yesterday she did what she had to do. Politically she did well. She told the same half truths and untruths she has done all along, brushing aside all her contradictions. About the only thing we discovered was that we now know for a fact that she lied about the video, thanks to her emails. The Benghazi committee is the least of her worries.
One thing that went without comment was that FBI Director Comey also was testifying on Capitol Hill yesterday. He was asked about the Hillary investigation, and said he was following it closely, and receiving daily briefings on progress. There are reportedly 25 special agents involved full time. For an investigation into an individual that is a very big team.
So we know at least 25 pairs of eyes will be analyzing every word she said in her testimony yesterday.
Hillary Clinton comes across as not only untrustworthy but also sleazy. Everything about her stinks, from the Clinton Foundation through to the use of a private email server.
But she's a woman, and she's running to be the first female President not necessarily a good President, and women voters vote for her because of that. Hillary's only danger is if she alienates men so much she loses way more men than she gains women, something that I call the Gillard trap. Yvette Cooper also fell into that trap early on and never recovered.
If the GOP pick Trump they could alienate more women than they win men, so it would balance out for her, especially as there are slightly more women voters than male voters
If it's Carson then Hillary is toast. Don't forget Carson is the cool black guy that does great speeches and Hillary doesn't fare well against those and the polls show it.
If Carson becomes the GOP candidate what would the Timothy McVeighs of the US of A do ? Since half the GOP voters are probably racist, Hillary wins.
They lived for 8 years under Obama, and last time in 2012 they dabbled with Cain for the nomination. They tolerate african americans but only if they are super-conservative like Allen West, and Carson is in that area, so he won't have that problem in the GE but will he have to face it in the primaries
It's a nice irony that Murdoch, hate-figure of the left, is the proprietor of the last remaining good-quality, non-partisan general newspaper in the UK. (OK, there's also the FT, but that's more a business, and in particular European big-business, paper).
Non-partisan ? The Sun or the lower quality The Times ?
Personally, I have more faith in the pro-business FT.
The FT is pro European and business orientated, the Times is probably the most balanced of the major national papers, having backed Labour and the Tories twice since 2001 and being less anti immigration and populist than the Sun, the Independent is also reasonably impartial but is generally centre left
The Indy's headlines on the web are consistently misleading. The articles are mostly anti-Tory and anti-monarchy. It's a measure of British tolerance that a former KGB agent can own a newspaper which seeks, by its contributors, to undermine the UK head of state.
It is less balanced than the Times but is less leftwing than the Mirror or the Guardian
Since half the GOP voters are probably racist, Hillary wins.
I don't go in for personal insults but that is the most ignorant, biased and unfounded comment I have seen on here in quite some time. What a ludicrous and crass thing to say.
Why on earth would you assume that GOP voters are any more racist than Democrats?
I've seen it, that's why I'm giving it a 50/50 chance between Trump and Carson.
Goodnight. P.S Poor Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio (in political terms), they've spent so much money in advertising in Iowa and they are in single digits.
I would make Carson the favourite now in the state but Trump the favourite for the nomination. Yes, if Rubio and Bush fail to make the top two in Iowa they will have to do so in New Hampshire, as Clinton did in 1992, to have any chance at all, otherwise the race is Carson v Trump
Hold on a moment... so 20%+ of Star readers voted Conservative? Seriously?
Also, by this measure, the Guardian seems to have the most politically-extreme readership of any paper (fewest votes for centrist parties + parties who the paper directly opposes). Strange... I was sure the Mail or Mirror would have taken that particular "accolade".
I'd also figured the Pink 'Un's readership would lean further left that it seems to.
Funny how closely the Sun maps against the actual vote-shares, barring a slight UKIP over-estimate. Emphasises the extent to which Murdoch follows opinion rather than leading it.
Hold on a moment... so 20%+ of Star readers voted Conservative? Seriously?
Also, by this measure, the Guardian seems to have the most politically-extreme readership of any paper (fewest votes for centrist parties + parties who the paper directly opposes). Strange... I was sure the Mail or Mirror would have taken that particular "accolade".
I'd also figured the Pink 'Un's readership would lean further left that it seems to.
Funny how closely the Sun maps against the actual vote-shares, barring a slight UKIP over-estimate. Emphasises the extent to which Murdoch follows opinion rather than leading it.
Interesting stuff.
Another argument could be that Murdoch knows how to pitch to his audience. Remember that you shouldnt really be comparing numbers with demographics of population.
Newspapers like the Sun are read predominantly by C2DE readership group. The Granuaid is so up its own backside that on its demographic profile it does not consider the C2DE group as worthy enough to be part of its offer to advertisers: http://www.theguardian.com/advertising/demographic-profile-of-guardian-readers
The question is, is The Sun an accurate representation of the voting patterns of the demographic groups its readers come from, the same for the Granuiad?
Come off it now, if this were happening the other way around, the SNP would be accused of wanting to avoiding the spotlight at a British patriotic event.
Come off it now, if this were happening the other way around, the SNP would be accused of wanting to avoiding the spotlight at a British patriotic event.
If you ignore the tedious shares, and get through to the posts that involve members of the different CLPs talking amongst each other, you begin to see the parallels with Militant. The focus on the rule book and putting forward 'model resolutions' to the CLPs across the country. With a singling out of councillors and MPs who arent sufficiently doctrinally pure, combine this with a complete run around of constituency labour party organisations.
This is great fun. Star readers, at the risk of generalising, probably have other reasons than politics for their choice of newspaper.
UKIP voting Guardian readers = Blair-ish Public sector-ish workers (hence Guardian readers) in blue collar seats who absolutely could not stand Ed Miliband but could see no other candidate who could beat the Labour candidate. I know of examples of these. We political geeks underestimate: 1) how many people read a paper for reasons other than it's op-ed stance (the vast majority of readers never get to these pages 2) the antipathy that there was to Ed Miliband personally* for non-political reasons e.g. he ran against his brother, he was clumsy and awkward.
There's a tendency now to see the Ed Miliband period as a halcyon period in the Labour Party's recent history. This is almost entirely due to comparisons with his predecessor and his successor. Ed Miliband was definitely my favourite Labour leader of the past eight years, but we shouldn't overlook how unpopular he was amongst the wider electorate. That's why Guardian readers voted UKIP.
Interesting to note that UKIP need a swing of 17.1% to win Oldham West & Royton, and in Heywood & Middleton last year they achieved a swing of 17.6%. So a repeat of that performance would be enough to win, contrary to the impression given by a number of articles in the last few days.
Interesting to note that UKIP need a swing of 17.1% to win Oldham West & Royton, and in Heywood & Middleton last year they achieved a swing of 17.6%. So a repeat of that performance would be enough to win, contrary to the impression given by a number of articles in the last few days.
I suppose the starting point is much higher this time, so may be more difficult to produce the same swing.
SNP allegedly puts politics before health of elderly veterans
I'm just a little insulted that you would think that the rest of us (almost regardless of politics) would seriously believe that Downing Street wanted to deprive Mr Corbyn (but not the Prime Minister) of his wreath laying moment of 30 seconds duration to protect the health of elderly Cenetaph veterans!
Most people on this site are reasonably poltically savy - or have watched at least one episode of In The Thick Of It!
SNP allegedly puts politics before health of elderly veterans
I'm just a little insulted that you would think that the rest of us (almost regardless of politics) would seriously believe that Downing Street wanted to deprive Mr Corbyn (but not the Prime Minister) of his wreath laying moment of 30 seconds duration to protect the health of elderly Cenetaph veterans!
Most people on this site are reasonably poltically savy - or have watched at least one episode of In The Thick Of It!
Don't shoot the messenger. I was flagging up a report in a national newspaper which I thought was interesting. That doesn't mean I agree with it.
Interesting to note that UKIP need a swing of 17.1% to win Oldham West & Royton, and in Heywood & Middleton last year they achieved a swing of 17.6%. So a repeat of that performance would be enough to win, contrary to the impression given by a number of articles in the last few days.
I suppose the starting point is much higher this time, so may be more difficult to produce the same swing.
According to an article in the New Statesman, Labour insiders think they've lost further ground to UKIP over the last 12 months since Heywood & Middleton:
"But the evidence from council by-elections and from the polls - and, I'm told, from the party's own canvassing - is that Labour's Ukip problem has got worse since Corbyn became leader. Under Ed Miliband, the party was shedding votes to Ukip and the Greens - and was uncertain about what to do to fix the problem. Under Corbyn, Labour's Green problem has almost ceased to exist. The Greens are believed to have shed at least 2,000 members since Corbyn became leader and their vote has gone down in every council election they have fought since Corbyn took office. But gains among the Greens have been offset by increasing losses to Ukip. "
Not even the Telegraph ran the line with any enthusiasm while The Times was hostile to the Government pretext (their first line was that it was at the request of The Palace because of the Queen's health!).
The serious point is well done to the NATS for refusing to let Downing Street spinners get their hands on, and tamper with, just about the only official ceremony which is dignified in being above and beyond the manipulation of present day politics.
Interesting that the Sun delivers fewer Tories than the Telegraph, despite much more vehement partisanship. The tilt to the right of the Times in recent years is reflected, but as always wer don't know if the readers follow the paper or vice versa.
Incidentally, I wrote one of the obituaries in the Guardian today (Saturday) - Dick Joyce, who I don't think anyone here is likely to know as he wasn't seriously involved in politics (a real polymath - remarkably interesting man and one of my oldest friends).
Interesting that the Sun delivers fewer Tories than the Telegraph, despite much more vehement partisanship. The tilt to the right of the Times in recent years is reflected, but as always wer don't know if the readers follow the paper or vice versa.
Incidentally, I wrote one of the obituaries in the Guardian today (Saturday) - Dick Joyce, who I don't think anyone here is likely to know as he wasn't seriously involved in politics (a real polymath - remarkably interesting man and one of my oldest friends).
Interesting man. Bit of a coincidence is that I live just a few miles from Alrewas where Dick Joyce was born. That's also where the National Memorial Arboretum is, in case anyone's been there.
With the newspaper readership numbers, I'm not that surprised about the Sun vs the Telegraph since the Sun has a far higher working-class readership and they're still more likely to support Labour than Telegraph readers.
SNP allegedly puts politics before health of elderly veterans
I'm just a little insulted that you would think that the rest of us (almost regardless of politics) would seriously believe that Downing Street wanted to deprive Mr Corbyn (but not the Prime Minister) of his wreath laying moment of 30 seconds duration to protect the health of elderly Cenetaph veterans!
Most people on this site are reasonably poltically savy - or have watched at least one episode of In The Thick Of It!
You do realise Corbyn would still have been laying a wreath?
SNP allegedly puts politics before health of elderly veterans
I'm just a little insulted that you would think that the rest of us (almost regardless of politics) would seriously believe that Downing Street wanted to deprive Mr Corbyn (but not the Prime Minister) of his wreath laying moment of 30 seconds duration to protect the health of elderly Cenetaph veterans!
Most people on this site are reasonably poltically savy - or have watched at least one episode of In The Thick Of It!
You do realise Corbyn would still have been laying a wreath?
FPT. PlatoSays "It'd be refreshing for Mr Brind to respond to comments and engage.
Sticking a hagiography de jour up doesn't do much at all."
Well Plato! I always enjoy David Herdson's contributions to PB.com, as much for the far more balanced articles, as well as his regular engagement and responses to other posters in the threads of articles he has penned.
Oh give it a rest!! I read the Telegraph article with interest, and I noted the fact that Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition certainly had no problem with this change considering the reasons behind it. But surprise, surprise, the party of grudge and grievance doesn't want anything to take away their appearance as the third party in Westminster politics. A FYI to scotslass (SNP Spin HQ), its not playing politics to note the growing age or frailty of the Queen and the many veterans who attend this service, its a simple fact of life!! Lets be honest, its the SNP playing the politics here as they want to grandstand at the cenotaph when this service is all about remembering the fallen.
Not even the Telegraph ran the line with any enthusiasm while The Times was hostile to the Government pretext (their first line was that it was at the request of The Palace because of the Queen's health!).
The serious point is well done to the NATS for refusing to let Downing Street spinners get their hands on, and tamper with, just about the only official ceremony which is dignified in being above and beyond the manipulation of present day politics.
Oh give it a rest!! I read the Telegraph article with interest, and I noted the fact that Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition certainly had no problem with this change considering the reasons behind it. But surprise, surprise, the party of grudge and grievance doesn't want anything to take away their appearance as the third party in Westminster politics. A FYI to scotslass (SNP Spin HQ), its not playing politics to note the growing age or frailty of the Queen and the many veterans who attend this service, its a simple fact of life!! Lets be honest, its the SNP playing the politics here as they want to grandstand at the cenotaph when this service is all about remembering the fallen.
Not even the Telegraph ran the line with any enthusiasm while The Times was hostile to the Government pretext (their first line was that it was at the request of The Palace because of the Queen's health!).
The serious point is well done to the NATS for refusing to let Downing Street spinners get their hands on, and tamper with, just about the only official ceremony which is dignified in being above and beyond the manipulation of present day politics.
Rabid frothing at the mouth Tory says SNP BAD on pb shocker
Comments
They tolerate african americans but only if they are super-conservative like Allen West, and Carson is in that area, so he won't have that problem in the GE but will he have to face it in the primaries
Carson 28, Trump 19, Cruz 10, Rubio 9, Bush 5, Fiorina 4, Paul 5, Jindal 2, Huckabee 3, Kasich 2, Christie 1, Santorum 2, Graham 0, Pataki 0
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-23/carson-surges-past-trump-in-latest-bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll
Goodnight.
P.S Poor Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio (in political terms), they've spent so much money in advertising in Iowa and they are in single digits.
Why on earth would you assume that GOP voters are any more racist than Democrats?
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1011925.pdf
http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2011/october/102111Hawk Poll Topline.pdf
In the event Santorum came (just) top, and Cain was nowhere.
The predictive power of these polls is pretty much exactly zero.
Also, by this measure, the Guardian seems to have the most politically-extreme readership of any paper (fewest votes for centrist parties + parties who the paper directly opposes). Strange... I was sure the Mail or Mirror would have taken that particular "accolade".
I'd also figured the Pink 'Un's readership would lean further left that it seems to.
Funny how closely the Sun maps against the actual vote-shares, barring a slight UKIP over-estimate. Emphasises the extent to which Murdoch follows opinion rather than leading it.
Interesting stuff.
Newspapers like the Sun are read predominantly by C2DE readership group. The Granuaid is so up its own backside that on its demographic profile it does not consider the C2DE group as worthy enough to be part of its offer to advertisers:
http://www.theguardian.com/advertising/demographic-profile-of-guardian-readers
The question is, is The Sun an accurate representation of the voting patterns of the demographic groups its readers come from, the same for the Granuiad?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11951445/SNP-rejects-proposal-to-cut-short-remembrance-ceremony-forcing-plan-to-be-scrapped.html
https://www.facebook.com/groups/382987725244764/?fref=ts
If you ignore the tedious shares, and get through to the posts that involve members of the different CLPs talking amongst each other, you begin to see the parallels with Militant. The focus on the rule book and putting forward 'model resolutions' to the CLPs across the country. With a singling out of councillors and MPs who arent sufficiently doctrinally pure, combine this with a complete run around of constituency labour party organisations.
Star readers, at the risk of generalising, probably have other reasons than politics for their choice of newspaper.
UKIP voting Guardian readers = Blair-ish Public sector-ish workers (hence Guardian readers) in blue collar seats who absolutely could not stand Ed Miliband but could see no other candidate who could beat the Labour candidate.
I know of examples of these.
We political geeks underestimate:
1) how many people read a paper for reasons other than it's op-ed stance (the vast majority of readers never get to these pages
2) the antipathy that there was to Ed Miliband personally* for non-political reasons e.g. he ran against his brother, he was clumsy and awkward.
There's a tendency now to see the Ed Miliband period as a halcyon period in the Labour Party's recent history. This is almost entirely due to comparisons with his predecessor and his successor. Ed Miliband was definitely my favourite Labour leader of the past eight years, but we shouldn't overlook how unpopular he was amongst the wider electorate. That's why Guardian readers voted UKIP.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/how-ukip-intends-to-fight-and-maybe-win-the-oldham-west-royton-by-election/
SNP allegedly puts politics before health of elderly veterans
I'm just a little insulted that you would think that the rest of us (almost regardless of politics) would seriously believe that Downing Street wanted to deprive Mr Corbyn (but not the Prime Minister) of his wreath laying moment of 30 seconds duration to protect the health of elderly Cenetaph veterans!
Most people on this site are reasonably poltically savy - or have watched at least one episode of In The Thick Of It!
"But the evidence from council by-elections and from the polls - and, I'm told, from the party's own canvassing - is that Labour's Ukip problem has got worse since Corbyn became leader. Under Ed Miliband, the party was shedding votes to Ukip and the Greens - and was uncertain about what to do to fix the problem. Under Corbyn, Labour's Green problem has almost ceased to exist. The Greens are believed to have shed at least 2,000 members since Corbyn became leader and their vote has gone down in every council election they have fought since Corbyn took office. But gains among the Greens have been offset by increasing losses to Ukip. "
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/10/how-worried-should-labour-be-about-oldham-west-and-royton-election
The serious point is well done to the NATS for refusing to let Downing Street spinners get their hands on, and tamper with, just about the only official ceremony which is dignified in being above and beyond the manipulation of present day politics.
Incidentally, I wrote one of the obituaries in the Guardian today (Saturday) - Dick Joyce, who I don't think anyone here is likely to know as he wasn't seriously involved in politics (a real polymath - remarkably interesting man and one of my oldest friends).
With the newspaper readership numbers, I'm not that surprised about the Sun vs the Telegraph since the Sun has a far higher working-class readership and they're still more likely to support Labour than Telegraph readers.
Sticking a hagiography de jour up doesn't do much at all."
Well Plato! I always enjoy David Herdson's contributions to PB.com, as much for the far more balanced articles, as well as his regular engagement and responses to other posters in the threads of articles he has penned.