Poor old Hillary, dragging Bill out to New Hampshire worked wonders then.
Joe Biden really should have ran - Hillary is proving useless.
Please withdraw that slur on useless people. Hilary is proving so shockingly inept that even the Department for Education would consider her not fit to have a job.
[off-topic snip]
And yet she could well end up president. Good result though it is for Sanders, it's not quite enough and her money and strength with the black community will see her through to the nomination. Against Trump or Cruz - or indeed anyone in the Republican field - she stands a good chance.
She'd get mullered in 2020 though.
Problem with the prospect of Sanders winning the nomination is that he is probably the only person who could lose to Trump.
Well, the only man anyway. Is there a candidate in this race who could win a second term? I can't see one.
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
"If she doesn't lift her game soon"
Politico reporting she will be focussing the campaign on guns, systematic racism and criminal justice reform. Looks like S Carolina beckons.
I mis read that: that it was "Hillary has called ON bernie to concede"
My immediate reaction was "that's a bit cheeky" - but not to rule out it might have happened
I misread that as "Hillary has called Bernie to concede the nomination" - and my immediate reaction was "at least she can now see what everyone else can see - how useless she has been..."!!
Which party machine is in greater despair this morning - the Republicans or the Democrats?
Oh, the irony. Many complained about the state of the DfE between 1997-2010, and were shouted down or ignored. Chickens roosting.
Since I have never been enamoured of the DfE, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
The real irony is that when Gove and Wilshaw were appointed I was pleased because I thought they would bang heads together in the two great roadblocks to educational reform in this country - the DfE and OFSTED - and hopefully improve matters on the ground by freeing up schools from LEA and central control to allow proper localism, which has been badly needed for years.
We all make mistakes and I was young and green then...
Poor old Hillary, dragging Bill out to New Hampshire worked wonders then.
Joe Biden really should have ran - Hillary is proving useless.
Please withdraw that slur on useless people. Hilary is proving so shockingly inept that even the Department for Education would consider her not fit to have a job.
[off-topic snip]
And yet she could well end up president. Good result though it is for Sanders, it's not quite enough and her money and strength with the black community will see her through to the nomination. Against Trump or Cruz - or indeed anyone in the Republican field - she stands a good chance.
She'd get mullered in 2020 though.
Agreed. The field for both sides is appallingly weak. This makes Ford v Carter look like a clash of the Titans.
Your last sentence - do you really see a plausible Republican emerging and winning the nomination in 2020? With their activist base it looks like hard work to do that and win the presidency.
An average run-of-the-mill Romney-like Republican would beat Hillary in 2020 comfortably (though not Romney, who'll be too old by then and is tainted by his 2008 defeat). Another Trump/Cruz-type candidate would probably win. However, I expect the experience of the GOP if they do nominate Cruz or Trump - highly likely now - is that they'll react against it and swing back to the centre for the presidency (it might remain a different matter at state level).
On the other hand, if there is a second Reagan waiting out there, then Hillary would be a second Mondale.
People are mobile and have free will. Not sure how a government department is supposed to ensure there are so many of them in any one place.
And surely to teach a subject you just need to have a grasp of and understand the curriculum. Actually the report refers to "secondary" education which could mean either GCSE or A Level, but if they meant A Level they would say so. And could include degrees in associated subjects, eg people with science degrees teaching maths. In any case I thought teachers generally had a secondary subject?
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
"If she doesn't lift her game soon"
Politico reporting she will be focussing the campaign on guns, systematic racism and criminal justice reform. Looks like S Carolina beckons.
The charts posted last night showing Sanders (Sanders!!) getting more than 80% of the under 30 vote is her biggest problem. She is simply not inspiring younger Americans, even female younger Americans. I really cannot see her winning the Presidency now.
Oh, the irony. Many complained about the state of the DfE between 1997-2010, and were shouted down or ignored. Chickens roosting.
Since I have never been enamoured of the DfE, I'm not quite sure what your point is.
The real irony is that when Gove and Wilshaw were appointed I was pleased because I thought they would bang heads together in the two great roadblocks to educational reform in this country - the DfE and OFSTED - and hopefully improve matters on the ground by freeing up schools from LEA and central control to allow proper localism, which has been badly needed for years.
We all make mistakes and I was young and green then...
You neglected to mention the greater roadblock to educational reform. The unions. And in some cases, teachers themselves.
Poor old Hillary, dragging Bill out to New Hampshire worked wonders then.
Joe Biden really should have ran - Hillary is proving useless.
Please withdraw that slur on useless people. Hilary is proving so shockingly inept that even the Department for Education would consider her not fit to have a job.
[off-topic snip]
And yet she could well end up president. Good result though it is for Sanders, it's not quite enough and her money and strength with the black community will see her through to the nomination. Against Trump or Cruz - or indeed anyone in the Republican field - she stands a good chance.
She'd get mullered in 2020 though.
Problem with the prospect of Sanders winning the nomination is that he is probably the only person who could lose to Trump.
Which makes the decisions of so many Democrats not to run last year as incomprehensible. It's ironic that Bill got his chance when the leading Democrats did exactly the same in 1992 but he didn't. I don't know enough about O'Malley to understand why he did so badly but there was a massive gap in the field to be filled and undoubtedly candidates capable of doing so.
Laying Rubio last week was one of those crystal clear bets that only comes around rarely. He still looks too short to me.
*Way* too short.
Trying to spot the value in the field. Still think it's with Trump. At some point the penny will drop. Possibly Kasich too if he can pull off a good result in SC but that's much harder territory for him than NH. Still, he has the opportunity to claim the Big Mo now.
People are mobile and have free will. Not sure how a government department is supposed to ensure there are so many of them in any one place.
And surely to teach a subject you just need to have a grasp of and understand the curriculum. Actually the report refers to "secondary" education which could mean either GCSE or A Level, but if they meant A Level they would say so. And could include degrees in associated subjects, eg people with science degrees teaching maths. In any case I thought teachers generally had a secondary subject?
If only it were that simple.
I have no dependents, so I could move to Cannock to take this job. That still put a huge stress on me and my father a few weeks ago when my mother died and I have been too far away to be much help. For those with elderly relatives who need support, or young children who need help with childcare, relocating is often not a great option, or even a possible option. Moreover in London especially the extra pay is woefully inadequate to cover accommodation costs even with government housing schemes. That's why I have refused all approaches to work in London.
Until 5 years ago, fair play to them, the DfE tried to match training places to local area needs so there was a constant supply that roughly matched demand in the area. It also meant schools could recruit from among their own trainees, which always helped. This year, that failed entirely and disastrously, but it's been getting worse ever since SCITT started in a big way, as people simply don't want to spend three weeks of four days in a school before jumping to another. There's no time to do anything. And with university courses closing, that route is choked off.
In answer to other questions, yes most teachers offer a second subject. I offer four, one way and another, apart from History. But there is no help in having a second subject teacher at GCSE if you have nobody to teacher at A-level. Whether the report refers to it or not there is a crisis there. So at basic level, we're OK. At A-level, physics and maths are dying. That will reduce numbers of physics graduates markedly and imperil university departments. Is that what we want?
That's why I refer to insufferable complacency at the DfE.
Laying Rubio last week was one of those crystal clear bets that only comes around rarely. He still looks too short to me.
*Way* too short.
Trying to spot the value in the field. Still think it's with Trump. At some point the penny will drop. Possibly Kasich too if he can pull off a good result in SC but that's much harder territory for him than NH. Still, he has the opportunity to claim the Big Mo now.
There's value somewhere in the non-Trump non-Cruz line-up. Jeb Bush may be it simply by being financially able to outlast the other possibilities. But I think you may well be right about Donald Trump.
I don't profess any great knowledge about US politics, mind.
People are mobile and have free will. Not sure how a government department is supposed to ensure there are so many of them in any one place.
And surely to teach a subject you just need to have a grasp of and understand the curriculum. Actually the report refers to "secondary" education which could mean either GCSE or A Level, but if they meant A Level they would say so. And could include degrees in associated subjects, eg people with science degrees teaching maths. In any case I thought teachers generally had a secondary subject?
If only it were that simple.
I have no dependents, so I could move to Cannock to take this job. That still put a huge stress on me and my father a few weeks ago when my mother died and I have been too far away to be much help. For those with elderly relatives who need support, or young children who need help with childcare, relocating is often not a great option, or even a possible option. Moreover in London especially the extra pay is woefully inadequate to cover accommodation costs even with government housing schemes. That's why I have refused all approaches to work in London.
Until 5 years ago, fair play to them, the DfE tried to match training places to local area needs so there was a constant supply that roughly matched demand in the area. It also meant schools could recruit from among their own trainees, which always helped. This year, that failed entirely and disastrously, but it's been getting worse ever since SCITT started in a big way, as people simply don't want to spend three weeks of four days in a school before jumping to another. There's no time to do anything. And with university courses closing, that route is choked off.
In answer to other questions, yes most teachers offer a second subject. I offer four, one way and another, apart from History. But there is no help in having a second subject teacher at GCSE if you have nobody to teacher at A-level. Whether the report refers to it or not there is a crisis there. So at basic level, we're OK. At A-level, physics and maths are dying. That will reduce numbers of physics graduates markedly and imperil university departments. Is that what we want?
That's why I refer to insufferable complacency at the DfE.
I guess they will have to pay more to a physics or maths teacher to encourage them to teach.
Any chance of Biden getting pushed, or has that ship sailed?
Almost certainly.
The only states for which the filing deadlines haven't yet passed are
California Connecticut Delaware Kansas Montana Nebraska (possibly, though think this is a typo) New Jersey New Mexico North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania (deadline is 16 Feb) South Dakota Washington (deadline is 26 Feb)
Now it's true that there are still some chunky delegate allocations to come out of some of those states but none of the votes take place for months. Is it really possible to enter now and then watch close to forty primaries go by without taking part in any of them?
People are mobile and have free will. Not sure how a government department is supposed to ensure there are so many of them in any one place.
And surely to teach a subject you just need to have a grasp of and understand the curriculum. Actually the report refers to "secondary" education which could mean either GCSE or A Level, but if they meant A Level they would say so. And could include degrees in associated subjects, eg people with science degrees teaching maths. In any case I thought teachers generally had a secondary subject?
If only it were that simple.
I have no dependents, so I could move to Cannock to take this job. That still put a huge stress on me and my father a few weeks ago when my mother died and I have been too far away to be much help. For those with elderly relatives who need support, or young children who need help with childcare, relocating is often not a great option, or even a possible option. Moreover in London especially the extra pay is woefully inadequate to cover accommodation costs even with government housing schemes. That's why I have refused all approaches to work in London.
Until 5 years ago, fair play to them, the DfE tried to match training places to local area needs so there was a constant supply that roughly matched demand in the area. It also meant schools could recruit from among their own trainees, which always helped. This year, that failed entirely and disastrously, but it's been getting worse ever since SCITT started in a big way, as people simply don't want to spend three weeks of four days in a school before jumping to another. There's no time to do anything. And with university courses closing, that route is choked off.
In answer to other questions, yes most teachers offer a second subject. I offer four, one way and another, apart from History. But there is no help in having a second subject teacher at GCSE if you have nobody to teacher at A-level. Whether the report refers to it or not there is a crisis there. So at basic level, we're OK. At A-level, physics and maths are dying. That will reduce numbers of physics graduates markedly and imperil university departments. Is that what we want?
That's why I refer to insufferable complacency at the DfE.
Most Londoners now rent and that takes up around 50% of their income so it is not just teachers with problems on the housing front in the capital. Maths is still one of the most popular A Level subjects though we may need more bursaries to attract Maths and Physics grads as teachers
People are mobile and have free will. Not sure how a government department is supposed to ensure there are so many of them in any one place.
And surely to teach a subject you just need to have a grasp of and understand the curriculum. Actually the report refers to "secondary" education which could mean either GCSE or A Level, but if they meant A Level they would say so. And could include degrees in associated subjects, eg people with science degrees teaching maths. In any case I thought teachers generally had a secondary subject?
If only it were that simple.
I have no dependents, so I could move to Cannock to take this job. That still put a huge stress on me and my father a few weeks ago when my mother died and I have been too far away to be much help. For those with elderly relatives who need support, or young children who need help with childcare, relocating is often not a great option, or even a possible option. Moreover in London especially the extra pay is woefully inadequate to cover accommodation costs even with government housing schemes. That's why I have refused all approaches to work in London.
Until 5 years ago, fair play to them, the DfE tried to match training places to local area needs so there was a constant supply that roughly matched demand in the area. It also meant schools could recruit from among their own trainees, which always helped. This year, that failed entirely and disastrously, but it's been getting worse ever since SCITT started in a big way, as people simply don't want to spend three weeks of four days in a school before jumping to another. There's no time to do anything. And with university courses closing, that route is choked off.
In answer to other questions, yes most teachers offer a second subject. I offer four, one way and another, apart from History. But there is no help in having a second subject teacher at GCSE if you have nobody to teacher at A-level. Whether the report refers to it or not there is a crisis there. So at basic level, we're OK. At A-level, physics and maths are dying. That will reduce numbers of physics graduates markedly and imperil university departments. Is that what we want?
That's why I refer to insufferable complacency at the DfE.
I guess they will have to pay more to a physics or maths teacher to encourage them to teach.
Sadly, the chance of other teachers accepting that as a solution to improving the chances and education of children would be low to zero. "But that's unfair", will be the cry followed by industrial action. They're no better than Junior Doctors.
People are mobile and have free will. Not sure how a government department is supposed to ensure there are so many of them in any one place.
And surely to teach a subject you just need to have a grasp of and understand the curriculum. Actually the report refers to "secondary" education which could mean either GCSE or A Level, but if they meant A Level they would say so. And could include degrees in associated subjects, eg people with science degrees teaching maths. In any case I thought teachers generally had a secondary subject?
If only it were that simple.
I have no dependents, so I could move to Cannock to take this job. That still put a huge stress on me and my father a few weeks ago when my mother died and I have been too far away to be much help. For those with elderly relatives who need support, or young children who need help with childcare, relocating is often not a great option, or even a possible option. Moreover in London especially the extra pay is woefully inadequate to cover accommodation costs even with government housing schemes. That's why I have refused all approaches to work in London.
Until 5 years ago, fair play to them, the DfE tried to match training places to local area needs so there was a constant supply that roughly matched demand in the area. It also meant schools could recruit from among their own trainees, which always helped. This year, that failed entirely and disastrously, but it's been getting worse ever since SCITT started in a big way, as people simply don't want to spend three weeks of four days in a school before jumping to another. There's no time to do anything. And with university courses closing, that route is choked off.
In answer to other questions, yes most teachers offer a second subject. I offer four, one way and another, apart from History. But there is no help in having a second subject teacher at GCSE if you have nobody to teacher at A-level. Whether the report refers to it or not there is a crisis there. So at basic level, we're OK. At A-level, physics and maths are dying. That will reduce numbers of physics graduates markedly and imperil university departments. Is that what we want?
That's why I refer to insufferable complacency at the DfE.
Putting aside the issue of good teachers in those subject, you aren't correct about maths dying. It is the most popular a-level, 11% of kids take it & it was up again in 2015.
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
"If she doesn't lift her game soon"
Politico reporting she will be focussing the campaign on guns, systematic racism and criminal justice reform. Looks like S Carolina beckons.
The charts posted last night showing Sanders (Sanders!!) getting more than 80% of the under 30 vote is her biggest problem. She is simply not inspiring younger Americans, even female younger Americans. I really cannot see her winning the Presidency now.
Once she gets to the general young female voters would vote for Bill Crosby over Trump so she does not have to
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
I think Trump wins hands down against Sanders. Not least of which because Bloomberg would probably intervene, but also Trump stands a good chance direct.
Sanders is a socialist. Americans really don't like socialism.
People are mobile and have free will. Not sure how a government department is supposed to ensure there are so many of them in any one place.
And surely to teach a subject you just need to have a grasp of and understand the curriculum. Actually the report refers to "secondary" education which could mean either GCSE or A Level, but if they meant A Level they would say so. And could include degrees in associated subjects, eg people with science degrees teaching maths. In any case I thought teachers generally had a secondary subject?
If only it were that simple.
I have no dependents, so I could move to Cannock to take this job. That still put a huge stress on me and my father a few weeks ago when my mother died and I have been too far away to be much help. For those with elderly relatives who need support, or young children who need help with childcare, relocating is often not a great option, or even a possible option. Moreover in London especially the extra pay is woefully inadequate to cover accommodation costs even with government housing schemes. That's why I have refused all approaches to work in London.
Until 5 years ago, fair play to them, the DfE tried to match training places to local area needs so there was a constant supply that roughly matched demand in the area. It also meant schools could recruit from among their own trainees, which always helped. This year, that failed entirely and disastrously, but it's been getting worse ever since SCITT started in a big way, as people simply don't want to spend three weeks of four days in a school before jumping to another. There's no time to do anything. And with university courses closing, that route is choked off.
In answer to other questions, yes most teachers offer a second subject. I offer four, one way and another, apart from History. But there is no help in having a second subject teacher at GCSE if you have nobody to teacher at A-level. Whether the report refers to it or not there is a crisis there. So at basic level, we're OK. At A-level, physics and maths are dying. That will reduce numbers of physics graduates markedly and imperil university departments. Is that what we want?
That's why I refer to insufferable complacency at the DfE.
I guess they will have to pay more to a physics or maths teacher to encourage them to teach.
Sadly, the chance of other teachers accepting that as a solution to improving the chances and education of children would be low to zero. "But that's unfair", will be the cry followed by industrial action. They're no better than Junior Doctors.
I'm shocked by your cynical view of teachers (and Junior Drs) and their commitment to the welfare of pupils!
It's extraordinary that Trump is still odds-against for the nomination.
NH has shown that his polling is not overly-loaded with armchair activists; it's real. And if it's real there then we can assume that his very healthy leads in SC and nationally are also real. We don't know much about Nevada and the campaign still has dynamics to play out as candidates withdraw and their support reallocates but it's hard to see Trump not being the leading candidate going into Super Tuesday, probably by quite some way.
On a similar note, second favourite is ... drumroll ... Rubio! Seriously. He's even worse value than Jeb (who is himself only 11/2). I can't really see Kasich doing it but at 22/1, I don't think his chances are four times worse than Bush the Third.
My instincts are telling me now that Bush will be the one who takes on Trump over the long haul. Rubio is finished by the look of it.
It is Trump v Cruz now the establishment has been trounced
What happens if say someone wins and pops their clogs before inauguration, does the running mate automatically become President?
Yes. Once the electoral college votes, it's official.
Although the electoral college doesn't vote for several weeks after the general election. If a candidate died before the electors cast their votes, they'd have much more discretion.
In fact, it could be a tricky situation. Many states require their electors to vote as pledged (though not all - faithless electors do occasionally break ranks). What an elector is supposed to do if their candidate has died isn't necessarily clear. IIRC, precedent is that any vote for a deceased candidate is discounted, so an elector might be better off voting for an alternate candidate for president (and, if that vote is for the former running mate, a different vote for VP too), rather than risk the election ending up in the House for lack of any candidate receiving a sufficient number of votes.
Laying Rubio last week was one of those crystal clear bets that only comes around rarely. He still looks too short to me.
*Way* too short.
Trying to spot the value in the field. Still think it's with Trump. At some point the penny will drop. Possibly Kasich too if he can pull off a good result in SC but that's much harder territory for him than NH. Still, he has the opportunity to claim the Big Mo now.
There's value somewhere in the non-Trump non-Cruz line-up. Jeb Bush may be it simply by being financially able to outlast the other possibilities. But I think you may well be right about Donald Trump.
I don't profess any great knowledge about US politics, mind.
Jeb Bush polled underneath his RCP average in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
In fact the polls have been pretty damned good, especially this time round. Finishing below Ted Cruz in a state like New Hampshire is a seriously poor result.
My lay of Jeb at 20 probably wasn't the best, but I see no reason to back him at 6.8 now.
Poor old Hillary, dragging Bill out to New Hampshire worked wonders then.
Joe Biden really should have ran - Hillary is proving useless.
Please withdraw that slur on useless people. Hilary is proving so shockingly inept that even the Department for Education would consider her not fit to have a job.
[off-topic snip]
And yet she could well end up president. Good result though it is for Sanders, it's not quite enough and her money and strength with the black community will see her through to the nomination. Against Trump or Cruz - or indeed anyone in the Republican field - she stands a good chance.
She'd get mullered in 2020 though.
Agreed. The field for both sides is appallingly weak. This makes Ford v Carter look like a clash of the Titans.
Your last sentence - do you really see a plausible Republican emerging and winning the nomination in 2020? With their activist base it looks like hard work to do that and win the presidency.
An average run-of-the-mill Romney-like Republican would beat Hillary in 2020 comfortably (though not Romney, who'll be too old by then and is tainted by his 2008 defeat). Another Trump/Cruz-type candidate would probably win. However, I expect the experience of the GOP if they do nominate Cruz or Trump - highly likely now - is that they'll react against it and swing back to the centre for the presidency (it might remain a different matter at state level).
On the other hand, if there is a second Reagan waiting out there, then Hillary would be a second Mondale.
If Trump loses it will be Cruz as nominee in 2020 the GOP are in almost as big a hole as Labour
What happens if say someone wins and pops their clogs before inauguration, does the running mate automatically become President?
Yes. Once the electoral college votes, it's official.
The problem occurs if the winning candidate dies before the College votes. It could get messy. Some electors would be bound by state law to vote for the dead guy, other may vote for the Veep-elect, others for someone else. By splitting the vote, the choice could go to the House, leading to anyone from the top three, including the losing presidential candidate, being chosen, or even the loser being chosen automatically if the House tosses the votes of the dead guy, following the Greeley precedent of 1873.
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
Not impossible but highly unlikely.
FWIW, it'd be interesting to see forced polling on a Corbyn-led Labour vs Farage's UKIP. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Purples lead the Reds.
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
"If she doesn't lift her game soon"
Politico reporting she will be focussing the campaign on guns, systematic racism and criminal justice reform. Looks like S Carolina beckons.
The charts posted last night showing Sanders (Sanders!!) getting more than 80% of the under 30 vote is her biggest problem. She is simply not inspiring younger Americans, even female younger Americans. I really cannot see her winning the Presidency now.
Once she gets to the general young female voters would vote for Bill Crosby over Trump so she does not have to
I don't think so. I am seriously tempted to put money on President Trump. It seems ridiculous but the pieces are falling into place.
Edit. still 5/1 with Paddy Power. Surely that is a steal.
Laying Rubio last week was one of those crystal clear bets that only comes around rarely. He still looks too short to me.
*Way* too short.
Trying to spot the value in the field. Still think it's with Trump. At some point the penny will drop. Possibly Kasich too if he can pull off a good result in SC but that's much harder territory for him than NH. Still, he has the opportunity to claim the Big Mo now.
There's value somewhere in the non-Trump non-Cruz line-up. Jeb Bush may be it simply by being financially able to outlast the other possibilities. But I think you may well be right about Donald Trump.
I don't profess any great knowledge about US politics, mind.
Jeb Bush polled underneath his RCP average in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
In fact the polls have been pretty damned good, especially this time round. Finishing below Ted Cruz in a state like New Hampshire is a seriously poor result.
My lay of Jeb at 20 probably wasn't the best, but I see no reason to back him at 6.8 now.
Who do you see consolidating the non-firebrand vote?
Laying Rubio last week was one of those crystal clear bets that only comes around rarely. He still looks too short to me.
*Way* too short.
Trying to spot the value in the field. Still think it's with Trump. At some point the penny will drop. Possibly Kasich too if he can pull off a good result in SC but that's much harder territory for him than NH. Still, he has the opportunity to claim the Big Mo now.
There's value somewhere in the non-Trump non-Cruz line-up. Jeb Bush may be it simply by being financially able to outlast the other possibilities. But I think you may well be right about Donald Trump.
I don't profess any great knowledge about US politics, mind.
Jeb Bush polled underneath his RCP average in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
In fact the polls have been pretty damned good, especially this time round. Finishing below Ted Cruz in a state like New Hampshire is a seriously poor result.
My lay of Jeb at 20 probably wasn't the best, but I see no reason to back him at 6.8 now.
Who do you see consolidating the non-firebrand vote?
Bush and Rubio to just plain split it - till it is too late.
Rubio is polling much better nationally than Bush. (Bush may gain momentum, but Rubio is going nowhere I think).
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
Laying Rubio last week was one of those crystal clear bets that only comes around rarely. He still looks too short to me.
*Way* too short.
Trying to spot the value in the field. Still think it's with Trump. At some point the penny will drop. Possibly Kasich too if he can pull off a good result in SC but that's much harder territory for him than NH. Still, he has the opportunity to claim the Big Mo now.
There's value somewhere in the non-Trump non-Cruz line-up. Jeb Bush may be it simply by being financially able to outlast the other possibilities. But I think you may well be right about Donald Trump.
I don't profess any great knowledge about US politics, mind.
Jeb Bush polled underneath his RCP average in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
In fact the polls have been pretty damned good, especially this time round. Finishing below Ted Cruz in a state like New Hampshire is a seriously poor result.
My lay of Jeb at 20 probably wasn't the best, but I see no reason to back him at 6.8 now.
Who do you see consolidating the non-firebrand vote?
Bush and Rubio to just plain split it - till it is too late.
Rubio is polling much better nationally than Bush. (Bush may gain momentum, but Rubio is going nowhere I think).
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
"If she doesn't lift her game soon"
Politico reporting she will be focussing the campaign on guns, systematic racism and criminal justice reform. Looks like S Carolina beckons.
The charts posted last night showing Sanders (Sanders!!) getting more than 80% of the under 30 vote is her biggest problem. She is simply not inspiring younger Americans, even female younger Americans. I really cannot see her winning the Presidency now.
Once she gets to the general young female voters would vote for Bill Crosby over Trump so she does not have to
I don't think so. I am seriously tempted to put money on President Trump. It seems ridiculous but the pieces are falling into place.
Edit. still 5/1 with Paddy Power. Surely that is a steal.
You're clearly a very measured man, does Trump as President concern you?
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
Not impossible but highly unlikely.
FWIW, it'd be interesting to see forced polling on a Corbyn-led Labour vs Farage's UKIP. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Purples lead the Reds.
UKIP would likely win. However much dislike there is for UKIP among centrist voters, they wouldn't see the party as the same sort of threat as Corbyn & Co.
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
"If she doesn't lift her game soon"
Politico reporting she will be focussing the campaign on guns, systematic racism and criminal justice reform. Looks like S Carolina beckons.
The charts posted last night showing Sanders (Sanders!!) getting more than 80% of the under 30 vote is her biggest problem. She is simply not inspiring younger Americans, even female younger Americans. I really cannot see her winning the Presidency now.
Once she gets to the general young female voters would vote for Bill Crosby over Trump so she does not have to
I don't think so. I am seriously tempted to put money on President Trump. It seems ridiculous but the pieces are falling into place.
Edit. still 5/1 with Paddy Power. Surely that is a steal.
Hillary beats Trump by 5% in the RCP poll average even as she loses to Rubio Trump inspires ageing white men but is toxic to young women and minorities
Poor old Hillary, dragging Bill out to New Hampshire worked wonders then.
Joe Biden really should have ran - Hillary is proving useless.
Please withdraw that slur on useless people. Hilary is proving so shockingly inept that even the Department for Education would consider her not fit to have a job.
[off-topic snip]
And yet she could well end up president. Good result though it is for Sanders, it's not quite enough and her money and strength with the black community will see her through to the nomination. Against Trump or Cruz - or indeed anyone in the Republican field - she stands a good chance.
She'd get mullered in 2020 though.
Problem with the prospect of Sanders winning the nomination is that he is probably the only person who could lose to Trump.
Which makes the decisions of so many Democrats not to run last year as incomprehensible. It's ironic that Bill got his chance when the leading Democrats did exactly the same in 1992 but he didn't. I don't know enough about O'Malley to understand why he did so badly but there was a massive gap in the field to be filled and undoubtedly candidates capable of doing so.
Clintons famously punish those getting in way. If you expect Clinton to be president youre on bad ground with president for eight years.
Rubio's vote isn't just a straight Jeb Bush swap - he gets a certain 'c' christian, conservative probably a bit wealthier vote than Ted Cruz and a touch more middle class but with the same very right wing views.
What happens if say someone wins and pops their clogs before inauguration, does the running mate automatically become President?
Yes. Once the electoral college votes, it's official.
The problem occurs if the winning candidate dies before the College votes. It could get messy. Some electors would be bound by state law to vote for the dead guy, other may vote for the Veep-elect, others for someone else. By splitting the vote, the choice could go to the House, leading to anyone from the top three, including the losing presidential candidate, being chosen, or even the loser being chosen automatically if the House tosses the votes of the dead guy, following the Greeley precedent of 1873.
I don't think the Greeley precedent could hand the election to the loser. To win in the Electoral College, you need an absolute majority of the number of electors appointed, not valid votes cast.
The loophole to that is that if *only* votes for the two candidates nominated were cast, then there might only be one name to send to the House.
It's actually quite a good reason to deliberately have one faithless elector voting for the VP-nominee, assuming the election overall isn't on a knife-edge.
Sadly, the chance of other teachers accepting that as a solution to improving the chances and education of children would be low to zero. "But that's unfair", will be the cry followed by industrial action. They're no better than Junior Doctors.
I'd be perfectly happy with that, and in a sense it happens already with golden hellos Etc. moreover it's the only solution. But where does the money come from? Will the DfE make the money available? Will pigs fly? Will Trump lose?
And I was referring to maths being unable to be taught at a-level, not a lack of demand. A subject dies of it has no teachers and that's where we're heading with maths.
Mr. L, the Conservatives should take note. Yesterday's joke can become today's elected head of government.
Not saying it will happen here, but complacency only helps Corbyn and his 1980s bullshit.
Indeed. The observation that politics has been crazy since the crash is acute. The loss of credibility of the whole establishment from that chaotic bubble causes reverberations everywhere whether it is Syriza in Greece or Trump in the US.
People are open to the anti politician in a way that they have not been before because the credibility of the political establishment was shot down by the criminal conduct of the bankers and the willingness to sweep that grand larceny under the carpet.
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
Not impossible but highly unlikely.
FWIW, it'd be interesting to see forced polling on a Corbyn-led Labour vs Farage's UKIP. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Purples lead the Reds.
Well obviously even Farage would have a chance if his main opponent was Corbyn just as even Corbyn would have a chance if his main opponent was Farage
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
"If she doesn't lift her game soon"
Politico reporting she will be focussing the campaign on guns, systematic racism and criminal justice reform. Looks like S Carolina beckons.
The charts posted last night showing Sanders (Sanders!!) getting more than 80% of the under 30 vote is her biggest problem. She is simply not inspiring younger Americans, even female younger Americans. I really cannot see her winning the Presidency now.
Once she gets to the general young female voters would vote for Bill Crosby over Trump so she does not have to
I don't think so. I am seriously tempted to put money on President Trump. It seems ridiculous but the pieces are falling into place.
Edit. still 5/1 with Paddy Power. Surely that is a steal.
You're clearly a very measured man, does Trump as President concern you?
Oh god yes. Doesn't mean it isn't going to happen though. And I think it is better than a 5/1 shot.
Mr. L, the Conservatives should take note. Yesterday's joke can become today's elected head of government.
Not saying it will happen here, but complacency only helps Corbyn and his 1980s bullshit.
Indeed. The observation that politics has been crazy since the crash is acute. The loss of credibility of the whole establishment from that chaotic bubble causes reverberations everywhere whether it is Syriza in Greece or Trump in the US.
People are open to the anti politician in a way that they have not been before because the credibility of the political establishment was shot down by the criminal conduct of the bankers and the willingness to sweep that grand larceny under the carpet.
A reason why Boris' stock might be higher than the Tory establishment would like - he still has the whiff of populist anti-politics about him.
Poor old Hillary, dragging Bill out to New Hampshire worked wonders then.
Joe Biden really should have ran - Hillary is proving useless.
Please withdraw that slur on useless people. Hilary is proving so shockingly inept that even the Department for Education would consider her not fit to have a job.
[off-topic snip]
And yet she could well end up president. Good result though it is for Sanders, it's not quite enough and her money and strength with the black community will see her through to the nomination. Against Trump or Cruz - or indeed anyone in the Republican field - she stands a good chance.
She'd get mullered in 2020 though.
Problem with the prospect of Sanders winning the nomination is that he is probably the only person who could lose to Trump.
Which makes the decisions of so many Democrats not to run last year as incomprehensible. It's ironic that Bill got his chance when the leading Democrats did exactly the same in 1992 but he didn't. I don't know enough about O'Malley to understand why he did so badly but there was a massive gap in the field to be filled and undoubtedly candidates capable of doing so.
Clintons famously punish those getting in way. If you expect Clinton to be president youre on bad ground with president for eight years.
Maybe true but if you're, say mid-forties with a strong local base, you can at least stake a name for yourself for 2020, 2024 or even 2028. Neither Hillary nor Bill will be around forever now. And there's the chance that, like Bill, it comes good for you. Fortune favouring the brave and all that.
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
There are a lot of pathetic people out there.
In the US it is even worse. Nearly a third of Democrats would be unhappy if their child married a Republican and almost half of Republicans would be unhappy if their child married a Democrat
SC should be instructive. It's a conservative but not overly religous state. With the large military contingent there it should be tailor made for Jeb Bush.
On the Democrats side, it will be a massive test for Bernie with the Dem vote being basically black people and not young white liberals.
Seems like silver haired politics are now in fashion (OK, so I don't know what colour The Donald's hair actually is. Suspect that his barber doesn't know either Just for fun, I'm thinking about putting some money on David Davis being the next leader of the Tories. Seems there maybe a GE this year, if the rumour mill can be believed, that there are 5 conservative mp's being investigated with pretty cast iron cases against them. (But then again we do know about cast iron guarantees and the Tory leadership promises) Plus the 2 (or possibly more) SNP mp's in trouble... Could be a more interesting year than thought possible a month or so ago.
They are taking a very long time to find anything wrong/ interview the SNP MP's. Looks like as suspected it was just unionist hot air lying and sour grapes.
Mr. L, the Conservatives should take note. Yesterday's joke can become today's elected head of government.
Not saying it will happen here, but complacency only helps Corbyn and his 1980s bullshit.
Indeed. The observation that politics has been crazy since the crash is acute. The loss of credibility of the whole establishment from that chaotic bubble causes reverberations everywhere whether it is Syriza in Greece or Trump in the US.
People are open to the anti politician in a way that they have not been before because the credibility of the political establishment was shot down by the criminal conduct of the bankers and the willingness to sweep that grand larceny under the carpet.
Most people have an instrumental view of politics. They voted for centrist, moderate, people, because they delivered rising living standards. Now that they can't do so, voters are looking elsewhere.
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
Bernie v The Donald it looks like.
Donald looks like he should be odds on for sure. Don't know about Bernie, if he can take Nevada or South Carolina, he can dream a dream.
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
I think Trump wins hands down against Sanders. Not least of which because Bloomberg would probably intervene, but also Trump stands a good chance direct.
Sanders is a socialist. Americans really don't like socialism.
The polling shows Sanders often leading Trump for now and if anything Bloomberg helps Sanders, Sanders will also have the young and female and minority vote behind him while Trump has white males. The left will call Trump a Fascist as often as the right call Sanders a socialist
Mr. F, it's not just that, I think. There's a great deal of change in the world, whether that's mass migration or terrorism (or the terrorist state). Whilst the US hasn't seen the EU's level of migration, that doesn't mean the fear isn't still there.
Police and media cover-ups of huge scale sexual crimes for reasons of political sensitivity (as they would term it) have not helped encourage trust in the Establishment.
Mr. L, the Conservatives should take note. Yesterday's joke can become today's elected head of government.
Not saying it will happen here, but complacency only helps Corbyn and his 1980s bullshit.
Indeed. The observation that politics has been crazy since the crash is acute. The loss of credibility of the whole establishment from that chaotic bubble causes reverberations everywhere whether it is Syriza in Greece or Trump in the US.
People are open to the anti politician in a way that they have not been before because the credibility of the political establishment was shot down by the criminal conduct of the bankers and the willingness to sweep that grand larceny under the carpet.
Most people have an instrumental view of politics. They voted for centrist, moderate, people, because they delivered rising living standards. Now that they can't do so, voters are looking elsewhere.
True enough. They may still vote for centrists like Cameron in 2015 if they think the alternative is just completely incredible and dangerous but there is no question that the bar for these criteria has fallen. Probably still too high for Corbyn though.
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
Falling unemployment and teachers supply problems go hand in hand - always have and always will. however, differential pay for subjects and regions could ease the problem.
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
There are a lot of pathetic people out there.
In the US it is even worse. Nearly a third of Democrats would be unhappy if their child married a Republican and almost half of Republicans would be unhappy if their child married a Democrat
And if the Democrat spouse-to-be was also an atheist, the Republicans would be reaching for their guns!
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
Bernie v The Donald it looks like.
Now possible but I think Hillary and Trump win South Carolina and they fight the general
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
There are a lot of pathetic people out there.
In the US it is even worse. Nearly a third of Democrats would be unhappy if their child married a Republican and almost half of Republicans would be unhappy if their child married a Democrat
And if the Democrat spouse-to-be was also an atheist, the Republicans would be reaching for their guns!
Yes the Republicans are most partisan in the US just as Labour supporters are here
Laying Rubio last week was one of those crystal clear bets that only comes around rarely. He still looks too short to me.
Once you said out loud the sentence "Ted Cruz won Iowa, this makes Rubio odds on favourite" his odds last week were revealed as the crazy thing they were, I wish I had laid more than I had done at the time.
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
Despite my last comment, there is a minority of people who are passionate about politics. I lost a couple of friends when I joined UKIP (most don't care).
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
My wife was a Labour voter when we got married and her dad was a Labour councillor. It didn't seem the most important thing about her, I must say. And I was a political geek even then.
The Times says 28% of Labour supporters would be unhappy if their child married a Tory up from 19% In 2008 while nearly 20% of Tories would be unhappy if their child married a Labour supporter up from 10% in 2008
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
I think Trump wins hands down against Sanders. Not least of which because Bloomberg would probably intervene, but also Trump stands a good chance direct.
Sanders is a socialist. Americans really don't like socialism.
The polling shows Sanders often leading Trump for now and if anything Bloomberg helps Sanders, Sanders will also have the young and female and minority vote behind him while Trump has white males. The left will call Trump a Fascist as often as the right call Sanders a socialist
Do they? I've seen head to head polls with Trump clearly beating Sanders.
Anyway, I don't believe it. Trump is a lot of hair, air and wind but he's not a total nutter. I expect he's mainly fart and no follow through. The Republican establishment certainly think they can work with him.
Poor, poor result for Hilary. 8 years ago she beat Obama in this State and Sanders sure isn't any Obama. If she doesn't lift her game soon there is going to be outright panic on the Democratic side.
On the republican side the Corbyn analogy continues to hold good. While all the minor candidates work furiously against each other trying to present themselves as "the" challenger the Donald sails out of sight. To put this into perspective he got as many votes as Cruz, Rubio and Bush put together.
Will it now be Kasich's brief moment in the sun? I seriously doubt it. He is far, far too liberal for the Republican party once the voting moves out of the north east. Just maybe the field will thin now and there will be a better prospect of the anti Donald's coalescing but he must be the very strong favourite.
Bernie v The Donald it looks like.
Donald looks like he should be odds on for sure. Don't know about Bernie, if he can take Nevada or South Carolina, he can dream a dream.
Hilary is very poor , she comes across exactly like the recent Labour donkeys, no policies or principles, just spouting the same platitudes as ever. Looks like she will suffer the same fate as them and be beaten by a no hoper.
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
I think Trump wins hands down against Sanders. Not least of which because Bloomberg would probably intervene, but also Trump stands a good chance direct.
Sanders is a socialist. Americans really don't like socialism.
The polling shows Sanders often leading Trump for now and if anything Bloomberg helps Sanders, Sanders will also have the young and female and minority vote behind him while Trump has white males. The left will call Trump a Fascist as often as the right call Sanders a socialist
Mr. F, it's not just that, I think. There's a great deal of change in the world, whether that's mass migration or terrorism (or the terrorist state). Whilst the US hasn't seen the EU's level of migration, that doesn't mean the fear isn't still there.
Police and media cover-ups of huge scale sexual crimes for reasons of political sensitivity (as they would term it) have not helped encourage trust in the Establishment.
That, too. Most people don't understand why governments can't control borders, or deport foreign criminals, or do the things that governments are supposed to do.
Falling unemployment and teachers supply problems go hand in hand - always have and always will. however, differential pay for subjects and regions could ease the problem.
The blob would never agree to that...but it is the only logical approach. Supply and demand and also the fact that a really good maths graduate can on average earn a lot more money than a somebody who studied history of art.
£2-25k a year as a graduate teacher just isn't very attractive to somebody who has a 1st from a top 10 uni in Maths. They can expect £35k+ a year offers.
With Americans facing the unappetising prospect of a POTUS election between Sanders and Trump in just 9 months time, surely now is a propitious opportunity for Bloomberg to enter the fray - certainly he'll never have a better chance if he has sufficient ambition for an attempt to secure the top job. He's currently best-priced at 40/1 with both PP and sportingbet. For my money he's worth a pint for a bit of fun, but DYOR.
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
I think Trump wins hands down against Sanders. Not least of which because Bloomberg would probably intervene, but also Trump stands a good chance direct.
Sanders is a socialist. Americans really don't like socialism.
The polling shows Sanders often leading Trump for now and if anything Bloomberg helps Sanders, Sanders will also have the young and female and minority vote behind him while Trump has white males. The left will call Trump a Fascist as often as the right call Sanders a socialist
Bernie calls himself a socialist!!
Ben Bradshaw calls himself a Socialist. I'm not sure that Momentum agree.
Mr. L, the Conservatives should take note. Yesterday's joke can become today's elected head of government.
Not saying it will happen here, but complacency only helps Corbyn and his 1980s bullshit.
Indeed. The observation that politics has been crazy since the crash is acute. The loss of credibility of the whole establishment from that chaotic bubble causes reverberations everywhere whether it is Syriza in Greece or Trump in the US.
People are open to the anti politician in a way that they have not been before because the credibility of the political establishment was shot down by the criminal conduct of the bankers and the willingness to sweep that grand larceny under the carpet.
Most people have an instrumental view of politics. They voted for centrist, moderate, people, because they delivered rising living standards. Now that they can't do so, voters are looking elsewhere.
True enough. They may still vote for centrists like Cameron in 2015 if they think the alternative is just completely incredible and dangerous but there is no question that the bar for these criteria has fallen. Probably still too high for Corbyn though.
The US does have an incredibly absorbent and flexible party system. In most countries in the world, there's no way that people like Trump or Sanders could get to the top other than by starting their own parties. Some - like Tsipras or Berlusconi - succeed that way but the extent to which the Republicans and Democrats allow outsiders in is unusual.
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
I think Trump wins hands down against Sanders. Not least of which because Bloomberg would probably intervene, but also Trump stands a good chance direct.
Sanders is a socialist. Americans really don't like socialism.
The polling shows Sanders often leading Trump for now and if anything Bloomberg helps Sanders, Sanders will also have the young and female and minority vote behind him while Trump has white males. The left will call Trump a Fascist as often as the right call Sanders a socialist
Bernie calls himself a socialist!!
If he won the Presidency, could he ever expect to get any legislation through Congress? If he told them to-morrow follows to-day, most of 'em would deny it
Mr. L, the Conservatives should take note. Yesterday's joke can become today's elected head of government.
Not saying it will happen here, but complacency only helps Corbyn and his 1980s bullshit.
Indeed. The observation that politics has been crazy since the crash is acute. The loss of credibility of the whole establishment from that chaotic bubble causes reverberations everywhere whether it is Syriza in Greece or Trump in the US.
People are open to the anti politician in a way that they have not been before because the credibility of the political establishment was shot down by the criminal conduct of the bankers and the willingness to sweep that grand larceny under the carpet.
Most people have an instrumental view of politics. They voted for centrist, moderate, people, because they delivered rising living standards. Now that they can't do so, voters are looking elsewhere.
Wise words Sean.
We could well be entering (or have already entered) an era of unpredictable politics.
He would be once the GOP started publicising his beliefs, quotes and voting record - things he'd stand behind to defend. He is America's Corbyn.
Yes but Corbyn is facing Cameron, Sanders would be facing a U.S. version of Farage. In most respects a Sanders presidency would be more of a shock to most of the world and to most Americans than a Trump presidency but it is not impossible if Trump is the GOP nominee
I think Trump wins hands down against Sanders. Not least of which because Bloomberg would probably intervene, but also Trump stands a good chance direct.
Sanders is a socialist. Americans really don't like socialism.
The polling shows Sanders often leading Trump for now and if anything Bloomberg helps Sanders, Sanders will also have the young and female and minority vote behind him while Trump has white males. The left will call Trump a Fascist as often as the right call Sanders a socialist
Do they? I've seen head to head polls with Trump clearly beating Sanders.
Anyway, I don't believe it. Trump is a lot of hair, air and wind but he's not a total nutter. I expect he's mainly fart and no follow through. The Republican establishment certainly think they can work with him.
Sanders OTOH is deadly serious.
IMHO, in a Sanders v Trump contest, outside of New England, Trump would heavily lead among middle and working class white voters, across all age groups.
Comments
Politico reporting she will be focussing the campaign on guns, systematic racism and criminal justice reform. Looks like S Carolina beckons.
Which party machine is in greater despair this morning - the Republicans or the Democrats?
The real irony is that when Gove and Wilshaw were appointed I was pleased because I thought they would bang heads together in the two great roadblocks to educational reform in this country - the DfE and OFSTED - and hopefully improve matters on the ground by freeing up schools from LEA and central control to allow proper localism, which has been badly needed for years.
We all make mistakes and I was young and green then...
On the other hand, if there is a second Reagan waiting out there, then Hillary would be a second Mondale.
People are mobile and have free will. Not sure how a government department is supposed to ensure there are so many of them in any one place.
And surely to teach a subject you just need to have a grasp of and understand the curriculum. Actually the report refers to "secondary" education which could mean either GCSE or A Level, but if they meant A Level they would say so. And could include degrees in associated subjects, eg people with science degrees teaching maths. In any case I thought teachers generally had a secondary subject?
Any chance of Biden getting pushed, or has that ship sailed?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/10779524/Teaching-unions-make-me-ashamed-of-being-a-teacher.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35538350
I think people will wait until at least Nevada and S Carolina. If Sanders pulls something off here - then panic will set in big time.
Trying to spot the value in the field. Still think it's with Trump. At some point the penny will drop. Possibly Kasich too if he can pull off a good result in SC but that's much harder territory for him than NH. Still, he has the opportunity to claim the Big Mo now.
I have no dependents, so I could move to Cannock to take this job. That still put a huge stress on me and my father a few weeks ago when my mother died and I have been too far away to be much help. For those with elderly relatives who need support, or young children who need help with childcare, relocating is often not a great option, or even a possible option. Moreover in London especially the extra pay is woefully inadequate to cover accommodation costs even with government housing schemes. That's why I have refused all approaches to work in London.
Until 5 years ago, fair play to them, the DfE tried to match training places to local area needs so there was a constant supply that roughly matched demand in the area. It also meant schools could recruit from among their own trainees, which always helped. This year, that failed entirely and disastrously, but it's been getting worse ever since SCITT started in a big way, as people simply don't want to spend three weeks of four days in a school before jumping to another. There's no time to do anything. And with university courses closing, that route is choked off.
In answer to other questions, yes most teachers offer a second subject. I offer four, one way and another, apart from History. But there is no help in having a second subject teacher at GCSE if you have nobody to teacher at A-level. Whether the report refers to it or not there is a crisis there. So at basic level, we're OK. At A-level, physics and maths are dying. That will reduce numbers of physics graduates markedly and imperil university departments. Is that what we want?
That's why I refer to insufferable complacency at the DfE.
I don't profess any great knowledge about US politics, mind.
The only states for which the filing deadlines haven't yet passed are
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Kansas
Montana
Nebraska (possibly, though think this is a typo)
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
Pennsylvania (deadline is 16 Feb)
South Dakota
Washington (deadline is 26 Feb)
https://ballotpedia.org/Important_dates_in_the_2016_presidential_race
Now it's true that there are still some chunky delegate allocations to come out of some of those states but none of the votes take place for months. Is it really possible to enter now and then watch close to forty primaries go by without taking part in any of them?
I maintain that politics has been bonkers since the 2007 Conservative conference. It's just that the rate of lunacy is increasing.
Sanders is a socialist. Americans really don't like socialism.
I thought it may be an unacceptable concept.
In fact, it could be a tricky situation. Many states require their electors to vote as pledged (though not all - faithless electors do occasionally break ranks). What an elector is supposed to do if their candidate has died isn't necessarily clear. IIRC, precedent is that any vote for a deceased candidate is discounted, so an elector might be better off voting for an alternate candidate for president (and, if that vote is for the former running mate, a different vote for VP too), rather than risk the election ending up in the House for lack of any candidate receiving a sufficient number of votes.
In fact the polls have been pretty damned good, especially this time round. Finishing below Ted Cruz in a state like New Hampshire is a seriously poor result.
My lay of Jeb at 20 probably wasn't the best, but I see no reason to back him at 6.8 now.
Eight years of teleprompters and ObamaCare.
FWIW, it'd be interesting to see forced polling on a Corbyn-led Labour vs Farage's UKIP. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Purples lead the Reds.
Edit. still 5/1 with Paddy Power. Surely that is a steal.
Rubio has dipped his by ~ 3.5
Not saying it will happen here, but complacency only helps Corbyn and his 1980s bullshit.
Rubio is polling much better nationally than Bush. (Bush may gain momentum, but Rubio is going nowhere I think).
Imagine it. France elects le Pen [don't see it myself, but still], holds a referendum and leaves the EU
The loophole to that is that if *only* votes for the two candidates nominated were cast, then there might only be one name to send to the House.
It's actually quite a good reason to deliberately have one faithless elector voting for the VP-nominee, assuming the election overall isn't on a knife-edge.
And I was referring to maths being unable to be taught at a-level, not a lack of demand. A subject dies of it has no teachers and that's where we're heading with maths.
Must dash, children to teach.
People are open to the anti politician in a way that they have not been before because the credibility of the political establishment was shot down by the criminal conduct of the bankers and the willingness to sweep that grand larceny under the carpet.
On the Democrats side, it will be a massive test for Bernie with the Dem vote being basically black people and not young white liberals.
Police and media cover-ups of huge scale sexual crimes for reasons of political sensitivity (as they would term it) have not helped encourage trust in the Establishment.
But that is unlikely.
Why would anyone want to interfere over their children's politics?
Anyway, I don't believe it. Trump is a lot of hair, air and wind but he's not a total nutter. I expect he's mainly fart and no follow through. The Republican establishment certainly think they can work with him.
Sanders OTOH is deadly serious.
Only saw few mins of the others. Meh. Kaisch bored me, a lot.
And Hillary trying to sound like Bernie
£2-25k a year as a graduate teacher just isn't very attractive to somebody who has a 1st from a top 10 uni in Maths. They can expect £35k+ a year offers.
He's currently best-priced at 40/1 with both PP and sportingbet.
For my money he's worth a pint for a bit of fun, but DYOR.
We could well be entering (or have already entered) an era of unpredictable politics.