This is a summary, but Politico, Washington Post and NYT have all run articles on this issue:
That's a stretch. Her having a change of emphasis, especially before the primary is over, is quite different from saying she has diavowed her husband's legacy. She's not come out and said that either welfare reform or NAFTA were mistakes or that they should be reversed.
Whether it is a stretch or not, it is a widespread meme in the campaign.
Perhaps among the commentariat, I doubt it will filter through to the blue collar worker in Ohio. Especially, when Bill is next to her saying she will continue his work.
The one demographic the Dems have really lost since 2012 is the blue collar worker in Ohio and the mid-west. Look at the polling.
But that is the area Hillary does best in, she trounced Obama in Ohio, WV and Pennsylvania and with white working class whites, while she does worse relative to Obama in Colorado and Iowa where he beat her in 2008
It's where she does best in the nomination process against other Dems, but not where she will do best against the GOP.
No, it follows, Hillary is still leading Ohio polls for example while trailing in Colorado. She will do better with whites than obama, especially white working class women, but worse with blacks and some educated suburbanites
She will still do better against the GOP in California and New York than in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Against Rubio or Walker, I doubt she will win Ohio.
You'd expect Walker to outperform Clinton in the Midwest. If he doesn't win Ohio he will have lost the presidency.
Indeed, but in fact Jeb is closer to Hillary in Ohio in that Quinnipiac poll, trailing her by 1% while Walker trails her by 4%. Night
Comments
Perhaps you were confusing Conservatives with Guardian staff?
[twitches nervously]
Hillary cannot win on a core voter strategy (no-one can in the US) so she can't afford to let her trustworthiness numbers go too low. That number has a floor, true, but if that number goes below a certain threshold, she'll start losing Dem funders and key endorsements on the basis of her not being able to win the general.
The Faroe tourist Board- big fish, big tales....
and then we have
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173617/Fishermen-chase-250-whales-beach-Faroe-Islands-locals-leap-water-glee-stab-death-slaughter-turns-sea-red-blood.html
Is it me or is someone seriously having a laugh somewhere?
One of my new York finance friends tells me Michael Bloomberg will run if it's Hillary vs a wingnut Republican. If he does run, do you think he'd stand a chance?
And who do you think he'd damage more: Hillary out the Republican?
http://news.sky.com/gallery/1524970/saturdays-newspaper-front-pages
*(Presumably those females with children as opposed to those Kendal types that have none)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/593435/UN-United-Nations-smacking-children-human-rights-terrorism-report
For economics, I think you are simply wrong. The mood is very much against tax and spend, and against public sector fat cats with better healthcare and pensions than most Americans. And ObamaCare premium hikess, tax claw-backs and fines are set to hit hard this and next year. The recovery is seen as not helping the poor or middle class, and Hillary is seen as a third Obama term and hence tarred with that brush. In addition, Hillary is seen as having lots of detailed policy suggestions (although virtually nothing new) but no big idea. I don't have the detailed polling to hand, but I am pretty sure the GOP leads on economic issues.
The Democratic party is moving to the left. On most issues, Bloomberg is an old-fashioned Dixiecrat or old-fashioned New England GOPer. i.e. a centrist. If he ran as a third party, my guess is he'd make little dent in either party's core, but would take away more of the floating voters the GOP would hope to snag than those in the Dems' sights. So I think a third party run by him (or Trump) would help the Dems considerably, probably almost guaranteeing a Dem win.
Corbyn: 99
Burnham: 87
Cooper: 82
Kendall: 14
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/which-clps-are-nominating-who-labour-leadership-contest
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/27/republicans-trusted-more-democrats-handle-terroris/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33649251
https://twitter.com/ChriswMP/status/624696146854834176
This theory about how "centrist members" have left the party, doesn't square with the fact that that YouGov poll the other day, when people were asked to recall who they voted for in 2010, David Miliband had a commanding lead. Though Corbyn was in any case taking a sizeable chunk even out of the 2010 David vote.
It was a badge of honor - you'd dash from your housemaster's study to the bog, and drop your pants to show off your stripes.
And on that obvious joke, good night.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/24/report-wwe-scrubs-all-mentions-of-hulk-hogan-in-wake-of-controversial-n-word-audio.html
I don't know if anyone, bar the redoubtable Jon Cruddas, thought on May 8th that it would be this bad for Labour. But they now seem in despair as bad as that realised by the Lib Dems more rapidly.
If I sued I'd make a fortune - I was there 10 years
Still, I am sure he has enough stashed away that he hardly needs to work for next month's rent.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/25/six-ways-hillary-is-running-against-bill-clintons-legacy/
But if you were following the campaign you would already know that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/07/22/the-democratic-partys-problem-with-blue-collar-whites-in-one-chart/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/democrats_can_t_win_white_working_class_voters_the_party_is_too_closely.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016
Obama beat Romney by just under 3% in 2012 in Ohio
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/politics/criminal-inquiry-is-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account.html?_r=0
If - and it's a big if - there is a criminal enquiry, or even worse a special prosecutor, then the emails are the one thing that could derail her campaign. From CNN to Fox that's the almost universal opinion.
is trending on Twitter (OMG, FFS, WTF, LOL, etc)
He's in a good position at any rate at this point...
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-25/long-delays-on-eurotunnel-due-to-migrant-activity/